... from two seemingly harmless botched saves, and you've actually been playing a parasitic organism that infects a host, copies their brain, takes over the body, wipes the brain and then pretends to be you?
This may happen in one of my next few games, he's a pretty good sport and a solid roleplayer, but it seems a bit dickish to me. Especially since it would likely involve betraying the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally would give them a choice to make, because there are two interesting roleplaying opportunities here.
1.) The villain route mentioned already.
2.) Perhaps the parasite has been influenced by its time with the heroes. It's been biding its time, waiting for a chance to strike...but maybe it hesitates. Maybe it feels guilty for killing the original PC, but it's too late to change it, and it tries to atone, successfully turning into an actual hero.
-2a.) It tries to atone, breaks the news to the party...and is rejected. Queue:
---2b.) It then goes for option 1, the door of redemption slammed in its face, and seeks revenge.
---2c.) It keeps trying to aid the party from the sidelines.
The latter option is more interesting IMO. Because, let's face it, option 1 is just a doppelganger with a new skin. The party will eventually figure it out, and SLAUGHTER him, and that will be the end of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a case where the GM should ask instead of tell the player. It is something that I would find interesting but not all would. It's also something that should be breached to the entire group in a round-about way to make sure they're fine with the intra-party conflict part.
Back in 3.5 I was the player that was in a near identical spot, some kind of super doppleganger/ clone. Ended up being a hoot, but I can see that not all players and groups would like ot.
Yeah, I'd also recommend clearing this with them outside the game. And also have a backup plan ready for if they really have a problem with it and you have to retcon it out (which shouldn't be hard, given that it hasn't come up 'on camera' yet).
Probably i would actually be pretty annoyed lols.
With that said , it seems the kinda of thing that would really interest some players.
I quite like Sundakan's ideas.
I didn't tell him because then he would have acted slightly different. Best way to get someone to act as themself is make them not think they're acting.
Issue being , now you apparently need him to stop acting like "himself" and understand his PC is dead.
Again greatly depends on the player , some will roll with it , some wont for sure. Either he being in favor of the party or against , nothing changes the fact his actual PC is dead and he is playing something else.
Cacarrot is not even a real person but it is an autobot generated by the Paizo message boards. The lot of you are not even responding to an actual sentient being but instead a programming algorythm. Apparently the joke is on you
Sorry I couldn't resist
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Oh yay er, darn I get, I mean have to kill the other members of my party."
|
One of my players got taken over by a bonethief in my Eternal Darkness RPG (think horrible parasite monster that takes over a corpse); when he finally betrayed the party, it was a bloodbath - two pc deaths, and the PCs failed to stop the bad guys. No hurt feelings though - when I explained where the PC had been taken over, the players all understood. It also helped that I had already included bonethieves in the game by that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be way cooler if you told the rest of the party and not him. Sounds crazy I know but follow me here, over the course of the next few adventures drop hints to the other party members that something is off with the possessed PC. To me this would be great because without knowing hes possessed he'll totally deny anything is wrong and in fact nothing for him would be wrong, maybe even drop a hint to him that the other party members are acting strange, muahhahahhaahhahahhah this is just great stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might just be me, but I would find it awesome if that happened to my character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would never do this. And would be game-leavingly upset with anyone who did it to me.
The closest I'd come would be to have them make the Save, then tell them what happened after the game with nobody around.
But months later? That's invalidating the emotional landscape they've had in mind for the character the whole time. And will often result in actions that don't even make sense.
All a player has control over is their own character. I'd never take that away without even telling them.
That seems extreme. The character failed a save versus a status effect. This is really no different than being kilked and replaced by a Greater Doppelganger.
He should have mentioned it at the time it happened, agreed, but that would have changed little in the interim.
Deadmanwalking has a very good point about the time taken. Perhaps make it simply that the infection took place months ago, but is only now going to be asserting its control (aka actually slaying the PC - perhaps it consumes/copies the brain bit by bit, still communicating with the rest of the brain until it's done).
