In a game we are playing once aweek we have a fairly new player that has taken to the idea if its cool idea it can happen. I agree to a point so heres the back story.

Our group consists of a goliath barbarian, tiefling warlock, and me a human/ dragonborn/human blood hunter. Early on my guy got cursed by a vampire that we stubled across and so when we got to a mage college the head mistress there killed me and brought me back as a dragon born. In the campain world there was a dragon war and the dragonborn secreted away. Add to that there a racial divide among some humans fun times ensue. So my party decides later they are tired of hearing me complain about being a dragonborn so she kills me  again and im human again. Weve ran across were creatures and a group of mercenaries came with us and they were all were creatures. After combat one turned and i killed it and the party attacked me. The new player is wanting to make it his mission to become a werecreature and save the other were creatures from the blood hunters to convert them to his god. I am arguing no blood hunter would do this given the class lore posted on dnd beyond. He argues i should do what he wants because we are in a party and i should want to help him acomplish this.

I should add that the debate is steming from the class description that i am following and him wanting to change the entire nature of the lore so he can do this one cool thing. I said it would be cool and more than likely i would help if i wasnt a blood hunter. He wants me to see them as human and just go along because there maybe a population that is good.

Don't you have a character? Why on earth are you trying to tell someone else how to play theirs?

The Lore is what the DM says it is, and allows it to be, hopefully with input and feedback from the Party. The Lore isn't some holy writ from Wizards of the Coast.

If the Player wants to explore this possibility, and the DM is OK with it - that's their business. If your Character would disagree, then it becomes a point of internal Party conflict - and in the hands of mature players and a good DM, that can add to the story, if not allowed to blow out of control.

I have no idea what class this new Player has for their Character - you're not clear on that point - but even if they were playing a Bloodhunter, their choices just become a possible source of conflict between them and other Bloodhunters ( oh look, more story possibilities ).

Personally, I love new Players wanting to try out "cool things" - it shakes the veteran Players up, and reminds the Party that just because a way to approach a problem - or a story - is the traditional way, it's not the only way.

Hes playing a goliath barbarian. Im playing the blood hunter. My whole issue has been i have been playing by what the lore on the site is because it wasnt expressed there was any changes. If it had been brought up before now it would be easier for me to wrap my head around. I dont tell him how to play his barbarbarian but everyone saying that blood hunters should try a diplomatic approach.our dm is wont make the descion and i know for a fact if i pulled this stunt my players would crucify me.

I don’t understand how a player is calling the shots. The DM is the  One that will set out the rules. It is not for one player to determine how another  player will run their character.  You run your character and let the other person run their own character. If the DM allows for such a variance to exist, then roll with it. It sounds as if you were not enjoying the game. If that is the case, I question why play?

If your character disagrees with the choices his character is making - that's internal Party conflict, and possible source of story within the game. So long as you're mature about it, and the DM is OK with it, then it can actually be a positive thing and add interest to the story line.

If you as a player disagrees with the choices another player is making about their character, then it's really none of your business - and likewise, it's none of the business of the other players what you do with your character. The only other player at the table you need to have an agreement with regarding your choices regarding your Character, is the DM - and that's the only other person at the table that he needs to have an agreement with regarding his character.

It matters 0% whether or not you can "wrap your head around it". If you feel he is being granted more creative freedom in his choices that you believe you are being granted - and that's the vibe I'm getting from your posts - then check with your DM and exercise a little more creative freedom with your character. If the the other players give you grief about it, tell them to stuff it :p

Its what were at the dm says he doesnt want to make a decision cause it may or may not happen. The rest of the party wants to do it cause they feel it stops a conflict thats not even a real conflict. I went to the dm twice about it.

 And got the same answer of not maki g a desion. My whole poi t was its a major change to what weve been told about the world. I appriciate the feed back.

Sorry - it just sounds like you want people to tell you that you're right about not liking what the other player is doing. I can't agree with that.

Quote from Vedexent >>

Sorry - it just sounds like you want people to tell you that you're right about not liking what the other player is doing. I can't agree with that.

 No i legit thought i was playing the character right. But like i said ill do what the party wants even if it gets my guy killed.

Just ask the DM if "Some were-creatures not being evil" is "a know fact in the world." If the answer is anything but yes, do what your character was trained to do.

