Hey guys i am currently playing in a campaign and i just have a question. the dm of my current campaign is seeming to have issue with how i am playing my charecter and has pointed out on occasion allignment issues with my choices. Now to start off i do understand that it would make no logical sense for a lawful good palidan to randomly murder a civilian. Obviusly huge counter to the charecter i would be playing as. But i do however play dnd and look at dnd as a game where people should have fun and i think the idea of railroading some ones choices based on something like allignment(huge grey area when talking about morality first off) isnt a really fun way to approach the game. Whats happening in the game is basically im playing a homebrew gm okd version of a silver dragon who has done one of his lives as a playful lustful bard. now in and of them selves the decsions ive made are spot on with the motives of each specific charecter but the whole idea is the dragons personality is completely seperate from the charecter he plays as. THe gm im playing with is having issue after a few sessions because he thinks that if for example my bard kills some one or steals something for example it should affect the dragons conscience. Not doing these specific things but its just for example but you get the picture haha.
Not trying to make this too long, but basically am i approaching allignment incorrectly? Or is said gm taking the allignments to literally?
Alignment can change over the course of a campaign based on your character's actions. Your DM should be thinking less about trying to twinge your character's conscience (which really doesn't mean anything), and more thinking about what alignment your character should really be.
For example, let's say that you're playing a character who is lawful good, who decides to kill an innocent person for no good reason (not saying you have done this, this is just an example). There are three ways the DM could handle this situation:
1: Say that you're simply not allowed to kill an innocent person.
2: Allow you to kill the innocent person, but warn you that it's against character alignment. If local authorities find out, it's also near-certain that they'll be coming after your character.
3: Allow you to kill the innocent person, and change your alignment from lawful good to lawful neutral (or perhaps even lawful evil). If local authorities find out, it's also near-certain that they'll be coming after your character.
In my opinion, option 1 is the worst option, because it takes away your agency as a player. At the end of the day, you are free to make whatever decision you want for your character (barring any pre-established agreements with the table), but you aren't free from the consequences of your actions.
Option 3 would be the most sensible option for the DM. It allows you to keep your agency, while still giving realistic consequences (both in an alignment sense, and a story sense).
I completely agree with you @craftyard on the option 3, thats how i run my games.It just in this situation it feels like im being pushed towards decisions and such, A far as what you were saying @kotath , i understand its not standard thats why i had mentioned it was ok'd home brew by the gm, i also understand that he is perfectly welcome to force his players down certain choice paths but that in my opinion is a bad dm, not saying hes a bad dm but yea
I completely agree with you @craftyard on the option 3, thats how i run my games.It just in this situation it feels like im being pushed towards decisions and such, A far as what you were saying @kotath , i understand its not standard thats why i had mentioned it was ok'd home brew by the gm, i also understand that he is perfectly welcome to force his players down certain choice paths but that in my opinion is a bad dm, not saying hes a bad dm but yea
The thing is, alignment itself is just a way of describing your character. There are no class alignment restrictions any more. If instead the DM simply said, 'Given how many people you have killed and resources stolen, a professional hit squad hunts you down and now your head hangs on their guild hall wall as a trophy,' would it be less 'railroady' to you? What if the rest of the party has no interest being associated with a murderer? Do you kill them off too? Or does the DM run a separate campaign just for you?
"I should be allowed to do what I want" is all very well and fine, but you are not the only one in that campaign. And frankly, if you really want an "I can do anything I want" campaign, then you do not need a DM. You have your own imagination to provide that for yourself. And a DM allowing any given character does not equal allowing it without any restrictions, or agreeing to it completely on the player's terms.
Im not sure what you mean, i havnt implied that i dont think the things done in the campaign shouldnt have consequences its the dm implying out of game that i am playing incorrectly. And as far as do i think that would be rail roading? Absolutley lol it doesent matter to me if i decide to kill a town of ppl(wouldnt do this its a dick move)but if i did so for reasoning that fit campaign logical choices like say a plague was taking the town and to stop it that was the route i took and i was then just killed off off screen then i would take that personally even, im not saying that if for example a player ergo me were to run into a town and just for the fun of it start wrecking stuff and did so for no other reason then my own enjoyment with no concern of others then yes the dm can absolutely make that call and should proabby remove me as a player but in an instance where i make a call that the gm just doesent agree with but do so logically in game and i still get punished for it then no thats absolutely railroading
I am confused, part 1. Are you playing a reincarnated Silver Dragon who is now a Bard? Or are you playing a Silver Dragon who has shapeshifted into a Bard to live among humanity?
I'm confused, part 2. You complain the DM is "railroading" you but your original example is that, "for example my bard kills some one or steals something for example it should affect the dragons conscience." To me this is not railroading -- it is interpretation. Some of this may depend on your answer to part 1, but, it sounds like somehow your character has a split personality (?), with a Silver Dragon personality somehow conscious but unable to control the Bard personality. (Again... ????). If that is the case, then I absolutely agree with your DM, that logically, a LG Silver Dragon who in the rules are called Dragons of Virtue, stating "believe that living a moral life involves doing good deeds and ensuring that one’s actions cause no undeserved harm to other sentient beings", would absolutely be unhappy with watching his own body (again???), do things that cause harm to other sentient beings.
