| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey!
I have a Cleric who's going to be controlling people in the battlefield, instead of focusing entirely on healing (but he'll be good at that, too), but I asked my GM to keep my character concept a secret, but it appears he hasn't.
I gathered this because he said that two of the other players said if they see any allies or PC's acting weirdly (from command and geas spells), they'll kill my character.
This is something I don't like, because it's them learning something out of game, then battling against it in game, when their characters won't even be aware of what I'd be able to do.
How would you combat a situation like this?
I've decided the best way I can get around it is by having my character have an alter ego. So, when he's himself he'll heal and buff, but when he's his alias, he'll command and geas everything. This still doesn't change the fact the group will know something's up when one guy goes missing and another replaces him, but I could geas someone else to wear the outfit when the real character is around, to lower suspicion.
There's not much else I can do, but seeing as I'm the party Cleric and my character see's everyone as his pawns and has them fighting for a greater cause, if they kill me, they've practically killed themselves anyway, as the group I play with fails when there's nobody around to heal them.
So, do you see my character as a problem or would you all just play it how your character is and ignore people trying to meta game?
I said people, not team-mates, but in character, if his allies do something he doesn't feel will aid him in battle, he's likely to control them.....
Try not to jump the gun, eh?
I have in game reasons why my guy is like that. They can't justify meta gaming. So, yea, it's a situation and seeing as we haven't even begun the campaign yet, there's no excuse for it.
My guy is destined to be King, is very Charismatic and doesn't ever fight. He'll aid people in battle if they're loyal to him and if he can get away with it, will control whoever he pleases if it's for the greater good.
He's willing to make sacrifices of loved ones to bring about order and peace. There's nothing wrong with the concept in my eyes. It's different.
It isn't good for the players to meta-game, but after the first couple of adventures with your 'alter-ego' they will know. They know when someone casts a spell on them. They know when they don't have free will. Is there going to be no other PC with spellcraft? The other characters can tell the controlled characters aren't acting of their own free will.
The rest of party tells you to relax, get some sleep and they all volunteer for guard duty that night--problem solved.
My advice, unless you get everyone at the table willing to buy into this concept, don't even think of trying it. It will cause problems on a personal out-of-game level.
If you can convince them to try, don't whine when their characters all get together and decide that you need some serious healing and try to rid you of your insanity and alter-ego.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it's probably better that this is getting worked out ahead of time. "Wastes party resources casting hostile enchantment spells on teammates" is -not- a good character concept for a team-oriented game like Pathfinder, period, even if it makes sense within the game world. It's not even a character concept on it's own - it's just an extremely strife-provoking way of implementing the character concept that you're shooting for. You can get the same general feel by using your enhancement magic on people who aren't already on your side, and that strikes me as way more chessmaster-y anyway. (What kind of chessmaster wastes resources making people who already are on his side angry at him?) That you're filling an important party role - providing healing - doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want and expect the game to work out. The best way to handle your situation isn't with some kind of weird alter-ego setup; the best way to handle your situation is to revise your character concept into something that the other people playing the game won't have such clear in- and out-of-character reasons to want to have nothing to do with.
If they can tell what he's doing, then they are free to react appropriately.
By that I mean, making their spellcraft check to know what you cast/making a perception check to realize the person is acting oddly (not many spells provide this)/some other way for them to know whats going on (You say "jump" and Bob jumps).
Other than that, yeah, people tend to get cranky when they think they might have their control wrestled away from them.... That or expect to have a party of monks, paladins, and superstitious barbarians.
When you try to control someone they can tell that the attempt was made. RAW it registers as a hostile force, but they should not be acting on it or even mentioning it until after the first attempt.
I will also add that just because you are using magic instead of a sword that does not mean it is ok from an out of character point of view. In game terms it does register as an attack.
In short they won't have to metagame in order to know who tried to control them anymore than they would if the spell was cast by an enenmy caster.
If they are smart they won't gank you in the middle of a battle, but later it is an option. You have to sleep sooner or later.
One of them might make a cleric just so they don't have to accept your cleric. That is what I would do.
Well if you want my honest opinion.
The meta gaming issue matters very little, even if they strictly play this out in character at the table I don’t think it would take the other players very long to figure out what is going on. Beside that fact that there is no way that I can think of for you to have you character take control of another character without the rest of the players thinking something is up.
