Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but he keeps doubling down on his stance. It's like he's being a contrarian for contrarian-sake.

The funny thing about all this superfluous X-card safety bollocks is that no one would have even given a shit if these were proposed back in the day (although I doubt many folks would have actually used them, of course).

It's the timing that is the real issue. That is to say, in 'modern' gaming times, where we have childish ball bags attempting to control what you should or shouldn't do in your games that has completely exacerbated the whole issue.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 08:00:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM
There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism.

Which BTW could have been avoided if the DM told the OP that Lathander in his version of FR was different.

AFAICT, he did nothing of the sort.

Fault is 100% on the DM.

By Cipher's own account, all the other players understood this aspect of the world. Also by his own account, they stopped the game and had a lengthy out-of-character discussion about the facts of this.

As he put it,

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 05:10:30 AM
For me, the DM just suddenly saying "vampires are not always evil in my world" is metagaming. My character has absolutely no way to know this. As I said before, if the other Players had their characters make a case on why we should not attack on sight and perhaps apprehend/interrogate the vampire, I would have been absolutely fine.

If the DM says "vampires aren't always evil in this world" -- then that might be a failure of the DM, but if so, the correction should be for Cipher to say "OK, I didn't understand that" and be allowed to adjust his play accordingly.

Both as GM and as players, I've often had misunderstandings over some aspect of the game world. And the solution has been that the GM updates the player about what their character should know, and the player adjusts their play accordingly.

Here, it seems like Cipher is saying that the DM was wrong about their own game-world.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 12:52:40 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 08:00:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM
There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism.

Which BTW could have been avoided if the DM told the OP that Lathander in his version of FR was different.

AFAICT, he did nothing of the sort.

Fault is 100% on the DM.

By Cipher's own account, all the other players understood this aspect of the world. Also by his own account, they stopped the game and had a lengthy out-of-character discussion about the facts of this.

As he put it,

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 05:10:30 AM
For me, the DM just suddenly saying "vampires are not always evil in my world" is metagaming. My character has absolutely no way to know this. As I said before, if the other Players had their characters make a case on why we should not attack on sight and perhaps apprehend/interrogate the vampire, I would have been absolutely fine.

If the DM says "vampires aren't always evil in this world" -- then that might be a failure of the DM, but if so, the correction should be for Cipher to say "OK, I didn't understand that" and be allowed to adjust his play accordingly.

Both as GM and as players, I've often had misunderstandings over some aspect of the game world. And the solution has been that the GM updates the player about what their character should know, and the player adjusts their play accordingly.

Here, it seems like Cipher is saying that the DM was wrong about their own game-world.

From what I've read, the DM nor the players communicated that fact to him at all (not all vampires are evil). Hence this why the OP said it caught him off guard. There was no way for him to know if this was the case. The OP made that perfectly clear.

And then they proceed to jump all over HIM personally being a bigot.

There is no ambiguity here.

What happened to the OP was WRONG.

You also seem to imply it was the OP's fault he didn't know.

Sorry, you're on the wrong side of the argument.

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

Indeed, Brad!

I have mentioned many times in various posts in this thread that I was never informed of any changes to the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

Somehow, that means that I am "deciding vampires are always evil", even though that's exactly what both the Forgotten Realms wiki and the online D&D 5e SRD say. Still, if the DM would have said that "in my version of the Realms, vampires and undead are Neutral and not Evil" then, I would have disagreed but understood. This was never communicated to me.

The arguments were: "Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

The DM only chimed in almost 2 hours after we stopped the game to have this out of character discussion to let me know that if I went through the attack, I would break my paladin oath.

Then, when after I said my peace and left the game in the most polite manner I could think of, he sent me a DM saying that I was still in the wrong and that with my attitude he wasn't going to invite me to play with them further to which I replied that I wasn't thinking in playing with them again.

That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

Indeed, Brad!

I have mentioned many times in various posts in this thread that I was never informed of any changes to the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

Somehow, that means that I am "deciding vampires are always evil", even though that's exactly what both the Forgotten Realms wiki and the online D&D 5e SRD say. Still, if the DM would have said that "in my version of the Realms, vampires and undead are Neutral and not Evil" then, I would have disagreed but understood. This was never communicated to me.

