What's the fastest you've ever rejected a character, /tg/?
Mine was right from seeing the guy's name.
Jrongzinjanzuzin, a skeletal assassin.
>MFW when the guy could pronouce it
A dnd babby trying to test out another system telling you in the only way he knows about his character.
Clearly an overreaction over tying your character to simpler explanations.
>Playing a pathfinder game
>The brother of one of my female players wanted to join in
>see his character sheet
>it's a jester type character named, and I kid you not, ''Ronald McFondle''
He probs rolls the dice every time he meets someone new; they might just be the one he was sent to murder.
I once let a player play a character named Team Fortress II. He was a Red Mantis Assassin, and the guy just didn't feel like coming up with a name.
It turned out to be a great character, and we rolled with it, the excuse being that nobody really knew his name in the party, they just called him "The Mantis."
But whenever he met his superiors, they would call him by his name and I'd have to fucking say it.
"Team Fortress Two, according to this report... You were seen engaging in a... "dance off," with four members of the Order of the Nail. Do you understand how important subtlety is to our affairs in Korvosa? YOU HAVE COMPROMISED OUR ENTIRE OPERATION."
Those were the days.
>my character worships a homebrew deity named Lilium
>Friend is DMing for the first time, using 5e, nice and simple, he's pretty excited and prepared
>Invited a few people he sort-of-knew at the time to fill out the party
>One new person is a girl, says she's played D&D before
>We all make characters, start the session by having our characters be introduced to each other (tavern setting etc.)
>Her character introduces herself as Cuntress
>Entire table skips a beat
It was an interesting session.
Had a character idea of a goblin who knew goblin, but found it beneath him to speak it, but at least made sure that someone else spoke it as well, unfortunately that game fell through.
I once DMed a game where a telepathic character considered it beneath him to speak at all. When he couldn't do mind to mind contact, he had a slave to act as "Speaker", who would parrot off what he was transmitting to him.
Character had a bit of a breakdown when his speaker was killed in an ambush. Good times, good times.
>>my character doesn't speak common
>>he only speaks X language (that nobody else in the party speaks)
>>That nobody else in the party speaks
Not always together, but fair point.
>>Equating movies to p&p game sessions
A character is a character.
>Consider me b8ed mister fisherman
It was a cheap joke that fell apart under a moment of scrutiny.
Party on, anon.
As I said, it was just a cheap joke.
Also, I picked the wrong droid.
>discovers a random hobo is his target and kills him
>"So Alucard, why were you hired to kill him?"
"....I don't remember."
>"Oh..who hired you."
>Alucard now rolls anytime he meets someone new to see if they were the client.
I love me some Lawful Evil.
My second most successful character was LE.
Christmas of 2014, back in my hometown running a oneshot with my old DnD group, one of them makes a dwarf rogue.
>Names the character Fuckface McMurderstab
Told him to re-roll or at least rename the character, so he ended up calling him Don Trumpet instead.
Also, it was partially inspired by the Lord of the Rings one, but not done by the same people.
They started with Phantom Menace and are into Return of the Jedi now.
It's very good for what it is.
>"I made this half-orc monk who specializes in grappling and is a masked wrestler with a shark motif-"
>"I browse /tg/ too. Can you make something else?"
This actually happened. I ended up letting him play it, but it turns out to be an extremely boring gimmick to actually use in combat.
>"What do you do?"
>"Uh, I guess I... grapple. Again."
>I ended up letting him play it, but it turns out to be an extremely boring gimmick to actually use in combat.
This is how all gimmick characters end up panning out, and why people who describe their character primarily in terms of capabilities and powers as opposed to personality traits and goals are always a massive red flag for me.
>That's just D&D tho.
>That's just boring players though.
Seriously, any game or activity can be reduced to that.
>Uh, I guess I... [action]. Again.
Draw a card.
Throw a ball.
Move a playing piece.
You are being silly.
I was going to guess that was foreign for something, but google is only taking me back to this thread.
