Player vs. Character Dilemma.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As far as the inability to detect any magic, that's not really a problem with the way the DM ran things.

A fairly basic spell - Magic Aura - can conceal or alter the magical aura of any item, and only an Identify spell reveals it as false. It lasts 1 day per caster level, and so could concievably been cast far in advance of your party encountering the doppelganger.

 

[Voadam]

The no spot check could have been secret dm dice rolling.

There are spells that hide magical auras from Detect Magic.

As a DM I would not give out automatic sense motive or int checks to figure things out.

Also it is ravenloft, expect bad things to happen. Life is unfair all around in the mists, the villains are cursed and tortured by the dark powers, the innocent and virtuous are cursed and tortured by the villains.

Good to hear everyone enjoyed it though.

 

[Endur]

I think its fine. And I wouldn't argue with the GM. Although if you are still concerned, I might ask him to explain how the rules work in situations like this.

The GM should make any such spot rolls secretly. i.e. out of the other players sight so that he doesn't alert the players to the opposition player.

He can even decide to have the various players "take 10" on the spot rolls, so he doesn't have to roll dice.

If you have a member of the PC party who has a high spot bonus (rogue/ranger, etc.) and who was in a position to spot the theft, you might mention to the GM that even taking 10, the spotter should have spotted the pick pocket.

As for dropping magic items overboard, that might have rated a spot check as well. And there should be a GM reason for why the staff didn't radiate magic when you used detect magic (i.e. nondetection spell, non-magical aura, special staff, or something similar).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think given that you knew it was a one-off PC you were maybe a bit foolish to metagame like this, assuming the PC must be 'ok' to give stuff to.

I don't believe it was foolish at all. It was, at the end of the day, remembering that D&D is a game and accomodating a new (if temporary) player to the game. That's not being foolish. It's making a choice to place the group's fun above strict in-game realism.

I ran into a similar situation in a past game. Eventually, it occurred to some of the players (including myself) that one or more of the PCs might be evil. So I asked the DM if he did, in fact, allow evil characters in his game. My reasoning was that I'd been playing my character as extra trusting, in spite of a very suspicious campaign scenario, and what could easily be very suspicious PCs. In order to allow for a fun group game, I chose to ignore inconsistencies in the game, so we could avoid hours of paranoia and get to the adventuring.

The DM wouldn't tell me whether or not he allowed evil PCs. He thought that'd be "unfair" to the evil PC (if there was one). The hell?! It was unfair to me to not allow me to take the basic precautions I'd take in such a game, allowing a (potentially) evil PC to take advantage of my artificially trusting PC.

This is the same situation. The OP's party has chosen to be artificially trusting, in order to include a guest player in a game that, if they didn't make that choice, would be mired in paranoia and never get to the adventuring.

The DM had two choices himself.

1: He gives the players a short warning. "Remember that this is a stranger guys. Don't treat him any differently because you know he's a guest player." Now, this might make the players suspicious and spoil some of the surprise of the guest being a doppleganger, but the important thing is that the players are given all the information they need to correctly deal with the doppleganger.

2: He doesn't tell the players anything, and allows the guest player to use their attempt to be sociable to screw their PCs. This preserves the surprise of the guest PC being a doppleganger, at the price of, again, screwing the regular players.

Personally, I'd choose #1, and be furious at #2 (as my little side story might indicate ), but since it seems everyone in the group is still having fun, I suppose all's well that ends well.

 

[Jdvn1]

I was a guest player recently and... well, I don't like playing major non-party characters. If I'm going to be a party temp, I'd rather my character to also be temporary. I'd help out the party, but I wouldn't get attached. Or my character could stay in contact with the party, but not adventure with them more than that one time.

Also, guest players seem less special when they happen all the time.

 

[Ruined]

I did something similar to my PCs recently. One of the players was absent on maternity leave, so her character stayed behind at a village solving some problems there. When time came for her to return to the table, her character followed the group's path and appeared as normal. Everything was good until the end of the session, when they found she had absconded with the artifact they were carrying.

Now for a bit of background, we had already established that the PC in question had a mysterious lookalike that was an assassin. Her and another character had fought her before, and she had escaped. Plus, when I went over the plan with the player, I gave her guidelines of information she would not know (this was actually her twin, seperated at birth and raised in evil church, so no doppleganger mind-reading). She played it well, glossing over certain parts she was unfamiliar with, and feigning knowledge of PCs the assassin had never seen. There came a close call when the druid in the party asked if she was okay and started to question her, but then they backed off. I rolled secret Sense Motive and Spot checks, but the assassin was good at what she did.

In the end, they tracked her down and caught her before she could hand over the item to the enemy army. We had talked about it, and if it was needed, she would have tried to assassinate PCs in her way, but it was easier to just run. The players were irked by our dirty trick, but all in all they appreciated how it wove the story together. For me, it was tough to stay impartial through it all. I loved the scene and was happy to see her succeed at the time, but I wasn't looking to 'get even' with the players. If they figured out the ruse, more power to them.