Have you thought about being straight with the other players and say “this is how I would like to play this character, it seems really fun and if I do take control of you I won’t deliberately make bad decisions and I’ll play him just as if he were my character.” Trying to be sneaky about automatically raises red flags, and that might be why the GM told them about it to begin with. He might just be trying to prevent his game from turning into a PC vs. PC battle royal.
Just my opinion, and you know what they say about those.
-Tal
edit: I haven't read the posts above mine, but I feel as though I just got crazy ninja'd.
I said people, not team-mates, but in character, if his allies do something he doesn't feel will aid him in battle, he's likely to control them.....
I don't even like people telling other people how to play their characters at the table. How do you think I would react if I found out that one of my friends had actually tried to hypnotize another to get his way?
Haha, I wouldn't whine anyway. I play this because it's a game and I like to act in character, which is all part of the fun.
Everyone I play with are friends in real life, but I just don't think it's fair for them to already be deciding on things that they shouldn't have even known about in the first place, had it been kept secret.
It's all good for character development, but having them all tell me that meta gaming is bad when I first began play, I feel it's contradictory if they then meta game themselves, as now I fully understand the concept of it, I don't ever do it and I accept all character concepts, because a game isn't fun unless you're playing a character of your own concept.
I have no problem with pc's attacking each other if they have proper in game reasons. Also, as players we don't get annoyed at each other, but I'm just wanting opinions on how to get around this, because that is his personality and there is a chance a situation will arise where he might act like that.
There's a Ninja, Fighter and Wizard in the party, next to my Cleric.
Edit: I don't mean controlling them in a bad way. I mean for example if the Ninja is avoiding sneak missions at all costs, I might try and Geas him into doing scouting missions....not purposely telling him to fall on the floor so the enemies get AoO's. That's what I'll be doing to the enemies.
I mean control on the aid side of things. If a party member isn't working to his full advantage, I'd try to manipulate the character into thinking that he should do certain actions. I wouldn't be putting their characters lives at risk.
This isn't real life, but then I know some of you take the game incredibly seriously, rather than creating concepts to have a fun time with the game. People play differently and I like to be different, but still play my characters to aid others...usually, which is more than I can say for the rest of the group who all aim to be the number one hero.
I think your both wrong. But that takes my prejudices and experience into account...In my group you do not attack, control, or in anyway PVP and I think that's the norm and why you are getting a lot of hostility on the board. If your group does that type of thing normally and there is nothing wrong(within your groups norms) with PVP then I have less of a problem with what your doing...
As far as meta gaming if the dm allows them to use out of game knowledge to their betterment he's not doing it right. My group is very cool with the dm telling players no you don't do that because there is no justification for why you would do act that way(for the same reason we don't allow table talk to effect the game)...but if the dm isn't on your side there's not much you can do(I would recommend you shouldn't try because then everyone at your table is telling you not to do this)
If they do try to use out of game knowledge to kill your char fight fire with fire you will probably lose but plan out how you would murder them since they are using out of game knowledge so can you...I bet that fighter and ninja don't have good will saves...
But really its about fun so do what ever means you and your group will find the most fun.
I'd say it's pretty normal at our table.
Primarily we try to work in a group, but usually I'm the guy who's trying to watch my allies backs and the guy who's playing the Wizard this time around is usually the Cleric. Just this time, I'm giving him a break as he wants to play something else.
Anyway, a good example is in the last campaign, the Wizard player (he had a Cleric) died, along with the archer, so my Half-Elf Magus was left with a Lizardfolk of another player.
So, the Wizard/Cleric player decides he's going to play a halfling Cavalier who's had her home burnt down by lizardfolk. Now, upon sight of the lizardfolk, she starts firing arrows at my ally. The player's are all male, but immediately this made it a PVP session, but because his character had no issue with my Magus, I was trying to defuse the situation by means of in game character Diplomacy.
As a result of this, the cavalier got jumped and surrounded by Gnoll's and Hyena's....so did the Lizardfolk fighter and so did the cavalier's Monk friend who ran in, attacking the lizardfolk as soon as we were in sight.
I was the last one standing, but due to the way things panned out, all of us died (me being last). It's just how we play. Highest level we've ever reached was 6 and my Halfling Two-Weapon Warrior gave his life for the group....who also failed to run away and died.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wow you have a dysfunctional group...The thought of building a character specifically to attack another PC(shudder followed by a face palm)...that is so disruptive to the party i'm stunned. But hey what ever works for you guys.
