Mind Control; What's a Dominate Person between allies?

[Geno]

In a recent game of 10th level characters, we had a small issue in the group. To set the scene, my character was a serpantfolk witch, specializing in enchantment and specifically mind-magic. We had a were-tiger barbarian, a half-dragon bugbear paladin (worshiped Apsu the Waybringer), and a dark stalker rogue. (It was a master campaign, in case that wasn't obvious).

Well, the focus of the campaign was supposed to be monstrous entities overcoming social taboos in order to aid a kingdom from a threat that only they would have the power to overcome. The problem was, while the majority of the group was good-aligned, the barbarian was chaotic neutral.

My character, on the other hand, was lawful good, and worshiped Abadar. Specifically, being raised in a caste-system, he was of the belief that the most good came from conforming to the law.

So, when the chaotic barbarian continuously thwarted our attempts to negotiate with the local royalty (with the gods on high who had bid us to complete the mission continuously saying that All of us were needed) I decided to dominate her.

It worked. She stopped being chaotic, at least at the times we needed her to be. Also, having no knowledge of spellcasting, she had no idea it was me who had done it. The game continued, the GM agreed that it was within reason for my character to do this, and everyone had fun.

Except her. She got horribly upset, claiming that she should be the only one who can control her character, and that if she wants to be chaotic then she should be allowed to. No one disagreed, because we play that the player has complete control of the character, so long as the player can give some kind of reason why the character would act that way (which only really prevents characters from acting completely insane.)

So, here's my question; [b]Was what I did wrong?[b/] I broke no rules, no one else in the group blames me (except her, and she's less mad at me and more mad at the DM for letting me do it) and I never abused the ability. All I did was keep her from being chaotic at important moments.

To put it another way: [i]Is controlling another player's character, specifically through rules allowed in the game, acceptable behavior?[i/]

[LowRoller]

You broke the rule of fun by taking away control of the charachter. PvP is a very bad idea unless everyone agrees to allow it. It can destroy game groups.

[Matthew Downie]

Dominating a fellow PC is obnoxious behavior. But so is sabotaging what the group is trying to do and preventing progress through the adventure.

[Odraude]

Matthew Downie hit the nail on the head. Her behavior was sabotaging the adventure and she used the "it's what my character would do" excuse. However, that's something you should deal with outside of the game, not in it. Dominate Person is a last resort on player characters.

Also, your actions aren't very "good", if you're trying to be Lawful Good. Sapping free will to further your goals is neutral at best.

Talk with her. Tell her to tone down the Chaotic Neutral act a bit.

[Diego Rossi]

It wouldn't be simpler to exclude her from the meetings with the authorities?

Or it was her behavior in cities and every time she encounter some government member or authority figure the problem?

[Cold Napalm]

Your tried to do an IC solution for an OOC problem. Those NEVER end well. Have a talk with her and the group.

[Geno]

Diego Rossi wrote:

It wouldn't be simpler to exclude her from the meetings with the authorities?

Or it was her behavior in cities and every time she encounter some government member or authority figure the problem?

It was her behavior, period. I did not give specific examples because they are too numerous, but the main issue was that we, as a group, had to prove that we were not the monsters we seemed; she never did anything to further this goal, which we allowed, but often did things that drove use further from said goal.

She would steal from people, randomly assume her alternate form, give in to base instincts, and generally act in an uncivilized and brutish manner, when we were trying to convince those around us that we were capable of becoming more than what we appeared to be.

[LowRoller]

Sounds like a player issue that started when you created your charachters. A chaotic neutral were-tiger barbarian is exactly the monster she seems to be, there's no way to prove that she is not what she is.

[Geno]

LowRoller wrote:

Sounds like a player issue that started when you created your charachters. A chaotic neutral were-tiger barbarian is exactly the monster she seems to be, there's no way to prove that she is not what she is.

I agree; however, we play in a group where people are allowed to run their characters as they see fit.

[LowRoller]

Geno wrote:

LowRoller wrote:

Sounds like a player issue that started when you created your charachters. A chaotic neutral were-tiger barbarian is exactly the monster she seems to be, there's no way to prove that she is not what she is.

I agree; however, we play in a group where people are allowed to run their characters as they see fit.

Then you are pretty much screwed if one player decides to play a disruptive character. Not every type of character fits in every campaign.

[HaraldKlak]

Firstly, how did you swing the whole 'she's got no idea, you are doing it'-thing?
While she might not know anything about magic, there is still the part where you tell her to do something, followed her doing it in spite of her free will. That is a pretty big billboard saying 'hey I'm ****ing with you!'

