The DM did IMPURE things to my PC!

[dead]

Then it started, in the middle of combat, shouting "death to all chaotic creatures!" and directing him to kill certian creatures first. Then it started to win arguments. Not good. So He tried to get it off really hard this time. No good, it was glued to his body with sovereign glue. He got it taken off a couple of sessions later by gnome wizard's aprentice who couldn't find any universal solovent so had to do it the hard way with an antimagic field and a crowbar. It delt some tempary constitution damage and he had a nasty scab on his body from loosing a few layers of his skin.

Through all of this, he had complete control of his character. He got to play the reactions, the horror, the pain. He remembers that and it's talked about more than the battle with the Frost Dragon that gave him the armor in the first place. He had if for a few sessions, but only last couple or so was it a problem.

Oh, and if he had complained to me about it or posted a message about it here saying he felt it was wrong, I would have talked it over with him and found an even quicker solution than the one I used.

Style, use it or lose it.

Yes, situations like this are great to play!!! And I think you're exactly right about messing with players only if the players enjoy it just as much as the DM. And, yes, do it with STYLE!

Also, your player was "messed with" by monsters/villains/challenges, NOT his fellow adventureres!!!!!!!! That makes all the difference.

 

[BSF]

Yes, Rimple Serf is, indeed, my DM.

Ouch. Sorry to hear that. Obviously his 'playstyle' is different from yours. I'd call it a wash and sit this campaign out. Come back when the group is playing something more along the lines of what you are looking for in a game.

Rimple Serf,
A charm effect is one thing. Forcing a change on a Player to play the PC in a way that is different is an entirely different thing. Yes, a failed save might mean death or petrification, or even short term mind effects. In the case of death and petrification, you are not forcing the player to play a PC he no longer wants to play. (The opposite actually, you are forcing the player to no longer play a PC he did want to play.) A mind effect is a short term issue. Even those effects usually have limitations that don't completely supercede free will. The PC treats the caster as a friend is the classic from D&D Charm Person.

See, it doesn't matter how good a roleplayer the player is. If the character concept is something he doesn't want to play, the GM shouldn't make him play it. The game is still just a game. Why play a game when you aren't enjoying it?

For the record, I have run games where I twisted player backgrounds into something unexpected. I have run events that had tragic results for PCs. I have provided in-character dark temptations to give PCs an opportunity to embrace the darkness, or to rebuke it. I have seen PCs slowly turn to evil, all the while making sure the party paladin never catches them in a Detect Evil cone. But even then, the player made the choices for the PC. Even when the PC decided that things had become too 'hot' and split, I allowed the player to create a new PC and join the group. The player had fun poking into the dark side of things, but decided he wanted to play a good character again. No big deal.

 

[CountPopeula]

dead: I seem to understand the situation a little better. Getting a grasp on other people's motivations is often difficult, especially when you don't know them, as is my case. But from what you say, that's the kind of game they want to play, and it seems like you're the target because you're a little... straightlaced? Is that a fair assessment? compaired to your friends that is.

I still say you put too much blame on the DM. Your friends obviously want different things from the game than you. And obviously, you want to keep playing with them, but forcing them to play in your style isn't going to be any fun for them.

I really think if you want to have any fun with this group, you'll have to accept that your friends don't want to play heroic characters, they want to go about raping the fields and burning the women. You need to find an angle and stick with it. Maybe your character doesn't want to leave since the other PCs are his friends, so you try to convert them. But the thing is, as harsh as this is, the reality is that you have to find a way to make things work. You can't put unfair expectations like that on your DM, since you're pretty soundly outvoted, and if he forces the other players to your style of gaming, then they're going to be the ones complaining. He's really in a no-win situation, and while he could be a little more accomidating, he doesn't have a whole lot of options. And you could always ask your friends to knock it off, but if I know people, that'll just make it worse.

 

[Arnwyn]

And I knew who did it as a player (and my character suspected too) which made it frustrating to adventure with the insane half-ogre. But once again, I don't lay the final finger of blame on the player; I blame it on the DM.

Unfortunate. Because I think you're misguided, here.

The DM will confirm whether you can back stab your fellow PCs or not.

That's not the DM's place. I'm sure the players have a firm enough grasp of your language of choice to properly discuss how everyone views the game.

 

[Epametheus]

Just out of curiousity, Dead, how old are you and Rimple?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Here's an interesting twist on this question:

What would be our response if instead of dragging a character into chaos-worship and towards evil, compulsion was applied in the reverse direction. I don't consider myself to be a schemer as a player, but I will use an anecdotal example of when I used Enchantment magic on a fellow PC. I was playing a Neutral Good Enchantress and we had just defeated a group of evil caravaners carrying a shipload of grain to the evil stronghold. I wanted to distribute the grain to the starving commoners in the nearby village, and I expressed this intent. The supposedly Chaotic-Neutral rogue decided that he wanted to burn the wagon and all the grain. I quenched the flame and used my high Diplomacy skill and an out-of-character discussion of how if we *didn't* burn the wagon we could use it to sneak into the stronghold among moral issues and other things, but he said "You can't force me to do something by rolling a good Diplomacy check. I set fire to the wagon again." The rest of the PCs were neutral and ambivalent and wouldn't help me (there was a paladin, but his player was a bit insane, so the paladin was playing with a sock puppet). So I charmed him and asked him not to burn it. He said it was against his nature not to burn the food and required an opposed Charisma check, which he won. With no recourse left (beyond attacking him), I dominated his character. The rogue got somewhat upset. I let the dominate drop after the food was distributed, but what if it had been a permanent thrall effect? If there was an evil PC that the DM railroaded my good-aligned party into keeping, as a good character, I would feel morally responsible for all of his evil actions unless I took adequate measures to prevent them, using Compulsion effects if necessary.

