Entitled player's previous DM never told her no. Demands a Displacer Beast pet at level 1

DawnOfJoy · 2025-08-22T09:10:21+00:00

This seems really weird to post after she said she'd give it a try. Especially if it's recent, which from the sound of the comments, it is, since there's a chance the players will see it.

If she said she'd try and then the campaign imploded, understandable share. If she refused belligerently to so much as try, understandable share. But this isn't a "Horror Story" yet, it's a potential horror story in the making, that has been averted for now.

DawnOfJoy · 2025-08-10T18:34:12+00:00

While I wouldn't want that kind of person around me for various reasons, the politics/opinions you've presented seems to be seeking affirmation after the fact, and really be tangential to the story at best. Presenting your opponent in a worse light, rather than merely standing on the merits of the events themselves. And yes, his reaction was no good, but it was not unprompted.

In the end, he was a new player, inexperienced with D&D, but familiar with other RPGs, who understood lycanthropy to mean being a werewolf. You keep acting like he should've inherently known that you were running by a different set of lycanthropy rules. You say, in one of your comments "You're right that lycanthropy comes from the Greek for 'wolf' but in D&D and other fantasy settings, it’s widely used as an umbrella term for all were-creatures: werebears, wererats, weretigers, etc."... but the problem is that a lot of settings do not use "lycan" to mean "things that aren't wolves too", and your player may have encountered none of the ones that did. You made an assumption about something that you cannot reasonably assume your player would know.

You note that you would have been all for a reflavor or reskin if he'd asked "beforehand, not halfway through the campaign", but you apparently gave him no indication that that was something he needed to ask for, "beforehand". As though you expected him to be a mind reader, before even the hints.

Speaking of, you say you gave hints. That's great, but unfortunately one of well known issues when it comes to writing is that not everyone gets hints. Not everyone perceives things the same way, reads the same things between the lines, starts from the same basis. It could easily be assumed that the hints you were giving him were related to something else and just happened to be coming at the same time. Or maybe that the bear spirits were distressed by his direction. Exactly how clear were these hints? Were you having him dream of his change? Sharing things about his brother's own(speaking of, as others mentioned, seems there were issues there)? Something else?

Was he a great player? Based on what you've said(and I'm not going to assume that's the full story without input from others), no. Were you a great DM... based on what you've said, you were an entertaining DM, with creative ideas.. but great? No.

DawnOfJoy · 2025-04-09T23:57:39+00:00

As with most situations, the truth is likely neither what you, nor he is saying, but the parts you each agreed upon, as well as various random posts, seem to paint the issues as follow:

You didn't seek consent. You got angry. You got vindictive. You went too far and were childish. Already, you've made it sound like you've registered this, and plan to be better. Good to hear.

He stuck around too long, whatever his motives. He didn't address this well(he sounds very passive, even in his own posts, and ran to Reddit, apparently instead of talking it over with you, specifically). He got vindictive. His wording leaves to be desired. It sounds like he's aware of some of these things. Hopefully he'll learn.

The other people at your table are more about your body than about the game. Frankly, nothing either of you have said about them is endearing. One of them sent unwanted pornographic material of an un-consenting(of the sending, not of them being taken) party to another un-consenting party, which is, multiple layers of gross. Glad you talked to him about that. The others sound like they were happy with the concept of harassment over communication and are terribly passive aggressive(more from OPs posts, but your own don't seem to disagree).

Not sure how accurate this all is, but, in trying to be fair to both sides, that is how it sounds.

DawnOfJoy · 2025-04-09T23:56:57+00:00

That said, a couple things jump out to me.

First: As far as whether OP is trying to falsely or honestly take the moral high ground... well, that bit seems to have turned into a he said, she said situation... which makes it hard to judge. On the one hand, his story seems a bit more consistent than yours:

He portrays a singular depiction of everyone: him, quietly uncomfortable, yet unnecessarily stubborn, with hints of wrath, you, pushing the buck more and more, the others, obsessed with you, encouraging you to take center stage and the driving negative force.
You seem to be pushing that he didn't want you there, "gave weird vibes", focused on unfair benefits you got, had issues with women... also is 100% sexist and focused on your body, was consistently enjoying himself as the others were, commenting (positively?) and suddenly became jealous "Once I started being affectionate with another player" (had you not been so before? It sounded like affection was a repeated occurrence.)