If that's how your group plays then fair game to do what ever you want(id make the concept even more extreme and build an enchanter to dominate all of them if they started trouble)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My apologies if the tone of this post offends you. It is not my purpose, just me stating my opinion about this.
I am a good roleplayer and I like to play in character as well. If I have a curious character, my chracter asks NPCs a plethora of random questions just for the sake of asking. If I am playing a hotheaded character the slightest insult has my character challenging the offender to duels.
The reason I play my Pathfinder characters. Is so I can play my Pathfinder characters. It would deeply disturb me as a player if any other group member including the GM took control of my character. Your cleric wants to control NPCs? That's fine if that's your character's style that's cool. But as soon as you start trying to control my character then we would have problems. I think it is extremely arrogant and insulting to say as a character or player that you know better than my character on what I should do with my character.
Hiding behind a curtain of "Oh but I'm roleplaying and that's what my character would do." Is a huge cop out in my book. It's one thing to roleplay a character, but to detract from other player's fun is deeply disturbing. There are two aspects of playing any RPG with a group of people. One is the roleplaying the other is the group. We have a saying in our group, "Roleplay to your heart's content, but don't be anti-party." This rang true even in our evil campaigns. The group did not backstab each other even if it seems a proper roleplaying choice. Why? Because it is just a game however people do take the personal time and energy to come up with their own character concepts that they think are fun to play, and everyone makes mistakes in battle.
You may call it meta-gaming for the players to be upset that you are trying to control their characters, but honestly as a long long time DM if a player ever came up to me and said, "Everyone else is meta-gaming because they get upset and won't let me control their characters." I would laugh at the player. First of all I would house rule that whatever spell you tried to control another player with would be completely optional against other players. You'd be able to use the spells as RAW against NPCs I don't care about that, but the other players would 100% get a choice to let you use the spell on them and they could cancel it as a free action at absolutely anytime they feel like it. The whole thing sounds to me like a selfish little kid who's brother is playing with a toy he wants to play with and tattletales to his parents because the brother is not sharing.
I think it was an excellent move for the GM to tell the other players what character concept you were planning. In my games all character concepts are public knowledge to myself and the other players. And if you feel some inherent need to control other people I would definitely suggest you play some solo rpg video games that way you have complete control over the entire party like you want, but you shouldn't involve other people's rights to free will just because that's how you want it. What you want isn't anymore or less important than what they want. And when they sit down to play Pathfinder, they want to play their characters, not you play their characters for them. And if that's the type of Pathfinder game you're looking for, talk to your DM about maybe making a special campaign for you where you can control 5 characters at once so you can get the experience you want.
In summary players want to play their characters and in-character roleplaying is no excuse to be anti-party. Happy gaming.
"if his allies do something he doesn't feel will aid him in battle, he's likely to control them....."
Metagaming or not, this would likely get you a whole table of evil eyeballs if not an out right "We don't do that here" conversation.
Remember that old saying "don't be a jerk"? Well.. Don't be a jerk.
The absolutely most annoying thing a DM can do is take control away from a player. Kill me, rob me, fine. what do I hate most? fear effects. Mind control. Dominate. Just yuck.
They are all perfectly valid but they are still the things I absolutely hate the most.
And you are designing a character around the idea of taking away the control of my character so you can make me do what you want?
Just.. No.
My advice? Re-think your entire concept. Battle field control and controlling the /bad guys/ is one thing. Turning those abilities back on your own party is a very quick trip to rolling up a new PC.
I would say "if your group goes for it, its fine" but.. really- it seems your group has already spoken, and its not fine by them.
(though if they didn't care, hey go for it.)
-S
I wouldn't be choosing how they go about following my actions. That's up to them, but my character's a strategist. It's nothing about me and if anything, I'd welcome somebody doing that to my character. It allows for more interesting things to happen.
I never play a selfish character and this is what's so strange. I am playing a character. I'm not playing myself or hiding behind a curtain because I didn't even want to be a Cleric this time, but I was assigned to be one, so I came up with an idea that was new. My character would still offer aid and is Neutral Good, so would stay within those boundaries.
The character is in control when I play and the other players know that. I don't ever do anything out of character, but manipulation is this guys thing and real life, personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
At the end of the day, like everything else, it's about perception. You perceive me to be a kid who wants his own way, when I've only ever played good characters who have always worked in a team, even when a broken half-elf Zen Archer constantly mocked my halfling and called him his slave, threatening to kill my guy if he said anything in his defense. He also always called us all wimps and when we fell, he was the first to run off. He had a go at us in person and in character for stupid things, as well as constantly mocking every character in the game. This went on from level 1 to 6. As a player, I found it annoying because I wanted to kill his character. As a character, I wanted to kill his character, but my guy was good, so I refused and gave my life for the party (him included) because that's how I play my characters.
