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

[Yaarel]

I think the larger point is that even if Marvel was in legal opposition to Spider-Man bedtime stories, and actually tried to enforce that, that enforcement would be unethical to the point of being dystopian.

Something being legal doesn't make it RIGHT. (CG alignment in the house!)

Likewise, owning someone elses identity can be dystopian. Including disrespecting the inworld character of a reallife player.

 

[TwoSix]

Likewise, owning someone elses identity can be dystopian. Including disrespecting the inworld character of a reallife player.

But someone's character is NOT their identity. If they view it as such, that's problematic.

 

[tetrasodium]

Likewise, owning someone elses identity can be dystopian. Including disrespecting the inworld character of a reallife player.

"someone else's identity"? This is straight up a mazes & monsters level problem. It was litertally a central plpt point in a work of fiction about a severely mentally ill teenager

 

[Maxperson]

I assume Marvel has a fan policy, a legal contract, that allows you tell bedtime stories about Spiderman.

There's no need fan policy. If Marvel or whoever isn't damaged, then they haven't been damaged. They need to be legally harmed in some way, and my inventing a story about spiderman to tell my son at bedtime doesn't harm Marvel.

 

[Ondath]

Likewise, owning someone elses identity can be dystopian. Including disrespecting the inworld character of a reallife player.

Where do we draw the line at disrespecting the inworld character of a player though? Is a character dying in a random encounter also disrespectful because it does not give the player an end that that they had agreed to? Is challenging a PC's personality traits also disrespecting the player since it might reveal that their character does not have the values they profess to have?

I'm all for players expressing themselves through characters, but any kind of social game requires you to accept that you will give some portion of authority in what happens to your character. I just don't see why you would have the kind of absolute authority over your character's fate that you guys seem to claim. If you want your character to be untainted by the GM's input, write a novel about them. Don't bring them to a group game.

 

[Yaarel]

Where do we draw the line at disrespecting the inworld character of a player though?

Normally, disrespecting the character of a current or former player is obvious.

Like bullying is normally obvious, or sexual harassment is normally obvious.

Also.

Get permission when using someone elses character.

Minimally, using someone elses character can be offensive, like misquoting them, putting words in their mouth.

Maximally, there can be legal actions.

 

[Yaarel]

Even when a character gets Charmed, I prefer the player to roleplay the Charm effect. And reward the player if doing it in a fun and reasonable way.

This approach is also helpful, when I dont want the other players to know the character has been Charmed.

 

[tetrasodium]

Normally, disrespecting the character of a current or former player is obvious.

Like bullying is normally obvious, or sexual harassment is normally obvious.

Also.

Get permission when using someone elses character.

Minimally, using someone elses character can be offensive, like misquoting them, putting words in their mouth.

Maximally, there can be legal actions.

we are on page 35 and I'm quoting post 346, clearly this is not "obvious" and one of the central points of contention is the idea that players need to or don't need to make it known that they expect authority over the GM's game world not covered anywhere in the PHB or DMG.

 

[Ondath]

Normally, disrespecting the character of a current or former player is obvious.

Like bullying is normally obvious, or sexual harassment is normally obvious.

Also.

Get permission when using someone elses character.

Minimally, using someone elses character can be offensive, like misquoting them, putting words in their mouth.

Maximally, there can be legal actions.

Eh, I don't like the moralising (and legalising) tone that you're taking over what is supposed to be what happens to your imaginary character in your imaginary pretend game of elves*. Sometimes, things you don't like happen to your character, either while you're at the table or when you're away. That does not mean that somebody has morally slighted you.

*: I am obviously putting aside cases of genuine discomfort (character's/player's consent being overridden in intimate or boundary-crossing scenes, character's ultimate fate being overridden to bully a player/make them uncomfortable etc.) that you seem to have in mind. But those are already not moral because they break the social contract, not because they're cases of losing authority over your character's fate. What's problematic about those isn't your authority over your character being overridden but people actively treating you immorally, and the loss of authority is only a means. And these constitute such a small portion of what we're discussing that I think your moralising tone is causing a lot of nuance to be lost.

 

[TwoSix]

Even when a character gets Charmed, I prefer the player to roleplay the Charm effect. And reward the player if doing it in a fun and reasonable way.

This approach is also helpful, when I dont want the other players to know the character has been Charmed.

Honest question, isn't that how everyone does it? Most players I know relish the idea of getting to screw up the party for a bit.