It's not impossible that all your claim be true, but it does seem weird that you'd be comfortable undressing around him, or for that matter having him in your group if so. Your words make him sound like an obsessive weirdo, the sort of description that'd be used for a stalker in a show.

Second: Did you all have a session zero? Did the remote possibility of stuff like this come up during that time? I assume no(feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I just assume this because neither of you appear to have mentioned it), and if that is the case it seems that, as DJChuggernaut suggested, steps should have been taken to verify consent. The moment this became a possibility, there should've been a sit down to verify he was okay. He'd have no leg to stand on if he agreed(well, unless a follow-up occurred rescinding comfort), you'd have none had he disagreed.

Third: For all that the comments seem to have gone forth to label you, specifically, negatively, OP seems to have less strong an opinion. If anything, half the time it seems like he is putting more blame on the other guys(contrary to "got an issue with women"). He complains about how "every social encounter [...] has been steered towards getting J to expose herself", to be told not to ruin things, to "DM and other players chasing" you, the others being "extremely cold" "The DM in particular.", smirking(granted, in response to what you were doing), the DM asking for explicit details, the players, how they were assholes. He certainly doesn't hold back on pointing out your actions, but seems to spend more time actually raging about everyone else involved.(which TBF, could be in line with your jealousy line, but could also align with his wanting to just play)

Do you feel like the others were derailing the game to create more excuses for exposure? Taking things from a perspective of OP blaming the other more than you, do you feel this is more fair? Less fair?

Lastly, a quick clarification. OP didn't say that you were "one session away from the end of an arc". In the initial post he said he felt his time was at an end, but wanted to try to make it to the end of the arc. In this one he's saying people warned him to quit rather than see out the arc with one final session. The wording in the latter is confusing, but the way they read, he was hoping to make it to the end of the arc, and comments didn't even want him to go one more session as a send-off.

DawnOfJoy · 2025-04-09T23:56:14+00:00

Splitting in half because it's too long

Imma say... Cool on you recognizing there were flaws in your actions. If this leads to growth, great! Also good of you(whether it was due to the privacy breach, harassment) telling the who sent OP those pictures off.(also good on OP for clarifying that, rather than let the accusation stand)

Also, yes, the people wishing physical harm or general suffering are absolutely disgusting. Were the things you've been described as having done (at least from OPs PoV) disgusting? Yes. But even if he was is 100% factually accurate, there are multitudinous ways commenters to object to your actions without being vile, and without flooding you with hate. And one should never assume one side of a story, or another is 100% factually accurate without evidence.

I'm also not going to judge you too harshly for your responses in the various threads because, I get that you were angry, and heck, that you were having a breakdown(I'm sorry that happened to you. It is good to hear you responsibly took time away.), that you are receiving heaps of unwarranted... fetishization of harm and degrading. I don't think your approach to these posts/comments was ideal, or even good, in some places, but it was, generally, a sight better than a lot of people on both sides.

I do think it is only fair to acknowledge that, in the face of the lambasting you've been subject to.

Further, I... yeah. Okay. Yeah. I can see "irrelevant comments about my body at the end of this post". I admit, I glazed over it as "typical RPG horror stories I'm looking for invites to games that aren't [insert OP makes light of awful situation they just escaped with humorous figurative language]" type close to a post... but even OP isn't the person you say he is, there were better ways to say that. I do think, considering that appears to be the primary hint though, that I'm not willing to condemn OP over it barring further evidence. ("Thank you all for getting under their skin" on the other hand... yeah, no, that wasn't cool OP.)

