same, if he tried it a second time it would be a 1 v all then depending on the reaction i'd have him blocked for several sessions until he stops acting like a 2 year old or ban him.
@@ZombieDireWolf I'd have just told him, "No you don't." at the poisoning attempt. And the drug him aside and shut the whole thing down on the spot. Any DM worth their screen and dice would put a stop to this. New or not.
Story 1; I’ve listened to too many horror stories. When it was clear that the OP had something slipped into her drink and Mike had his paladin take off his armor I thought for sure this was about to turn into a rape story. I was actually relieved when the knife came out that it was Just a murder.
Paladins powers would only be lost if he broke his oath and even then you’d only lose your subclass abilities and likely just take the oathbreaker subclass instead, and beyond that the ability he used to attack the OPs character in her sleep was a base class ability and as such wouldn’t be lost even if he lost his subclass.
@@spectrelead Agreed; in 3.5 he would have lost all abilities, spellcasting, saving throws, the works - and in AD&D2 it would be even worse, given that every class levels as a different pace, and paladins are the slowest to level: a paladin losing his powers in AD&D2 would be a fighter that levels at half the speed of the rest of the party.
This is why you should have the paladins in your game swear to a generic, written out oath; or write their own oath out and give it to you (as the DM). That way you can tell if what they are doing does break the oath or not. Of course I also believe in making Warlocks negotiate an actual contract (Pact) with a Patron. Just so everyone knows beforehand what exactly is expected.
I can't believe I made it into a DND Doge story! I love your channel! I want to say that I have spoken with the DM. His issue wasn't being shocked or not knowing how to handle the situation. He got caught in the mindset I think many DMs have found themselves in which is making sure the players have agency. He apologized and said that someone's agency shouldn't take priority over the entire table's enjoyment. I also found out that the other players reached out to DM and told them that Mike messed up because now no one wants to travel with him and Barbarian has promised to kill him if he tries after the shit show he pulled. Barbarian is very protective over the party and views all of us as his family. DM also did confirm that Mike was adding stuff into his backstory that DM did not approve of. They had originally agreed he'd dislike tieflings but did not okay him being hostile towards them or having plans to assassinate my wizard. DM is going to try to rework the character and might retcon that session to try and give him another introduction depending on how Mike responses.
Retconning Mike’s new character’s introduction isn’t going to change how he feels, and I think you’d be better off looking for a new player. If your DM is concerned about player agency, he shouldn’t have taken yours away by making you turn on the party and kill the other PCs. And was that a kamikaze _fireball_ that he made you cast at the end? Either way, that is never going to end well, either in the game or out of the game. As the player of a spellcaster myself, I would be really angry if I were made to kill my friends. My character would probably just kill herself after that. Campaign over.
No matter now Mike responds, it is abundantly clear that Mike needs to leave the table for a period of time to reflect upon what he did. He broke -the whole damn table's trust-, he added things not approved to his backstory and having a vendetta against your wizard was just pure spite. Oh and considering another comment said this earlier: Dominate Person has a vocal component, so unless Mike's fighter was hiding like a cowardly dwarf, they might have heard..Oh I don't know "Your will is not your own!" At best, the DM has now learned a harsh and valuable lesson here: SAY NO. Please just tell a player 'No, you are not doing this' if there is something that will not go down well at the table. Whatever your table does, I hope you all learn and grow or at best, no longer have mike at the table until he has, to put it bluntly, grown up.
I'm going to be honest, with how antagonistic Mike was being with you in dms, I'm not sure if an amicable solution can be found. I hope there is, but yikes, what he was doing wasn't anywhere in the ballpark of "okay"
You guys all sound really young. Take it from people who have played the game for decades. Mike's not going to change, and he will always give you problems. Dump him from the table. Anything else is just being extremely naive.
@@auburnkeyblade2491 no, everything he said and did in this video indicates he's a permanent problem player. I've dealt with a lot of those over the years, and they never change. OP should kick him. Anything less is just asking for more trouble, and in all likelihood, worse trouble, because now Mike thinks he can push these people around and get away with it.
Soooo to recap, the guy created a character for the sole purpose of murdering OP's character as revenge for OP's character killing his previous one. Accidentally. After he was offered the chance to death save but actively refused, so really the death is more on him than her. And then to top it all, when called out on it, he uses the "it's just a character" excuse. .... There are so many layers of hypocrisy here I don't even know where to start. So i'll just say the party needs to have mike cut his BS and either stop with this or be kicked out of the game. If he uses "this is what my character would do" as an excuse, then it's safe to say that what *their* characters would do would be to send the racist maniac who tried to murder their friend to justice. Also HOW THE FUCK does his paladin still have his powers after pulling shit like this? Admittedly I might not know rules for paladins in 5E perfectly, but isn't poisoning someone's food and trying to murder someone in their sleep kinda... you know... something they *aren't* supposed to do?!
Story 1: Seems that Mike is blinded by the hurt that he is not thinking clearly. Possibly not having the tools he needed to grieve and move on healthily. Hope they talk it out and get it smoothed over soon. Story 2: Well. Talk about spitting on the corpse, pissing on their grave, and then making regular visits to steal quarters off their headstone. She made Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams look like kindergarteners of bad character writing.
Wow. That last story. Set 20 years into the future. So much potential to be wasted like that. All because the new DM wanted the spotlight. But honestly that was probably a little much for just a one shot adventure. And definitely too much for the new DM to handle.
Player: "Molag Bal is the god of sa" GM: "First, he is not, second you never told me your character was secretly a worshipper, third get off my table!"
Story 1: Why do DMs allow shit like this? Seriously, how did it not occur to him that having the paladin do this might not have been comfortableto the player. Or how there was no divine intervention from his deity when this was clearly an evil act. Thank god the party came to the rescue.
Mike sounds too immature to play TTRPGs. His Dwarf was unconscious, not dead. He refused to make death saves out of some twisted form of spite. The OP was controlled by an enemy ability. If he wasn't having a tantrum this situation, it would have been one or two tense conversations at most. I agree with Doge about the DM. Despite OP saying they were not responsible, he should have checked out the paladin's backstory closer or if it is more of a loose or secret backstory situation, stopped him and paused the game when he went to poison Op's drink.Mike obviously isn't listening to reason and is more concerned with getting even than having fun or his relationships with the other players. He either needs to see that he is the asshole in this situation and replace the stupid meta paladin with a character that actually wants to play with the party (the paladin should have been arrested or killed anyway), or he is going to have to leave.
If a player like the 1st story were at my table I'd tell them to leave the game. If you can't restrain yourself from acting like such an enormously insecure man child then you have no place at the table.
I don't know if he was at my table I would have humiliated him The very moment he started acting like an idiot. You? Know the first part being his character wouldn't know that the poster's character Was under dominate person when he died? That made absolutely 0 sense it just feels like Mike is salty. His character died and made a baldo's reasoning so he could spite the poster justify himself. I know his type because I lived with this type of person. My younger brother who when he gets in the fight with Jim he will whip himself up into a rage like basically accusing you of s*** you. Haven't done or perceived stuff. You're left wondering what the f*** is he talking about before he attacks you like a berserker out of the blue. Mike is a petty small man and he's pathetic. If hes gonna play the this is what my character would do. My character would have murdered him because that's what my character would do. This is a stranger who's recently joined us and attempted the murder a long term party member for no apparent reason then racism his a** is dead And I know Mike will pipe up and make excuses before. I shut him down and tell him that it's what my character would do drawing his own words right back at him. And I would smile while doing so smuggly as much as possible. Maybe I'll draw his ire towards me, But I am not the poster who would care about their friendship with him which seems quite toxic that they chose to be ignorant on their bad behavior assuming its their fault When a part of them knows this isn't their fault at all and mike is full of b*******. Now if I was Dungeon Master I would have pretty much. Let him make a go at the poster and fail so epically. It's almost like god decided to screw him over. I don't care if it didn't make any d*** sense since he decided to be a disruption. I'll be a disruption to him for a single 2nd and then I will talk to him privately and tell him to get over his s*** and get it. Back together and roll a new character otherwise he's out the game.
The "Paladin Revenge" story reminded me of a similar situation in our group many years ago. I don't recall the exact details, but one of the players decided they had a grudge against another player, and they rolled up a new character with the express purpose of killing the other player's character. They didn't succeed, so they rolled another new character, same thing. He was literally rolling up a new character every session for a while, and they would always get clobbered by the party when they tried to take their revenge. It finally got to the point where we would automatically turn on him as soon as his new character walked in the door, which finally convinced him to give up on his revenge. He still nursed that grudge for a while, but eventually got over it. We were teenagers at the time, so a certain amount of drama and stupidity is expected. I don't know how old the Paladin is in the OP's story, but I hope he too eventually grows up.
Seriously if that player was in my game and kept doing that my character would have killed him instantly Referring to his newest character without a word at all and if he starts complaining that it made no sense I would bring up the fact that the matter that. We kept running into strangers who instantly kept trying to kill. One of us every single time and they didn't seem to be a connection or anything among them. I have to assume they're all part of some assassination guild or something So all new strangers are treated exactly the same from now on especially if they show those smallest hint of hostility. This is of course when i'm playing my neutral character Because that would literally be what my character actually Would do, They would be paranoid of assassination attempts after so many that they would just be like strike first ask questions later. Especially if i'm assuming that he's building his characters in a way that it's painfully obvious that they're going to be hostile no questions asked.