The arguments were: "Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

The DM only chimed in almost 2 hours after we stopped the game to have this out of character discussion to let me know that if I went through the attack, I would break my paladin oath.

Then, when after I said my peace and left the game in the most polite manner I could think of, he sent me a DM saying that I was still in the wrong and that with my attitude he wasn't going to invite me to play with them further to which I replied that I wasn't thinking in playing with them again.

That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Pretty clear to me bro.

But there are people like jhkimBOT where he conveniently misses the points that don't fit his woke leftist narrative.

Because God forbid they might be WRONG.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 12:52:40 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 08:00:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM
There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism.

Which BTW could have been avoided if the DM told the OP that Lathander in his version of FR was different.

AFAICT, he did nothing of the sort.

Fault is 100% on the DM.

By Cipher's own account, all the other players understood this aspect of the world. Also by his own account, they stopped the game and had a lengthy out-of-character discussion about the facts of this.

You don't claim something I never said and misrepresent my words. I've already said many times the issues they had. They treated the vampire spawn as a "victim" because he had to obey their Master's orders. They, as PLAYERS not as characters, decided that the vampire was a victim. If this was something they as a group had agreed before hand, it was never communicated to me.

Going by the official online D&D 5e SRD, vampire spawns are listed as NEUTRAL EVIL. And, you are conveniently ignoring all the times in this thread that I said I would have been OK if they would have made their arguments in character.

Once again, their arguments where:

"Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

You are just taking whatever you want from what I've said many times in this thread because, apparently, you are such a fan of X-Cards that must defend their usage. Do whatever you want in your games and your life, but please stop trying to use my words to further your argument.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

So I'm reading over this again. You seem to be arguing that you were penalized for calling the vampire a slur, that you were called a bigot, and this was triggering. However, there really isn't anything you relate about their response that says anyone was triggered.

The possibility occurs to me that the problem has more to do with playstyle. First of all, they seem to take a more nuanced view of alignment with respect to intelligent creatures. Second of all, they seem to take seriously the moral quandry of enemies who are themselves victims. Third, they called you a murderhobo for deciding this part of the adventure should be dealt with through direct violence, rather than talking. I'm going to kind of brush past the idea vampire spawn are irredeemable, since in every version of D&D they are generally curable, but it's very difficult; it isn't really pertinent to the contrast between your style, and theirs.

So rather than their expectation, which was maybe a game where you had weird and intriguing conversations with "evil" beings who served a more powerful master, you just wanted to kill everything. I see where you're coming from, but honestly, it seems like you just kind of ignored the vibe of the group. They explained the issues, and rather than saying you were the odd man out, this turned into a rant about triggers. I don't think they were concerned you were discriminating against the historically oppressed undead, but rather just frustrated you wouldn't talk to anyone.

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM
That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Yeah but your anecdotal experience is evidence that X-cards and the mentally deficient smoothbrains who push for them have no real place in a normal game, much less society. Normal people would think this whole thing is just idiotic and ridiculous. Sounds like you're normal and had no idea WTF was going on so you decided to peace out and avoid any further dealings with such abject retardation. Again, a NORMAL response. No meltdowns, no yelling or bitching, just a "see ya later". The fact they contacted you after anyway proves even further they cannot handle you disagreeing with them in ANY capacity. None. If they decided Hawaiian pizza is the best and you said you liked pepperoni, they would hound you until you admitted being a fool and wrong and you best worship at their feet and ask for forgiveness. Their entire reality is based upon the fact they are correct about everything.

jhkim seems to think you're at fault because you didn't magically know they arbitrarily changed fundamental facts of the gaming world then freaked out at a perfectly valid in-character action. The reason he thinks you're wrong is because if you're normal, they're abnormal, and thus X-cards and mentally ill people need to GTFO. And from all his posts as of late, looks like the only people he knows are mentally ill.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:24:03 PM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

So I'm reading over this again. You seem to be arguing that you were penalized for calling the vampire a slur, that you were called a bigot, and this was triggering. However, there really isn't anything you relate about their response that says anyone was triggered.