In fact, my question to you as DM would be, why did you bother making up a Silver Dragon-turned-Human Bard, if you were NOT going to play up the inner conflict of the LG dragon personality disliking the CN (or whatever) Bard behavior? What is the point of having this in your backstory if you're not going to RP it? It sounds like you wanted to do it just because it "sounds cool" but then you don't want to RP any of the logical consequences that would arise from your own character concept. And it sounds like your DM is trying to force you to make your character grapple with these factors, which your character, based on the (very confusing, to me) concept you originally stated, should be grappling with.
I mean if you just wanted to make up a bard who could steal and kill with impunity and not have to RP being upset about the consequences, why on Toril didn't you just make up a regular human or elven bard, instead of making up a former Silver Dragon, who is the sort of being that would detest this type of behavior? It makes no sense to me that one would build this kind of character design and then chafe when told he can't ignore his own design.
It is NOT railroading for the DM to require yo to play out the concept YOU created. It'd be like saying you didn't like it that the DM is railroading you by forcing you to be proficient with a skill before letting you make a roll for it. That's not railroading... it's enforcing the integrity of the campaign world (and your character design).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I am confused, part 1. Are you playing a reincarnated Silver Dragon who is now a Bard? Or are you playing a Silver Dragon who has shapeshifted into a Bard to live among humanity?
I'm confused, part 2. You complain the DM is "railroading" you but your original example is that, "for example my bard kills some one or steals something for example it should affect the dragons conscience." To me this is not railroading -- it is interpretation. Some of this may depend on your answer to part 1, but, it sounds like somehow your character has a split personality (?), with a Silver Dragon personality somehow conscious but unable to control the Bard personality. (Again... ????). If that is the case, then I absolutely agree with your DM, that logically, a LG Silver Dragon who in the rules are called Dragons of Virtue, stating "believe that living a moral life involves doing good deeds and ensuring that one’s actions cause no undeserved harm to other sentient beings", would absolutely be unhappy with watching his own body (again???), do things that cause harm to other sentient beings.
In fact, my question to you as DM would be, why did you bother making up a Silver Dragon-turned-Human Bard, if you were NOT going to play up the inner conflict of the LG dragon personality disliking the CN (or whatever) Bard behavior? What is the point of having this in your backstory if you're not going to RP it? It sounds like you wanted to do it just because it "sounds cool" but then you don't want to RP any of the logical consequences that would arise from your own character concept. And it sounds like your DM is trying to force you to make your character grapple with these factors, which your character, based on the (very confusing, to me) concept you originally stated, should be grappling with.
I mean if you just wanted to make up a bard who could steal and kill with impunity and not have to RP being upset about the consequences, why on Toril didn't you just make up a regular human or elven bard, instead of making up a former Silver Dragon, who is the sort of being that would detest this type of behavior? It makes no sense to me that one would build this kind of character design and then chafe when told he can't ignore his own design.
It is NOT railroading for the DM to require yo to play out the concept YOU created. It'd be like saying you didn't like it that the DM is railroading you by forcing you to be proficient with a skill before letting you make a roll for it. That's not railroading... it's enforcing the integrity of the campaign world (and your character design).
Sorry missconstured info there, im playing a steel dragon not silver who is spending one of his lives as a bard. And again all these examples i am puttin there is not how i am actually playing the charecter its for discussion pourposes, as far as the personality affecting the dragon no that is the point of them mostly they can be a murderous thief in one life and a paragon in the next. they never forget there a dragon yes but they are disconnected while deep diving. I from day one didnt want the dragon aspect of the charecter to come into play at all unless the bard's life was going to end or if he was going to soul bond with some one who would learn his true form. so when the dm is having issue with my bard for reasons of the dragon then that lket me to dicuss it with you guys. I am not saying once again that a player should be able to do what they want when they want to and ignore everything about the game and other plkayers, i am saying players should be able to do what they want to when they want to as long as it still fits into the logic of there charecter. That and there allignment shouldnt be something religiousley looked at for the on paper word by word rulings on what you can and cant do just because you fall under said specific allignment
OK well, you've got me on the steel dragon. I've never even heard of that one before. I don't know enough about them to comment on their "lives" or any of that.
I from day one didnt want the dragon aspect of the charecter to come into play at all unless the bard's life was going to end or...
Again, I ask, if you didn't really want the dragon thing to come into play at all (or mostly at all, barring death or similar), why make up the concept at all? I don't understand why a player would make up a character concept that they didn't want to come into play.
It'd be like the guy in my campaign who has a character whose mother abandoned him as a child (in his background) and who is perpetually looking for her (in his background and journal entries), but then if I have her show up, he says to me "I never actually wanted his mother to come into play at all." Then why did he put it into his background?
If you don't want to RP anything about the fact that you used to be a dragon, why make up a character who used to be a dragon?
Sorry, I guess I am just not understanding this at all. Maybe partly because I've never heard of steel dragons and don't know anything about them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Im not sure what you mean, i havnt implied that i dont think the things done in the campaign shouldnt have consequences its the dm implying out of game that i am playing incorrectly. And as far as do i think that would be rail roading? Absolutley lol it doesent matter to me if i decide to kill a town of ppl(wouldnt do this its a dick move)but if i did so for reasoning that fit campaign logical choices like say a plague was taking the town and to stop it that was the route i took and i was then just killed off off screen then i would take that personally even, im not saying that if for example a player ergo me were to run into a town and just for the fun of it start wrecking stuff and did so for no other reason then my own enjoyment with no concern of others then yes the dm can absolutely make that call and should proabby remove me as a player but in an instance where i make a call that the gm just doesent agree with but do so logically in game and i still get punished for it then no thats absolutely railroading
Logically to you does not automatically mean logically to the DM. And mere alignment change means nothing, since there are no consequences to merely having a different alignment. You have not given any context here. Your character has killed and robbed people. Was that really 'to prevent a plague' or equivalent? Or is that just a straw man on your part?