Story 1 … Why not just target the evil wizard and break the concentration? Also I wouldn’t party with someone trying to kill one of my companions. DM needs to tell the dude to knock it off or else they will be kicked
Alright, so the DM is entirely at fault for letting this revenge bullshit happen. They saw the character sheet, stating it's a Paladin who's exclusively designed to kill Tiefling mages on sight, bound by oath. And even after that they simply shrugged and thought nothing ill would come of it. They even permitted them to willing take two separate hostile actions against said Tiefling player, after pre-existing hostile RP making it abundantly clear he has every intention of killing said Tiefling player. Why even play at that point?
Yeah I don't get what the Dungeon Master's problem was as well. It was painfully obvious I'm not gonna let them get away with the. They work awkward and didn't want to feel like. They were interrupting player agency garbage. That's starting to lose its steam now and just feels like you'd rather the players Duke it out then solve the actual problem as the dungeon master. The moment I realized Mike was doing what he was doing especially with the character. I would laugh at him told him to make a new character or get the h*** off my table because I know what he's up to. And if I even allowed it to get this far her character will never be harmed because instead I will cause a literal deus ex machina To destroy his character and then smug look at him and tell him to make a new character! Remind me him again about what dominate person does so he doesn't have a right to play. She betrayed us card because that's not how it works and if he doesn't get it. Then I'll keep teaching him one way of teaching him being ham getting hit with dominate person in a future game out of spite
Story 1: Does Mike just have selective hearing or something. He was told by both the DM and OP that OP's character was forced to kill his against her will. Yet he's choosing to ignore that fact in favor of his sociopathic headcanon. Story 2: Yeah, Helen clearly had severe main character syndrome and hated OP for standing up to her when she tried to take full control of the game. This was just her sad, petty attempt at revenge against OP. Mike and Helen are just awful people who only care about themselves.
A 9-year-old could see the lack of logic in Mike's argument. If you're not in the party, and you are actively trying to ruin another person's fun, then you have to go. DM saw what was coming and decided that they'd just let it happen without any input. Should've put their foot down.
If someone purposefully poison’s you or a party member, then tries to kill them, and Openly vows to never stop trying to kill them. Then it would be meta gaming to keep traveling with them. In character it would make sense for the party to tell the paladin to leave or they would kill him for what he did to wizard. Especially since they just met him, and have known wizard for a lot longer.
I can agree judging how he was responding to OP's private messages. Aside from showing his true colours he cannot separate himself from his characters.
Just because it's verbal doesn't mean the dwarf would understand it. If you speak German at me I may recognize the language, but it doesn't mean. I understand. That said, if someone spoke strange words at my ally and they suddenly turned and attacked me, I may be able to put the pieces together.
15:15 I really hope there's an update to the story and that that problem player gets beat down verbally by everyone. Tell the DM, tell everyone, because assholes like this flourish in silence and shrivel up and die when they're exposed.
So in the first story Mike is... bad. He's being incredibly petty and it sounds like every time someone gives him an out, he's not only avoiding the off ramp, he's doubling down and spouting off justifications. What he's doing is freely bouncing back and forth between in-character and out of character emotions to dodge any criticism of his very unwarranted actions. He as a player knows OP wasn't controlling her character but he gives an in character justification for holding onto his out of character grudge. And even in character, the justification makes no sense because he's not playing that character anymore. That character is dead, notably by his choice and not OPs. So this isn't even about killing the character so much as attacking him while under a dominate spell. I don't think you can deal with someone acting this immature and petty. You just have to get rid of them. They've already crossed too many lines. And unfortunately I'd have to say they don't see OP as a person, just an object to aim their spite at. The post kind of read like OP was feeling some friendship vibes before this all happened but... yeah no. That one isn't your friend.
I had a problem with a player’s character who I thought was nothing more than a meat wall with a strong homebrew weapon. Does that mean I’m gonna start a whole campaign just to spite him and his character? No. Will I make a character to make sure anything like that character can’t go without punishment? Yes. There’s a difference between giving into hate and learning how to deal with something you hated.
"I know that but my character doesn't" Bro, the character you're referring to isn't the character you're playing. 😅 But yeah, I agree with the commenters and doge, no way this should've been allowed to go as far as it did. Biggest rule of making a character is they have to be willing to go along with the game set-up and that includes working as a party. Going kamikaze out of some stupid sense of revenge is obviously failing that. The whole table failed OP here because they kept allowing the problem player to get away with bs, in order to not metagame, while he was metagaming his ass off. No reason everyone in that place shouldn't have taken out that paladin after he revealed his true colors.
Honestly, in the first story the rest of the team should kick the "paladin" out of the team - and, if the barbarian is any good at what he does, send him on his way in five different directions at the same time.
My character would have killed this character no matter what because at this point if I was with this group the posters character would have been a long time companion. At this point while his "paladin" Is some newbie whose introduction was acting hostile and racist towards my long term companion. Seriously if I was a knife door it would have ended with the door being broken open via kick and a quick knife through his neck! And if he complained obviously it would be it's what my character would do during his own words right back at them. I do so love doing that to a******* throwing that saying right back at them since they think it's a get out of jail free card. And it's funny. I never used it until they've used it and they've made themselves a nuisance at that point. Then my character will act exactly as they would with these types. Which is always zero tolerance
I'm honestly not even sure Mike's thing was revenge. Look at it. He decides to let his character die, and then immediately makes a revenge character. He had seemingly already decided to get revenge, for a death that hadn't even happened yet, before he started rolling death saving throws. I think Mike was looking for an excuse to target that OP. Obviously there isn't enough detail to know for sure; but if Mike cared enough about that character to want revenge, wouldn't he have, at minimum, wanted the death saves to go his way, instead of just throwing the character away before taking the chance? I think Mike is being petty about something that happened outside the scope of the story, and is just using the dominated wizard casting fireball as an excuse.
I really hope all DMs understand they can stop this kind of similar behavior instantly on their own tables *BY SAYING NO*. You can do that to your players if you need to and it's okay. DMs cannot be impassive and non confrontational doormats, you are LITERALLY the God of that Universe and The Actual Boss, and need to occasionally do somewhat unpleasant Boss type stuff, such as putting a stop to nonsense before it ruins your campaign. Yes it sucks, however-- putting your foot down is way better than someone being a jerk and spoiling your other players' fun. Saying "Yes, And" to your players is important but learning when to occasionally say No is, imo, even more so. You can't employ it abusively but you MUST employ it sometimes. Saying no is hard. Saying no sucks. But you have to sometimes, especially when someone is being an asshole. YOU ARE THE DM. ACT LIKE IT. Don't let your players walk all over you or other players, YOU are running the show. And if you can't confront people ever, about anything, maybe don't DM. ♥♥♥
"Yes, and" and "No, but" are the best tools for a GM to learn to use. "No you can't be a murderous asshole who's only purpose is to kill the Wizard, BUT you can be racist towards Tieflings and we can build a story arc around growing from that." would be a decent way to handle that the second Mike tried to kill the Wizard.
"How can she be okay with killing but not being killed?" ... Hey, what game are they playing again? Like, super curious, what game is it? OH! Dungeons and Dragons? Yeah, honestly, who the fuck kills in D&D? Honestly guys... ¬_¬
Mike- As the GM, if he's messaged me with this notion, there would have been an immediate "step into my office" moment as soon as he said he was poisoning the drink. Any of my players will tell you that is BAD THING (tm). There is something unsaid here. Hellen is a nasty, petty person. If I was the GM she was subbing for, she would not have been invited to the next campaign after that little stunt.
First guy obviously is really feeling salty and instead of blaming it on the Wizard controlling the Tiefling, he's blaming the Tiefling. Like if it was the Evil Wizard casting the spell, would he have a specific character to hunt down said Wizard despite him being dead? Sounds like nothing more than refusing to allow his character to die in piece and not seek revenge against OP.
No, he had it planned from the get go. He deliberately failed his death saves in order to make this new character, which he had planned before the first stat was even written was going to be killing OP’s wizard.
The sequel trilogy is not and never will be considered canon by any of the real Star Wars fans in the world. Disney cutting all the Legends content from canon was only one for their numerous mistakes that led them to where they are now
Talk about victim blaming. Mike needs an ultimatum. Fix his attitude or leave. That other dm showed some real main character syndrome. She must have felt like she didn't get the spotlight or the (fictional) girl and so decided to just make herself the best and op the worst.
As ridiculous and hypocritical as Mike’s behavior was, a DM should never, _ever_ take control of a PC to kill other PCs. It will _always_ leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, even if they say they’re okay with it in the moment.
That's bullshit. Domination and other spells have existed since the 70's. That's exactly what those spells are there for. In the description for the Confusion spell, at least in second and third edition, it says on a roll of ____ the afflicted player attacks the nearest character. There's just too much evidence that this is built into the game, for your point to ever be correct. Perhaps people are just weak salty babies. PvP is bad, but whining about anything else is just being a salty baby. It just sounds like Mike's a salty baby who doesn't understand how anything works. Everyone's autistic now, maybe that's the culprit.
Not sure if mikes refusal to acknowledge control person and his own hypocrisy is stupidity or them being a dishonest ass. Also he can’t blame OP, he killed his character the moment he chose to skip the death saves
What the fuck was the DM in the first story doing? I'd have shut Mike down the instant he tried to pull that shit. Also, barbarian would have been well within his rights to just run Mike's character through - he LITERALLY found the shitstain attacking one of his comrades.
I have a weird feeling that mike from the first story was mad at more than just the death of his character.... something feels off about what he is saying. tinfoil hat time: i feel like mike had asked OP out or was planning to and she either said no or already had a partner.... I'm not sure why its giving me those vibes but it is.
The moment he tried to murder the tiefling the group should have killed him like any other monster that tries to kill them. If they have a strong aversion to killing they should have reported his actions to the town guard and left him to rot in prison. Why the group would treat that as if it was just an argument that got heated is beyond me.