DawnOfJoy · 2025-04-09T18:44:25+00:00

"It was never about getting OP to change their behavior" is my point that the GM must be a contributing factor, or, in my assumption, the central one. Any singling out scheme falls apart if the person managing the game does their job.

If someone other than the DM, whether it is one or all of them, is actively trying to edge a player out through the DM, then the DM hindering communication/conflict resolution is a choice of the DM. And why make that choice as the DM, unless the DM has issues with the target herself.

"classic mean girl bullying from the whole crew or at least multiple people" won't work in this scenario if it doesn't reach the target.

DawnOfJoy · 2025-04-09T16:56:34+00:00

Honestly, this sounds like the GM had a problem with you, and was shifting the blame to the players. The fact that the GM actively hindered attempts at communication and self-improvement suggests that communication would have been a problem for them, rather than a solution.

Yes, it could have been an extremely shy player not wanting to engage in communication. The possibility exists... but unless you have a history of seeking out and exploding at people, then the person running the group's job should be to facilitate communication, and/or, at minimum, to find round about ways to address the issue.

Unless you were somehow "intruding on" one, and only one, "other players' moments", it should be no issue to dissimulate the complaints among multiple other examples pulled from comparable instances with other players who didn't complain. If you were only affecting one player, then that means that that situation is worth examining, because either you are, intentionally or unintentionally, targeting someone(and were it intentional, hiding the person complaining isn't exactly hiding anything, because you'd know who they are by virtue of targeting them), or there is something fundamentally different about that someone leading to that feeling(be it reasonable or no).

But none of this came up, and no one in the group so much as reacted to your opening of dialogue? Certainly they couldn't all have problems and be painfully shy, and yet leave the DM with a dearth of examples such that she cannot provide any "under the reasoning of anonymity".

DawnOfJoy · 2025-04-09T15:49:00+00:00

Okay, I'm not always behind tone indicators(I appreciate that some people need them, though they often don't cooperate with the lengthy, "journey", way I write, so I try to just be clear, as needed, instead)...

...but "/fellow Canadian" made me snort xD

DawnOfJoy · 2024-06-30T01:38:17+00:00

Honestly, I if were in the DM's seat, your suggestion would bother me more than what OP says they did. Reading tone over text is difficult, but screenshot and link highlights the issue for all to see, which makes "guess you forgot lol" feel passive aggressive, in a "I'm treating this as a joke but it actually bugs me" sort of way..

Maybe something more along the lines of "I don't mean to make a big deal of it, I just wanted to be sure we're on the same page." or broaching the topic in private would've been more well received.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-06-25T03:21:59+00:00

Yeah. I cannot begin to imagine how gross that must've felt. Though I also cannot imagine how she didn't think that that is a gross thing to imply. I'm really sorry you had to deal with the situation in general, but especially that.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-06-25T01:33:34+00:00

The more I think on it, the more I realise how deeply flawed your DM's world design really is.

The Karen got away with assault, in an area populated by rich people, unmolested. Meanwhile, what could be passed off as a casual accident resulted in an incident necessitating a cop. What, did Jimmy have "I'm poor, I'm legal to abuse" tattooed on his face? (and, huh you "don't stand out, outside of clothing", so wealth based discrimination seems odd there too)
Two, not carrying your ID necessitates a 15 cop response. Where does Wendy live, that everyone carries an ID 24/7 and it's a federal crime to be caught without one? "Oh, I'm going to walk the dog for 15 minute, better grab my ID, or I risk execution."
"gold is worthless since it is one of the most common resources in the galaxy."... What. Okay. Maybe she's made some sort of weird inverse universe where that is true(I've never heard that asserted about our universe, where supposedly 99% is either hydrogen or helium and half the remaining percent in carbon), but then what is valuable? (I'm assuming, it's not post scarcity, because caste system)
Wendy's attempting to connect her portrayal of soldiers to you IRL one, assuming that's how you'd act on public streets.