I always make sure to spice up anything my characters does with some vivid description. If I'm DMing and the players don't give me shit to work with, I describe it in full detail.
They love it when I DM.
That's the point where you go, "How do you swing your sword?" or you describe how the fireball flies from his fingers to incinerate the enemy, or where the arrow hits, or something like that.
Most boring weapon to fight with is a rapier, because all you can do is thrust. Thrust thrust thrust. Fitting for a bard, but boring, especially when the other guy is using something like a mace or a broadsword.
During that one session :
>The dwarf formerly known as McMurderstab chockes a prostitute and tries to blame it on the fat merchant he was sharing her with.
> Fat merchant dosen't want to take the blame so the dwarf formerly known as McMurderstab punches the merchant to death with his bare hands.
> Brothel security comes storming in because of the ruckus, the dwarf formerly known as McMurderstab grabs the merchant's moneypouch and jumps out the window, without any of his own gear - including all his clothes - and face-plants into the street six floors below.
Guy complained about his ranger not being as useful as the druid even when he minmaxed the shit out of it with 2hd weapon, power attack and cleave, he also wanted me to through at him his favoured enemies at least once every 5 games, I had enough of his bullshit so I kicked him. PF btw.
not that anon but im gonna guess goblinoids of some kind for easy XP or some other shit
If i were playing a ranger, I'd play an Orc Ranger with preferred enemy Humans because for RULE OF NATURE and also humans tend to be the most dirty fuckers around when it comes to sanitation and I'd be going around "I know how you think and I don't like it you filthy human scum"
I would make him drop his spaghetti to halfling woman though
>goblinoids of some kind for easy XP or some other shit
The fuck is that even supposed to mean? Either they're challenging enough for XP or they aren't, creature type doesn't enter into it.
>Hey, I'm the Cleric. Is there anyone for me to heal?
>Nope, like I'm going to give you free bonuses.
>Hey, I'm the bard, is there an inn in this city where I can perform?
>Like I'd give you the free bonuses.
>Hey, I'm the paladin - who do I smite?
>No one, I'm not going to give you any free bonuses.
>Fishing this hard for a D&D martials argument.
You're not fooling anyone except for this guy >>44629915
man, the entire point of rangers is that they're dedicated to preventing a particular destructive force from despoiling the land and terrorizing innocents. Their entire training is dedicated to tracking and eliminating one brand of monster. A small bonus on attacks and damage against a small set of potential enemies is hardly game breaking. They're like fantasy Judge Dredd.
I hope you brutally restrict the wizard spell availability then, to keep things fair. Wanna learn a new spell? No free bonuses; better find the lost spellbook buried somewhere in the swamp.
I have never actually rejected a character. I try to make sure I'm at least minorly involved in character creation, to steer away from anything egregiously unreasonable, you know, keep everybody on the same powerlevel more or less, keep everything explainable within the fiction. But typically, I find letting the player experience the consequences of actually being their dreamt up special snowflake to be more than punishment enough. They learn quick enough. I broke a freeformer of his faggotry.
I've actually been in that boat.
just keep checking your dossier. We had an incredibly near-sighted ninja/assassin type in one.
He had a tendency of incapacitating/kidnapping random suspects, squinting at them, then a photo, then back at them, and then apologizing, freeing them and making a batman disappearance.
He was ludicrously powerful, and abnormally stealthy for someone of such gorilla proportions, so if you were is target, heaven help you. But most of the time, he had the wrong guy and ended up letting them go.
I'd imagine an amnesiac would work similarly.
You are my hero.
Not for your argument, but for typoing 'yoy'. It's such a rare and hilarious typo that I can't help but commend you.
I actually do this.
But with costly components, not learning the spells themselves.
I mean, where in a bunch of peasants are you gonna find 30,000 in onyx, fashioned into a headband? Sounds like quest material to me.
Only to people who repeatedly paladin badly, but still.
I guess that's it. its just most of the people who end up playing evils are edgelords, not people who want to play it right.
where as LG, its just dealt with on a case by case basis, because it has fewer edgelords.
really what we need to do is just ban edgelords.