If you find yourself disagreeing with the DM regularly on basic campaign design philosophy, you likely should consider finding a different campaign.
its for discussion pourposes, obviusley i dont play like a murderhobo, not sure whats consufing but again im not saying i have a problem with my allignemtn being changed, if i do something in game that is an evil act for good or bad reasons doesent matter then my allignment may be affected if the gm deems it necesary and id have no issue with that. the issue is the multiple convorsations where im told my specific dragon of that type wouldnt act this or that way cuz of allignment and such and though i agree that a silver dragon for example wouldnt act that way if you follow the lore and allignemtn by the book but whos to say you cant play a rogue version, i mean look at deathwing from the wow lore/game he wasnt im sure your standard black flight type. tons of good stories are about the good guy going bad and the new good guy stopping said new bad guy. Again im not doing this its just an example that just because your nature at birth is one thing doesent mean you are adamantly just that, its super one dimensional story telling to think that way
You still have not explained why you, as a player, wanted to play a steel dragon turned bard in another life (or is it silver? you've said both, and I still don't know what a steel dragon is), rather than just playing a normal bard. Additionally you have not answered the even more significant question of why you wanted to do that but then, apparently, not do any RP about it. This part still doesn't make any sense to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I liked the idea of it, the chances it would open up for rp i felt would be interesting, like say he dies in a boss fight and where his body is an unconsious dragon is laying now, granted he would leave after that but the party has no idea that hes a dragon at this point and thats what is fun to me its the chance for good rp
I'm going to ask what seems to be both a very important and a very stupid question.
What, exactly, is a Steel Dragon? Can you link us to the homebrew? Or if it's your own, give us the details? Because this seems to be a critical component to your problem, and we can't provide advice for you without it. But you're actively withholding that information, after having been asked twice to provide it.
Not exactly what has been asked for, but still very helpful to capture the fantasy you're looking for and explain what a Steel Dragon is.
"Steel Dragons are True Neutral"
Base on your examples, this factoid means your DM cannot be upset by your normal Bardish behavior, this suggests they are upset for another reason.
~8:15: "Guise Empowerment. After 1 month of attunement to the current Polymorphed form, the Human body benefits from all the inherent strengths of the Dragon body... This makes it's skin as hard as it's original form's scales. It can lift or carry with all the vigor of it's dragon form."
Ok, yeah.... that's dramatically superior to the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer. In other words, you're nearly invulnerable by the standards of the Humans that you're trying to pass yourself off as.
~9:50 : "Steel Dragons cannot be detected by Divinations as Dragons, even by magical effects specifically designed to specifically detect Dragons."
Well, that certainly seems incredible. But with the repeated theme of full immersion, that doesn't seem terribly important. It's just a part of passing yourself off as a Human.
~11:43: Steel dragons have 3 alternate ways to use the inherent draconic Frightful Presence ability. Manifestation, which is practically Mass Suggestion. Obscurement, making it difficult for other creatures to detect it, like a Perception Filter from Dr Who, kind of a pretend Invisibility. And Emotion Control, allowing the dragon to incite a riot, or prevent one, which while much more open ended is conceptually similar to Calm Emotions.
And now we're trampling all over the Dragonborn. Not just the Dragonborn, but their Racial Feat for Dragonfear. This is stupidly overpowered for a racial ability for a PC. No wonder your DM is not happy with your character.
Even without looking at actual game statistics, which you still have not provided (I'm assuming you're basing it off of either Human or Variant Human with Guise Empowerment and Frightful Presence?) I can tell that your character is extremely overpowered by comparison. I'm honestly shocked that your DM approved this. Clearly they are somewhat confused by your race, since they seem to think you are a Silver Dragon, which is Lawful Good, rather than the True Neutral that the race actually is. But it would indicate that they think poking at your alignment will in some way weaken your character, or to force them to reconsider the actions of the Human alter they are portraying.
I guess I should as, are you frequently the 'star of the show'? As a Bard you are probably the party Face, which makes the issue of the alternate Frightful Presence uses all the more problematic. But what about in combat? Do you manage to tank while also flitting back and forth as the Support caster which is typical of a Bard? Or did you use your Magical Secrets features to take pure blasting spells, and are obliterating your enemies?
Overall it sounds like this is not actually an alignment problem.
Not doing these specific things but its just for example but you get the picture haha.
Not trying to make this too long, but basically am i approaching allignment incorrectly? Or is said gm taking the allignments to literally?
I think the problem is that the picture isn't clear, so your audience here really can't get it, and it actually gets cloudier as more examples are put forth. You give examples that you disclose didn't actually happen in game, so no one really can assess whether the play (on player's or DM's part) is "appropriate." So sure, you're character wouldn't outright murder someone. But what did your character do that prompted your DM to intervene on how you were playing your character? It sounds like on a meta game level there's a conflict between entropic (chaos) and consistency/integrated (law) characterization preferences. Are you new to this DM's group? How are the other players reacting to the DMs play so far? How do the other players react to your playing style?