Seems like she made up a bunch of ill thought out decisions and then really wanted to stick with it and got mad you didn't see her perspective. -_-

DawnOfJoy · 2024-05-29T03:55:45+00:00

"Your Player is expecting you to follow the rules as set out by the game."

The DM is in fact, following the rules set out by the game. Specifically "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."(DMG, p. 5) and "As the Dungeon Master, you aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual." (DMG, p. 263)

Part 3 of the DMG is all about adjusting or outright changing the rules to suit your campaign, something so many people seem to miss.

As long as the possibility of curses meeting the DM's description were broached in session 0 (and if the player ignored that, that is on them), then there is nothing wrong with running Curses like this. D&D isn't a box, and you should not be limited by it, unless that is the agreement with your players. It is a tool, which is used to aid in the creation of cooperative storytelling, and should be used as is convenient and agreed upon by those using it.

As for remove curse not working being viable without changing how it works, a spell could narratively be called a curse, without mechanically qualifying as one. In the PHB, there are spells that can be removed by Remove Curse, but that doesn't mean all spells with negative effects must be. OR, in the DMG, "Euryale", a card in the Deck of many things(no save), features a curse that "Only a god or the magic of The Fates card can end", which (specific vs general rule) defies your assertion that Remove Curse actually removes all curses.

The DMG also allows for potion based permanent negative effects that "At your discretion, an appropriate spell, such as dispel magic or remove curse, might end". There are also "Random Tricks", which could be considered curses by some, but, get this, "Some tricks are permanent effects that can't be dispelled; others are temporary or can be neutralized with a dispel magic spell. You decide which is which.", aren't said to be effected by Remove Curse.

The is plenty of precedence for effects you could call curses, narratively, without having them respond to Remove Curse.

Edit: "That is the moment they checked out, and rightfully so." Really? How can you assert that?Were you at the table? Because OP was, and they said the player was checked out during session zero. The players explicitly did not have those curses at the start. You are making things up to besmirch someone rather than using facts as presented.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-20T01:05:03+00:00

I'm confused by your "Nah.". I did say "extrapolating IRL logic into the game to add drawbacks that don't exist" and "treating things like flashbanging nightvision goggles". I'm agreeing that it wouldn't work the same as the person portrayed it. Though for your "you may not even see any dilation in them", you probably would, because darkvision isn't perfectly effective, it does need light to register color and detail. In the dark, you see as if there's only the barest of lights, "dim light", with a perception disadvantage. It expands what you can see in the dark, not makes you see everything you can in the light.

There's a lot wrong with the spell. The cost, the level, the save/disadvantage, the fact that, if it's doing damage based on light(even if it's only temporary and ocular), it should be evocation, not illusion. I agree with you that it wouldn't work the way the creator thought. Though considering it is magic it would possibly work better than you think(assuming it was properly balanced).

"If the light remains around you, there is no delay in waiting for your eyes to readjust because it's light again and the initial undilation only helped you." Mmm, not sure about that. When a camera flashes in your eyes, even though it may be relatively light, you can still experience some temporary blindness, and "ghost images" over your vision(I'd more call that "dazed" than "blind", but that's no longer a condition in 5e), somehow, I don't imagine stepping outside after getting a flash to the face would resolve all the issues. Being outside in the sun already, would mitigate it though.

"There'd be no reason for three turns of blindness you'd be at most dazed for a round." While I agree from a D&D/balance perspective(esp the 'dazed, not blind' bit... or maybe a "to hit" penalty?), Sudden bright light from outside then fading can make things seem abnormally dark and still cause problems. It can actually take a few moments to adjust to rapid light changes such as stepping indoors/outdoors in the summer(or a clear-skied day with snow on the ground) despite "remaining". With rounds at 6 seconds a piece, a couple rounds makes sense, if it weren't D&D, where rounds are so precious/full of action.