Secondly, mind-controlling is one of the most extreme measures, in-game as well as off-game. I've seen several situations, as a GM and player, and they almost always end badly. At the end of the day, the caster have to accept whatever repercussion the controllee is going to make. Since it is often likely to be martial characters, their IC and OOC responses is limited to hurting you in different ways.
I've seen a caster fond of repeatedly dominating a martial character (in an evil campaign). Ignoring both in-game and out-of-game warnings, said caster found himself waking up one night to a world of pain, having lost both his eyes and tongue.

It might make sense for your character to dominate a chaotic character, but you should probably ask yourself if you are ok with facing the consequences if she finds out. As far as you described her, the most fitting response from a chaotic neutral weretiger barbarian would be to kill your character outright. Having violated her inner being, having chained her personality, she don't really have the luxury of giving you a second chance.

This is probably not going to happen, since there is a generel agreement against violence between PCs and especially killing eachother off. However, you've already broken this agreement by your mind attacks, so while you engage in PvP, she is left without legal means to fight back.
I can easily see why she is frustated. Not only is she being forced into another role, but the GM has given you carte blanche to do so by making your domination impossible to detect.

[IejirIsk]

Assuming of course IC, nobody realizes that you are dominating her which is like a 15+ check, not a 25+ that a charm would bring? I would definitely say, by definition, you are not playing LG, either. Though that is a much touchier subject.

every DM i have played with has been a evil=retire... ie: intentionally attacking ally without cause, mass murder, etc... and frowns on accidental use and 'he would have been able to save' mentality.

[Brian Bachman]

Yeah, Geno, your group has a problem. I wish I knew a licensed counselor that specialized in gaming groups, cause sounds like y'all could use one.

A gaming group comes with an implied social contract - that the GM and each of the players will behave in ways that make the game fun for everyone, not just for the individual.

The female player you speak of broke that contract by deliberately creating a character that would have difficulty working well with the others, and then by playing that character in a disruptive fashion, ruining other people's fun.

You, on the other hand, also broke that social contract by engaging in PvP behavior and wrenching control of her character away from her, ruining her fun.

I would recommend that you guys restart in a new campaign with different characters and make that implicit social contract explicit. Discuss your proposed character builds and the goals of the campaign ahead of time and have everyone be willing to compromise on what you want to play in order to have a harmonious group and maximum fun.

Full freedom to "play whatever I want, how I want to play it" is a nice theory in concept, but in practice, that maximizing of individual freedom and fun can wreak havoc with group dynamics and overall fun for all. And PvP, including using mind control on another character, just isn't cool at most tables.

[Dabbler]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Dominating a fellow PC is obnoxious behavior. But so is sabotaging what the group is trying to do and preventing progress through the adventure.

This.

When you mind-control a PC, you turn that player into a spectator at the game rather than a participant. It's a no-go.

However, it's pretty clear that no party such as yours in it's right mind would tolerate this barbarian in their midst. Basically this is the player who has chosen a CE character knowing there is a paladin in the party, knowing the game is oriented toward being heroic, and expecting everyone else to suck it up and change the whole campaign for them.

However, what you should do now, and what you perhaps should have done before using Dominate is sit down and explain to them that the only other real option to being dominated regularly in order for everyone else to have fun is to create a new character that can get along with the party and with the goals of the party, otherwise this player is spoiling everyone else's game as much as their game has been spoiled.

[DrDeth]

She’s right, you and your DM are wrong.

BUT if she was playing a PC that didn’t fit into the goals of the group, you guys should have discussed this with her OOC, then you could have voted her out IC.

Look, if a PC is being disruptive, then just don’t have them in the adventuring party. Dabbler has it right.

But you don’t get to control them or resort to PKing, and this is indeed a sort of PKing ...but in some ways worse.

Even IC, your actions are wrong as this certainly isn’t a LG act.

Talk to her OOC, explain why the party is asking her character to leave, and then do so IC.

[The black raven]

Some people can have VERY personal OOC issues with people forcing their will on their character and having them act in ways they would never do on their own free will. This might be exactly such a case.

You could not know it beforehand, but you (and your GM too) can still apologize for having involuntarily hurt her and try to collaborate with her to find a middle ground where everybody at the table can still enjoy the game.

It is important that she realizes that both you and the GM have only goodwill towards her as a person.

When that is said and done, if she keeps on being a jerk, your group can politely but firmly show her the door.

