Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM

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

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?

He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM
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.

As far as undead on fantasy worlds? Yes, I am a moral relativist. It's a fucking fantasy game.

Part of my real-life non-relativist morals is that I don't treat the games people play as if they were real-life.

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.

So, in your mind, now I am the one "demanding that everyone else submit to how I wanted things to be". It appears the idea that some people see X-Cards for what they are "triggers" you and you must twist the words of others to defend the idea of safety tools. Like I said, you can do whatever you want. But, you don't get to twist my words to make your argument.

You are willingly ignoring what I have said about the situation and now are painting me as the one that stopped the game due to trigger warnings.

For everyone else not engaging in disingenuous discussion, I never stopped the game. If I made that attack and the DM ruled that I lose my powers because vampires in his world are considered people and not monsters, and thus striking them down on sight is considered "unprovoked acts of violence", then I would argue that we had plenty of evidence that this vampire had committed crimes even if he was being compelled to by his Master.

If, in turn, the DM would reply to that statement with anything that would amount to "It doesn't matter. Attempting to slay the vampire without being threatened with violence from the vampire is considered murder. Do so at your own risk of breaking your Oath". I would disagree, but without making a fuss out of it I would acquiesce in the interest of keeping the game going and would not have attacked the vampire.

Then, at some point during a break or at the end of the session, I would invite the DM to discuss with me the situation and explain my point of view, as an adult. If the DM would not budge about their decision, then I would consider if I want to play in that game world or not and communicate this decision to the DM and the group days in advance to the next game.

No one is obligated to play in any game at any table. Participation is voluntary. If I don't like were things are going I can just leave and I expect anyone to do the same on my games. In this case, I wouldn't want to play in a game that deviates from the Forgotten Realms lore in such a fashion and, depending on how much I really want to play and how everything else in the game is going, I would have decide to keep playing with this group or not.


From the very opening post I said that it has always been my expectation that disagreements about the game can and should be discussed as adults. In most games, the GM does an amount of legwork that the players do not have to, for this reason I always take the GM into consideration and in disagreements over a game I am inclined to take the GM's side. But, no player is hostage to the way the GM wants to run a game. If a player is unable or unwilling to move past that disagreement they can leave. And they can do so amicably. This is the way disagreements have been resolved in the past in my personal experience. It is only in these online games with younger people that now it turns out discussing disagreements about the game is imposing.

@jhkim: You tried to "Reverse UNO" my situation into claiming I am the one using X-Cards by demanding something out of the game and forcing everyone else to comply with my desires. In doing so, you have shown your hand that, indeed, you believe this is the way X-Cards work and should work and thus, you have validated the merits of the argument many people have made in this thread about why X-Cards are actually malicious and have no place in this hobby.

Thank you. I was neutral to the usage of this so called "safety tools" before this experience. After creating the thread and reading some comments, I was leaning more and more towards the idea they do more harm than good. After seeing how you wanted to twist my words into appearing like I was the one using X-Cards to force everyone at the table to agree with me you have convinced me that safety tools are actually unwanted, insidious malicious and their inclusion will clue me in that this is not a group I want to play games with.

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

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PMHoly 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?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Oh fuck no. This isn't a Rule Zero situation, this is the GM pulling a bait and switch. And the conflict was resolved, by the player leaving the crazy asshole table.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM

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

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?

He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM
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.

As far as undead on fantasy worlds? Yes, I am a moral relativist. It's a fucking fantasy game.

Part of my real-life non-relativist morals is that I don't treat the games people play as if they were real-life.

But the people you're defending do.

Hypocrite, thy name is jhkim.

I have nothing more to say to you.

good day to you sir.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 04:49:32 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PMHoly 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?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Oh fuck no. This isn't a Rule Zero situation, this is the GM pulling a bait and switch. And the conflict was resolved, by the player leaving the crazy asshole table.

Exactly. a good DM would have known about his character and say "hey, just to let you know, being a Paladin of Lathander when it comes to undead, in my version of the Realms..."

The DM KNEW what type of character he had and didn't say anything.

He's either:

a) a malicious bastard
b) an ignorant left wing shit for brains who truly believes this is how the world works, and his shitty game world should reflect his insane world views.
c) both a and b

I'm going with C.

Cipher, fuck that guy and his pissant group of cultists. Join my group and full disclosure to you all, I already sent him an invite last week if he's interested. I'm going to send more info on the game to you tonight, including our Discord channel. I OWE it to you to get into a good Old School game.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Oh he's a fucking fence sitter, for sure...

Trigger-Warnings allow the Storygamers™ to censor any player decision that might counter their immutable, infallible, perfectly-beautiful STORY.

"How dare you try to roll dice right now, cretin! Don't you recognize we're Making Story?!?!"

It's like how they try to censor rpg game design with their Sensitivity Readers. And who wouldn't want an over-entitled, sexually-confused semi-socialist with zero professional credentials telling them how to write? What kind of people try to dictate not just what you think but WHY you think it and when and how you can say it?

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:50:01 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 04:49:32 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PMHoly 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?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Oh fuck no. This isn't a Rule Zero situation, this is the GM pulling a bait and switch. And the conflict was resolved, by the player leaving the crazy asshole table.

Exactly. a good DM would have known about his character and say "hey, just to let you know, being a Paladin of Lathander when it comes to undead, in my version of the Realms..."

The DM KNEW what type of character he had and didn't say anything.

He's either:

a) a malicious bastard
b) an ignorant left wing shit for brains who truly believes this is how the world works, and his shitty game world should reflect his insane world views.
c) both a and b

I'm going with C.

Cipher, fuck that guy and his pissant group of cultists. Join my group and full disclosure to you all, I already sent him an invite last week if he's interested. I'm going to send more info on the game to you tonight, including our Discord channel. I OWE it to you to get into a good Old School game.

You seem to be of the impression that they KNOW anything about the setting, they famously don't read the rules.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:57:48 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Oh he's a fucking fence sitter, for sure...

Fence sitter my ass, he's the infiltrator variant. He's the cultist that can hide the crazy, so they send them out to recruit, or to talk to the Sheriff asking about the girl reporting missing by her dad.

While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:50:01 PM
The DM KNEW what type of character he had and didn't say anything.

He's either:

a) a malicious bastard
b) an ignorant left wing shit for brains who truly believes this is how the world works, and his shitty game world should reflect his insane world views.
c) both a and b

I'm going with C.

With a strong dose also of:  d) set the whole thing up to arrange a confrontation, and have all the players pile on.  The whole group knew what they were doing.  Heck, that was clearly more important to them than the game--using the Forgotten Realms was just another piece of the bait and switch.

I'd consider it a giant blessing that it was all online, so that none of those people know where you live.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 05, 2024, 06:24:14 PM
You seem to be of the impression that they KNOW anything about the setting, they famously don't read the rules.

This is my guess.  The DM didn't know or care about the setting.  They had a negative, knee-jerk emotional response to what happened.  The rest is post hoc justification.  The real reason is that it just felt icky to them in the moment.  That's all that actually matters.  The rest is just them trying to justify it.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:57:48 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Oh he's a fucking fence sitter, for sure...

Fence sitter my ass, he's the infiltrator variant. He's the cultist that can hide the crazy, so they send them out to recruit, or to talk to the Sheriff asking about the girl reporting missing by her dad.

While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

Damn that's diabolical.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
Fence sitter my ass, he's the infiltrator variant. He's the cultist that can hide the crazy, so they send them out to recruit, or to talk to the Sheriff asking about the girl reporting missing by her dad.

While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

A better description of the two has never been written...