Ah Simba, sweet, handsome Simba, now I'm ready to begin my week (I took yesterday off). First story - Mike is a problem, but so is the DM and other players. I'll get back to the DM in a moment; If a new character attacks one of my party, I, and the other party members would probably kill him off, much less allow his character to stay with the party. Yes, Mike is the player and friend in real life - but this is a form of metagaming, because if it was a new player or NPC who did this, the other players would step in - in a severe manner. As to the DM - I hope he's new, because otherwise he sounds like a good storyteller, but as a DM you have to put your foot down. NO Player vs. player allowed unless a good reason (like the OP being controlled by the villain) - Like Doge said, I would stop the game, pull Mike off to the side - try to talk him down, and if no good, either a player suspension (depending on the real-life relationship) or I would oust him from my table. Some things are unforgiveable - and you can't work with unreasonable people.
Why is it they always choose to be a Paladin when they're making a character specifically to commit atrocities? ... No, nevermind. I can guess. "Divine Authority." Whatever they do is Just and Right because theirs God actually lives in their left pocket and rubberstamps anything they do, thereby shielding them from any criticism.
Ok... taking "revenge" on a player character with new one could actually be an interesting narrative if all parties are on the same page. But that's not at all close to what's happening. The paladin was complete ignorant of past events, choosing to smite the tiefling in lil bitch way. It's disgraceful to the tiefling for being unsanctimonious off'd, petty and lowly for the paladin to murder in the cloak of the night, and completely narratively dismissive of the dwarf character who's death is reason this action is happen. This isn't only a shitty 'What my character would do' when said character is in the grave, the a-hole player is shitting on both his characters and OP's for petty personal reasons. Seriously, this character bleed making a worst in game story. The a-hole's not playing the game anymore and trying to ruin it for the other player.
OK, the basic premise of the second story doesn't seem horrible. The idea that a victorious hero from a previous story might end up washed-up and directionless is sort of a cool one. And it leaves the door open for a character arc about rediscovering purpose. This story though... was not that. Honestly, just killing OP's character would feel less spiteful.
Oooh; salty Tuesday. Story 1: Da hell DM! This is all on you! (after watching) Da hell paladin?!?! This isn't being salty. This is Dead Sea salty! Story 2: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Da hell DM!
H*** it's not even that one you got stuff like say the last of us part two Where the writer seem to have a Instead of changing a heart and decided instead of there original ending having been ambiguous And open ended decided that oh yeah the hero was completely in the wrong for what he did in the 1st part and you should hate him for it and you. Should also like and be okay with this new character who is retcon It's been important because she was the daughter of a pretty minor character you killed at the end of the first game. And oh she had the right to be upset and the heroine from the first game She was wrong to go out and kill said woman's friends Who helped her murder Her father figured and she had the nerve to say that she wasted her sparing her life despite the fact she heard her tell her to her face while. She was being restrained that she would hunt her down and kill her and she did exactly that yet she doesn't deserve revenge for her father figure's. Death but oh it's OK for her to do what she did and then act like a victim when you write your story like that and make someone this Unlikable and protect them with the mary Sue shield or villains sue shield. Then its no surprise Your character. Was. Hated h*** I remember one reviewer who brought this up even saying that now whenever they replay part 1 and they reach that part when they have to. Shoot the surgeon as he makes the attemp to slash at joel. They don't feel sorry for gunning him down especially since showing his part of the story in part 2 that surgeon just makes them even more unlikeable in the. Attempt to try to humanize him and make him likable. They kind of forgot that they wrote themselves into a corner. You know it's the equivalent of trying to make a drama Of Hitler growing up making him dislikable character are trying to and then when you get around to his most heinous actions you try to humanize instead. Of treating exactly as it should be treated. And giving abbey some input into that saying she was okay with ellie's death If possible if it saved the world just makes her even worse than she is. It's hilarious because she would have been an interesting character. If not for trying to force this to be a part two then just having it be a different character In the universe of the last of us. You see this a lot in sequels where you snow a character who had such an interesting arc and then they're unceremoniously ruined or killed off screen In the forced sequel because the writer wanted to try to pretend that they're being realistic like in this case oh they were a drug addict so there. Was no way they would ever kick the habit and they were doom to be a horrible person. Likely because the writer's mindset is anyone who's a Drug Or alcohol Addict is doomed to being terrible with no redemption What so ever If she wants to play that game then if I ever end up the Dungeon Master and we're using the same world then I'm gonna do to Her character what happened to the villain of the count of monte cristo, We're turned out all her heroics that made her a legendary hero world faked and stolen from other people that she was a huge fake all this time that. Mental magic was used against the drug addict fighters ex wife To make her claim false rape accusation against him to ruin his life and marry her character that none of the heroes ever happened and that the other characters. Were being. Fooled in some manner or what not but we're not easily fooled and then do it in the ball face where the fighter was able to get their life. Turned around and was able to marry the n p c after everything was fixed about it while her legendary hero character Pretty much ended up crippled and a beggar on the street having gone delusional and even believing their own lies. And if she protests I would just tell her dad and she started this mess she shouldn't have done that now she has to live with the consequences of it
Story 1: It’s times like these that I miss 2nd Edition. If a paladin were to act like that in 2E, they’d lose their paladinhood. Their gods would strip them of their powers, their spells, their immunity to diseases, everything. In fact, a LG character performing such an overtly evil act would be considered a voluntary alignment change, which in 2E causes a loss of experience level (so your Level 6 LG paladin would now be a Level 5 LE fighter). It might even be a good idea to reinstate some of the old 2E rules as house rules to help prevent situations like this. If the DM wants to have in game consequences for the paladin’s behaviour that is. Otherwise he should just kick the bastard. You want to try and ruin my game with pointless infighting? Find another game to ruin, ‘cause that ain’t happening.
Sometimes these stories annoy me because of how stupid everyone involved in them was behaving. Like obviously That Guy shouldn't have tried it and the DM should have put a stop to it immediately, but then there's also the other players and even the OP. Like in this story, OP and side players just sit there as things escalate. Nobody tells That Guy to knock it off or that it makes no sense or that these kinds of actions only destroy the game. That Guy was very clearly hellbent on killing op because of some delusional nonsense they perceived. You better believe if he had died at the inn he would have just rolled up another character and tried the exact same thing, to which DM would've just allowed again. This is one of those "DM/OP try nothing and it gets worse" stories. Like everyone involved was using WIS and INT as dump stats irl. And even without meta-gaming, wouldn't any rational person just call the guards after some random dude you just met tries to kill you? Even with the poor logic of "not real solutions" they don't do anything that would help themselves.
As a DM if I ever had a player who tried some bulls*** like this, the player would be politely asked not to attend any further games and to seek professional psychiatric help.
Seriously, going "it's what my character would do" while simultaneously holding a grudge about OP's character doing what a person under Dominate Person would do is next level doublethink.
OP: I, the player, wasn't in control of my character when she killed your character. Mike: Yeah, my character wouldn't know that. So here's a paladin who hates you! Mike, did your character, who doesnt know it wasn't OP's fault, made this paladin? Or you, who DOES know it?
On the subject of metagaming, you wake up to find a new member of your party trying to assassinate another trusted member of your party and you don’t attack the assassin or at least refuse to adventure with him anymore? How does that work?
Story 2: I would have offered to DM after that short story, with those characters. I would have set it up that her version of the RP was a delusion that the one woman's character created. The players would be requested to follow him to overthrow her "legendary hero", who tried to get him readdicted to drugs, thrown in the slums, he got over it, and the claims about feralness was a PR stunt by her character to destroy his reputation, all the while the delusional character kidnapped and raped his wife, and the objective of the party is to take down that villain, and have the "washed up loser" reclaim lady fair, as he was working hard to find a way to save his wife; all the while trying to protect his child from the assassins and thugs sent to him by the one character. Sure, it might sound rather DMPC, but it would be a twist that would teach her a lesson. Of course, I'd have to get the entire party in on the idea, and it would mean humoring her "fanfiction", and pissing her off. And yeah, it would mean the NPC character would have his identity remain secret for most of the game. But when the identity of everything is blown, the meltdown would be epic.
That comment about the last jedi at the end! Dang dude I knew I had a good feeling about you and totally agree with your take on that and op's story imo that is the most cynical bland and worst trope of former hero to washed up loser who went on to just give up
So what exactly what the paladin's plan? Were the other characters just supposed to be okay with some guy they didn't know trying to murder their friend and just accept that he promised to try it again? Or them to not put two and two together when the wizard's corpse popped up?
Story #1 - Isn't the use of poison something that Paladins very specifically DON'T do? Depending on the exact deity, loss of Paladinhood would be a high probability. Mike is being a total petty @$$-hat, harassing OP for something that was not her choice, and I also put a lot of blame on the DM for allowing this behavior to continue. Story #2 - Helen was out of line. She really expected other players to be okay with this?
i love how op calls their wizard "my little wizard". that's not relevant but it is the cutest thing and i have the sweetest little image in mind of a tiefling with a big cloak and big ol' wizard hat. i am going to dropkick mike.
The second the paladin said they wanted to spike the wizards drink I would have stopped everything and demanded answers. The first thought is some rape crap. After it was clear that he was still trying to make it OPs fault for the bbeg taking control of the wizard I would have told him to stop being an idiot or leave. The butt hurt he has is ridiculous.