This was in 3.5 before dragonborns were a thing, but just noped that along with the players follow up choices of Yanti, Drow, and Psionic. He knew very well I wasn't allowing monster races with a level adjustment above 1. Oddly enough he refused my suggestions of lizardfolk, kobold, tiefling, and aasmire.
Idk man, I think it's reasonable for someone to want to fight their favored enemy. It's literally their favored enemy. It's the enemy of theirs that they favor fighting the most.
Reminds me of how it went down in a Star Wars game I play.
>take a droid character, droids are cool.
>Realize too late that I only have Binary as a language
>Ask people if this is going to be a problem
>Other player tells me it's fine, his character can understand Binary and will translate for me.
>The first time my character comes up with a good plan my translator relays it to the rest of the party and then claims it as his own.
>From then on whenever I come up with any good ideas the translator PC just tells the party they were his ideas while I beep and whirr furiously in the background.
this is a legitimate representation of the source fiction.
I could see that very gag being pulled in-universe.
Yeah I actually love it, it's a good joke. The game isn't very serious either, we're just a bunch of wandering Space Assholes. Mercenary criminal scum from the Republic pre-prequel era that got accidentally frozen in carbonite halfway through our first mission and were only dethawed 100 years later in the vague 'After ROTJ but before Force Awakens' era.
Now we're wandering around the new galaxy trying to figure out how to claim over a century's worth of back-pay.
I'm okay with this.
What I'm not okay with is
>I'm an atheist cleric
No I don't care what the fluff says; there are no clerics of abstract concepts in my setting. Pick a god or pick a different class.
> I'm trying to make a lawful evil character right now.
> How do you run them with out creating too much friction?
1. Don't be the leader. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
2. Find a "Loyal" reason to follow him blindly. Something you can't ditch. Vassalage, Life Debt, Oath, Religious Edict...
3. Suggest easy, expedite, violent methods when allowed by the rule of law (exemple: take no prisoners if target wanted dead or alive, Self-Defense with lethal attacks).
4. Suggest others do things for their self-interests.
5. Never make evil actions unless allowed/alone. Never make chaotic actions (that would destabilize government) unless specifically ordered, and even then with reluctance.
This sheet was seriously put in front of our DM
>Name Elrich Vin'haldel
>Race: High elf
>Samurai class (Ronin)
>On a quest to find the man who killed his father and discover the demon blood that he was born with when his father made a deal with the devil
>wears a white cloak and a samurai helmet
>when taken off he shows his demon face
Our DM read the name and said ''No, roll a different character''
You just gotta add more flair to it. If you're just saying "i..uh...grapple" you're obviously doing it wrong.
The player I like the most in our group is the one who acts like a cheesy anime fight all the time, naming his sword attacks in game (even if it doesn't always work out like he wants).
Didn't even get a name
>here's my character
>it has a specific combination of items and abilities that lets it instantly kill anything that I hope you don't recognize on sight
I recognized that shit immediately because I used it motherfucker.
Whenever my group already has a paladin, pretty much this.
On the other hand if there's already evil in the group I don't usually let a new player join with a paladin.
Might work for one shots with a good enough reason but there would be no way to make them work together for any appreciable length of time without trying to kill each other.
Nigga I'd never reject that character and I think you're an asshole.
I'd reject that player though. I get it if you're here for fun and all but I want some seriousness from the outset and if you ain't putting any effort in then I'm not and me not putting in effort means I'm not fukken running for you.
First off, would atheism be established as a sentient concept? Because it seems distinctly paradoxical to worship it, which a cleric would do - which is different from what a paladin would do, which is follow its tenants or some similar such ideal.
Secondly, it does depend on the setting - in 40k, the Chaos Gods technically are sentient blobs made from human emotions. But in something like D&D, gods are gods, not just concepts.