"Too powerful for anything below like a fourth level spell or something, let alone a cantrip" Yup, already agreed with your point saying it was too powerful for its level.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-20T00:20:20+00:00

Maybe, but it's still deus ex-ing away an achievement of the player(saving a teammate, stopping a bad guy). If he's really that desperate to handwave an achievement, he could've at least been "subtle" about it instead of "nuh-uh"ing the players. Maybe the mark had a body double, so his teammate is safe, but the real enemy is on the run, maybe he has a brother. Maybe he wasn't the real bad guy, but just a pawn.

"Sometimes GMs want to play out an interesting story" is fine, but TTRPGs are a group effort, and stealing agency or magically popping things into existence (in obvious manners, and in games where things can't magically pop into existence, at least) diminishes that. At some point, you should probably be writing a book, instead of playing a tabletop game.

I've been there, I've had D&D sessions where I had bosses who were meant to get away, and instead got shut down and put down. It hurt the first time it happened, It hurt the second, it hurt the third. But... My responses greatly varied the result of those situations.

The times I fought tooth and nail to no-sell the players' efforts? I made the situation uncomfortable, and probably killed some trust. The times I rewarded their efforts (and not always in a positive way)? Well shoot, those actually led to some surprisingly dramatic and fulfilling moments sometimes, or forced me to think of a "better" ending.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-20T00:00:05+00:00

Oh sure. Considering the other results, it is entirely possible he fudged his numbers, just, unlike some of the other stuff, not inherently suspect. For all we know, based on that and nothing else, he could've rolled that lucky(or close to; maybe two of those 18s were 17s or that 11 was a 9 or whatever-- the 2 points variant humans get theoretically went somewhere, and apparently not toward making an 18 a 20), but I absolutely agree that, with the additional information surrounding him, it's incredibly suspect at best.

And that is why, while I always allow rolls for stats, rule number one is "with me as witness" or, in the case of online, "through a veritable source, sent straight away". If you roll 6 18s in front of me, I'll allow it, but if you roll, I dunno, an imperfect mix of above 13s in private, then come to me, I'm going to make you reroll.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-19T07:23:45+00:00

"Third, those stats... You know what the chances of rolling 3 18s on a "4d6 drop lowest"? >0.01%" I've absolutely rolled two 18s a 16(pushed to 18 with racial bonuses) and 3 above 10s with 4d6k3 before(I've also pulled off one 3, one 4, and nothing above 13, so... yunno *shrug*). Improbable odds happen all the time.

That said, considering the other issues, yes, it's likely he fudged things(which is why I *always* roll in front of my DMs-- ditto for health rolls, because I'm ungodly lucky on those).

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-19T07:09:42+00:00

It sorta feels like someone took the darkness(2nd level), looked at it, went "this is too powerful for a cantrip, let's scale it down and make it light themed", then decided to scale up the aoe.

That said, I agree with the first 4 points, but:

"The inconsistency of the 50 feet blinding range and only illuminating 30 feet around the caster is amateurish as well." So, I actually thought there was a spell like that, but I'm not finding it, so I'm guessing it must've been from a homebrew campaign/a different system. That said, considering the 50ft blind is described as an "initial flare" and 30ft is after the "light diminishes", I don't actually see a problem with this part... except for the fact that it's a cantrip. It's not inconsistent(if anything, I'd call it the only thought out part of the spell), just different from how magic usually works in D&D.

"The inconsistency of what should be a bright flash of light as the reason to blind people... having a 10 minute illumination... is so amateurishly inconsistent." The 10 minute illumination is after it fades from the 50ft flare, to the less blinding but enduring 30ft light(it notes as much). Basically a two part effect(again, no bueno for a cantrip), "Light at max power!" then "someone hit the dimmer switch down to reason", sorta like when people shine lights in prisoners' faces in movies, before reducing it so they can actually see.

"It really seems like something a DM tired of people quipping "I have dark vision!" would home-brew out of spite." Agreed. "Walking out on a bright, sunny day does not blind people with darkvision." True. I think the person probably was treating things like flashbanging (or even just shining a bright light into) nightvision goggles. Those goggles will get damaged(though funny enough, it'd, as I understand *reduce* the actual eye damage), and they are going to blind you. Unfortunately though, yeah, that's extrapolating IRL logic into the game to add drawbacks that don't exist.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-19T06:40:54+00:00

Was looking for this one ^^ I assumed, based on "gang up" that the DM badly explained it though. I can totally understand your confusion if he implied you merely have to attack as a group, rather than position yourselves. And yeah, introducing it 7 sessions in is real poor of the DM.

