Again, you're making assumptions as to what PCs will do and think, and you're coming from a fairly antagonistic group of players who seem to have no problems exploiting or betraying one another. I haven't played with a group like that since the 90s and never would again.If it's "she must be killed", hopefully the last-mage's player heard that caveat and took note.
But if we lived in a world where fantasy magic is or was a known thing and someone walked up to you and a) said "I'm the last living mage" and b) was able to prove the 'mage' part, I suspect your reaction would be anything but "who cares?". Depending on a host of factors I cold see reactions ranging from "protect the mage" to "kill the mage" to "run for the hills!" to "how can I/we profit off this?"
I would assume that she'd be killable if she were an NPC. PvP isn't allowed at my table except as a group decision.
Presumably the system already has rules for such things. Because otherwise, you would just tell the player "I'm sorry, this game doesn't have rules for magic-users" and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Sure--unless you are actually hurting other players in the process. You may very well be doing it and that person doesn't want to speak up because it's clear you'd just dismiss their problems. I've had that happen to me and felt forced to go along with it, because I didn't want to cause problems and potentially lose my only gaming group in the process (sunk cost fallacy is a very real thing), and it was terrible. And I sincerely doubt that any of them ever realized that what they did was Not Good. I'm just happy I haven't gamed with any of them in decades.
"If your intent is to keep something safe it's just a bit counterproductive to take it out and expose it to risk, hm? And unless the party want to spend their adventuring careers doing nothing but guard the last mage in her glass bubble, they're likely going to go off elsewhere and leave said guarding duties to stay-at-home guards."
Why would I want to come back with another CN rogue, though? I'm not one of those people who plays Bob The Fighter, and replaces him with Bob Junior when the first Bob dies.
And without Jocasta's consent, that's a jerk move on both the "bodyguard's" and the GM's behalf.
I relish conflict! This is what we play for! If all I want is milquetoast play then I'll just make rogue #7, sure. Blah. I want substantive play where there are real stakes and real stuff can happen at the table (in the fiction). Even Trad play can deliver this fine, my old buddy used to do it back in the '80s in his campaigns beautifully. Granted, I wouldn't run those games today, but what I am not at all interested in is being some insignificant and utterly rootless nothing.If it's "she must be killed", hopefully the last-mage's player heard that caveat and took note.
But if we lived in a world where fantasy magic is or was a known thing and someone walked up to you and a) said "I'm the last living mage" and b) was able to prove the 'mage' part, I suspect your reaction would be anything but "who cares?". Depending on a host of factors I cold see reactions ranging from "protect the mage" to "kill the mage" to "run for the hills!" to "how can I/we profit off this?"
I've tried reading one Discworld novel, ever. Got halfway through it and gave up.
Ditto if there's any risk Jocasta could train up more mages. However, your previous posts seemed to suggest that even turning Jocasta in to keep her safe is poor play; I'm surprised (and impressed!) that you're putting the idea of killing her on the table.
I thought she was supposed to be a PC. And yes, there would need to be rules around how a mage could or would work in a game in the complete absence of any other mages (or enchanted items e.g. scrolls and spellbooks etc.) to learn from.
Unless, of course, the campaign spends some time chasing down ancient scrolls and spellbooks etc. for her; but then we're back to things centering on the one character again.
Or you need to accept that once the puck drops it ain't always all going to be candy and spice; and that sometimes one or more of the other PCs might very well be out to get you.
One person's horror story is another person's evening of entertainment. Our characters occasionally do awful things to each other; meanwhile we at the table just sit back and laugh at it all.
Just because we're all frineds at the table doesn't for a second mean our characters are friends in the fiction.
The idea of making my character Jocasta's bodyguard came from you, not me.
The player doesn't have to stay at home. Not at all.
The character, on the other hand, might. That's the risk its player took when deciding to play the last known mage in a non-magic setting; and while I'd like to think someone would have mentioned this when the character was first suggested, even if it wasn't it's still one of numerous possible (and IMO quite reasonable) in-character reactions* to learning you've got the last of the mages in your crew.
* - most if not all of the others would still render the character unplayable in one way or another, unless the rest of the group took on support roles.
There's only one Rime but if Rime dies there's nothing stopping you from coming right back with another CN Rogue if that's what you enjoy playing in that campaign. If our hypothetical Jocasta dies, however, that's it. No more mages, for that player or anyone else, for the duration of that campaign.
As for characterization, there's usually some of that right out the gate and then it develops further as play goes on. Backgrounds, particularly at low levels, I don't worry about nearly as much until the character's lasted a while; low level play is pretty lethal round here.
Well, one player unilaterally (or with the GM) decided to play the last mage; so what's the difference if I unilaterally decide that mage will be stuck with me as its bodyguard? We can sort out the arguments, if any, in-character once the game starts.
Oh, that's very true; and characters leaving parties for just that reason has certainly happened. There's no law against it.
Characters, note; not players. The player is always welcome to roll up something else, or bring one in if she alreeady has it from a prior adventure or part of the campaign and wants to cycle it back in.
And that meta angle bothers me every time it rears its head and interferes with being true to the character.
MM elves are fighters, but in the party humans are the fighters.
If she's killable as an NPC then she's killable as a PC. Why? Because there is no difference between those things in the fiction.
Sure, I'm not arguing that it can't be done. I'm arguing that doing it is generally going to represent extra work for the GM.
It's bad if in-game things are done for out-of-game reasons, I think we'd agree on that. But when both the cause and effect (or problem and solution) are in-game things, let it happen. Here with the last-mage example, by playing that character its player has potentially presented the rest of the group with an in-game problem, that beiong what to do with/about/to Jocasta the last mage.
Why not? If it's what my character would do...
While nothing prevents such an arrangement, I've never met anyone who'd rather play a hench (which this would be) than a full-fledged character.
If I'm playing a character that dies before I've had a decent chance to see what it can do, and assuming the dice let me, I'll sometimes come right back with the same thing again in a second attempt to give the idea a good run out. If it's had a good run, though, I'll almost always come back with something different.
Presumably MM Dwarves are also fighters, but they are 1 HD. And they have a CON bonus!
Mountain dwarves are fighters (with 1+1 HD). Hill dwarves are 0-level regulars.
I completely agree!
Not in AD&D, where only humans and Halflings can be 0-level.