I play them as they think and feel, not as I do.
I know that having a character who controls other playable characters to do his bidding may be annoying, but it's not strictly controlling their characters in the sense you're saying, because the players still get to choose how they go about doing such actions. I'm doing it all within the rules of the game and yes, if I succeed all of the time and people catch on, when my guy's King, he may be assassinated.
Step in character number 2 who rebelled against the King and is on the PC's side.
I use my characters as plot devices, not just game characters. Who knows, maybe the story will allow me to get my character to become a King, form allies of warring factions and then betray them all, turning himself into the target on purpose, so that his death means world peace.
It's not selfish at all. It's how I like to play the game. I like to see my characters (and any PC's for that matter) gaming lives effect the gaming world. It keeps things interesting.
@Scion - That sounds pretty hilarious, but nah, this guys goal is to ally with people who he sees fit and use them to his advantage. He'll value friendship, but if given no choice, may do actions that will harm himself and possibly others, but better the world as he works for the greater good and acts independently from the world. He's very set in his way. :)
@Cranewings - This is my point. It's a roleplaying game, so if you're staying true to your character or playing the game, roleplay whatever happens. That's why I'm using such long winded examples above.
If you were purposely trying to ruin the game for everyone, yea, that's being a jerk, but roleplaying a character isn't and if I cared more, I'd be insulted by that, but I'm not because I like to roleplay with no limitations and feel sorry for the people who have to be limited as in my opinion, it detracts from the experience.
I would roleplay absolutely anything thrown at me, no questions asked.
It's what keeps things interesting.
Yes, I have forgotten it's a game when that has been my whole point with nearly every post in this thread.
They roleplay their own characters how they see fit. Real life doesn't come into it and I feel sorry for you if you feel a game can effect friendship. If we all let trivial things like our characters minds slightly being swayed, destroy our friendships, the world would be without love and in extreme disarray.
Chill please and try to be a little more understanding.
Anyway, thank you to those of you who answered fairly civilised.
It's clear how people feel about it. Some are more open minded than others, but it's sad to see game talk causes such arguments. As such, I won't be replying anymore because people take things like this far too personally.
Forget I ever brought an interesting concept up, or even asked for a civilised conversation.
This is my point. It's a roleplaying game, so if you're staying true to your character or playing the game, roleplay whatever happens. That's why I'm using such long winded examples above.
If you were purposely trying to ruin the game for everyone, yea, that's being a jerk, but roleplaying a character isn't and if I cared more, I'd be insulted by that, but I'm not because I like to roleplay with no limitations and feel sorry for the people who have to be limited as in my opinion, it detracts from the experience.
These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. I can roleplay my character accurately while still being a jerk to the other players at the table.
I am playing my character, so no matter what, I am responsible for the actions I make him take. If those actions are reducing the fun for others at the table, it doesn't matter if those actions are believable in the context of roleplaying, I am still responsible for them and I am still being a jerk.
I think the resistance you're seeing from various people is the concept of taking their character away from them. If you want to play a manipulative character, I wouldn't have a problem with that as a fellow player, but if you start taking offensive action against me (for example, casting spells to control my actions) you better believe my character is going to defend himself.
I would recommend adjusting the concept ever so slightly. Bring the other players and characters into your trusted circle of friends who would be willing to help your character achieve his goals. Come up with reasons why he doesn't want to use his magic on the other PC's, he still has it and still uses it on others, but he has a code or reason why he doesn't.
eh, to me most games have a gentlemen's agreement.
You agree not to have character concepts that involve explicitely manipulating my characters, and I agree not to suddenly have character concepts that demand I kill anyone with your characters name.
kidding, but seriously... the point of pathfinder is to work as a team. character concepts that aren't team players (you can be selfish, roleplay an arrogant prick, and still work together as a team) simply aren't welcome. This would be one of em.
That's my 2 copper.
eh, to me most games have a gentlemen's agreement.
There's an unspoken rule I usually play by:
I don't use class abilities on you as long as you don't use them on me.
By this I mean offensively, or controlling. There are games in different campaigns or game systems that this doesn't apply to.
