D&D General Who “owns” a PC after the player stops using them?

[SableWyvern]

Following that line of questioning very quickly leads to asking why we should honour the wishes of the dead as expressed in their wills. You sure that's the tack you want to take?

My consistent guideline is that I assess how reasonable a request is.

Stating that you have an inviolable right to veto my decision to imagine something because you have absolute control over the way that thing is imagined, by anyone, anywhere, forever, crosses the line, for me.

Maybe that's where we differ: I assume that promise to be the unspoken default if nothing else is said.

IME there's almost no such thing as permanently. The way I see it, anyone who has left the game should be reasonably able to expect that if they ever return to that same game their character(s) will be waiting for them, largely unchanged since last played. That's in part why I-as-DM tend to keep character sheets; so they too will be waiting if needed.

This is nonsense. If you are moving overseas to work, it would be ridiculous to make plans and decisions based on the assumption you may return in the next 6 - 12 months before the campaign ends.

If we expect the campaign to carry on for 10 years, or you're heading to location where travel might be inconvenient, or you actually have some reason to believe you might return, sure, it makes sense to discuss that possibility. It does not make sense to work on the assumption a player will return when it's quite clear that isn't going to happen.

And if I know for sure that someone really has left forever (usually meaning they've been kicked out), it's trivially easy to have their character(s) retire if such hasn't already been done, and simply become non-adventuring members of the setting's population or go off on (unplayed) adventures of their own that have nothing to do with anything the PCs are involved with.

I would be extremely likely to no longer use the character of someone leaving the game. I'm simply opposing the notion that it's the person leaving the game who has the absolute right to make that decision for me.

 

[SableWyvern]

It's not even a slope. It's literally the same argument. If you don't hold the same "They're not here, so why should I care about their wishes?" stance in regards to everyone who isn't there, then it was not an actual description of your reasoning, it was just a justification you threw down because it suited your purpose in the moment.

No. I'm arguing, "In this specific case, the fact that they're no longer present means that what they're wishing for makes no sense."
If Bob is deathly allergic to peanuts, it makes sense if we agree we just don't eat them while he's around. If he leaves the group, and tells us to continue not eating nuts at the sessions, that is not reasonable.

If we always leave Bob the particular chair that he really likes, it is not reasonable for him to tell us to leave it vacant in his memory when he leaves the group.

If Bob is playing his character, it makes sense for him not to want other people to play that character. If he leaves the group, it no longer affects Bob what we do in the session, and if the group really wants that character to continue, why wouldn't Bob respect the group's wishes?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No. I'm arguing, "In this specific case, the fact that they're no longer present means that what they're wishing for makes no sense."
If Bob is deathly allergic to peanuts, it makes sense if we agree we just don't eat them while he's around. If he leaves the group, and tells us to continue not eating nuts at the sessions, that is not reasonable.

If we always leave Bob the particular chair that he really likes, it is not reasonable for him to tell us to leave it vacant in his memory when he leaves the group.

If Bob is playing his character, it makes sense for him not to want other people to play that character. If he leaves the group, it no longer affects Bob what we do in the session, and if the group really wants that character to continue, why wouldn't Bob respect the group's wishes?

Why not just accept that if Bob says that it's important to him that other people doesn't play his character, he means it, even if doesn't make sense to you?

People get emotional about their creative works in ways they don't do about chairs or peanuts.

 

[SableWyvern]

Why not just accept that if Bob says that it's important to him that other people doesn't play his character, he means it, even if doesn't make sense to you?

People get emotional about their creative works in ways they don't do about chairs or peanuts.

Why not just accept that if the group says it's important to them that the character continues, they mean it, even if it doesn't make sense to you?

People get emotional about the characters they've interacted with over years in a roleplaying campaign, in a way they don't about chairs or peanuts.

Note: In a situation where both sides hold strong emotional views, I fully support having a meaningful discussion about the situation and coming to a mutually agreeable understanding, which would be the reasonable thing to do. The only thing I object to in all this is Bob arguing his position as if he is the only person with the right to determine the outcome.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Why not just accept that if the group says it's important to them that the character continues, they mean it, even if it doesn't make sense to you?

People get emotional about the characters they've interacted with over years in a roleplaying campaign, in a way they don't about chairs or peanuts.

Maybe if you tell Bob that and ask nicely, he will agree to let you use his character.

 

[SableWyvern]

Maybe if you tell Bob that and ask nicely, he will agree to let you use his character.

Maybe he will; that's beside the point, as per my edit. The question is whether Bob has the absolute right to just say no, regardless any conversation or lack thereof.

 

[Meech17]

Why not just accept that if Bob says that it's important to him that other people doesn't play his character, he means it, even if doesn't make sense to you?

People get emotional about their creative works in ways they don't do about chairs or peanuts.

I can get behind this for the most part. But I also see it from the point of view of a GM.

I'm trying to build a compelling and living world. Sure, your character is your creation, but once they're part of my game now they're a part of my creative work. I'm going to actively work to make them part of the world and let them have an impact. Let them make choices that have meaningful consequences that change this world that they're a part of.

If your character becomes an integral part of this world, and then at the end of it you say "Yeah... But don't ever bring them up again." I'm going to feel like I wasted a bunch of time and effort, and then going forward I'm going to be afraid to integrate these characters into my world too much.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Another D&D 'problem' that could be solved if only D&D players (especially DMs) would have a conversation with their fellow players rather than deciding it's better to never ever ask forgiveness than ask permission once.

 

[TwoSix]

I would be extremely likely to no longer use the character of someone leaving the game. I'm simply opposing the notion that it's the person leaving the game who has the absolute right to make that decision for me.

Right; the constraint is one of courtesy, not of obligation.

 

[jasper]

Okay, now you are just goading me into instigating a lawsuit between me and my players, just so I can start a new crazy-D&D-related-lawsuit thread--mainly so I can read more exasperated posts by @Snarf Zagyg explaining how the law and litigation really works.

Are you rich? Remember What Steve Dallas said.....