[TimD]

So, a few assumptions seem to have been made by posters above me which may or not be accurate for your group…

Is your game a PvP active game? In other words, is everyone (you, the barbarian’s player, and the DM specifically) ok if her character does end up killing your if she finds out that it is you who have been Dominating her? If so, cool deal – play on and expect an axe in the face some night when she’s on watch or while you’re in the midst of trying to re-prepare spells. If not, you are definitely in the wrong for engaging in a PvP action (even if it is for the benefit of the party) when the other PC has no in-game recourse (other than to maybe hire an NPC to find out why she keeps getting controlled and maybe hire some assassins to do something about it) and the DM is wrong for letting you get away with it.

I’ve gotta echo the concerns about alignment, I can’t see you maintaining an LG alignment by Dominating your allies on a regular basis. The “good of the party” excuse may keep you from going evil, but probably not from going to LN.

Also, keep in mind each time you compel her to act “against her nature” she gets a new save at a +2 bonus, which ends the entire Dominate Effect if made. This is for each instance you compel her to act against her nature.

You may also want to consider that she’s aware of the Domination and should be doing everything in her power to get it to end and find ways to circumvent or backtrack it. Unless her character is slightly dumber than a stump, even if she knows little to nothing about magic, eventually she’s going to figure out that it’s you given that you only take over when it would be convenient / possible for you to intervene. Expect lots of raging coup de grace on you while you sleep or are otherwise distracted at that point.

-TimD

[Cheeseweasel]

Dr. Scott to Frankenfurter:

"You did right."

[hogarth]

I agree with those who are saying you both messed up.

She failed in her responsibility to make a PC that doesn't force the other PCs to wonder "Why do we let this jackhole hang around with us, anyways?"

You failed in your responsibility to avoid non-consensual player-vs.-player conflict.

[Diego Rossi]

IejirIsk wrote:

Assuming of course IC, nobody realizes that you are dominating her which is like a 15+ check, not a 25+ that a charm would bring? I would definitely say, by definition, you are not playing LG, either. Though that is a much touchier subject.

every DM i have played with has been a evil=retire... ie: intentionally attacking ally without cause, mass murder, etc... and frowns on accidental use and 'he would have been able to save' mentality.

So you are saying that they should both retire the characters and the GM should delete the campaign as the starting assumption is "the god has said that all of you are needed to succeed"?

The problem seem to be that the GM hasn't clearly stated what where the campaign goals when the characters were created, the weretiger player created a character that run contrary to the campaign goal and Geno non-solution only compounded the problem.

As the situation was presented there are few possibilities:
- he GM change the campaign assumptions (the original characters aren't needed to resolve the situations) and the weretiger character is removed from the group ;
- the weretiger player change how her character act;
- the player characters fail as they can't reach their goal;
- the campaign burn and crash, probably with bad feelings on all parts.

It is like playing a paladin in a pirate campaign. The concept don't work and there is no way to fix it in game.

As other have already explained dominating her character hasn't helped in any way, probably it has made the situation worse.

Probably the best solution at this point is to delete the campaign.

[BigNorseWolf]

Your character deserves an axe to the head, and you deserve a newspaper to the snout.

Someone doesn't show up at a game so you can play their character. They show up so THEY can play their character, and not with you sitting on a veto button.

[Seppuku]

I've had a grown man player throw a tantrum at my table when their character got dominated by an intelligent artifact that they thought they could bend to their will. Simple request by the very powerful artifact "You will not use me to kill dirty goblins and other minor filthy creatures." The player had a fit.

This is no surpirse to me that a player got upset by another player dominating their character, even when it was benficial to everyone involved. When a player is having a breakdown because they are not being allowed to damage the intergirty of the game, it's time to have one of those moments where the Gods say that their vessel has failed and that they have selected a new representative to step forward and do what the other could not. Demote PC to NPC to skulk away in shame and out of the view of the god who set it on this quest. The were-tiger can go be a were-tiger somewhere that it isn't disrupting it's own god's plans.

[IejirIsk]

@diego, I am saying no such thing, but it is understood at the tables i played with intentional PvP is BAD, and unintentional PvP will not be taken kindly.

If nothing else, this should be a learning experience, and I am going to try to learn from it myself.

[P33J]

I'm going to disagree with everyone here.

Did you ask the GM in front of everyone: "If Were-Tiger doesn't stop messing things up for us to fulfill our quest may I dominate them?"

Did the Player hear your question and have an opportunity to change her behavior?