Honestly it kinda sucks how the DM basically killed the paladin's fighter through the OP's character, allowed the paladin specifically made to kill OP, and then allowed the paladin to try and kill OP twice with no issue. The DM started this whole thing by killing the fighter and now OP has to deal with it? Yeah that sucks
Why didn’t the rest of the party throw out the paladin in character? A new party member tries to end an existing party member and everyone else is like “nah, it’s fine, he’s just a bit suspicious”
Yup I would also comment to her dad. Yeah normally fan fiction in the worst type of fan fiction but you're like those writers or new writers that get a interesting story wanna make a sequel to. It when there's no need for sequel and basically decide that they hated this one character who had a great arc in the first part that they decided to basically Turn them into a villain Or a loser wall they make another character who Was ignorable not that significant or basically a loser in the Original work into this bad a** hero type that they're most definitely not. Because of favoritism. As I said i'm tired of Seeing this type of writing it's terrible and these type of writers need to be laughed And ran out of town not literally I mean ran out of writing because they're terrible at it. And as shown it's make quite clear that she Very well is holding some type of grudge against the poster. As she illustrated and even mind controlled the other players characters to make them Act in a way they would not have the whole they were indifferent to his horrible situation and that he suddenly turned into a rapist when none of that made any d*** sense and I wouldn't be surprised if they're also additionally angry because she likely made her character the face of their old party. And made them all you're aware of them when that's not exactly what would happen. H*** I would have piped in and said that my character secretly Despise their character so there's no d*** way this. Sudden change of personality would ever happen wake up from your day dream
What is with all these spineless DMs in these stories? When people try to fight others like this, STEP. IN. If you can't step in to mediate conflicts like this, *don't be a DM*.
DM from the first story should have the paladin get brainwashed and have every NPC treat him like an asshole no matter how many times he points out he was controlled.
The first story, everything else aside, the party should have just killed this paladin assassin for trying to kill one of their own. They had a reason.
Yea, Mike from the first game is being a brat. "It's what my character would do," is a weak excuse. If you aren't willing to do death saves, you have no right to make a revenge character that never meet your last character.
Funny; He berates OP for being too attached to their character, yet shows himself being too attached to their own so much by creating a character solely to kill OPs. I also hate that they repeatedly dismiss the fact that their previous Fighter was killed by OPs Wizard when latter was CONTROLLED BY THE BAD GUY AGAINST THEIR WILL. I would, even if OP vibed with Mike before, inform the GM about their petty (meta gaming) revenge plan and kick them from the table. Sounds harsh, but Mike shows that he is unwilling to see his shite behavior and continue to attack against OP for no good reason IC and OOC. Sometimes it takes little to see the ugly side of someone.
I'm openly inviting internet hate here but I feel like they did Luke pretty well. There is a video by cinema therapy that kinda opened my eyes a little bit to how it was a logical progression of the character. Now the trilogy as a whole? Not a fan, bringing the emperor back with no build up and also he has an armada was dumb as hell. But as for this video 10/10 I love your content, it helps me get through boring days at work so keep it up!!
How was it logical? The man who literally risked his own life to show his father that there was still good in him tries to murder his nephew in his sleep over a bad dream now all of a sudden doesn't believe that his nephew could be saved and goes into hiding. I don't see the logic at all.
I mean, there's PVP or there isn't. If the Paladin's actions are allowed, then there is no earthly reason that the rest of the party would let him just go back to his room and continue traveling with them.
"My wizard would be very wary around him now" Dude in game the "paladin" (lol) tried to murder and almost succed your character. Wary is not what she should feel. 10 Fireballs up the face is what she should feel. Also kinda fail on the DM part. This was clearly a metagame grudge of a cretin player, showing multiple red flags. You dont want someone like that around. 2nd short story: Hateful pos, block and ignore. You dont need someone like that in your life.
This guy is clearly just being an asshole. What a missed opportunity for building up a better relationship with your players and having a great roleplay moment. We had a session with my party where we were fighting in magical darkness and one of our party got possessed. Along with my party hitting me by accident because they couldn't see, this player started attacking me on purpose and I was nearly killed. Eventually we managed to exorcise him of his ghost, but he was pretty beaten up about what he'd done and our characters in game had some tension for awhile. Us as players worked together to get them to a point were they could trust each other again, I would have been devastated if we didn't because I really enjoyed playing with their character. Remember, you're all supposed to be working together in D&D not against one another (with a few campaign exceptions).
Why the hell didn’t Paladin get his powers removed by his god for doing such a heinous act? (Maybe was a revenge or evil god) Edit: ok, just a shitty DM and player character.
Mike's attempt at metagaming is headache inducing. Unless OP can decisively prove what Mike told her, he's going to keep this BS up unless the party tells him to shape up or leave. The second story's (other) DM clearly has a problem against OP to crap over their character like that. OP mentions they objected to how problem player tried to control the party before, and said problem player decided to do a "fix fic" where she gets all the glory and OP's character is a loser. Seems from the original reddit thread that they're going to kick her from the game, though it's abundantly clear from the original text nobody was putting up with that crap to begin with.
Nah, the DM is not to blame in the first story. From the sounds of it, PvP was, at least to a degree, on the table for the party. Not every party has an issue with it since it can actually enhance roleplay a lot. And from the sound of it, he gave OP multiple chances to not get into an inescapable situation. It's Mike's fault for being stupid and spiteful.
Nah, even PvP has its own rules and limitations. In this case Mike created a metagaming character with the goal of killing OP for something concerning a past event his character shouldn't know about. That shouldn't be considered acceptable.
I have mixed feelings on this. On its own, the paladin's hatred for tieflings does make sense and I could certainly see him trying to quietly kill the wizard; I don't know if paladins would use poison, though - wouldn't that be against their moral code? I dunno on that one. But the OOC reasoning behind the IC traits and actions is the same as a DM punishing someone IC for something that happened OOC. I don't think the DM should have allowed the poisoning in the first place, and I think he should have stopped the paladin once he realized what was going on and asked the wizard if she was okay with this. She obviously wasn't, so he could have put a stop to it OOC at that point. Imho, pvp should NEVER be allowed unless everyone is okay with it (which is clearly why the paladin didn't tell the DM what he was actually planning). I actually saw him removing his armor and thought this was going to be much worse, though. I thought he was going to...uh, do naughty things to her. I mean, killing the character might not be much better, but I dunno; I think what I thought was going to happen would have been much worse.
Most of what he did would get his god to remove his powers and status as a paladin, in 2nd and 3rd editions. But i have no idea how paladins are done in 5th edition. But if they have no code, why are they allowed to have all the OP abilities a paladin would other wise have in 5th edition? The entire reason they're kind a OP is that the code they have to follow balances out the character a bit.
Thank you for dissing something that deserved to be dissed. The content that would have made the real, canon sequel trilogy that George Lucas always planned to make is still available in book form under the name "Star Wars: Legacy". Luke, Han, and Leia outlive almost everyone, and the villain, Dath Caedus, as well as the heroes, Ben Skywalker (Luke and Mara Jade's son), Jaina Solo (Han and Leia's daughter) and Lowbacca (Chewbacca's nephew), have backstories that are actually engaging and aren't just shoehorned in to appeal to an many demographics as possible. It actually would have been better if Disney released the Legacy version, since the final battle was mostly staring young female protagonists like Jaina (who inherited her father's promiscuity) and Mitra Gev, Boba Fett's granddaughter, which is what they improperly leaned hard into with what they went with. Jaina's sister-in-law is even the queen of her own planet-wide matriarchal society.
The DM needed to put a stop to Mike's stupid little revenge attempt. There is no way this ever should have allowed.
same, if he tried it a second time it would be a 1 v all then depending on the reaction i'd have him blocked for several sessions until he stops acting like a 2 year old or ban him.
@@ZombieDireWolf I'd have just told him, "No you don't." at the poisoning attempt. And the drug him aside and shut the whole thing down on the spot.
Any DM worth their screen and dice would put a stop to this. New or not.
As a player, I'd have PvP'd his character into the dirt.
@@marybdrake1472 I guess it depends on the oath but a Paladin using poison is weird as hell anyway.
@@tarvoc746 Yeah, I'm sure that violates some rule or other. I can't say due to not knowing that class very well.
The DM should have hammered home “she was not in control of herself, the evil wizard was controlling her. No you cannot play that character.”
Story 1;
I’ve listened to too many horror stories. When it was clear that the OP had something slipped into her drink and Mike had his paladin take off his armor I thought for sure this was about to turn into a rape story. I was actually relieved when the knife came out that it was Just a murder.
Good to know I not the only one who though this.
Don't it always seem like that...
"The moment ya realize you indulge in too many RPG horror stories. And yet you still desire to hear more."
I was also going to rape. Geez the world is dark
I also was slightly relieved that it didn't turn into.... THAT after the paladin took off his armor
Yeah I had similar concerns. Though it's still bad, it could have been waaay worse.
Paladin: used poison, attacks a helpless character.
Paladin powers: gone.
Until Atonement, where things get straightened out.
Paladins powers would only be lost if he broke his oath and even then you’d only lose your subclass abilities and likely just take the oathbreaker subclass instead, and beyond that the ability he used to attack the OPs character in her sleep was a base class ability and as such wouldn’t be lost even if he lost his subclass.
That's exactly why I prefer 3.5 over 5e
@@spectrelead Agreed; in 3.5 he would have lost all abilities, spellcasting, saving throws, the works - and in AD&D2 it would be even worse, given that every class levels as a different pace, and paladins are the slowest to level: a paladin losing his powers in AD&D2 would be a fighter that levels at half the speed of the rest of the party.
His oath likely included "kill all mages"
This is why you should have the paladins in your game swear to a generic, written out oath; or write their own oath out and give it to you (as the DM). That way you can tell if what they are doing does break the oath or not.