Quote from Vedexent >>

Sorry - it just sounds like you want people to tell you that you're right about not liking what the other player is doing. I can't agree with that.

 Actually it is the opposite. A different player is telling him that his monster hunting character should try being diplomatic with the monsters.

But remember, you aren’t there to be the sacrifice. If you aren’t having fun, why play? There are a ton of other games going on.

Basically but im done arguing with them on why it makes sense. Im going to do it there way but i have a feeling that my guys gonna get killed again

Quote from DxJxC >>

Quote from Vedexent >>

Sorry - it just sounds like you want people to tell you that you're right about not liking what the other player is doing. I can't agree with that.

 Actually it is the opposite. A different player is telling him that his monster hunting character should try being diplomatic with the monsters.

Hmmm - I definitely misinterpreted that.

In any case - whether it's the new Player telling the OP Player what their Character should be doing, or the OP Player telling the new Player what they should be doing with their Character, or both, no Player should be butting in with someone else's Character - although that's a different thing again from the Character telling the other Character what they think they should do.

In short, my stance is: leave other Players' choices about their Characters alone, tell other people to butt out about your choices regarding your Character ( with the possible exception of the DM ), and play your Character true to their internal motivations and beliefs.

I initially thought the DM was falling asleep at the switch here, but if this is a Character-to-Character dispute, then I can see him letting them work it out between themselves.

From my understanding of the lore of the blodhunters is that they harness the powers of evil and dark magics to a certain degree, to use against those same powers of evil. There is the blood hunter subclass Order of the Lycan, that is all about harnessing the power of the were creature lycanthropic curse. However, the different orders don't always get along with eachother, so your order may really despise the lycans.

But really the established lore doesn't really mean anything and you and your dm and fellow players can just make up your ownthat better fits your world.

Basically im fine with that but lile i told them this a major class diviation. If i did that after you hit level 7 and your entire underdstandi g of the class has now changed.it just kills my drive to play an interesting character

I play because it is FUN! Don’t let one bad apple ruin your imagination on interesting characters. If the current group isn’t good for this creativity, then find another group. You don’t have to abandon the current group, just use more stock characters on this one.

I was told reroll at anytime. The dm said post it here see what comunity consenses was. I like the character but given whats happened if my guy said we should parlay with the werecreatures they might shoot you

Quote from Ravenofpoe >>

Basically im fine with that but lile i told them this a major class diviation. If i did that after you hit level 7 and your entire underdstandi g of the class has now changed.it just kills my drive to play an interesting character

I think you're being a bit dogmatic/over dramatic here. Let me explain what I mean. 

The class descriptions are not anything that all players are bound to follow. You keep saying that you thought you were playing the character 'correctly'. But there is no 'correct', because if you and your DM want to change something about Blood Hunters, you are free to do that. A class description cannot possible take into account every single opinion that anyone who is a member of the class would have about every subject. They are broad, sweeping generalizations. Not all Blood Hunters think or act the same, anymore than all Rogues think and act the same, or all Fighters. Two people of the same class may wildly disagree about how to go about doing their jobs. Think of your character as a person, not a stereotype that is entirely defined by 5 paragraphs of text.

For example, if someone wanted to play a barbarian from a clan that had been 'colonized' and forced to live in cities, but they still secretly kept their clan/tribe traditions and roots even while being also very urban, I would totally let that happen. Why not? The game is still playable if changes like that are made.

So what you're looking at is the following: another player has a cool idea for what he'd like his character to do as a long-term mission. It sounds like the rest of the players and the DM are on board with thinking it's cool. So what you as a player, as a human being (not your character) have to decide is whether you are cool with making some slight changes to the Blood Hunter class in order to go along with this idea that the other players, your group, seem to want to do. Here's the question: would you still find it enjoyable to play a Blood Hunter if it was possibly acceptable for a Blood Hunter to try diplomacy this one time? 

You are free to play the character as not really happy about this, but willing to give it a go. Or as realizing it could be best, but it runs against how he's lived and so he's very conflicted. but you aren't 'incorrectly' playing a Blood Hunter if you decide to do that. No more than you would be 'incorrectly' playing a rogue who wanted to give up his life of crime. In fact...you'd be playing a much more complex and interesting character, rather than a one-note stereotype. Complex characters are always more interesting.

Like i said i was wro g i accept that im willing to do what the party wants though its a 180 to ways hes been played thus far.