You have a very "high concept" character though how the role playing of that character conflicts with the DMs attempt to maintain a consistent world is still unclear. Since there aren't specific game play moments, that reduces this thread to basically "This DM, amiright?" No one can answer you so whatever you're looking for here to bring back to your DM to "win" your conflict or your game table to better your integration into the game may be moot.
My bottom line, so to speak is: alignment is "meaningless" if your game thinks so, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the game group you're in. Alignment is a useful prompt to determine whether the role you're playing is "in line" or "out of line" and it sounds like your DM's interventions are the DM telling you they believe your playing is "out of line." That could be in regards to a character concept you posed to the DM which they approved, or it could be just the a moral/psychological framework where characters regardless of backgrounds behave with a sort of consistency which your playing is disrupting (to either the the detriment of the DM's management of the game or the spirit of the game the DM's trying to establish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not exactly what has been asked for, but still very helpful to capture the fantasy you're looking for and explain what a Steel Dragon is.
"Steel Dragons are True Neutral"
Base on your examples, this factoid means your DM cannot be upset by your normal Bardish behavior, this suggests they are upset for another reason.
~8:15: "Guise Empowerment. After 1 month of attunement to the current Polymorphed form, the Human body benefits from all the inherent strengths of the Dragon body... This makes it's skin as hard as it's original form's scales. It can lift or carry with all the vigor of it's dragon form."
Ok, yeah.... that's dramatically superior to the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer. In other words, you're nearly invulnerable by the standards of the Humans that you're trying to pass yourself off as.
~9:50 : "Steel Dragons cannot be detected by Divinations as Dragons, even by magical effects specifically designed to specifically detect Dragons."
Well, that certainly seems incredible. But with the repeated theme of full immersion, that doesn't seem terribly important. It's just a part of passing yourself off as a Human.
~11:43: Steel dragons have 3 alternate ways to use the inherent draconic Frightful Presence ability. Manifestation, which is practically Mass Suggestion. Obscurement, making it difficult for other creatures to detect it, like a Perception Filter from Dr Who, kind of a pretend Invisibility. And Emotion Control, allowing the dragon to incite a riot, or prevent one, which while much more open ended is conceptually similar to Calm Emotions.
And now we're trampling all over the Dragonborn. Not just the Dragonborn, but their Racial Feat for Dragonfear. This is stupidly overpowered for a racial ability for a PC. No wonder your DM is not happy with your character.
Even without looking at actual game statistics, which you still have not provided (I'm assuming you're basing it off of either Human or Variant Human with Guise Empowerment and Frightful Presence?) I can tell that your character is extremely overpowered by comparison. I'm honestly shocked that your DM approved this. Clearly they are somewhat confused by your race, since they seem to think you are a Silver Dragon, which is Lawful Good, rather than the True Neutral that the race actually is. But it would indicate that they think poking at your alignment will in some way weaken your character, or to force them to reconsider the actions of the Human alter they are portraying.
I guess I should as, are you frequently the 'star of the show'? As a Bard you are probably the party Face, which makes the issue of the alternate Frightful Presence uses all the more problematic. But what about in combat? Do you manage to tank while also flitting back and forth as the Support caster which is typical of a Bard? Or did you use your Magical Secrets features to take pure blasting spells, and are obliterating your enemies?
Overall it sounds like this is not actually an alignment problem.
We homebrewed out all the op parts from him being a dragon cuz i agree they would break a pc, only thing we kept was the breath weapon and his overall lore like the vaulting and the true polymorph stuff, all the stuff with his frightful presence i think would only fit or be useful as an npc and not for a pc. Also i understand that this is a lot of info that was left out, but im not trying to discuss the validity of the charecter in a game, im trying to see if the dm is being to by the book with his approach to allignment. its also really difficult to give concret examples of what he is doing without posting our convorsations which im not exactly comofrtable doing. THe biggest thing is is he is having trouble with the idea of there personalitys being seperate from one another. He thinks the dragon should be affected by what is happening with the life and i do not. this has led to for example yesterday me receiving 3 paragraphs of backstory of personlaity and motives that drive a tiefling vs a steel.
Was the YouTube video the basis for your discussion of incorporating Steel Dragons, or a Steel Dragon into the campaign? Because I didn't sit through a 25 minute video, but googling "dungeons and dragons" and "steel dragon" for stat blocks and expanded articles led to a bunch of stuff from Forgotten Realms wiki, DnD compendia, and plenty of ready to reference (rather than sit through 25 minutes of lore) that proffer steel dragons as being generally Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. From the little to go on as to what went on so far in your game, it sounds like there may have been some talking past each other in the character concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Was the YouTube video the basis for your discussion of incorporating Steel Dragons, or a Steel Dragon into the campaign? Because I didn't sit through a 25 minute video, but googling "dungeons and dragons" and "steel dragon" for stat blocks and expanded articles led to a bunch of stuff from Forgotten Realms wiki, DnD compendia, and plenty of ready to reference (rather than sit through 25 minutes of lore) that proffer steel dragons as being generally Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. From the little to go on as to what went on so far in your game, it sounds like there may have been some talking past each other in the character concept.