I said people, not team-mates, but in character, if his allies do something he doesn't feel will aid him in battle, he's likely to control them.....I don't even like people telling other people how to play their characters at the table. How do you think I would react if I found out that one of my friends had actually tried to hypnotize another to get his way?
This recently DID happen to my character. When half the party (the spellcasters) tried to do something the rest of the party didn't want to do and used magic to make us comply.
If I hadn't failed my DC save I WOULD have cut that Bard.
It sort of blew over since it worked out that we had needed to do it anyway to advance the plot. But if it happened again I would not hesitate to preemptively knock out the spellcasters.
That is probably the most MILD reaction you will get to your character hypnotizing one of your party mates.
Not really adding anything new here, but the single least cool experience for any gamer to have is losing control of his character.
In 3.5, I used to multi into Holy Liberator with ALL of my fighter-type characters JUST to be immune to charm and compulsion.
(And in Pathfinder Society, ALL of my characters have a Wayfinder slotted with a clear spindle ioun stone as soon as they can afford it JUST to get the resonance Prot. Evil effect versus mental control...)
It's almost a Fight Club-esque mantra: "First rule of RPG club - let me play MY character; second rule of RPG club... see the first rule!"
|
I said people, not team-mates, but in character, if his allies do something he doesn't feel will aid him in battle, he's likely to control them.....
Try not to jump the gun, eh?
I have in game reasons why my guy is like that. They can't justify meta gaming. So, yea, it's a situation and seeing as we haven't even begun the campaign yet, there's no excuse for it.
My guy is destined to be King, is very Charismatic and doesn't ever fight. He'll aid people in battle if they're loyal to him and if he can get away with it, will control whoever he pleases if it's for the greater good.
He's willing to make sacrifices of loved ones to bring about order and peace. There's nothing wrong with the concept in my eyes. It's different.
i understand your hatred of metagaming. but there are some rules one player should never break.
#1 you should never force a fellow player to roll a save against you.#2 you should never tell other players what to do let alone control them and force them to do something.
#3 if you make a roll against a player or make a player roll against you EXPECT THE NEXT ROLL TO BE FOLLOWED BY DAMAGE DICE.
forcing people to play in a game you consider yourself to be the center of is rude and annoying. dominating another player is bullying and i would toss your character the minute you tried it on a pc. using charm and diplomacy you shoul dbe able to convince npcs to follow/help you. if you want a thrall or a lackey take the feat.
in short metagaming is bad but if one of my players was planning on doing what u just said you were planning i would have let you know that it will not be allowed. your dm tried handling it a different way that will cause a whole other set of problems. but at this point you now know your fellow players do not appreciate the play tactics you are proposing. and as a dm. if a healer gets killed another one will come into the group. and if it is not the same player with a lesson learned then itll be an npc.
and your idea isnt original and it is the begining of a piss poor king. imho.
|
|
I think your both wrong. But that takes my prejudices and experience into account...In my group you do not attack, control, or in anyway PVP and I think that's the norm and why you are getting a lot of hostility on the board. If your group does that type of thing normally and there is nothing wrong(within your groups norms) with PVP then I have less of a problem with what your doing...
As far as meta gaming if the dm allows them to use out of game knowledge to their betterment he's not doing it right. My group is very cool with the dm telling players no you don't do that because there is no justification for why you would do act that way(for the same reason we don't allow table talk to effect the game)...but if the dm isn't on your side there's not much you can do(I would recommend you shouldn't try because then everyone at your table is telling you not to do this)
If they do try to use out of game knowledge to kill your char fight fire with fire you will probably lose but plan out how you would murder them since they are using out of game knowledge so can you...I bet that fighter and ninja don't have good will saves...
But really its about fun so do what ever means you and your group will find the most fun.
this is just an absolutely horrible post. if your dm and all other players have expressed there non-approval of this "concept" of yours dont play it. if the other players have gone so far as to threaten you in or out of game against a specific build THEN DONT PLAY IT.
you are part of a team if you want to play by yourself buy a module roll up 6 characters and play by yourself.if i was your dm id be more forward obviously players are trying. maybe it is one of there character concepts to just randomly kill people. should he be allowed to do whatever he wants. and planning out how to kill your own party will seriously piss a decent dm off. there goes a whole session of play. does everyone reroll characters??? and from now on every single character you roll will be closely watched and that is not conducive to game play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is the secrecy.
Forget everything else, wanting to hide this from the other players? That's where I would take issue. In my group we're mature players nowadays and we were discussing last time we met how we were going to bring back PVP because it CAN add to role-play and we as PLAYERS can act co-operatively while our CHARACTERS can struggle with each other to a reasonable degree.
