D&D General Who “owns” a PC after the player stops using them?

[TwoSix]

In fact, it doesn't extend beyond that time. You get to control your current and retired PCs only while you are at the table. The instant you leave my game and cease being a player in it, they are characters not controlled by a player and there are only two categories. Characters controlled by a player are PCs. Characters not controlled by a player are NPCs.

And also, if any displeasure over my "treatment" of the character was actually elevated to the point of a confrontation, then the individual would very quickly be disinvited from any future games at my table.

I have zero time for anyone who would actually get upset about the fate of a character in a game they aren't even playing in, or who would view that as some sort of disrespect to their "ownership".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Really, it's just plain disrespect, not just of anyone's ownership of their creations.

 

[Yaarel]

I run an ongoing campaign world, it's been going for decades. When a PC retires at the end of a campaign they usually have attained a position of power and importance in the game. I find it mindboggling that if Bob the Fighter becomes King Bob that the best option is to have him never appear in any future campaign? If any player had that sort of request of me I'd be, "Sure, if that's what you want. But it means your character's only outcome is either death or wandering off and never being heard of again." I just can't square the idea of "my character should impact the world he exists in" with "I don't want him to ever appear if I can't play him as a PC".

In our ongoing shared-world campaigns, the prominent character of a player who is away sometimes has an NPC who is a trusted family, friend, or business partner, who stands in while the character is adventuring "somewhere". One character is the founder of an Underdark Druid Circle, who is currently in a different setting. The player (me) understands such a Circle is famous and in a dangerous location, and may or may not be there. So far it is still there, and there is no need for the DM to target it, unless it happens to get caught up in the circumstances of a separate campaign.

The DM leaves the player character alone.

 

[Maxperson]

Really, it's just plain disrespect, not just of anyone's ownership of their creations.

It's not an independent creation, which is the problem I think you guys are having. When you make a character, you make it to plug into and become a part of the game world where it ceases to be 100% yours. As the DM I can do things that result in your character dying, or being cursed, or turning into a frog, or being reincarnated as a goblin, or, or, or...

When you leave a game it is still plugged into and part of the shared created place, keeping it shared and not 100% yours. The argument that it somehow ceases to be shared when you leave and nobody can access it is bupkis.

 

[Yaarel]

Nobody says your Greyhawk can't have a sane and happy Mordenkainen because he shows up mad and amnesiac in an official 5e adventure. Are we infringing on Gygax's wishes when we have Mordenkainen appear as an NPC in our adventures?

WotC owns the Mordenkainen IP. WotC paid money to buy and own various products from Gygax via TSR. Mordenkainen is an official 5e NPC. As part of the rules of the game we have legal PERMISSION from WotC to use this character in the same way as any other official monster statblock. I dont think there is an official statblock for him, but he is known inworld and a DM can easily write up a statblock for him.

Because of the IP, we cant independently sell a product with Mordenkainen. But we can use the DMsGuild and its legal contract to sell a product that includes Mordenkainen.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get to control my character in your game, though; and that control extends beyond my time at the table.

So you say. Frankly, the only degree to which that's true is the degree to which I extend you the courtesy.

 

[Ondath]

WotC owns the Mordenkainen IP. WotC paid money to buy and own various products from Gygax via TSR. Mordenkainen is an official 5e NPC. As part of the rules of the game we have legal PERMISSION from WotC to use this character in the same way as any other official monster statblock.

Because of the IP, we cant independently sell a product with Mordenkainen. But we can use the DMsGuild and its legal contract to sell a product that includes Mordenkainen.

Well yes. But that's not the point. I can also add Darth Vader to my D&D campaign even though I have no permission from Disney to use that character in that particular game. This does not mean that I have somehow committed a slight against George Lucas (or Disney) by using his character in a way that he did not agree with.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Really, it's just plain disrespect, not just of anyone's ownership of their creations.

I'm not at all certain I have much respect for someone that demanding of how a version of a character is handled in a game they no longer participate in. It seems patently unreasonable.

Edit: to make it clear, I'm not talking about the case of a GM who is deliberately abusing the no-longer played character to make some petty point. But that's a sign of someone who probably has some other charming habits while the player is still present.

 

[Yaarel]

I can also add Darth Vader to my D&D campaign even though I have no permission from Disney to use that character in that particular game.

Actually, you cant create a Darth Vader character without permission. I assume Disney has some kind of fandom policy, which gives you permission, but you would need to know its details.

This does not mean that I have somehow committed a slight against George Lucas (or Disney) by using his character in a way that he did not agree with.

If you misuse Disney IP, and without permission, and without fair use, Disney has the prerogative to sue you.

 

[Ondath]

@Yaarel furthermore, I gave the example of Mordenkainen for a specific reason: He has a current canon status in official D&D (like I said, mad and amnesiac in a certain D&D adventure). If I gloss over that canon plot point entirely and say he has never had such an affliction and never will, am I slighting WotC in any way?

If I am not, what is the difference between that and putting a friend's PC in my campaign world as an NPC in a way the friend didn't expressly allow? If it's my campaign world (separate from the canon of where the friend plays that character), how is that character becoming an NPC a slight to my friend?