The video was just because some one asked about a more comprehensive idea of what steel dragons were and thats the video that got me into wanting to rp one so
Was the YouTube video the basis for your discussion of incorporating Steel Dragons, or a Steel Dragon into the campaign? Because I didn't sit through a 25 minute video, but googling "dungeons and dragons" and "steel dragon" for stat blocks and expanded articles led to a bunch of stuff from Forgotten Realms wiki, DnD compendia, and plenty of ready to reference (rather than sit through 25 minutes of lore) that proffer steel dragons as being generally Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. From the little to go on as to what went on so far in your game, it sounds like there may have been some talking past each other in the character concept.
The video was just because some one asked about a more comprehensive idea of what steel dragons were and thats the video that got me into wanting to rp one so
The larger point you're missing is that it sounds like you and your DM are of very different minds as to what you're character is. It seems, and you bring this up in another thread is this desire to play a steel dragon, generally associated with the other metallic dragons on the order and good side of things, manifested in your player character in a way that the perfect polymorph locks away the steel dragon's moral nature, so that whatever you're playing can be dissociated from whatever code the dragon would otherwise live by were it not in this "other form" (which gets eerily close to psychological concepts of dissocatiation). Anyway, you've mentioned it here and elsewhere a cool role playing hook would be your character dies and then is revealed in its dragon form. That might be cool .. depending on the group dynamics/bonds being currently forged in the group. Going back to the playing 'in line" or "out of line" mode I mentioned in a prior comment, maybe an erratic character that nevertheless endears itself on the rest of the party (which is a pretty challenging thing to do) may get the "whoa" role playing respect if the game goes the death reveal route. However, if you're playing all over the map in a way that doesn't take into an account the dynamic you're creating with the rest of the group, the "grand reveal" may simply get shrugged off as "ok, that happened, moving on now..."
Given hypotheticals, no one can really constructively provide any guidance to the specific issue or point of contention between you and your DM, because we don't know what it is. Best thing is to check in with your group in a "so how is this working?" type of check in that good long standing game groups will do from time to time to make sure everyone is actually enjoying the game on the same level.
Was the YouTube video the basis for your discussion of incorporating Steel Dragons, or a Steel Dragon into the campaign? Because I didn't sit through a 25 minute video, but googling "dungeons and dragons" and "steel dragon" for stat blocks and expanded articles led to a bunch of stuff from Forgotten Realms wiki, DnD compendia, and plenty of ready to reference (rather than sit through 25 minutes of lore) that proffer steel dragons as being generally Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. From the little to go on as to what went on so far in your game, it sounds like there may have been some talking past each other in the character concept.
The video was just because some one asked about a more comprehensive idea of what steel dragons were and thats the video that got me into wanting to rp one so
You were asked both what a Steel Dragon is, because nobody in the thread even knew what it was (which you have provided), and you were asked for what rules you are using to play your character (which you still have not provided).
And now you're telling us that a dragon, Polymorphing itself into a Human, who has the core tenet of it's behavior tied to never letting other Humans find out it's actually a Dragon, has the ability to use a Breath Weapon attack........ I think I can see where your DM is having multiple problems with your character at this point. And it sounds like we can't help you. Or your DM, who sounds like they really need it.
I liked the idea of it, the chances it would open up for rp i felt would be interesting, like say he dies in a boss fight and where his body is an unconsious dragon is laying now, granted he would leave after that but the party has no idea that hes a dragon at this point and thats what is fun to me its the chance for good rp
How is it "opening up chances for RP" if all it's going to do is be a big reveal and after that he leaves the party? Once he leaves you can't RP him, so that's not opening up chances for RP. And you've made clear throughout this thread that you don't want to have anything to do with the dragon's personality in the RP of the bard while he's alive.
So from where I sit, using my DM cap, it seems like you want to play a relatively normal-seeming bard who, in the even that he dies, you can do something cool and awesome. The thing is, if you aren't playing him with any hints that this is coming, when it happens, the other players are going to feel like it just came out of nowhere and are probably not going to react with the "oh cool!" reaction you are expecting.
I also find it a little odd that one would build a hook for a character that would only be used for a couple of minutes on that character's death and otherwise at no other time. It's almost like you made up the character on purpose hoping he'll die so you can do the big reveal. After all, if he never dies and the campaign gets to level 20 and ends with him still alive as a bard, by your own description of how you want to play it, no one in your group but you and the DM would ever know it, and since the DM already knows, he can't be surprised. So there'd be no point to that, which makes it seem like you are actually hoping, perhaps planning, for him to die just so you can "shock and awe" your gaming table.
This makes it seem to me like you are just doing all this to impress your friends rather than because it is an interesting concept to RP while the character is still actually alive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey guys i am currently playing in a campaign and i just have a question. the dm of my current campaign is seeming to have issue with how i am playing my charecter and has pointed out on occasion allignment issues with my choices. Now to start off i do understand that it would make no logical sense for a lawful good palidan to randomly murder a civilian. Obviusly huge counter to the charecter i would be playing as. But i do however play dnd and look at dnd as a game where people should have fun and i think the idea of railroading some ones choices based on something like allignment(huge grey area when talking about morality first off) isnt a really fun way to approach the game. Whats happening in the game is basically im playing a homebrew gm okd version of a silver dragon who has done one of his lives as a playful lustful bard. now in and of them selves the decsions ive made are spot on with the motives of each specific charecter but the whole idea is the dragons personality is completely seperate from the charecter he plays as. THe gm im playing with is having issue after a few sessions because he thinks that if for example my bard kills some one or steals something for example it should affect the dragons conscience. Not doing these specific things but its just for example but you get the picture haha.