However, if I ever thought up a concept that involved taking control away from a player I would immediately raise that with the whole group and see how they took it. Discuss it, hear everyone's opinions. They may think of circumstances or have a character concept that would not fit. Personally I would cautiously agree to play with your character, but at the first hint of megalomania it would be over. I would also design a character in co-operation with you to purposely force conflict - after all, if you don't get to use your concept there's no use in playing it.
I did play a druid once that I "hid" from the CHARACTERS, but the players knew I was a druid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what if you lose control of your character. Just pretend he got knocked out and sit there for a minute like an adult.
Most of the people I game with don't fight mind control, they RP it. If I tell the party wizard he is mind controlled to do x, I tell him with just a few words or a note, and then he plays that. I often have to announce sense motive rolls be made to detect the oddities because my players like rping trouble, failure, problems, and struggle because they get to later play overcoming it and working it out, or they just have fun being the bad guy for a minute.
I HATE playing PF with people that can't just RP and have fun no matter what happens, instead demanding a gm back rub all evening.
another HORRIBLE POST. example
i am playing my rogue i dont want to scout ahead because i think theres a good chance i get wtf pwnd. cleric says eh you scout anyways roll a will save. i fail my character gets taken from me. even if you tell me what you want my character to do u just took away my free will. you better plan on keeping that dominate up for the rest of my life. and the first antimagic field or dispel magic i swear to go any player would kill the shit out of that cleric. its not RP. role playing is fun this is bullying. look at all the posts before yours. if you are the only person saying "yeah that sounds like a good idea" chances are you have nto been bullied in a game before. this whole conversation sounsd like little kids new to gaming saying "why cant i play with all the toys" and all teh adults saying "chill out and play with the one you brought"|
|
Yes, I have forgotten it's a game when that has been my whole point with nearly every post in this thread.
They roleplay their own characters how they see fit. Real life doesn't come into it and I feel sorry for you if you feel a game can effect friendship. If we all let trivial things like our characters minds slightly being swayed, destroy our friendships, the world would be without love and in extreme disarray.
Chill please and try to be a little more understanding.
Anyway, thank you to those of you who answered fairly civilised.
It's clear how people feel about it. Some are more open minded than others, but it's sad to see game talk causes such arguments. As such, I won't be replying anymore because people take things like this far too personally.
Forget I ever brought an interesting concept up, or even asked for a civilised conversation.
LOL
you "hey guys i have a question"us "sure whats up"
you "i want to play a character that controls other peoples toons if they dont do what i want them to do"
us "you probably shouldnt do that"
you "but its how i would roleplay him. you see hes charismatic and wants to be a king and knows how everyone should act even when they dont"
us "well if your group is ok with it then enjoy"
you "know thats the problem the a~* h~##s are meta gaming and the dm even sided with them and let them know about my plan to take over there characters... im very distraught over all this cause meta gaming is bad and i think i know whats best"
us "dude your party and dm agree this is a bad idea and it will cause strife within your group you should try to play something else"
you "but im an artist in game im a roleplayer. you all make me sad and i dont care what you have to say BYE"
See, its like this.
When the DM controls my character- thats his job. He's running my character's adversaries. If the adversary has a tool then I expect him to use it to do whatever he can to defeat me.
thats part of the challenge.
The dude sitting beside me though, he's supposed to be on my team. I'm on his team.. We're on the same team as the other guys around the table.
Its not his job to challenge me, or to be my adversary. Its his job to assist me, and for me to assist him. The instant- the very freaking instant- he tries to mind control my character he becomes the adversary.
And yanno what PC's in D&D do to their adversaries?
Kill. Loot. Move on.
You have a fairly neat character concept. Scratch out the "control the other guys at the table" bit and keep going.
If I was at the table though I hafta tell ya. I'd be siding with your buds.
I understand you are upset folks seem to be shooting down your idea but Honestly- what would you do if the guy next to you at the table rattled off a Dominate Person on your Pc and controlled you every action for the rest of the game? Not session- *game*.
Would you really, honestly, truly be so gung ho about it?
Because thats what you are asking to do to them.
-S
Okay, since this topic is sort of just devolving into two separate issues, I'm going to focus on what the OP wants to know.
If another player starts using metagame knowledge. Just call him out on it. Say "Look buddy, there's no way you can know that. You can't act on information you don't know." If he thinks he does have a justifiable way, he'll say it, and it's up to the DM to decide who's right.