Of course I also believe in making Warlocks negotiate an actual contract (Pact) with a Patron. Just so everyone knows beforehand what exactly is expected.
I can't believe I made it into a DND Doge story! I love your channel!
I want to say that I have spoken with the DM. His issue wasn't being shocked or not knowing how to handle the situation. He got caught in the mindset I think many DMs have found themselves in which is making sure the players have agency. He apologized and said that someone's agency shouldn't take priority over the entire table's enjoyment. I also found out that the other players reached out to DM and told them that Mike messed up because now no one wants to travel with him and Barbarian has promised to kill him if he tries after the shit show he pulled. Barbarian is very protective over the party and views all of us as his family. DM also did confirm that Mike was adding stuff into his backstory that DM did not approve of. They had originally agreed he'd dislike tieflings but did not okay him being hostile towards them or having plans to assassinate my wizard. DM is going to try to rework the character and might retcon that session to try and give him another introduction depending on how Mike responses.
Retconning Mike’s new character’s introduction isn’t going to change how he feels, and I think you’d be better off looking for a new player. If your DM is concerned about player agency, he shouldn’t have taken yours away by making you turn on the party and kill the other PCs. And was that a kamikaze _fireball_ that he made you cast at the end? Either way, that is never going to end well, either in the game or out of the game. As the player of a spellcaster myself, I would be really angry if I were made to kill my friends. My character would probably just kill herself after that. Campaign over.
No matter now Mike responds, it is abundantly clear that Mike needs to leave the table for a period of time to reflect upon what he did. He broke -the whole damn table's trust-, he added things not approved to his backstory and having a vendetta against your wizard was just pure spite. Oh and considering another comment said this earlier: Dominate Person has a vocal component, so unless Mike's fighter was hiding like a cowardly dwarf, they might have heard..Oh I don't know "Your will is not your own!" At best, the DM has now learned a harsh and valuable lesson here: SAY NO. Please just tell a player 'No, you are not doing this' if there is something that will not go down well at the table. Whatever your table does, I hope you all learn and grow or at best, no longer have mike at the table until he has, to put it bluntly, grown up.
I'm going to be honest, with how antagonistic Mike was being with you in dms, I'm not sure if an amicable solution can be found. I hope there is, but yikes, what he was doing wasn't anywhere in the ballpark of "okay"
You guys all sound really young. Take it from people who have played the game for decades. Mike's not going to change, and he will always give you problems. Dump him from the table. Anything else is just being extremely naive.
@@auburnkeyblade2491 no, everything he said and did in this video indicates he's a permanent problem player. I've dealt with a lot of those over the years, and they never change. OP should kick him. Anything less is just asking for more trouble, and in all likelihood, worse trouble, because now Mike thinks he can push these people around and get away with it.
Story 1:
Paladin: I will rid the world of your kind!
Party: Not from a jail cell you're not
Especially as a fallen paladin.
And the "Make a new character, hold the petty douchebag"
Soooo to recap, the guy created a character for the sole purpose of murdering OP's character as revenge for OP's character killing his previous one. Accidentally. After he was offered the chance to death save but actively refused, so really the death is more on him than her. And then to top it all, when called out on it, he uses the "it's just a character" excuse.
.... There are so many layers of hypocrisy here I don't even know where to start. So i'll just say the party needs to have mike cut his BS and either stop with this or be kicked out of the game. If he uses "this is what my character would do" as an excuse, then it's safe to say that what *their* characters would do would be to send the racist maniac who tried to murder their friend to justice.
Also HOW THE FUCK does his paladin still have his powers after pulling shit like this? Admittedly I might not know rules for paladins in 5E perfectly, but isn't poisoning someone's food and trying to murder someone in their sleep kinda... you know... something they *aren't* supposed to do?!
Player: "My name is Jake."
NPC: "Jake... who?"
Player: "Jake Skywalker."
Mace Windu: Your first name may be Jake,but we do not grant you the name of Skywalker.
Story 1: Seems that Mike is blinded by the hurt that he is not thinking clearly. Possibly not having the tools he needed to grieve and move on healthily. Hope they talk it out and get it smoothed over soon.
Story 2: Well. Talk about spitting on the corpse, pissing on their grave, and then making regular visits to steal quarters off their headstone. She made Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams look like kindergarteners of bad character writing.
Wow. That last story. Set 20 years into the future. So much potential to be wasted like that. All because the new DM wanted the spotlight.
But honestly that was probably a little much for just a one shot adventure. And definitely too much for the new DM to handle.
When I heard the paladin taking off his armor after the poison save, I thought things were going a completely different direction...
Player: "Molag Bal is the god of sa" GM: "First, he is not, second you never told me your character was secretly a worshipper, third get off my table!"
Story 1: Why do DMs allow shit like this? Seriously, how did it not occur to him that having the paladin do this might not have been comfortableto the player. Or how there was no divine intervention from his deity when this was clearly an evil act.
Thank god the party came to the rescue.
I'm surprised the party didn't lock him in jail. Or something. Kicking that character from the game.
Mike sounds too immature to play TTRPGs. His Dwarf was unconscious, not dead. He refused to make death saves out of some twisted form of spite. The OP was controlled by an enemy ability. If he wasn't having a tantrum this situation, it would have been one or two tense conversations at most. I agree with Doge about the DM.
Despite OP saying they were not responsible, he should have checked out the paladin's backstory closer or if it is more of a loose or secret backstory situation, stopped him and paused the game when he went to poison Op's drink.Mike obviously isn't listening to reason and is more concerned with getting even than having fun or his relationships with the other players. He either needs to see that he is the asshole in this situation and replace the stupid meta paladin with a character that actually wants to play with the party (the paladin should have been arrested or killed anyway), or he is going to have to leave.
Good grief, I haven't seen/heard of a Revenge-based story as petty as this since the Sierra Saga. I feel sorry for the OP of that story.
If a player like the 1st story were at my table I'd tell them to leave the game.
If you can't restrain yourself from acting like such an enormously insecure man child then you have no place at the table.
I don't know if he was at my table I would have humiliated him The very moment he started acting like an idiot. You? Know the first part being his character wouldn't know that the poster's character Was under dominate person when he died? That made absolutely 0 sense it just feels like Mike is salty. His character died and made a baldo's reasoning so he could spite the poster justify himself. I know his type because I lived with this type of person. My younger brother who when he gets in the fight with Jim he will whip himself up into a rage like basically accusing you of s*** you. Haven't done or perceived stuff. You're left wondering what the f*** is he talking about before he attacks you like a berserker out of the blue. Mike is a petty small man and he's pathetic. If hes gonna play the this is what my character would do. My character would have murdered him because that's what my character would do. This is a stranger who's recently joined us and attempted the murder a long term party member for no apparent reason then racism his a** is dead And I know Mike will pipe up and make excuses before. I shut him down and tell him that it's what my character would do drawing his own words right back at him. And I would smile while doing so smuggly as much as possible. Maybe I'll draw his ire towards me, But I am not the poster who would care about their friendship with him which seems quite toxic that they chose to be ignorant on their bad behavior assuming its their fault When a part of them knows this isn't their fault at all and mike is full of b*******.
Now if I was Dungeon Master I would have pretty much. Let him make a go at the poster and fail so epically. It's almost like god decided to screw him over. I don't care if it didn't make any d*** sense since he decided to be a disruption. I'll be a disruption to him for a single 2nd and then I will talk to him privately and tell him to get over his s*** and get it. Back together and roll a new character otherwise he's out the game.
You are dead on right, Aidan. 100%. Objectively, factuallly correct.
Same. I'd kick them from the table and never allow them back.
The "Paladin Revenge" story reminded me of a similar situation in our group many years ago. I don't recall the exact details, but one of the players decided they had a grudge against another player, and they rolled up a new character with the express purpose of killing the other player's character. They didn't succeed, so they rolled another new character, same thing. He was literally rolling up a new character every session for a while, and they would always get clobbered by the party when they tried to take their revenge. It finally got to the point where we would automatically turn on him as soon as his new character walked in the door, which finally convinced him to give up on his revenge. He still nursed that grudge for a while, but eventually got over it. We were teenagers at the time, so a certain amount of drama and stupidity is expected. I don't know how old the Paladin is in the OP's story, but I hope he too eventually grows up.
That stubborn? Damn. Went from player to Villain of the Week.
Seriously if that player was in my game and kept doing that my character would have killed him instantly Referring to his newest character without a word at all and if he starts complaining that it made no sense I would bring up the fact that the matter that. We kept running into strangers who instantly kept trying to kill. One of us every single time and they didn't seem to be a connection or anything among them. I have to assume they're all part of some assassination guild or something So all new strangers are treated exactly the same from now on especially if they show those smallest hint of hostility. This is of course when i'm playing my neutral character Because that would literally be what my character actually Would do, They would be paranoid of assassination attempts after so many that they would just be like strike first ask questions later. Especially if i'm assuming that he's building his characters in a way that it's painfully obvious that they're going to be hostile no questions asked.
Story 1
… Why not just target the evil wizard and break the concentration?
Also I wouldn’t party with someone trying to kill one of my companions.
DM needs to tell the dude to knock it off or else they will be kicked
Alright, so the DM is entirely at fault for letting this revenge bullshit happen. They saw the character sheet, stating it's a Paladin who's exclusively designed to kill Tiefling mages on sight, bound by oath. And even after that they simply shrugged and thought nothing ill would come of it. They even permitted them to willing take two separate hostile actions against said Tiefling player, after pre-existing hostile RP making it abundantly clear he has every intention of killing said Tiefling player.
Why even play at that point?