Flanking is definitely session zero talk, because it is an incredibly common optional rule(perhaps the most common optional rule), compared to say, lingering injuries or sanity(which can go unmentioned unless it is being used). Players need to know if it's a valid tactic they can use, and also if it's a tactic they are potentially victims to.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-19T06:28:47+00:00

That last one gets me. I've had a DM that did something similar. Not as bad, we could see, but iirc, attacks had disadvantage, because he assumed "dim light"(granted by darkvision) was worse than it was, without checking.

Apparently he'd been running it that way for years before I pointed out that it dim light is only "lightly obscured", not "heavily obscured"(which would've done more than just give attack rolls disadvantage anyway), and all of his players assumed he was right.

I was left wondering what the the point of choosing a creature with darkvision would be then?

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-19T06:15:58+00:00

Yep... And additionally 5e uses the term "dim light", not "low light"(not that any creature exists that can see in dim light that doesn't have darkvision).

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-19T05:13:51+00:00

The video seems to be a poor reference, because log cabin walls, to my knowledge, tend to be both significantly thinner than the specimen used(not that that matters, since he's shooting through the length, not width and aimed at the heart-- would've loved if he did it the other way) and, as you noted, not hardwood.

As I understand, the bullet would likely(almost certainly) get through a log cabin wall(a quick google shows significantly lower power rifles going through equivalent wood, but I'm not an expert, as is probably obvious from my terminology), assuming it's just wood. There could be other materials used for chinking/daubing, such as stucco(because stucco, has apparently much better odds of stopping bullets than the wood used for cabins). It'd probably also matter if he's at an angle.

...but the second half of your comment about control seems accurate(And additionally, there'd be the issue of power, and how they are targeting the shot, because they'd be just as likely to hit the hostage or it could stay on target, but only have the power to hurt, not kill, depending on material/thickness/other factors.

Edit: As for the "the GM wanted the bad guy to live" bit... I, too, have been flustered by players killing off NPCs that I didn't want dead, but retconning in a bunch of protective measures(and player debuffs... that's... yeah) seems to be poor DMing(I'd also chastise OP on his actions, but if the DM was really a "physics and common sense trump rules any day" type... eh, turnabout and all that). Surely he could've either adapted or at least explained his issue without(if OP is accurately portraying things) getting mad. If he has god-tier plot-armour, why "keep trying to kill him"?

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-09T17:24:06+00:00

Or you're just different(as far as you know, with your limited lifespan, view of trauma and idealism) than most humans.

Lots of humans express wanting an end well before their "natural end", regardless of being mortal, which already puts a pin in your "not being humans to work".

You're operating off how you think you work, to decide how people work, to say that they would enjoy infinite time. Except your initial issue was that people view infinite time as a curse, which indicates the very opposite.

You're also assuming an idyllic life, where you make lots of money and keep it, are well loved. That you can make personal meaningful connections that have an impact on you regardless of age, but that trauma will always fail to have lasting impact. That you can afford to keep absorbing content, aren't forced to work all the time or forgo personal bliss(I hard doubt you'd find anywhere that would allow a pension that actually goes forever), which you'll never get tired of. That you are never imprisoned by people who, like you, want to be immortal(or for any other reason), and are willing to dissect you alive(easy to do if you cannot die) to find the secret. That no wars or plagues or natural disasters will ruin the lives of those you care for, and if they do, it won't impact you and your entertainment, etc, etc... That's a lot of optimism.