Did the GM tell her than you could dominate her if she didn't stop derailing the campaign?

If the answer is "yes" to all three of these questions. Then she's in the wrong. She had someone voice their displeasure with her actions OOC and the entire group agreed she was being a pain, she should have GTFU (Grown the...) and changed her behavior.

She didn't, you carried out with your promise and everyone but her was happy.

She needs to deal with it.

And a Lawful Good character can most definitely dominate a CN character and still be Good, especially if that CN character's actions were selfishly going to lead to the suffering of others. Is a doctor having a violent schizophrenic committed an evil act? No, it's a good act, you're protecting others and that's what your character was doing.

[Geno]

TimD wrote:

So, a few assumptions seem to have been made by posters above me which may or not be accurate for your group…

Is your game a PvP active game? In other words, is everyone (you, the barbarian’s player, and the DM specifically) ok if her character does end up killing your if she finds out that it is you who have been Dominating her? If so, cool deal – play on and expect an axe in the face some night when she’s on watch or while you’re in the midst of trying to re-prepare spells. If not, you are definitely in the wrong for engaging in a PvP action (even if it is for the benefit of the party) when the other PC has no in-game recourse (other than to maybe hire an NPC to find out why she keeps getting controlled and maybe hire some assassins to do something about it) and the DM is wrong for letting you get away with it.

I’ve gotta echo the concerns about alignment, I can’t see you maintaining an LG alignment by Dominating your allies on a regular basis. The “good of the party” excuse may keep you from going evil, but probably not from going to LN.

Also, keep in mind each time you compel her to act “against her nature” she gets a new save at a +2 bonus, which ends the entire Dominate Effect if made. This is for each instance you compel her to act against her nature.

You may also want to consider that she’s aware of the Domination and should be doing everything in her power to get it to end and find ways to circumvent or backtrack it. Unless her character is slightly dumber than a stump, even if she knows little to nothing about magic, eventually she’s going to figure out that it’s you given that you only take over when it would be convenient / possible for you to intervene. Expect lots of raging coup de grace on you while you sleep or are otherwise distracted at that point.

-TimD

To respond, in order;

Yes, PvP is allowed. It's not common (unless we're playing in an evil campaign) but, because the group is so dead-set on everyone having the freedom to play their characters as they see fit, it is accepted practice to attack fellow characters, even with the intent to kill. However, it's generally not a problem, as we rarely give each other cause to do so. However, yes, everyone would be fine with her attacking me for dominating her (OOC, anyway. IC, no one else in the group knew I had dominated her. Generally, no one cared to question her odd behavior, and I was able to dissuade them from that conclusion if they did.)

The alignment issue is the same as alignment issues have always been. Everyone has different views on the subject, but ultimately it comes down to what the DM in question allows. In this case, the DM allowed it, because my character used it as a last-resort when faced with what he felt was no other option. They had to include her in the party for the sake of the world, but she was actively preventing them from allowing them to do what they had to, so he infringed upon the freedom of one individual to protect the lives of many. Similar to locking a murderer in prison, in his way of thinking.

Her making the save was never a problem. My exact command to her was 'You must be given permission, by me, to perform any task that is not absolutely necessary for your continued physical well-being.' As my character was telepathic by nature, and had an intelligence of over 40, the GM said that it would be completely possible for me to effectively 'pilot' two distinct individuals (myself and her) in real-time, so long as she was within range of my telepathy.

She eventually became aware of it, but I did not give her permission to attack me, nor to inform the others of what I had done. As the save was well over 30, and her will save was only 10, she had to roll a natural twenty to make the save; and, thanks to some optimizing on my part, I ensured that the spell was persistent, effectively making her chances of overcoming the effect nonexistent. As the duration of the spell was ten days, I only ended up having to cast it on her four times over the entire campaign. (IC, the adventure only lasted a month.)

[Geno]

P33J wrote:

I'm going to disagree with everyone here.

Did you ask the GM in front of everyone: "If Were-Tiger doesn't stop messing things up for us to fulfill our quest may I dominate them?"

Did the Player hear your question and have an opportunity to change her behavior?

Did the GM tell her than you could dominate her if she didn't stop derailing the campaign?

If the answer is "yes" to all three of these questions. Then she's in the wrong. She had someone voice their displeasure with her actions OOC and the entire group agreed she was being a pain, she should have GTFU (Grown the...) and changed her behavior.

She didn't, you carried out with your promise and everyone but her was happy.

She needs to deal with it.