Yeah I don't get what the Dungeon Master's problem was as well. It was painfully obvious I'm not gonna let them get away with the. They work awkward and didn't want to feel like. They were interrupting player agency garbage. That's starting to lose its steam now and just feels like you'd rather the players Duke it out then solve the actual problem as the dungeon master.
The moment I realized Mike was doing what he was doing especially with the character. I would laugh at him told him to make a new character or get the h*** off my table because I know what he's up to. And if I even allowed it to get this far her character will never be harmed because instead I will cause a literal deus ex machina To destroy his character and then smug look at him and tell him to make a new character! Remind me him again about what dominate person does so he doesn't have a right to play. She betrayed us card because that's not how it works and if he doesn't get it. Then I'll keep teaching him one way of teaching him being ham getting hit with dominate person in a future game out of spite
Story 1: Does Mike just have selective hearing or something. He was told by both the DM and OP that OP's character was forced to kill his against her will. Yet he's choosing to ignore that fact in favor of his sociopathic headcanon.
Story 2: Yeah, Helen clearly had severe main character syndrome and hated OP for standing up to her when she tried to take full control of the game. This was just her sad, petty attempt at revenge against OP.
Mike and Helen are just awful people who only care about themselves.
A 9-year-old could see the lack of logic in Mike's argument. If you're not in the party, and you are actively trying to ruin another person's fun, then you have to go. DM saw what was coming and decided that they'd just let it happen without any input. Should've put their foot down.
If someone purposefully poison’s you or a party member, then tries to kill them, and Openly vows to never stop trying to kill them. Then it would be meta gaming to keep traveling with them. In character it would make sense for the party to tell the paladin to leave or they would kill him for what he did to wizard. Especially since they just met him, and have known wizard for a lot longer.
I say just kick him, both from the gaming group and IRL friend group. He’s shown what sort of person he is.
He‘s unjustifiably relentless over his character yet says to OP ‚it just a character‘ when trying to murder OP‘s. Hypocrite.
I can agree judging how he was responding to OP's private messages. Aside from showing his true colours he cannot separate himself from his characters.
Story 1: Yes his character does know that because of the verbal components of the spell, which would like be the spells name.
Unless his character was so stupid that he wouldn't understand that part.
Likewise, if his character truly believed that he was betrayed, he wouldn't have been trying to subdue the wizard.
Just because it's verbal doesn't mean the dwarf would understand it. If you speak German at me I may recognize the language, but it doesn't mean. I understand.
That said, if someone spoke strange words at my ally and they suddenly turned and attacked me, I may be able to put the pieces together.
The whole revenge arc sounds like they're in middle school.
15:15 I really hope there's an update to the story and that that problem player gets beat down verbally by everyone. Tell the DM, tell everyone, because assholes like this flourish in silence and shrivel up and die when they're exposed.
So in the first story Mike is... bad. He's being incredibly petty and it sounds like every time someone gives him an out, he's not only avoiding the off ramp, he's doubling down and spouting off justifications. What he's doing is freely bouncing back and forth between in-character and out of character emotions to dodge any criticism of his very unwarranted actions. He as a player knows OP wasn't controlling her character but he gives an in character justification for holding onto his out of character grudge. And even in character, the justification makes no sense because he's not playing that character anymore. That character is dead, notably by his choice and not OPs. So this isn't even about killing the character so much as attacking him while under a dominate spell.
I don't think you can deal with someone acting this immature and petty. You just have to get rid of them. They've already crossed too many lines. And unfortunately I'd have to say they don't see OP as a person, just an object to aim their spite at. The post kind of read like OP was feeling some friendship vibes before this all happened but... yeah no. That one isn't your friend.
I had a problem with a player’s character who I thought was nothing more than a meat wall with a strong homebrew weapon. Does that mean I’m gonna start a whole campaign just to spite him and his character? No. Will I make a character to make sure anything like that character can’t go without punishment? Yes. There’s a difference between giving into hate and learning how to deal with something you hated.
"I know that but my character doesn't"
Bro, the character you're referring to isn't the character you're playing. 😅
But yeah, I agree with the commenters and doge, no way this should've been allowed to go as far as it did. Biggest rule of making a character is they have to be willing to go along with the game set-up and that includes working as a party. Going kamikaze out of some stupid sense of revenge is obviously failing that. The whole table failed OP here because they kept allowing the problem player to get away with bs, in order to not metagame, while he was metagaming his ass off. No reason everyone in that place shouldn't have taken out that paladin after he revealed his true colors.
Honestly, in the first story the rest of the team should kick the "paladin" out of the team - and, if the barbarian is any good at what he does, send him on his way in five different directions at the same time.
My character would have killed this character no matter what because at this point if I was with this group the posters character would have been a long time companion. At this point while his "paladin" Is some newbie whose introduction was acting hostile and racist towards my long term companion. Seriously if I was a knife door it would have ended with the door being broken open via kick and a quick knife through his neck! And if he complained obviously it would be it's what my character would do during his own words right back at them. I do so love doing that to a******* throwing that saying right back at them since they think it's a get out of jail free card. And it's funny. I never used it until they've used it and they've made themselves a nuisance at that point. Then my character will act exactly as they would with these types. Which is always zero tolerance
"It'S jUsT a ChArAcTeR, cHaRaCtErS dIe AlL tHe TiMe!"
I'm honestly not even sure Mike's thing was revenge. Look at it. He decides to let his character die, and then immediately makes a revenge character. He had seemingly already decided to get revenge, for a death that hadn't even happened yet, before he started rolling death saving throws. I think Mike was looking for an excuse to target that OP. Obviously there isn't enough detail to know for sure; but if Mike cared enough about that character to want revenge, wouldn't he have, at minimum, wanted the death saves to go his way, instead of just throwing the character away before taking the chance?
I think Mike is being petty about something that happened outside the scope of the story, and is just using the dominated wizard casting fireball as an excuse.
I really hope all DMs understand they can stop this kind of similar behavior instantly on their own tables *BY SAYING NO*. You can do that to your players if you need to and it's okay. DMs cannot be impassive and non confrontational doormats, you are LITERALLY the God of that Universe and The Actual Boss, and need to occasionally do somewhat unpleasant Boss type stuff, such as putting a stop to nonsense before it ruins your campaign. Yes it sucks, however-- putting your foot down is way better than someone being a jerk and spoiling your other players' fun. Saying "Yes, And" to your players is important but learning when to occasionally say No is, imo, even more so. You can't employ it abusively but you MUST employ it sometimes.
Saying no is hard. Saying no sucks. But you have to sometimes, especially when someone is being an asshole. YOU ARE THE DM. ACT LIKE IT. Don't let your players walk all over you or other players, YOU are running the show. And if you can't confront people ever, about anything, maybe don't DM. ♥♥♥
"Yes, and" and "No, but" are the best tools for a GM to learn to use. "No you can't be a murderous asshole who's only purpose is to kill the Wizard, BUT you can be racist towards Tieflings and we can build a story arc around growing from that." would be a decent way to handle that the second Mike tried to kill the Wizard.
"How can she be okay with killing but not being killed?"
... Hey, what game are they playing again? Like, super curious, what game is it?
OH! Dungeons and Dragons? Yeah, honestly, who the fuck kills in D&D? Honestly guys... ¬_¬
Mike- As the GM, if he's messaged me with this notion, there would have been an immediate "step into my office" moment as soon as he said he was poisoning the drink. Any of my players will tell you that is BAD THING (tm). There is something unsaid here.
Hellen is a nasty, petty person. If I was the GM she was subbing for, she would not have been invited to the next campaign after that little stunt.
I would have killed the false paladin. He infiltrated the party and poisoned another pc then tried to murder her. He dies.
First guy obviously is really feeling salty and instead of blaming it on the Wizard controlling the Tiefling, he's blaming the Tiefling. Like if it was the Evil Wizard casting the spell, would he have a specific character to hunt down said Wizard despite him being dead? Sounds like nothing more than refusing to allow his character to die in piece and not seek revenge against OP.
No, he had it planned from the get go. He deliberately failed his death saves in order to make this new character, which he had planned before the first stat was even written was going to be killing OP’s wizard.
The sequel trilogy is not and never will be considered canon by any of the real Star Wars fans in the world. Disney cutting all the Legends content from canon was only one for their numerous mistakes that led them to where they are now
Talk about victim blaming. Mike needs an ultimatum. Fix his attitude or leave.
That other dm showed some real main character syndrome. She must have felt like she didn't get the spotlight or the (fictional) girl and so decided to just make herself the best and op the worst.
As ridiculous and hypocritical as Mike’s behavior was, a DM should never, _ever_ take control of a PC to kill other PCs. It will _always_ leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, even if they say they’re okay with it in the moment.
That's bullshit. Domination and other spells have existed since the 70's. That's exactly what those spells are there for. In the description for the Confusion spell, at least in second and third edition, it says on a roll of ____ the afflicted player attacks the nearest character. There's just too much evidence that this is built into the game, for your point to ever be correct. Perhaps people are just weak salty babies. PvP is bad, but whining about anything else is just being a salty baby. It just sounds like Mike's a salty baby who doesn't understand how anything works. Everyone's autistic now, maybe that's the culprit.
Not sure if mikes refusal to acknowledge control person and his own hypocrisy is stupidity or them being a dishonest ass. Also he can’t blame OP, he killed his character the moment he chose to skip the death saves
What the fuck was the DM in the first story doing? I'd have shut Mike down the instant he tried to pull that shit. Also, barbarian would have been well within his rights to just run Mike's character through - he LITERALLY found the shitstain attacking one of his comrades.
I have a weird feeling that mike from the first story was mad at more than just the death of his character.... something feels off about what he is saying.
tinfoil hat time: i feel like mike had asked OP out or was planning to and she either said no or already had a partner.... I'm not sure why its giving me those vibes but it is.