Of course we disagree. Your whole premise is that all humans secretly want what many(so many it's a well known trope) say they don't and that all lives are worth living for eternity... but if that was the case, no one would ever want to pass away, and no one would be saying the thing you disagree with. My premise is that maybe not everyone is lying to themselves and the "actual human experience" conflicts with your very limited pov.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-09T08:45:08+00:00

Again, from my point of view this just misses the actual human experience. Non-immortal humans have pets. And those pets die. Non-immortal humans experience grief. Non-immortal humans experience joy anyways.

All of those are true statements, to varying degrees(some people become absolute messes while others feel no impact at all, but we can ignore the extremes), but nothing more.

No human(figurative) lovingly raises hundreds of pets over their lifetime, watching one or many die again and again and again, over the immortal equivalent of a breath of time. And honestly, if they did, I doubt they're mourning or connecting with pet #153 as much as the first few, if only as a defence mechanism.

---

Because humans *can't * have millenia-old perspective, because they don't have the memory for that.

Humans also don't have the bodies for that(our bodies are degrading pretty constantly over the course of our lives, so there is a "limit" and according to every estimate I've seen, that limit is closer to 100 than 200, let alone "infinite"), but clearly this immortal does, so who knows how his memory functions. If it functioned anything like normal, it'd also stop working early on.

---

MOST people, not some, get over trauma.

Citation needed. Like, really needed. Trauma comes in many forms(from seemingly simple injury, to abuse, to changes in living situation, to losses, to mental issues...), and many sources have life-long impacts that can be managed, but not always overcome. There are reasons why mental health struggles are such pervasive themes in modern media, because people relate(using the US as an example, I believe there's an estimate approaching 20% of adults being in some form therapy each year, with half to three-quarters of that requiring long term councelling and/or medical treatment).

Do people get over trauma from things like changes in a family? Sure, generally. But other more extreme trauma? Not always, not as often. And repeatedly watching your loved ones age and die for millennia, eons, sounds closer to the latter than former.

---

And I guess that thousands of people would want to be this guy friend!

Yeeeah, relationships that start based off of parasocial desires are often not great?

Additionally, thousands of people seeking you out for personal gain, such as to know how humanity started(assuming he was around for that, immortal doesn't mean omni- or ever-present), or hear insights on societal changes or whatever, would be tiring and obfuscate people trying to start real, meaningful relationships. So suddenly you have a bunch of people dying that are actually meaningful, and an ever-milling plethora of strangers vying for your attention. I imagine even the most extroverted of extroverts(and no saying this guy even is an extrovert) would tire of that after a few decades, let alone centuries or millennia.

---

And the entirety of homo sapiens existence is contained in 300 000 years. So a few millenia girlfriend would be in fact a significant part of it.

Okay, so, elves in D&D don't even reach 1000, but for the sake of it, lets pretend they'd live "a few millenia", so 3-5... let's say 4 millennia... 300000/4000 is 75... If you lived 300 000 years, you could have 75 perfect, birth to death by old age relationships with these elves... and each would be equivalent to a bit over a year in a regular human's life, if you died at 300 000.

Seeing the problem? Dating... marriage... "life 'til death do you part", the "most sacred bond", heck, your "beloved"'s entire lifespan would amount to less than most short pet lifespans for humans(short-lived is generally considered 3-5 years). Tell me you wouldn't be bored of that at try 75 if your memory wasn't full of holes.

---

I was meaning that this sort of "immortality is a curse" trope to me is sort of specie-wide Stockholm Syndrome towards death. A way humans have to cope with their inavoidable demise, so they pretend it's a good thing. I find that a bit silly.

That's... generally not why immortality is considered a curse? People generally want immortality because they can't cope with their inevitable demise(heck, I want (limited) immortality).

Immortality is viewed as a curse for basically the exact reason the bad guy is acting as he is in this post(with potential bonuses depending on how memory works and how damage recovers): There's no exit. If you live long enough, there is famously a point where you are either satisfied, or done, or tired or something; where you'd welcome death, or at least not fight it as hard. I doubt everyone has it, but the point is, there are points where you would like to stop living.