An example of a slightly longer-lasting compulsion: Later in the same campaign, the supposedly CN druid and the LN forester fighter came to blows about foresting in the local woods. The druid tried to kill the fighter, but the fighter took the druid hostage, holding a sword to her throat. The druid swore to murder as many foresters as she could (and the fighter) if she ever escaped, but my character would not stomach the killing of non-evil characters, so I geased the druid never to attack the party or any foresters, either directly or indirectly. The druid got really mad.

I'm just wondering if people would condemn me as much as the dark side corrupting PCs, especially since I was alone in the party, like dead. Then again, I may very well be comparing apples to oranges, since I didn't have a premeditated plot and DM complicitness (the DM seemed to be on the others' side by allowing CN characters to commit totally evil acts and claim that not burning food is against their nature) but rather just the rules and an on-the-cuff decision that murder is not the answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a completely-different note: To those who tell dead that the fault is all the other players' and not the DM's, read the DM's description again where it mentions that all the PCs started good and then the DM decided to have a specific agenda, as the DM, to bring them to the dark side:

"The champaign started with the good old characters heading down the same old story line (with some twists and turns) All going well for some time. One day I approched one of my players to see if they would play a chaotic character. From there I built into the story line the changer of ways Tzeencth. Slowly trying to convert the players to the DARK side. (players choice) One by one over many sessions without any indication to the other players they converted."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rystil:

No, I wouldn't have the same problem with your character's actions as I do with those of dead's group.

Why?

Because of "jerk factor."

The other players in dead's group have a very high jerk factor. The players in your examples have a very high jerk factor.

I tend to side against people with high jerk factors.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Rystil:

No, I wouldn't have the same problem with your character's actions as I do with those of dead's group.

Why?

Because of "jerk factor."

The other players in dead's group have a very high jerk factor. The players in your examples have a very high jerk factor.

I tend to side against people with high jerk factors.

I can't fault you for that Patryn. After all, I agree with my own actions and not with those of dead's compatriots. Just wanted to see if that would bring up an interesting discussion, or if most people would draw the line the way we did. Some might find "jerk-factor" to be too subjective: after all, the druid's PC told me I was being a jerk to geas her away from protecting nature (the rogue didn't care much, he's pretty happy-go-lucky). I told her that I saved her life, and she said that she had secretly readied an action to wildshape into something small and attempt an escape, returning to wreak vengeance on the party later (why she didn't do that during the 10 minute casting time of geas is beyond me).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

After all, I agree with my own actions ...

I would hope so!

The other important point, that I meant to bring out above, is that in all of the cases there was a clear line of communication between the characters, the players, and the mechanics of the game.

You warned the rogue away (both in and out of character), and used spells with definable effects to stop him from acting upon his wishes. The rogue received appropriate saving throws.

Later on, with the druid, the same occurred. You cast a defined spell, the appropriate rules were consulted, and play continued.

At no point did you go up to the DM, outside of gaming time, and mention how you'd like to take over the rogue on a permanent basis. At no point did the DM construct a custom, for-you-only spell with no appreciable saving throw and no mechanics other than "You will act as I deem fit."

Your way, to my mind, is more fair to all involved, even if the end results could be viewed in some lights as similar to dead's case.

 

[dvvega]

I have been reading this thread, wondering if the dm/players would post, and also what kind of answers/suggestions would be given out.

Firstly, Rystil Arden, Geas cannot do what you state you did ... read the spell (in any edition) it has a duration. Once that duration is up, the Druid is free to continue on the path of revenge. In fact no mind compulsion is permanent.

This leads me into agreeing with every poster who stated flatly that your DM abused his position in make the compulsion force the change permanently. Even a Dominate Person/Monster spell has a duration. Granted a really stupid monster will stay dominated for a very long time and make it easier to refresh the domination, but even then doing things against your natural goals/personality gives you a new saving throw ... thus "Kill those innocents, you worship Chaos now" would grant a new save. One day a 20 is going to turn up on the roll.

Secondly, the DM should have made it very clear to players that there may be changes to personality/alignment/allegiance throughout the campaign, so not to create a background that relies on honor, or resistance to Chaos too much. It matters not if you want to weave a complex story, if the players suddenly feel violated then it is not fun for them. Although you are trying to make it fun for the majority, it is not fun for everyone. Is it actually fair to leave one person sitting out of the "fun" just because everyone else is having fun? Not in my book.

Thirdly, the DM forced the whole deal on the player. There was no chance the player was going to survive. I didn't realise the Half-Ogre Fighter was so sneaky so as to load up the backpack with warpsstone. Man I should spend all my skill points on Move Silently and give myself a high dex ... just to avoide the dex penalty from the race.

Fourth, friends or not, some rpg groups just don't work together. I've got friends that I see regularly, used to rpg with, but don't anymore. Why? Because the group doesn't "work" well in the rpg situation. Some groups are not meant to game together. In this situation the group will not work unless DEAD changes characters or embraces the change. It is unfair to suggest you just give in, however the group won't work unless you do. The best advice is generate a new character, however for a 'little revenge' make a highly Chaotic Priest of this god and make the characters feel inadequate in the eyes of your god. They've wasted so much time converting one person ... what about all the villages they passed through etc? What a useless bunch of chaos wussies

So in summary,

* your DM abused his position for the sake of his own story. Railroading is not DMing.
* the other players might be good friends, but bad rpg companions in this situation
* the DM didn't "let you in" on the secret of the game premise which destroys your fun

Ah well I've spouted off too much already

D