The possibility occurs to me that the problem has more to do with playstyle. First of all, they seem to take a more nuanced view of alignment with respect to intelligent creatures. Second of all, they seem to take seriously the moral quandry of enemies who are themselves victims. Third, they called you a murderhobo for deciding this part of the adventure should be dealt with through direct violence, rather than talking. I'm going to kind of brush past the idea vampire spawn are irredeemable, since in every version of D&D they are generally curable, but it's very difficult; it isn't really pertinent to the contrast between your style, and theirs.

So rather than their expectation, which was maybe a game where you had weird and intriguing conversations with "evil" beings who served a more powerful master, you just wanted to kill everything. I see where you're coming from, but honestly, it seems like you just kind of ignored the vibe of the group. They explained the issues, and rather than saying you were the odd man out, this turned into a rant about triggers. I don't think they were concerned you were discriminating against the historically oppressed undead, but rather just frustrated you wouldn't talk to anyone.

Leave it to the woketard suspected sex pest to deffend the indefensible...

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 02:26:33 PM

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM
That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Yeah but your anecdotal experience is evidence that X-cards and the mentally deficient smoothbrains who push for them have no real place in a normal game, much less society. Normal people would think this whole thing is just idiotic and ridiculous. Sounds like you're normal and had no idea WTF was going on so you decided to peace out and avoid any further dealings with such abject retardation. Again, a NORMAL response. No meltdowns, no yelling or bitching, just a "see ya later". The fact they contacted you after anyway proves even further they cannot handle you disagreeing with them in ANY capacity. None. If they decided Hawaiian pizza is the best and you said you liked pepperoni, they would hound you until you admitted being a fool and wrong and you best worship at their feet and ask for forgiveness. Their entire reality is based upon the fact they are correct about everything.

jhkim seems to think you're at fault because you didn't magically know they arbitrarily changed fundamental facts of the gaming world then freaked out at a perfectly valid in-character action. The reason he thinks you're wrong is because if you're normal, they're abnormal, and thus X-cards and mentally ill people need to GTFO. And from all his posts as of late, looks like the only people he knows are mentally ill.

And, I can only speak from my own perspective, but I did entertain the discussion as I wanted to keep playing. Only after the DM ruled that moving forward with attacking the vampire meant breaking my Oath and thus, losing my powers as a Paladin, then I decided the game wasn't for me.

Also, it may seem this way from my own perspective, and perhaps in reality I was more rude than I think I was being, but I did my very best not to raise my voice and I made sure not to be rude and use any insults on any language that could be felt as "insulting". It is my firm believe that I handled this as politely as I could.

Like I said, perhaps it didn't come off that way, I have no way to know how my words and tone of voice was perceived but I did made an effort to remain calm and engage in civil discussion. I didn't just said "K' Imma head out" and dropped the call. I stayed for as long as I thought there was still a way to salvage the session. When it became clear to me there was not way to reach a middle ground and that I could take the decision to not follow what I thought was a sensible choice for my character and that the rest of the table was in consensus about their trigger warnings and me breaking them, then I announced that at that point I wasn't feeling like playing anymore and I wished them well and even thanked them for inviting me to their game and said that I hoped they had fun in this campaign before dropping the call.

From my very first post I said that this is what I would expect to happen in a make believe game played with adults. That any disagreements could be discussed as adults and if no agreement could be made, the door was always open.

In this sense, I vehemently disagree that people playing are "not safe" or in any sort of "danger" while playing TTRPGs online. I can barely entertain the idea if this is IRL in a house that you have never been with and playing with a group of relative strangers, but not online. If worst comes to worst, just drop the call and that's it. No need for drama or "trauma" triggering.

If someone cannot have an adult discussion about what they consider something that shouldn't be in the game, then leaving is always an option.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 01:58:39 PM

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

Indeed, Brad!

I have mentioned many times in various posts in this thread that I was never informed of any changes to the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

Somehow, that means that I am "deciding vampires are always evil", even though that's exactly what both the Forgotten Realms wiki and the online D&D 5e SRD say. Still, if the DM would have said that "in my version of the Realms, vampires and undead are Neutral and not Evil" then, I would have disagreed but understood. This was never communicated to me.