Lots of interesting ways to handle. One way to lead into it (and feel out the players) is to have a trusted or believable NPC declare that one of them is a traitor/impostor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It'd depend on the character and how you handled it. All in all, it seems like an unpleasant, cheap move. You let me play my character for a long time when nothing I did was of any consequence. It would feel like you prioritized showing off and tricking everybody over making the game enjoyable for the players. That, and you "cheated", bypassing the other players' characters' abilities to tell something was wrong, like sense motive.
That said, if I were in that situation, you could approach me with it as an idea. "Hey Quid, I've had this thing in mind. You might not remember when I had you do some fortitude saves a while ago, but it was for a parasite. The idea was that it would take over, pretending to be your character until the right moment. I didn't tell you so that it'd be a really good impersonation. If you're cool with the idea, you can start (insert stuff tied to parasite's real goals). If not, then those fortitude saves were just for a minor cold or something." Now you've given me power as a player rather than throw a few months of play into the garbage retroactively over a pair of saves.
I don't understand why the condition is irreversible. Why can't the organism be removed? Betraying the party is one thing - dominate, sleeper agents etc all very common themes. However there is usually a way back from this.
The alternative is to allow a raise dead and cure disease to save them despite brain death. Have an NPC cleric be hunting down the strain and have him raise the PC without it coming out of party treasure.
It sounds like an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would be right for many groups. I have one player who would love it for instance and at least two who would consider it pretty dickish.
What level has the party reached incidentally and what level did they start?
I've been in a similar situation where my character has been 'not themselves'. I was told right away and dreaded the eventually betray of the party but I went along with it because it was the book written plot. Thankfully a Natural 1 saved the party from a disaster so no harm done but I still hold it against that GM a little for putting me in that kind of situation.
Now I know some players would enjoy the idea of betraying the party and having a no fault of their own plot reason but the huge delay in telling the player might be an issue, especially if they are against the idea as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put me down for the "I'm totes ok with this idea, should be a fun romp."
I'm completely fine with the months delay, and the social contract requires that we roll with the punches handed out in the interests of having fun. I'm not so removed from the story that my involvement with my character supercedes the playing of the story by the group.
Obviously, reading the stern and serious comments upthread, some people most vehemently and vociferously agree. What they don't know is that they died two months ago, and a very invested parasite now lives in their brain, logging on to the Paizo site, and typing for them. But don't tell them yet.
This has actually happened on a numenera table i played.
One of the players turned out to be a synthetic (half meat) clone of one of the players, his goal from them on was to find out his real body and get back to it.
Turned out that he was one of eleven clones that were made out of himself, one of them was bent on killing all the other clones, 5 more were alive, and the real one was nowhere to be found.
As a player, I would find this hilarious as long as the GM worked with me.
As a GM, I've had players ragequit over far less.
Talk to the player, see how he feels about the subject.
|
|
Hrm. To those in favor and opposed: Do you enjoy playing evil characters?
My own group breaks frequently from law and good, often we play chaotic, evil, or neutral on either axis. It is possible that one's alignment predilections would affect opinion on this subject.
Uh...my favorite alignments are NG and CG, but I've enjoyed more than a few Evil characters (my LE Drow Bard was a delight to play, cannibalism, genocide and all...he wound up with an empire).
I don't think alignment preferences have anything to do with this. It's a matter of how invested you get in your characters and how much authority you feel like the GM should have in a game.
Thinking on it more, the several levels later thing is really not cool, and a strong reason to drop it without bringing it up. You had him leveling up an enemy NPC, you snuck his character's death past the Raise Dead/Reincarnation window without even telling him, and the reason isn't a very compelling one. Is the game really going to be better for it?
|
Hrm. To those in favor and opposed: Do you enjoy playing evil characters?
