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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 2053303" data-attributes="member: 29014">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."</blockquote>

Verification