The moment he tried to murder the tiefling the group should have killed him like any other monster that tries to kill them. If they have a strong aversion to killing they should have reported his actions to the town guard and left him to rot in prison. Why the group would treat that as if it was just an argument that got heated is beyond me.
Speaking of metagaming, how would Mike's Pali even know about who killed the dwarve and why?
Ah Simba, sweet, handsome Simba, now I'm ready to begin my week (I took yesterday off).
First story - Mike is a problem, but so is the DM and other players. I'll get back to the DM in a moment; If a new character attacks one of my party, I, and the other party members would probably kill him off, much less allow his character to stay with the party. Yes, Mike is the player and friend in real life - but this is a form of metagaming, because if it was a new player or NPC who did this, the other players would step in - in a severe manner.
As to the DM - I hope he's new, because otherwise he sounds like a good storyteller, but as a DM you have to put your foot down. NO Player vs. player allowed unless a good reason (like the OP being controlled by the villain) - Like Doge said, I would stop the game, pull Mike off to the side - try to talk him down, and if no good, either a player suspension (depending on the real-life relationship) or I would oust him from my table. Some things are unforgiveable - and you can't work with unreasonable people.
Why is it they always choose to be a Paladin when they're making a character specifically to commit atrocities?
... No, nevermind. I can guess. "Divine Authority." Whatever they do is Just and Right because theirs God actually lives in their left pocket and rubberstamps anything they do, thereby shielding them from any criticism.
Ok... taking "revenge" on a player character with new one could actually be an interesting narrative if all parties are on the same page. But that's not at all close to what's happening. The paladin was complete ignorant of past events, choosing to smite the tiefling in lil bitch way. It's disgraceful to the tiefling for being unsanctimonious off'd, petty and lowly for the paladin to murder in the cloak of the night, and completely narratively dismissive of the dwarf character who's death is reason this action is happen.
This isn't only a shitty 'What my character would do' when said character is in the grave, the a-hole player is shitting on both his characters and OP's for petty personal reasons. Seriously, this character bleed making a worst in game story. The a-hole's not playing the game anymore and trying to ruin it for the other player.
OK, the basic premise of the second story doesn't seem horrible. The idea that a victorious hero from a previous story might end up washed-up and directionless is sort of a cool one. And it leaves the door open for a character arc about rediscovering purpose. This story though... was not that. Honestly, just killing OP's character would feel less spiteful.
Oooh; salty Tuesday.
Story 1: Da hell DM! This is all on you! (after watching) Da hell paladin?!?! This isn't being salty. This is Dead Sea salty!
Story 2: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Da hell DM!
The last Jedi comparison really works well
H*** it's not even that one you got stuff like say the last of us part two Where the writer seem to have a Instead of changing a heart and decided instead of there original ending having been ambiguous And open ended decided that oh yeah the hero was completely in the wrong for what he did in the 1st part and you should hate him for it and you. Should also like and be okay with this new character who is retcon It's been important because she was the daughter of a pretty minor character you killed at the end of the first game. And oh she had the right to be upset and the heroine from the first game She was wrong to go out and kill said woman's friends Who helped her murder Her father figured and she had the nerve to say that she wasted her sparing her life despite the fact she heard her tell her to her face while. She was being restrained that she would hunt her down and kill her and she did exactly that yet she doesn't deserve revenge for her father figure's. Death but oh it's OK for her to do what she did and then act like a victim when you write your story like that and make someone this Unlikable and protect them with the mary Sue shield or villains sue shield. Then its no surprise Your character. Was. Hated h*** I remember one reviewer who brought this up even saying that now whenever they replay part 1 and they reach that part when they have to. Shoot the surgeon as he makes the attemp to slash at joel. They don't feel sorry for gunning him down especially since showing his part of the story in part 2 that surgeon just makes them even more unlikeable in the. Attempt to try to humanize him and make him likable. They kind of forgot that they wrote themselves into a corner. You know it's the equivalent of trying to make a drama Of Hitler growing up making him dislikable character are trying to and then when you get around to his most heinous actions you try to humanize instead. Of treating exactly as it should be treated. And giving abbey some input into that saying she was okay with ellie's death If possible if it saved the world just makes her even worse than she is. It's hilarious because she would have been an interesting character. If not for trying to force this to be a part two then just having it be a different character In the universe of the last of us.
You see this a lot in sequels where you snow a character who had such an interesting arc and then they're unceremoniously ruined or killed off screen In the forced sequel because the writer wanted to try to pretend that they're being realistic like in this case oh they were a drug addict so there. Was no way they would ever kick the habit and they were doom to be a horrible person. Likely because the writer's mindset is anyone who's a Drug Or alcohol Addict is doomed to being terrible with no redemption What so ever
If she wants to play that game then if I ever end up the Dungeon Master and we're using the same world then I'm gonna do to Her character what happened to the villain of the count of monte cristo, We're turned out all her heroics that made her a legendary hero world faked and stolen from other people that she was a huge fake all this time that. Mental magic was used against the drug addict fighters ex wife To make her claim false rape accusation against him to ruin his life and marry her character that none of the heroes ever happened and that the other characters. Were being. Fooled in some manner or what not but we're not easily fooled and then do it in the ball face where the fighter was able to get their life. Turned around and was able to marry the n p c after everything was fixed about it while her legendary hero character Pretty much ended up crippled and a beggar on the street having gone delusional and even believing their own lies. And if she protests I would just tell her dad and she started this mess she shouldn't have done that now she has to live with the consequences of it
Story 1: It’s times like these that I miss 2nd Edition. If a paladin were to act like that in 2E, they’d lose their paladinhood. Their gods would strip them of their powers, their spells, their immunity to diseases, everything. In fact, a LG character performing such an overtly evil act would be considered a voluntary alignment change, which in 2E causes a loss of experience level (so your Level 6 LG paladin would now be a Level 5 LE fighter).
It might even be a good idea to reinstate some of the old 2E rules as house rules to help prevent situations like this. If the DM wants to have in game consequences for the paladin’s behaviour that is. Otherwise he should just kick the bastard. You want to try and ruin my game with pointless infighting? Find another game to ruin, ‘cause that ain’t happening.
I still use those rules for paladins in Fifth Edition.
I don't think any of that would matter to this person they would just roll up a new character after they did the deed...
same in 3rd/ 3.5 edition
Always nice to see a fresh DnD Doge video pop up in my recommended!
Right?! I'm on the west coast and I get up pretty early so it's nice having something to watch while I eat my breakfast.
Sometimes these stories annoy me because of how stupid everyone involved in them was behaving. Like obviously That Guy shouldn't have tried it and the DM should have put a stop to it immediately, but then there's also the other players and even the OP. Like in this story, OP and side players just sit there as things escalate. Nobody tells That Guy to knock it off or that it makes no sense or that these kinds of actions only destroy the game. That Guy was very clearly hellbent on killing op because of some delusional nonsense they perceived. You better believe if he had died at the inn he would have just rolled up another character and tried the exact same thing, to which DM would've just allowed again. This is one of those "DM/OP try nothing and it gets worse" stories. Like everyone involved was using WIS and INT as dump stats irl.
And even without meta-gaming, wouldn't any rational person just call the guards after some random dude you just met tries to kill you? Even with the poor logic of "not real solutions" they don't do anything that would help themselves.
As a DM if I ever had a player who tried some bulls*** like this, the player would be politely asked not to attend any further games and to seek professional psychiatric help.
Seriously, going "it's what my character would do" while simultaneously holding a grudge about OP's character doing what a person under Dominate Person would do is next level doublethink.
OP: I, the player, wasn't in control of my character when she killed your character.
Mike: Yeah, my character wouldn't know that. So here's a paladin who hates you!
Mike, did your character, who doesnt know it wasn't OP's fault, made this paladin? Or you, who DOES know it?
On the subject of metagaming, you wake up to find a new member of your party trying to assassinate another trusted member of your party and you don’t attack the assassin or at least refuse to adventure with him anymore? How does that work?
sounds like they're all a bunch of immature kids who are too young to think about things logically. High schoolers, maybe.
Story 2: I would have offered to DM after that short story, with those characters.
I would have set it up that her version of the RP was a delusion that the one woman's character created.
The players would be requested to follow him to overthrow her "legendary hero", who tried to get him readdicted to drugs, thrown in the slums, he got over it, and the claims about feralness was a PR stunt by her character to destroy his reputation, all the while the delusional character kidnapped and raped his wife, and the objective of the party is to take down that villain, and have the "washed up loser" reclaim lady fair, as he was working hard to find a way to save his wife; all the while trying to protect his child from the assassins and thugs sent to him by the one character.
Sure, it might sound rather DMPC, but it would be a twist that would teach her a lesson.
Of course, I'd have to get the entire party in on the idea, and it would mean humoring her "fanfiction", and pissing her off.
And yeah, it would mean the NPC character would have his identity remain secret for most of the game. But when the identity of everything is blown, the meltdown would be epic.
That comment about the last jedi at the end! Dang dude I knew I had a good feeling about you and totally agree with your take on that and op's story imo that is the most cynical bland and worst trope of former hero to washed up loser who went on to just give up
Well, unrelated to the story here, i am in complete agreement with your take on the SW sequel trilogy.
So what exactly what the paladin's plan? Were the other characters just supposed to be okay with some guy they didn't know trying to murder their friend and just accept that he promised to try it again? Or them to not put two and two together when the wizard's corpse popped up?