If you're really paranoid, you could just pass notes. But that might just increase other players annoyance.
Perfect example, last session an NPC came up to me and asked me if I could find her ring on the bandits we were about to kill. I said yes. When we killed the bandits, another character asked about the ring, when I pointed out his character would not know about the ring.
I said people, not team-mates, but in character, if his allies do something he doesn't feel will aid him in battle, he's likely to control them.....
Try not to jump the gun, eh?
I have in game reasons why my guy is like that. They can't justify meta gaming. So, yea, it's a situation and seeing as we haven't even begun the campaign yet, there's no excuse for it.
OMG.
Who cares if you have in game reason for that? What you plan to do is so wrong that their metagaming is irrelevant: they should simply laugh and tell you "no, you don't dominate me" and smack you on the head. If you appeal to the GM he should smack you too and rip your sheet.
|
To the OP.
Every party/group of players has a different approach to the game and rping.
There are groups that very deep into staying in character. Some act out their characters, others make decisions based on what their character will do...etc
There are also groups that focus less on RP and more on the game. They will try to make the party as a whole as optimized as possible, giving party loot to those that need it most as players and not what their characters will do.
To put it simply, every group is different and players should try to discover and understand the group's approach to the game.
If the party is made up of players that has a "all for the team, good guys" mentality when it comes to game play, then as a player, take caution to avoid playing thieving, evil, master-mind like characters. Your fellow party members might not like it or be willing to accommodate such a character/game play.
On the other hand if the part is RP heavy and follows a "do as your character would do, all alignments allowed" type of mentality, then go for it. Rping your character!
As players we need to remember that the party as a whole needs to have fun, not just yourself or some of the party. Your fellow players may have bad experiences with "mind-controlling" characters/players. Do your best to reassure them and have fun. Shift your focus and have your fun in other ways.
See, its like this.
When the DM controls my character- thats his job. He's running my character's adversaries. If the adversary has a tool then I expect him to use it to do whatever he can to defeat me.
thats part of the challenge.The dude sitting beside me though, he's supposed to be on my team. I'm on his team.. We're on the same team as the other guys around the table.
Its not his job to challenge me, or to be my adversary. Its his job to assist me, and for me to assist him. The instant- the very freaking instant- he tries to mind control my character he becomes the adversary.
And yanno what PC's in D&D do to their adversaries?
Kill. Loot. Move on.
You have a fairly neat character concept. Scratch out the "control the other guys at the table" bit and keep going.
If I was at the table though I hafta tell ya. I'd be siding with your buds.
I understand you are upset folks seem to be shooting down your idea but Honestly- what would you do if the guy next to you at the table rattled off a Dominate Person on your Pc and controlled you every action for the rest of the game? Not session- *game*.
Would you really, honestly, truly be so gung ho about it?
Because thats what you are asking to do to them.-S
I was thinking more for certain instances. I wouldn't waste my spells on targeting the PC's unless I really had to for in game reasons.
In combat, I have no armour and not much health, but I have a high initiative so I can act fast.
If the other PC's are running in to flank, I'll stay close and when they're in position, command the enemy to fall to the floor. Oh look, when the enemy stands, my guys allies get an AoO each. Nice.
Need healing? That's fine. My guy doesn't want his potential pawns to die. He needs them alive in battle and if he forms a friendship with them, that's great.
If a PC wants to kill my guy when ruling because they don't agree with his vision or intentions, my guy uses geas on them, causing them to only have good intentions towards him. Manipulation from a roleplaying perspective - It works.
In other words, my guy would only target another PC if they targeted him because he'd sooner have them working with him whilst convincing them (via diplomacy) to aid his cause. He's Neutral Good. He won't turn on his team mates unless really forced to because he wants the PC's and most of the nation to work for him.
Though yea, I know. If I played him differently and made him cast spells on the other PC's every session, it'd be boring for the other players and boring for me. That's not what I was planning to do anyway, so I was surprised when my DM even brought it up, because before this, I hadn't even thought about using the abilities on another playable character.
With no memory erasing spells, doing that in game is foolish anyway. They'd be aware my guy controlled them and strike him down. His actions will go where the story and relationships take him. He has high diplomacy and sense motive scores.
I removed a post and a couple replies to it. Threats are not cool.