Not trying to make this too long, but basically am i approaching allignment incorrectly? Or is said gm taking the allignments to literally?
Alignment can change over the course of a campaign based on your character's actions. Your DM should be thinking less about trying to twinge your character's conscience (which really doesn't mean anything), and more thinking about what alignment your character should really be.
For example, let's say that you're playing a character who is lawful good, who decides to kill an innocent person for no good reason (not saying you have done this, this is just an example). There are three ways the DM could handle this situation:
1: Say that you're simply not allowed to kill an innocent person.
2: Allow you to kill the innocent person, but warn you that it's against character alignment. If local authorities find out, it's also near-certain that they'll be coming after your character.
3: Allow you to kill the innocent person, and change your alignment from lawful good to lawful neutral (or perhaps even lawful evil). If local authorities find out, it's also near-certain that they'll be coming after your character.
In my opinion, option 1 is the worst option, because it takes away your agency as a player. At the end of the day, you are free to make whatever decision you want for your character (barring any pre-established agreements with the table), but you aren't free from the consequences of your actions.
Option 3 would be the most sensible option for the DM. It allows you to keep your agency, while still giving realistic consequences (both in an alignment sense, and a story sense).
I completely agree with you @craftyard on the option 3, thats how i run my games.It just in this situation it feels like im being pushed towards decisions and such, A far as what you were saying @kotath , i understand its not standard thats why i had mentioned it was ok'd home brew by the gm, i also understand that he is perfectly welcome to force his players down certain choice paths but that in my opinion is a bad dm, not saying hes a bad dm but yea
Im not sure what you mean, i havnt implied that i dont think the things done in the campaign shouldnt have consequences its the dm implying out of game that i am playing incorrectly. And as far as do i think that would be rail roading? Absolutley lol it doesent matter to me if i decide to kill a town of ppl(wouldnt do this its a dick move)but if i did so for reasoning that fit campaign logical choices like say a plague was taking the town and to stop it that was the route i took and i was then just killed off off screen then i would take that personally even, im not saying that if for example a player ergo me were to run into a town and just for the fun of it start wrecking stuff and did so for no other reason then my own enjoyment with no concern of others then yes the dm can absolutely make that call and should proabby remove me as a player but in an instance where i make a call that the gm just doesent agree with but do so logically in game and i still get punished for it then no thats absolutely railroading
I am confused, part 1. Are you playing a reincarnated Silver Dragon who is now a Bard? Or are you playing a Silver Dragon who has shapeshifted into a Bard to live among humanity?
I'm confused, part 2. You complain the DM is "railroading" you but your original example is that, "for example my bard kills some one or steals something for example it should affect the dragons conscience." To me this is not railroading -- it is interpretation. Some of this may depend on your answer to part 1, but, it sounds like somehow your character has a split personality (?), with a Silver Dragon personality somehow conscious but unable to control the Bard personality. (Again... ????). If that is the case, then I absolutely agree with your DM, that logically, a LG Silver Dragon who in the rules are called Dragons of Virtue, stating "believe that living a moral life involves doing good deeds and ensuring that one’s actions cause no undeserved harm to other sentient beings", would absolutely be unhappy with watching his own body (again???), do things that cause harm to other sentient beings.
In fact, my question to you as DM would be, why did you bother making up a Silver Dragon-turned-Human Bard, if you were NOT going to play up the inner conflict of the LG dragon personality disliking the CN (or whatever) Bard behavior? What is the point of having this in your backstory if you're not going to RP it? It sounds like you wanted to do it just because it "sounds cool" but then you don't want to RP any of the logical consequences that would arise from your own character concept. And it sounds like your DM is trying to force you to make your character grapple with these factors, which your character, based on the (very confusing, to me) concept you originally stated, should be grappling with.
I mean if you just wanted to make up a bard who could steal and kill with impunity and not have to RP being upset about the consequences, why on Toril didn't you just make up a regular human or elven bard, instead of making up a former Silver Dragon, who is the sort of being that would detest this type of behavior? It makes no sense to me that one would build this kind of character design and then chafe when told he can't ignore his own design.
It is NOT railroading for the DM to require yo to play out the concept YOU created. It'd be like saying you didn't like it that the DM is railroading you by forcing you to be proficient with a skill before letting you make a roll for it. That's not railroading... it's enforcing the integrity of the campaign world (and your character design).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Sorry missconstured info there, im playing a steel dragon not silver who is spending one of his lives as a bard. And again all these examples i am puttin there is not how i am actually playing the charecter its for discussion pourposes, as far as the personality affecting the dragon no that is the point of them mostly they can be a murderous thief in one life and a paragon in the next. they never forget there a dragon yes but they are disconnected while deep diving. I from day one didnt want the dragon aspect of the charecter to come into play at all unless the bard's life was going to end or if he was going to soul bond with some one who would learn his true form. so when the dm is having issue with my bard for reasons of the dragon then that lket me to dicuss it with you guys. I am not saying once again that a player should be able to do what they want when they want to and ignore everything about the game and other plkayers, i am saying players should be able to do what they want to when they want to as long as it still fits into the logic of there charecter. That and there allignment shouldnt be something religiousley looked at for the on paper word by word rulings on what you can and cant do just because you fall under said specific allignment
OK well, you've got me on the steel dragon. I've never even heard of that one before. I don't know enough about them to comment on their "lives" or any of that.