 

[Corsair]

Pendragon, if that occured in one of the games my group runs, it's your own fault. We prefer relatively realistic, consistent, believable games. If you treat someone differently because the PC/NPC is run by a person other than your DM, that is your own fault, at least how we see it.

I don't believe it was foolish at all. It was, at the end of the day, remembering that D&D is a game and accomodating a new (if temporary) player to the game. That's not being foolish. It's making a choice to place the group's fun above strict in-game realism.

I ran into a similar situation in a past game. Eventually, it occurred to some of the players (including myself) that one or more of the PCs might be evil. So I asked the DM if he did, in fact, allow evil characters in his game. My reasoning was that I'd been playing my character as extra trusting, in spite of a very suspicious campaign scenario, and what could easily be very suspicious PCs. In order to allow for a fun group game, I chose to ignore inconsistencies in the game, so we could avoid hours of paranoia and get to the adventuring.

The DM wouldn't tell me whether or not he allowed evil PCs. He thought that'd be "unfair" to the evil PC (if there was one). The hell?! It was unfair to me to not allow me to take the basic precautions I'd take in such a game, allowing a (potentially) evil PC to take advantage of my artificially trusting PC.

This is the same situation. The OP's party has chosen to be artificially trusting, in order to include a guest player in a game that, if they didn't make that choice, would be mired in paranoia and never get to the adventuring.

The DM had two choices himself.

1: He gives the players a short warning. "Remember that this is a stranger guys. Don't treat him any differently because you know he's a guest player." Now, this might make the players suspicious and spoil some of the surprise of the guest being a doppleganger, but the important thing is that the players are given all the information they need to correctly deal with the doppleganger.

2: He doesn't tell the players anything, and allows the guest player to use their attempt to be sociable to screw their PCs. This preserves the surprise of the guest PC being a doppleganger, at the price of, again, screwing the regular players.

Personally, I'd choose #1, and be furious at #2 (as my little side story might indicate ), but since it seems everyone in the group is still having fun, I suppose all's well that ends well.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Pendragon, if that occured in one of the games my group runs, it's your own fault. We prefer relatively realistic, consistent, believable games. If you treat someone differently because the PC/NPC is run by a person other than your DM, that is your own fault, at least how we see it.

Fair enough, we all have different playstyles. Playing "realistic, consistent, believable games" in my experience means a lot of tedium for little payoff. In a D&D world, there are just too many ways you can be screwed, and nearly all of them result in you being dead. The kind of trust required for an adventuring group to exist would be a very rare thing. Most of the time, I don't care to roleplay a "realistic" lack of trust. I'd rather be part of a group that trust each other, then get on to the business of fighting against evil as a team.

That said, though, I really don't have a problem with the "realistic" game, which I tend to refer to as the "paranoia style." I just think it's only fair that all the players understand that's the kind of game that's being played, so that some players, such as myself, aren't screwed over because of a preferred playstyle.

Had my DM told me, "Yes, Jere, there may be evil PCs. I'm not saying there are evil PCs, you understand, but there might be, so act accordingly." I'd have been fine with that campaign. I'd play my PC "realistically," and let what happens, happen. It's the fact that my DM wasn't willing to level the playing field that bothered me. Why should the player of an evil PC (obviously) be allowed to know that betrayal is par for the course, but I am kept unaware, made to choose between my preferred play style and being screwed over?

Same with the OP's situation. If I were a player in that game and given a simple notice that betrayal is possible, I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of action. Ideally, this warning is included in the campaign's starting notes (that way the players never know when a betrayal is imminent,) but if not, then it still needs to be given before any betrayal actually takes place.

I don't know how to say it more plainly. I'm not against PC or NPC betrayals or a "realistic" game. I'm against a DM or player using my out-of-game expectations against me, in game.

 

[Squire James]

Frankly, if a DM wouldn't tell me whether or not he allows evil characters, assume the worst. Not only does he allow them, there is an existing evil PC who, with the full connivance and approval of the DM, will take full advantage of you and/or your character. Unless you think being dumped-upon is fun, don't enter that game.

"Adversary characters" being given to temp players is so common that it's almost a cliche. That woman on the roadside claiming to be a disguised princess whose father and retainers were captured by horrible goblins is more likely to be "legit" than a temp character!

To be fair, as a DM I've used this tactic, and the players were well aware that the temp may have been evil. They had no in-character way to prove it, though, so they went along with it figuring they could surely win if they ganged up on him at the moment of betrayal. The temp derailed the "Shackled City" campaign at a very critical moment that made continuation in the series impossible.

 

[IronWolf]

I think it was a fair tactic. Sounds like it was a fun session which is the most important thing in the end. Now it could make it hard for future guest PC's, but.... I am sure the DM can deal with that later.

I also saw this done once in a PBeM I lurked in for awhile. A player came on board, stayed with the group and actually established some rapport with the others. Until finally, at a crucial moment he flipped sides. It was actually quite a nice twist and worked well for that game (at least it seemed like it did).