I still think trying to keep this idea a secret is/was a bad idea. It sounds like the group hasn't been adverse to interpersonal conflict in the game in the past. But, in all honesty I've warmed to the idea. Whoa! Hear me out. The number one rule is that EVERY player and DM have to accept the concept.
Some of the best role-playing opportunities I've had is dealing with strife and conflict. You now have a build in device for conflict. I could see a campaign built around a somewhat-evil insane megalomaniac that is inline for the throne. All sorts of people will attach themselves to him either because they think it's their duty or they want some of the power he has for themselves. But all characters need to be built with this campaign in mind.
Those that want to save kingdom will be torn between putting a crazy person in power or starting a war of succession. Those that want power will help him become the leader only to abuse their own power or possibly usurp the throne for themselves.
The role-playing possibilities are incredible. I could see this turning in to a quasi-medieval high-fantasy episode of survivor. However, I can't emphasis this enough, the entire group has to be okay with this and mature enough to leave the conflict between characters and not friends.
Highest level we've ever reached was 6 and my Halfling Two-Weapon Warrior gave his life for the group....who also failed to run away and died.
I'd say don't worry about Geas/Quest then. Since its a 6th level spell, you're not likely to ever have to worry about what to do with it. Side note: You know its casting time 10 minutes right?
Wow seriously? Do what I want you to do, or else I will force you to, and if I fail at that, or you retaliate I'm not going to heal you? This type of idea might fly in a solo campaign, but I'd walk out the minute I found out another player's concept was to play a character so callous and hell-bent on his own goals that he was going to force me to comply to them.
If I was in a group where PvP was ok I would just kill him right after the first domination attempt. I would then use diplomacy to try to get a cohort or get a likeminded cleric(NPC) to take his place. Boosting my UMD would also be an option.
If PvP was not ok I would just tell the GM that I am not playing with that character.
Personally, I wouldn't mind the mind control at all, if used in moderation. I can see a lot of roleplaying opportunities there. And I agree with most of the above posters that while it would be wrong to kill you character beforehand, afterwards all bets are off. I assume your problem is not with the possible reactions, but with the threat of getting killed before you even started playing the character.
However, if any of your fellow players are really opposed to the idea of the mind control, then that should be your cue to just don't. For me, the same goes with players pushing to introduce evil characters to good campaigns when such is not appreciated, making characters that outshine an existing character in their party role, making silly characters in gritty hardcore campaigns etc.
Talk to the party beforehand. You are in it to have a good experience together. And if they really don't like that aspect of the character, then think of something else.
The whole 'this is what my character would do'- thing is never an excuse. You make the character (at least I hope so, 'but this is what the character wants' always sounds like a person needs professional help), you can change it at any time, before and during play. If the character is disruptive, you should have thought before creating that character.
If somebody gave me a dollar for every jerky player I've known that justified him/herself by going 'but I am just being true to character!'...well, I could at least ameliorate the Hurt of Parties Past with some pretty expensive champagne.
Again, I like the idea. But I am not in your adventuring party.
Honestly, it's probably better that this is getting worked out ahead of time. "Wastes party resources casting hostile enchantment spells on teammates" is -not- a good character concept for a team-oriented game like Pathfinder, period, even if it makes sense within the game world. It's not even a character concept on it's own - it's just an extremely strife-provoking way of implementing the character concept that you're shooting for. You can get the same general feel by using your enhancement magic on people who aren't already on your side, and that strikes me as way more chessmaster-y anyway. (What kind of chessmaster wastes resources making people who already are on his side angry at him?) That you're filling an important party role - providing healing - doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want and expect the game to work out. The best way to handle your situation isn't with some kind of weird alter-ego setup; the best way to handle your situation is to revise your character concept into something that the other people playing the game won't have such clear in- and out-of-character reasons to want to have nothing to do with.
Right, what he said, but let me make it shorter. It’s a jerk move. And please don’t give us that excuse “it’s what my character would do” as YOU made that decision when YOU drew up that character and his personality.
Taking a look at your other posts, you guys really have to start playing like adults and give up the PvP crud.
But I do agree, rather than meta-gaming your fellow players should be saying “Band, and Mr Dm- we don’t think we’ll enjoy playing in a game with that build, so please don’t. Thanks!:”
Aside from the inter player conflict you are creating, the idea that this is a viable character from a role playing perspective seems shaky. Assuming that mind control is equal to or worse than slavery, a good character will have an equal or harder time justifying allowing you to use this tactic.
Why would anyone (good or evil) travel with someone who enslaves them from time to time?