Again, I ask, if you didn't really want the dragon thing to come into play at all (or mostly at all, barring death or similar), why make up the concept at all? I don't understand why a player would make up a character concept that they didn't want to come into play.
It'd be like the guy in my campaign who has a character whose mother abandoned him as a child (in his background) and who is perpetually looking for her (in his background and journal entries), but then if I have her show up, he says to me "I never actually wanted his mother to come into play at all." Then why did he put it into his background?
If you don't want to RP anything about the fact that you used to be a dragon, why make up a character who used to be a dragon?
Sorry, I guess I am just not understanding this at all. Maybe partly because I've never heard of steel dragons and don't know anything about them.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
its for discussion pourposes, obviusley i dont play like a murderhobo, not sure whats consufing but again im not saying i have a problem with my allignemtn being changed, if i do something in game that is an evil act for good or bad reasons doesent matter then my allignment may be affected if the gm deems it necesary and id have no issue with that. the issue is the multiple convorsations where im told my specific dragon of that type wouldnt act this or that way cuz of allignment and such and though i agree that a silver dragon for example wouldnt act that way if you follow the lore and allignemtn by the book but whos to say you cant play a rogue version, i mean look at deathwing from the wow lore/game he wasnt im sure your standard black flight type. tons of good stories are about the good guy going bad and the new good guy stopping said new bad guy. Again im not doing this its just an example that just because your nature at birth is one thing doesent mean you are adamantly just that, its super one dimensional story telling to think that way
You still have not explained why you, as a player, wanted to play a steel dragon turned bard in another life (or is it silver? you've said both, and I still don't know what a steel dragon is), rather than just playing a normal bard. Additionally you have not answered the even more significant question of why you wanted to do that but then, apparently, not do any RP about it. This part still doesn't make any sense to me.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I liked the idea of it, the chances it would open up for rp i felt would be interesting, like say he dies in a boss fight and where his body is an unconsious dragon is laying now, granted he would leave after that but the party has no idea that hes a dragon at this point and thats what is fun to me its the chance for good rp
I'm going to ask what seems to be both a very important and a very stupid question.
What, exactly, is a Steel Dragon? Can you link us to the homebrew? Or if it's your own, give us the details? Because this seems to be a critical component to your problem, and we can't provide advice for you without it. But you're actively withholding that information, after having been asked twice to provide it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2BO-LtoMgs&t=2s
Wasnt my intention to withold info i just dont know how much other people know and i dont wanna come off like a leetist with lore and such
Not exactly what has been asked for, but still very helpful to capture the fantasy you're looking for and explain what a Steel Dragon is.
"Steel Dragons are True Neutral"
Base on your examples, this factoid means your DM cannot be upset by your normal Bardish behavior, this suggests they are upset for another reason.
~8:15: "Guise Empowerment. After 1 month of attunement to the current Polymorphed form, the Human body benefits from all the inherent strengths of the Dragon body... This makes it's skin as hard as it's original form's scales. It can lift or carry with all the vigor of it's dragon form."
Ok, yeah.... that's dramatically superior to the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer. In other words, you're nearly invulnerable by the standards of the Humans that you're trying to pass yourself off as.
~9:50 : "Steel Dragons cannot be detected by Divinations as Dragons, even by magical effects specifically designed to specifically detect Dragons."
Well, that certainly seems incredible. But with the repeated theme of full immersion, that doesn't seem terribly important. It's just a part of passing yourself off as a Human.
~11:43: Steel dragons have 3 alternate ways to use the inherent draconic Frightful Presence ability. Manifestation, which is practically Mass Suggestion. Obscurement, making it difficult for other creatures to detect it, like a Perception Filter from Dr Who, kind of a pretend Invisibility. And Emotion Control, allowing the dragon to incite a riot, or prevent one, which while much more open ended is conceptually similar to Calm Emotions.
And now we're trampling all over the Dragonborn. Not just the Dragonborn, but their Racial Feat for Dragonfear. This is stupidly overpowered for a racial ability for a PC. No wonder your DM is not happy with your character.
Even without looking at actual game statistics, which you still have not provided (I'm assuming you're basing it off of either Human or Variant Human with Guise Empowerment and Frightful Presence?) I can tell that your character is extremely overpowered by comparison. I'm honestly shocked that your DM approved this. Clearly they are somewhat confused by your race, since they seem to think you are a Silver Dragon, which is Lawful Good, rather than the True Neutral that the race actually is. But it would indicate that they think poking at your alignment will in some way weaken your character, or to force them to reconsider the actions of the Human alter they are portraying.
I guess I should as, are you frequently the 'star of the show'? As a Bard you are probably the party Face, which makes the issue of the alternate Frightful Presence uses all the more problematic. But what about in combat? Do you manage to tank while also flitting back and forth as the Support caster which is typical of a Bard? Or did you use your Magical Secrets features to take pure blasting spells, and are obliterating your enemies?
Overall it sounds like this is not actually an alignment problem.
I think the problem is that the picture isn't clear, so your audience here really can't get it, and it actually gets cloudier as more examples are put forth. You give examples that you disclose didn't actually happen in game, so no one really can assess whether the play (on player's or DM's part) is "appropriate." So sure, you're character wouldn't outright murder someone. But what did your character do that prompted your DM to intervene on how you were playing your character? It sounds like on a meta game level there's a conflict between entropic (chaos) and consistency/integrated (law) characterization preferences. Are you new to this DM's group? How are the other players reacting to the DMs play so far? How do the other players react to your playing style?