Also, how narrowly are we defining atheism? Is it 'a lack of belief in gods' or 'believes that there are no gods?' The former you could wriggle around as 'my character does not believe gods have the power to affect mortals,' which is a bit weird but if you could flip flop it into mortals taking power into their own hands, I might allow it for a cleric. The latter I would disallow if gods are considered to obviously exist in the setting, and even if I didn't disallow it (like in a setting where that's not clear) I wouldn't allow it for a cleric.
Naw, you should've instead accepted the char, and then have a dragon land in on the village, snarling and rampaging, while the frightened people get behind him and plead him to slay the beast to save them. Like he did the last time. At level 2.
It doesn't matter if gods obviously exist in the setting if WIZARDS also obviously exist in the setting, because then I, the fantasy atheist, can always explain any miracle or divine appearance by saying "a wizard did it."
Hell, I could MEET a god face to face and could still reasonably accuse it of just being a 20th level adventurer who wants extra praise.
As long as they're not an atheist in a setting where gods clearly have an impact. A character I'm planning to play won't worship any gods either. He's a street urchin and basically figures that the gods don't give a shit about him so he doesn't worship any in particular, but acknowledges their existence.
I saw someone post a homebrew class on a dnd 5e thread recently and it was obviously a class based on the show RWBY and I immediately scrolled past the whole thing as soon as I realized what it was. Apparently is sucked horribly because the people started bashing that homebrew to death.
>>paladin redeeming succubus
So, is it a paladin that's trying to redeem a succubus? Or is it a succubus that wants to redeem a paladin? Is it a succubus paladin?
Speak plainly, anon.
Yeah, that's probably the dumbest one because it can technically happen in almost any game. At least a succubus paladin character can fit only into specific settings like planescape, where the bizarre is supposed to be the normal sometimes.
>PC has the same name as a famous fictional character
Knowing my players, if one of them put this in front of me I would either let it pass on sheer audacity, or let it pass because I know it's going to turn out to be a deconstruction or some ass-backwards shit.
Either way, we're having a conversation about backstory before the campaign starts.
>Uh, I guess I... throw a fireball. Again.
If you're going to shit on a system at least learn how to play it. The one thing that D&D has going for it is the sheer amount of material to work with. If you use only a single spell out of hundreads of alternatives and complain that it's repetetive then you deserve to have a boring time.
Hell, there's even easily-accessible metamagic feats that can make it so that even if your entire spell list is literally only "Fireball", you can still do a lot of shit to change the flavor or operation of that fireball.
You can make a really stupid Evoker with the elemental sub metamagic feats and the best Evocation/Abjuration spells from each level.
>Acid Arrows now are whatever element you want
>Even Nonlethal, the thing that almost nothing in the game is resistant to.
>A spell that ignores SR and offers no saving throw and deals consistent chip damage
>Any element you want.
And that's without getting into shit like Lightningbolt and Ice Storm.
You can also do nice things to pump up the range, area, and damage, as well as the save DCs and change the typing. Burning Ray is probably always better than Ray Fireballs, though, even if they can't fall to hit.
But gods exist. They're not just a concept in a person's mind, but something that definitely exists on their own plane, and you know they exist through their worshipers and the times they mess with reality.
It'd be like saying a wizard made trees or animals just try to convince you that other living things exist. Most gods would probably exist before the 20th level adventurers did (being not necessarily mortal), and would be more powerful than they could ever be.
>Depends on the setting
I think that answers your question. Presumably, he doesn't normally run settings where a robot would fit in. That said, there are a great deal where they fit fine, including many fantasy settings, from Eberron to Slayers. Err, well, the point is there's a lot of them.
I had a far too vivid image of this gorilla-like man squatting next to a terrified handcuffed individual as he silently examined them with a jeweler's precision as they tried not to piss themselves.
There's literally nothing wrong with playing an evil character, even if the rest of the party is good.
As long as you dont think "evil" means "eats orphans for breakfast, kicks puppies for sport and just stabbed the town guard because it felt like the evil thing to do", there are plenty of ways for an evil character to work with a good party.