The arguments were: "Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

The DM only chimed in almost 2 hours after we stopped the game to have this out of character discussion to let me know that if I went through the attack, I would break my paladin oath.

Then, when after I said my peace and left the game in the most polite manner I could think of, he sent me a DM saying that I was still in the wrong and that with my attitude he wasn't going to invite me to play with them further to which I replied that I wasn't thinking in playing with them again.

That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Pretty clear to me bro.

But there are people like jhkimBOT where he conveniently misses the points that don't fit his woke leftist narrative.

Because God forbid they might be WRONG.

Thanks, Blackstone!

It does appear this way, sadly.

Cipher -

As I understand it, the core of the disagreement is that all the other players and the DM understood a vampire spawn to be a victim of the curse of vampirism, who is then mind-controlled to obey the commands of the master vampire. You disagreed, and held that all undead are inherently evil to the core.

I don't hold that either position is inherently right for all game-worlds. But in this case, the DM ruled against you. If there had been a different DM running the exact same adventure, and the players complained - but the DM sided with you, then you would be right. But it's the DM's game-world, and they get to decide the nature of undead and the Lathander's position as a god.

---

As I understand it, this group wasn't using an X-card, but you were the one demanding that everyone else submit to how you wanted things to be. That's exactly the problem that many people here have complained about the X-card -- that one player can force their demands over all the other players and even the DM.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:24:03 PM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

So I'm reading over this again. You seem to be arguing that you were penalized for calling the vampire a slur, that you were called a bigot, and this was triggering. However, there really isn't anything you relate about their response that says anyone was triggered.

The possibility occurs to me that the problem has more to do with playstyle. First of all, they seem to take a more nuanced view of alignment with respect to intelligent creatures. Second of all, they seem to take seriously the moral quandry of enemies who are themselves victims. Third, they called you a murderhobo for deciding this part of the adventure should be dealt with through direct violence, rather than talking. I'm going to kind of brush past the idea vampire spawn are irredeemable, since in every version of D&D they are generally curable, but it's very difficult; it isn't really pertinent to the contrast between your style, and theirs.

So rather than their expectation, which was maybe a game where you had weird and intriguing conversations with "evil" beings who served a more powerful master, you just wanted to kill everything. I see where you're coming from, but honestly, it seems like you just kind of ignored the vibe of the group. They explained the issues, and rather than saying you were the odd man out, this turned into a rant about triggers. I don't think they were concerned you were discriminating against the historically oppressed undead, but rather just frustrated you wouldn't talk to anyone.

1. he made his character as per the rules
2. he played his character as per the rules AS HE KNEW THEM.  nowhere did he say he just wanted to "kill everything". he was playing a Paladin of Lathander and according to the rules, he was playing it accordingly.
3. NOBODY, not even the DM, said anything about house rules on the game world. This was made perfectly clear by the OP.
4. Gets told that killing a vampire is being a "bigot" (Which is full of shit BTW).
5. gets chastised by the group and the DM, and personally called him a bigot as well. This was made perfectly clear by the OP as well.

And you seem ok with this.

Go fuk yourself.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:10:54 PM
Cipher -

As I understand it, the core of the disagreement is that all the other players and the DM understood a vampire spawn to be a victim of the curse of vampirism, who is then mind-controlled to obey the commands of the master vampire. You disagreed, and held that all undead are inherently evil to the core.

I don't hold that either position is inherently right for all game-worlds. But in this case, the DM ruled against you. If there had been a different DM running the exact same adventure, and the players complained - but the DM sided with you, then you would be right. But it's the DM's game-world, and they get to decide the nature of undead and the Lathander's position as a god.

---

As I understand it, this group wasn't using an X-card, but you were the one demanding that everyone else submit to how you wanted things to be. That's exactly the problem that many people here have complained about the X-card -- that one player can force their demands over all the other players and even the DM.

Holy fuk are you blind? Do you need spelled out for you? The simple fact that the DM didn't disclose anything about the game world in regards to undead, knowing perfectly well he was playing a Paladin of Lathander, is the issue. What is he supposed to do read the DM's fuking mind?

Oh and as far as you not "taking a side"? I wouldn't expect anything less from a person who rides the rails of moral relativism.

Fuk, I'll bet you're a pacifist too.