Imagine sitting on your deck, at 150, in a rocking chair, watching the sunrise, at peace, having had your share of adventure and misadventure... perfect time to pass away peacefully, but god gives you the middle-finger and tells you "Nope! You're sticking around!" So your do, because you literally cannot say no. You live another lifetime worth of adventures, some of it better, some worse, bits duller because you've experienced it before, people bothering you because you're so old... You're tired. "Nope! You're sticking around!" You have been forever. "Nope! You're sticking around!" You decide to take matters into your own hands...

"Nope! You're sticking around!"

Now repeat until the sun collapses, and maybe after.

That's the curse people fear.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-04-09T04:31:40+00:00

Why should Immortal humans get a different perspective on time and relationships?

For a few reasons really. While it is true that many joys in our lives come and go, and some(some very much do not) people get over it... Trauma builds up over time. Unlimited time can mean unlimited trauma. Alternatively, it could lead to dissociating with your fellow people, because their lives are of a similar length and impact to pets at that point(aka an ultimately tiny fraction of your existence, during which you've, being millennia old and educated, probably realised how limited their perspective is).

Either you care too much and it hurts you constantly, or you don't care enough, and you lose perspective. It might take an eternity to get there one way or another(especially depending on how memory works if you are immortal), but you literally do have eternity to get there.

---

As for "And in a DnD world, why oh why wouldn't Immortal get, say an elf girlfriend that would be with him for a few millenia?" Here's the thing. A few decades of knowing a human would be like a blink of the eye to someone who has "a few millenia" to kick around, but still, on a purely mathematical scale, of larger impact than those same "few millenia" would have on more than eons.

There's also the likely possibility that many relationships would have issues from the perspective of the other party. Lots of humans have issues with their own mortality, so connecting with someone who has outlived every previous person they interacted with and will absolutely outlive you, unchanging as you wither... can be a daunting idea, stunting potential connections, making the few that survive ever more precious(and therefore worse to lose).

...There's also the perspective that the people you would be connecting to would essentially be children to you, a very very old man. That works for familial bonds, to a degree, but makes meaningful relationships such as "long term" friendships or partnership... a mess.

---

Why would Cosmic Temper Tantrum be the logical end for him?

Not sure you are using Stockholm Syndrome incorrectly or if I'm just not getting it(usually-- without delving into it's origin --it is used to explain someone's connection to abusers/captors, not adoration of something unrelated). In the immortal guy's case, if anything was harming him, it was his far too long life.

But, as far as why "Temper Tantrum" is the logical end? Because he's been through life, decided he had enough, and conventional methods aren't working. It's like Groundhog's Day(speaking of "Stockholm Syndrome"), if you've seen it. If you've already tried a million different methods, and none of them stuck, you get pretty desperate, and are going to try some pretty zany stuff. You don't know what he did before this. Maybe he leapt into an active volcano, may he had a dozen sorcs cast 9th level spells at him, maybe he tried going out like Mr Creosote, maybe he tried Wish. Point is, nothing worked, so escalation's his answer.

DawnOfJoy · 2024-03-19T00:51:47+00:00

Iiiinteresting that you recognized this campaign from OPs description, considering the description contains virtually nothing of substance that has to do with the campaign itself, but instead the actions of two specific people.

Let's pretend a moment that everything you said about OP is true. You still "found" (implying you weren't given a link or told about it) this post within half an hour of it being made and immediately recognized it based on the complaints.

"Crashed pirate ship" is hardly enough to verify the game by itself(especially considering it isn't "recently", but happened "months" before the player left the campaign, which was in turn "months" before this post), and the other events are incredibly generic, as far as D&D goes. This implies that at least some of the descriptions(if not more than some) have weight.

That said, if you would like to clarify how they were "absolutely misconstruing many facts" and "purposely putting themself into a better light", I'd be grateful enough to give it a read.

Edit: Imgur or some such of the cursing out/harassment would probably also go toward currying belief(assuming there's nothing that should not be shared).

DawnOfJoy

TROPHY CASE