Well, assuming the party doesn't have a Paladin, anyway. But Paladins played like that are shit anyway, so it's not the evil guy's fault.
The problem is that the vast majority of players go for the former instead of the latter interpretation, and will then piss and moan about how you're railroading them if they experience consequences for their actions from the NPCs, or how the other players are assholes and they're just playing their character if they experience consequences for their actions from the PCs.
I was going to run a fairly serious campaign of Pendragon when a guy showed up asking to play a white-haired Celtic warrior princess and used something like this as his character reference.
Come on dude, I'm just so bored. The only people who want to play an RPG down here were all horrible players in their lifetimes. I was actually thinking I'd play a lawful neutral character, maybe make a parody of the servants of the big guy up there.
>Every fantasy and RPG cliche played straight
>New players joins, shows his pregenned character
>It's an alien
>Literally little grey man with a spaceship and a ray gun
>mfw ayy lmao in kitchen sink fantasy setting
I would reject it, but I am still laughing.
Can't necromancers be done as good? Wait wait, hear me out.
If you make the necromancer more of a spiritual/death counselor, and focus on witch doctoring more than skelebums, can't you create a good, or at least neutral, necromancer?
the problem isn't the motivation. the problem is the players.
only certain kinds of players are attracted to playing necromancers. none of them are actually qualified to be good at being necromancers. they're either psychopathic pragmatists wanting skellies for the utility, or edgelords wanting to be edgelords.
But the anon was just outright rejecting anyone that wants to play a good aligned necromancer despite it not being a stereotype or anything all that common really. I would think you'd have more trouble with the aforementioned edgelords than a Ned Flanders.
except it never is.
all of the wankery /tg/ loves, we love to fantasize about but cannot execute. that may even be the reason why we fantasize about it. it becomes a holy grail, some impossible goal to aspire to. its why everybody tries to come up with plans to beat the tarrasque severely underleveled, or convert a succubus to good despite evil literally being a part of her physical existence, which would have to rewrite itself completely, or play a well-reasoned, well-acted necromancer of good alignment.
do it, but a campaign where that's true for ever player character.
everybody play themselves? everybody play you, and watch the hijinx ensue? I'll leave you to interpret it as you wish.
I always think Lawful Evil fits nicely on mercs and blackguards and shit, contract workers that don't do shit unless they're getting paid and aren't afraid to turn on their employer when they aren't getting paid.
meh probably bag of holding portable hole arrow
Okay here's the best example of lawful evil
A heavy duty min/maxer
>yes it is possible to do that
>yes that is okay in the rule
>No you shouldn't use an oversight to come out on top
the ultimate joy for a LE is for a CG, LG or CE to submit to how the LE does things.
>Force the paladin to fall and kill the BBEG who surrendered. the paladin must sacrifice his "justice" to save thousands
>Force the Ranger not to kill the slavers, the local economy would collapse, some are better off in chains
>Carefully build an Army of undead and soundly crush the BBEG necromancer have him fall in line under your rule.
As a note LE is not as fun if your character isn't stronger than who ever your antithesis is. LE requires power, that's why they are often nobles, lawyers or politicians.
>if the paladin is strong enough to keep the BBEEG in check he'll ignore you
>If the ranger can kill the slavers himself he'll ignore you
>if the fight against the BBEG is hard won he'll ignore you
Alright, I'll give you that it can be complex. But it's also complex with no real reason behind it.
"You shall not strike a woman, not even with a flower."
What's one to do when there's a woman who is about to kill a defenseless kid in striking distance?
I think it is pretty inscrutable, for such a short-sighted ideal.
>But it's also complex with no real reason behind it.
So? That's the same as real world religion. It doesn't matter to a follower of the ideal if there is no reason, he can make up his own reason. Or are you saying that every follower of a god in an RPG actually knows the reasoning of their god?
Besides, most ideals have plenty of very good reasons behind them. A strange example like you made being invalid doesn't mean that all, or even most, are also invalid.