Story #1 - Isn't the use of poison something that Paladins very specifically DON'T do? Depending on the exact deity, loss of Paladinhood would be a high probability. Mike is being a total petty @$$-hat, harassing OP for something that was not her choice, and I also put a lot of blame on the DM for allowing this behavior to continue.
Story #2 - Helen was out of line. She really expected other players to be okay with this?
i love how op calls their wizard "my little wizard". that's not relevant but it is the cutest thing and i have the sweetest little image in mind of a tiefling with a big cloak and big ol' wizard hat. i am going to dropkick mike.
The second the paladin said they wanted to spike the wizards drink I would have stopped everything and demanded answers. The first thought is some rape crap. After it was clear that he was still trying to make it OPs fault for the bbeg taking control of the wizard I would have told him to stop being an idiot or leave. The butt hurt he has is ridiculous.
Honestly it kinda sucks how the DM basically killed the paladin's fighter through the OP's character, allowed the paladin specifically made to kill OP, and then allowed the paladin to try and kill OP twice with no issue.
The DM started this whole thing by killing the fighter and now OP has to deal with it? Yeah that sucks
He chose not to take a saving throw so who knows if the DM was going to actually let a player die.
Why didn’t the rest of the party throw out the paladin in character? A new party member tries to end an existing party member and everyone else is like “nah, it’s fine, he’s just a bit suspicious”
Story 2
There is more behind this story.
The new DM has an obvious hate boner for OP and wanted to get back at them.
Yup I would also comment to her dad. Yeah normally fan fiction in the worst type of fan fiction but you're like those writers or new writers that get a interesting story wanna make a sequel to. It when there's no need for sequel and basically decide that they hated this one character who had a great arc in the first part that they decided to basically Turn them into a villain Or a loser wall they make another character who Was ignorable not that significant or basically a loser in the Original work into this bad a** hero type that they're most definitely not. Because of favoritism.
As I said i'm tired of Seeing this type of writing it's terrible and these type of writers need to be laughed And ran out of town not literally I mean ran out of writing because they're terrible at it. And as shown it's make quite clear that she Very well is holding some type of grudge against the poster. As she illustrated and even mind controlled the other players characters to make them Act in a way they would not have the whole they were indifferent to his horrible situation and that he suddenly turned into a rapist when none of that made any d*** sense and I wouldn't be surprised if they're also additionally angry because she likely made her character the face of their old party. And made them all you're aware of them when that's not exactly what would happen. H*** I would have piped in and said that my character secretly Despise their character so there's no d*** way this. Sudden change of personality would ever happen wake up from your day dream
Confirmation. Simba is either a Cleric or Paladin.
What kind of shitty dm allows a player to murder another player like that? Like no. No u can't murder them in their sleep
Op definitely needs to talk to their dm about what he is actually up too.
It's insane when DM's allow infighting
Always nice to be visited by Simba the Skooma Kitty
The 1st story I read this week and just went "I bet Doge or Den of the Drake will read this out :)
What is with all these spineless DMs in these stories? When people try to fight others like this, STEP. IN. If you can't step in to mediate conflicts like this, *don't be a DM*.
DM from the first story should have the paladin get brainwashed and have every NPC treat him like an asshole no matter how many times he points out he was controlled.
The first story, everything else aside, the party should have just killed this paladin assassin for trying to kill one of their own. They had a reason.
Thanks 4 all the hard work.
Yea, Mike from the first game is being a brat. "It's what my character would do," is a weak excuse. If you aren't willing to do death saves, you have no right to make a revenge character that never meet your last character.
Funny;
He berates OP for being too attached to their character, yet shows himself being too attached to their own so much by creating a character solely to kill OPs.
I also hate that they repeatedly dismiss the fact that their previous Fighter was killed by OPs Wizard when latter was CONTROLLED BY THE BAD GUY AGAINST THEIR WILL. I would, even if OP vibed with Mike before, inform the GM about their petty (meta gaming) revenge plan and kick them from the table. Sounds harsh, but Mike shows that he is unwilling to see his shite behavior and continue to attack against OP for no good reason IC and OOC. Sometimes it takes little to see the ugly side of someone.
I'm openly inviting internet hate here but I feel like they did Luke pretty well. There is a video by cinema therapy that kinda opened my eyes a little bit to how it was a logical progression of the character. Now the trilogy as a whole? Not a fan, bringing the emperor back with no build up and also he has an armada was dumb as hell. But as for this video 10/10 I love your content, it helps me get through boring days at work so keep it up!!
How was it logical? The man who literally risked his own life to show his father that there was still good in him tries to murder his nephew in his sleep over a bad dream now all of a sudden doesn't believe that his nephew could be saved and goes into hiding. I don't see the logic at all.
I mean, there's PVP or there isn't. If the Paladin's actions are allowed, then there is no earthly reason that the rest of the party would let him just go back to his room and continue traveling with them.
And he hates The Last Jedi!
Who's a good Doge?
Mike needs a good Gibbs-slap.
Second story: TLJ is not something to emulate!!!
"My wizard would be very wary around him now"
Dude in game the "paladin" (lol) tried to murder and almost succed your character. Wary is not what she should feel. 10 Fireballs up the face is what she should feel.
Also kinda fail on the DM part. This was clearly a metagame grudge of a cretin player, showing multiple red flags. You dont want someone like that around.
2nd short story: Hateful pos, block and ignore. You dont need someone like that in your life.
This guy is clearly just being an asshole. What a missed opportunity for building up a better relationship with your players and having a great roleplay moment. We had a session with my party where we were fighting in magical darkness and one of our party got possessed. Along with my party hitting me by accident because they couldn't see, this player started attacking me on purpose and I was nearly killed. Eventually we managed to exorcise him of his ghost, but he was pretty beaten up about what he'd done and our characters in game had some tension for awhile. Us as players worked together to get them to a point were they could trust each other again, I would have been devastated if we didn't because I really enjoyed playing with their character. Remember, you're all supposed to be working together in D&D not against one another (with a few campaign exceptions).
Is Mike secretly Andrew Hussie?
Funny how mike calls the op a Hipocrit the acts hipocritacl
A teifling casting fireball.....nixie is that you?
1st story remind me a bit of Aladin the Paladin
Why the hell didn’t Paladin get his powers removed by his god for doing such a heinous act? (Maybe was a revenge or evil god)
Edit: ok, just a shitty DM and player character.
I love Simba close up!
All glory to the hypno-Simba!
Mike's attempt at metagaming is headache inducing. Unless OP can decisively prove what Mike told her, he's going to keep this BS up unless the party tells him to shape up or leave.
The second story's (other) DM clearly has a problem against OP to crap over their character like that. OP mentions they objected to how problem player tried to control the party before, and said problem player decided to do a "fix fic" where she gets all the glory and OP's character is a loser. Seems from the original reddit thread that they're going to kick her from the game, though it's abundantly clear from the original text nobody was putting up with that crap to begin with.
Why does Simba keep changing colors? Is there more than one Simba?
In paladin story why some random dude tryed to kill party member where not executed with barbarian and bard when stoped?
Simba is so cute
That's a terrible player and a terrible GM. The GM should have stopped this before it even started.
Nah, the DM is not to blame in the first story. From the sounds of it, PvP was, at least to a degree, on the table for the party. Not every party has an issue with it since it can actually enhance roleplay a lot. And from the sound of it, he gave OP multiple chances to not get into an inescapable situation. It's Mike's fault for being stupid and spiteful.
Nah, even PvP has its own rules and limitations.
In this case Mike created a metagaming character with the goal of killing OP for something concerning a past event his character shouldn't know about. That shouldn't be considered acceptable.
I have mixed feelings on this. On its own, the paladin's hatred for tieflings does make sense and I could certainly see him trying to quietly kill the wizard; I don't know if paladins would use poison, though - wouldn't that be against their moral code? I dunno on that one. But the OOC reasoning behind the IC traits and actions is the same as a DM punishing someone IC for something that happened OOC. I don't think the DM should have allowed the poisoning in the first place, and I think he should have stopped the paladin once he realized what was going on and asked the wizard if she was okay with this. She obviously wasn't, so he could have put a stop to it OOC at that point. Imho, pvp should NEVER be allowed unless everyone is okay with it (which is clearly why the paladin didn't tell the DM what he was actually planning).
I actually saw him removing his armor and thought this was going to be much worse, though. I thought he was going to...uh, do naughty things to her. I mean, killing the character might not be much better, but I dunno; I think what I thought was going to happen would have been much worse.
Most of what he did would get his god to remove his powers and status as a paladin, in 2nd and 3rd editions. But i have no idea how paladins are done in 5th edition. But if they have no code, why are they allowed to have all the OP abilities a paladin would other wise have in 5th edition? The entire reason they're kind a OP is that the code they have to follow balances out the character a bit.
Damn story one is deleted. Apparently there was an update but cant find it.
No way! Ah man, I wanted to know what happened after, story one just kinda... Stopped, rather than properly end, you know?
Thank you for dissing something that deserved to be dissed. The content that would have made the real, canon sequel trilogy that George Lucas always planned to make is still available in book form under the name "Star Wars: Legacy". Luke, Han, and Leia outlive almost everyone, and the villain, Dath Caedus, as well as the heroes, Ben Skywalker (Luke and Mara Jade's son), Jaina Solo (Han and Leia's daughter) and Lowbacca (Chewbacca's nephew), have backstories that are actually engaging and aren't just shoehorned in to appeal to an many demographics as possible. It actually would have been better if Disney released the Legacy version, since the final battle was mostly staring young female protagonists like Jaina (who inherited her father's promiscuity) and Mitra Gev, Boba Fett's granddaughter, which is what they improperly leaned hard into with what they went with. Jaina's sister-in-law is even the queen of her own planet-wide matriarchal society.