Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marius Delphus" data-source="post: 5068624" data-attributes="member: 447">The RAW (any edition) don't even contemplate this situation, AFAIK. I can't think of a book or supplement that supports a character who can "flip-flop" between classes (etc.) based on what I will call "alter egos."* * Let's just say I'm very uncomfortable tossing around real-life clinical diagnoses when talking about make-believe characters.I once played in a "wahoo" sort of 1E game where all the characters were built strangely in some way (DRAGON Magazine races and classes featured heavily in this party). One of the characters had exactly the proposed setup: two alter egos, each with a different class and alignment, and diametrically opposed to boot. It seemed like fun to start out with, but the DM eventually put the kibosh on the whole thing, forcing one alter ego to take over permanently when evidence of the other's existence became incontrovertible through play.Looking back on it (it was a long time ago), it was just the end result of all us players wanting to have the goofiest build so as to give the DM the most trouble. Even though we were taking up a challenge the DM issued (we were specifically told to crank up the goofiness), in the end the "double character" setup was too much trouble for both the other characters and the DM.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Each time the character switched alter egos, we all had to pause while the player switched character sheets and the character switched equipment.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The idea that the two alter egos were unaware of each other in the adventuring environment was completely untenable, given that each one "woke up" wearing the wrong equipment (which happened to be a dead giveaway as to the other alter ego's character class).<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This was the main reason the DM shut the whole thing down. In the DM's defense, having to do this was discussed ahead of time.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Switching back and forth was fairly easy (a decision made in an effort to make the setup viable and interesting), but the end result was the player could usually switch to whichever character was "needed" (i.e., whichever was most fun to play) at a particular moment.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This necessarily increased the amount of attention the DM needed to pay to this particular player, because the "double character" was at the forefront of events more or less all the time.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The alternative, making the switch difficult and/or rare, would probably have just created a great deal of frustration in the player, who would have thus been mostly denied the fundamental "goofiness" of the character.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The other characters had no good reason to trust the "double character"... at any time. In this case, one of the alter egos was completely untrustworthy and, it turned out, had the other characters' demise as a firm goal. Even if this hadn't been the case, the other characters had reasons to know there was "something wrong" with the "double character" and probably wouldn't have added the character to the party in the first place for that reason. As time went on, these reasons multiplied until we all knew we were throwing RP considerations to the wind in keeping the "double character" in the party.</li> </ul>Some of these notes are idiosyncratic to the situation we found ourselves in, but overall it's left a bad taste in my mouth for the "alter egos" setup, and I have to personally hope you ultimately decide against it.HTH. HAND.</blockquote>

Verification