You have a very "high concept" character though how the role playing of that character conflicts with the DMs attempt to maintain a consistent world is still unclear. Since there aren't specific game play moments, that reduces this thread to basically "This DM, amiright?" No one can answer you so whatever you're looking for here to bring back to your DM to "win" your conflict or your game table to better your integration into the game may be moot.
My bottom line, so to speak is: alignment is "meaningless" if your game thinks so, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the game group you're in. Alignment is a useful prompt to determine whether the role you're playing is "in line" or "out of line" and it sounds like your DM's interventions are the DM telling you they believe your playing is "out of line." That could be in regards to a character concept you posed to the DM which they approved, or it could be just the a moral/psychological framework where characters regardless of backgrounds behave with a sort of consistency which your playing is disrupting (to either the the detriment of the DM's management of the game or the spirit of the game the DM's trying to establish.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
We homebrewed out all the op parts from him being a dragon cuz i agree they would break a pc, only thing we kept was the breath weapon and his overall lore like the vaulting and the true polymorph stuff, all the stuff with his frightful presence i think would only fit or be useful as an npc and not for a pc. Also i understand that this is a lot of info that was left out, but im not trying to discuss the validity of the charecter in a game, im trying to see if the dm is being to by the book with his approach to allignment. its also really difficult to give concret examples of what he is doing without posting our convorsations which im not exactly comofrtable doing. THe biggest thing is is he is having trouble with the idea of there personalitys being seperate from one another. He thinks the dragon should be affected by what is happening with the life and i do not. this has led to for example yesterday me receiving 3 paragraphs of backstory of personlaity and motives that drive a tiefling vs a steel.
Was the YouTube video the basis for your discussion of incorporating Steel Dragons, or a Steel Dragon into the campaign? Because I didn't sit through a 25 minute video, but googling "dungeons and dragons" and "steel dragon" for stat blocks and expanded articles led to a bunch of stuff from Forgotten Realms wiki, DnD compendia, and plenty of ready to reference (rather than sit through 25 minutes of lore) that proffer steel dragons as being generally Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. From the little to go on as to what went on so far in your game, it sounds like there may have been some talking past each other in the character concept.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The video was just because some one asked about a more comprehensive idea of what steel dragons were and thats the video that got me into wanting to rp one so
The larger point you're missing is that it sounds like you and your DM are of very different minds as to what you're character is. It seems, and you bring this up in another thread is this desire to play a steel dragon, generally associated with the other metallic dragons on the order and good side of things, manifested in your player character in a way that the perfect polymorph locks away the steel dragon's moral nature, so that whatever you're playing can be dissociated from whatever code the dragon would otherwise live by were it not in this "other form" (which gets eerily close to psychological concepts of dissocatiation). Anyway, you've mentioned it here and elsewhere a cool role playing hook would be your character dies and then is revealed in its dragon form. That might be cool .. depending on the group dynamics/bonds being currently forged in the group. Going back to the playing 'in line" or "out of line" mode I mentioned in a prior comment, maybe an erratic character that nevertheless endears itself on the rest of the party (which is a pretty challenging thing to do) may get the "whoa" role playing respect if the game goes the death reveal route. However, if you're playing all over the map in a way that doesn't take into an account the dynamic you're creating with the rest of the group, the "grand reveal" may simply get shrugged off as "ok, that happened, moving on now..."
Given hypotheticals, no one can really constructively provide any guidance to the specific issue or point of contention between you and your DM, because we don't know what it is. Best thing is to check in with your group in a "so how is this working?" type of check in that good long standing game groups will do from time to time to make sure everyone is actually enjoying the game on the same level.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You were asked both what a Steel Dragon is, because nobody in the thread even knew what it was (which you have provided), and you were asked for what rules you are using to play your character (which you still have not provided).
And now you're telling us that a dragon, Polymorphing itself into a Human, who has the core tenet of it's behavior tied to never letting other Humans find out it's actually a Dragon, has the ability to use a Breath Weapon attack........ I think I can see where your DM is having multiple problems with your character at this point. And it sounds like we can't help you. Or your DM, who sounds like they really need it.
How is it "opening up chances for RP" if all it's going to do is be a big reveal and after that he leaves the party? Once he leaves you can't RP him, so that's not opening up chances for RP. And you've made clear throughout this thread that you don't want to have anything to do with the dragon's personality in the RP of the bard while he's alive.
So from where I sit, using my DM cap, it seems like you want to play a relatively normal-seeming bard who, in the even that he dies, you can do something cool and awesome. The thing is, if you aren't playing him with any hints that this is coming, when it happens, the other players are going to feel like it just came out of nowhere and are probably not going to react with the "oh cool!" reaction you are expecting.
I also find it a little odd that one would build a hook for a character that would only be used for a couple of minutes on that character's death and otherwise at no other time. It's almost like you made up the character on purpose hoping he'll die so you can do the big reveal. After all, if he never dies and the campaign gets to level 20 and ends with him still alive as a bard, by your own description of how you want to play it, no one in your group but you and the DM would ever know it, and since the DM already knows, he can't be surprised. So there'd be no point to that, which makes it seem like you are actually hoping, perhaps planning, for him to die just so you can "shock and awe" your gaming table.
This makes it seem to me like you are just doing all this to impress your friends rather than because it is an interesting concept to RP while the character is still actually alive.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.