My own group breaks frequently from law and good, often we play chaotic, evil, or neutral on either axis. It is possible that one's alignment predilections would affect opinion on this subject.
I do tend to lean towards heroic characters with strong party loyalty, but I've also enjoyed evil characters - when I know ahead of time what I'm going to be playing. Being told that I'm going to play an evil character as a result of a magical personality change is different.
Being asked mid-game if I want a magical personality change - sure.
Also good to establish that the group is generally OK with PVP before anyone goes about deciding to have a PC betray the rest of the group.
... from two seemingly harmless botched saves, and you've actually been playing a parasitic organism that infects a host, copies their brain, takes over the body, wipes the brain and then pretends to be you?
This may happen in one of my next few games, he's a pretty good sport and a solid roleplayer, but it seems a bit dickish to me. Especially since it would likely involve betraying the party.
As a player I think I'd be surprised but really enjoy it, especially if I had the chance to roleplay my descent into insane fungal treachery.
I would love it. But that's just me.
I would pull the player aside and explain the situation. If their reaction was "cool" and they want to go with it, everything should be fine. If they are dead set against the idea then I would offer one of two alternatives...
1. Retcon the situation before it comes up in the game.
2. Offer the player to chance to roleplay the altered character but by the end of the adventure they are able to return their character back to his original state, retaining any possessions and experience points earned during the time. In the end this gives the player incentive to follow your original plan and return the character to their liking and still be awarded everything they earned.
I didn't have it where my character died, but I did have were another character saved my character's life, but in doing so, changed my alignment from LG to LE. I plotted against another who been a thorn in my side the whole campaign. Luckily the alignment changed back before that was done.
... from two seemingly harmless botched saves, and you've actually been playing a parasitic organism that infects a host, copies their brain, takes over the body, wipes the brain and then pretends to be you?
This may happen in one of my next few games, he's a pretty good sport and a solid roleplayer, but it seems a bit dickish to me. Especially since it would likely involve betraying the party.
In general, I feel that any move on the GM's part that negates player agency is a bad move. The Game Master is a member of an improv troop, not a director, and certainly not an author. The idea of saying "you will behave as I tell you to behave and not as you want to behave -- the amount of fun you have is irrelevant to me, as long as you tell the story I tell you to tell" is a very hard one to justify.
I don't see anything about this particular situation that would change my overall opinion. Similarly, I think your instincts that this is being "dickish" are good ones.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it humorous that people are going to quit a game over something like this.
Do you quit if you fail your saves on Irresistible dance? Or Being Dominated by the Vampire?
Similar idea and hell you still get to control your character just have to change the idea. Who knows what the OP has in mind, maybe there is a way to save them and that is finale of the story?
To each their own though, I would welcome the challenge
I just find it humorous that people are going to quit a game over something like this.
Do you quit if you fail your saves on Irresistible dance? Or Being Dominated by the Vampire?
Similar idea and hell you still get to control your character just have to change the idea. Who knows what the OP has in mind, maybe there is a way to save them and that is finale of the story?
To each their own though, I would welcome the challenge
Raltus, the point is this:
If you roll a save and blow it, and the GM informs you, you're either dancing or doing what the vampire tells you to. As a result, you still have agency of a sort, in that you *know* what is going on.
If several weeks, months, or years have passed since those failed rolls, it then becomes a kick to the nether regions, because it invalidates any play you've done since that failed save (series?). The disconnect is jarring, rude, and would assuredly cause many of the reactions mentioned above.
Communication is the important part. If you're going to pull shenanigans of a story nature with a player's character, the easiest and best way to do it is to get them on board *from the start*.
Failing that, as soon as possible. Letting it linger and then springing it as a 'gotcha' is not only obnoxious, but it then brings into question at any point the character may have been hit with a curative/dismissing spell that may have ended the effect much earlier. Sure, GM fiat could say it doesn't work, but it strains credulity and disrupts the play dynamic.