thread: 2012-12-07 : Positioning: Legitimacy and Occult Co-ownership
On 2012-12-07, TMC wrote:
Vincent, are there differing levels of dysfunction when it comes to "When you say that your character does something, no, she doesn't. Not until every person at the table agrees that she's done it" during play? Let me give you a for instance, one I'm not too proud of.
The game was D&D 3.5. I was playing an elvish blade-singer, another player had a centaur druid. There were 6 players and 1 DM total. The player of the centaur had been annoying me and the other players by playing his character totally inconsistent with what the group had previously established. He began to love the undead. His actions fit a more lawful evil character than a true neutral character and so on.
We talked to him about alignment shifts and multi-classing his character. He refused to entertain the idea. Eventually it hit a boiling point, where I decided to force a conflict between my character and his. This resulted in a dual between us my character's stats easily overwhelmed his. The cleric resurrected the centaur, and then we had a discussion about what happened.
The player of the centaur up front said the he was going to pretend the dual never happened. We agreed that was fine for him, but the rest of us would remember and reference it as necessary. And the DM did enforce the stat penalties for the resurection. The campaign went on from there and concluded in a satisfactory way for all of us.
So how would a situation like that square with the lumpley principal? Not everyone at the table agreed to what happened. So did it happen? How dysfunctional was it? Is it possible for everyone to not agree but still continue playing?