And a Lawful Good character can most definitely dominate a CN character and still be Good, especially if that CN character's actions were selfishly going to lead to the suffering of others. Is a doctor having a violent schizophrenic committed an evil act? No, it's a good act, you're protecting others and that's what your character was doing.

Once again, in order;

I did not ask that specific question. I told the GM that I cast dominate person on her, and because we granted total control over our characters, he did not stop me.

She knew ahead of time that I was going to do Something. I had told her: If you don't stop, then my character is going to make you. She assumed that the "squishy little spellcaster" wouldn't be able to do any such thing.

When I gave her my warning, the DM said that he would allow the confrontation to occur. Specifically, it amounted to me taking her off to a side ally and tricking her into letting me cast the spell on her, followed by me convincing my allies that I had talked her into changing her ways.

Something of note; the campaign was geared more towards dealing with social issues. The DM allowed her character because he felt that convincing her to act 'normal' would represent a social challenge to the rest of the group, and one that he would not have to fabricate. Yes, combat was involved, but mostly he threw challenges at us that would be difficult for 10th level characters, purposely not taking into account the potency of our monstrous attributes.

[DrDeth]

Geno wrote:

To respond, in order;

Yes, PvP is allowed. It's not common (unless we're playing in an evil campaign) but, because the group is so dead-set on everyone having the freedom to play their...

How did you cast a 7th level spell (Dominate Persistent) with a 10th level Witch?

Even so this is manifestly unfair. Both by you and your DM.

How did you stop her from getting outside your range? Never sleep?

I’d also say that killing your PC right now is “absolutely necessary for my continued physical well-being.'

If she had a Assassin PC who could kill your PC nearly 100%, and she truly thought your PC was being disruptive to the goals of the group, would you be OK with it?

Either let her run her PC or ask her PC to leave. Otherwise, your DM has just given you a second PC.

[Avatar-1]

Geno wrote:

P33J wrote:

I'm going to disagree with everyone here.

Did you ask the GM in front of everyone: "If Were-Tiger doesn't stop messing things up for us to fulfill our quest may I dominate them?"

Did the Player hear your question and have an opportunity to change her behavior?

Did the GM tell her than you could dominate her if she didn't stop derailing the campaign?

If the answer is "yes" to all three of these questions. Then she's in the wrong. She had someone voice their displeasure with her actions OOC and the entire group agreed she was being a pain, she should have GTFU (Grown the...) and changed her behavior.

She didn't, you carried out with your promise and everyone but her was happy.

She needs to deal with it.

And a Lawful Good character can most definitely dominate a CN character and still be Good, especially if that CN character's actions were selfishly going to lead to the suffering of others. Is a doctor having a violent schizophrenic committed an evil act? No, it's a good act, you're protecting others and that's what your character was doing.

Once again, in order;

I did not ask that specific question. I told the GM that I cast dominate person on her, and because we granted total control over our characters, he did not stop me.

She knew ahead of time that I was going to do Something. I had told her: If you don't stop, then my character is going to make you. She assumed that the "squishy little spellcaster" wouldn't be able to do any such thing.

When I gave her my warning, the DM said that he would allow the confrontation to occur. Specifically, it amounted to me taking her off to a side ally and tricking her into letting me cast the spell on her, followed by me convincing my allies that I had talked her into changing her ways.

Something of note; the campaign was geared more towards dealing with social issues. The DM allowed her character because he felt that convincing her to act 'normal' would represent a social challenge to the rest of the group, and one...

The specific details you've mentioned here are key.

She knew her behaviour was upsetting people and wasn't prepared to face the consequences, specifically assuming your character wouldn't be able to stop her. I'm also assuming she said something to that effect, you're not just assuming that she made that assumption - you weren't specific about this.

Considering everyone at the table understands "everyone can play their characters as they see fit, including PvP", and that you all understood it in the same way, then she really has no excuse. The fact that she's upset at the GM is even more indicative that her thinking isn't rational.

Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

[Geno]

Avatar-1 wrote:

Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

Well, actually, that's the thing. In-game, her character had to get the mental OK to do anything, but my character was so fast at giving it that there was no delay in her actions. So, for OOC purposes, the only time she was effected was when she said, "I'm going to ____" and I replied, "No. No, you're not." Which happened very rarely, often no more than once a session.

[BigNorseWolf]

Geno wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

Well, actually, that's the thing. In-game, her character had to get the mental OK to do anything, but my character was so fast at giving it that there was no delay in her actions. So, for OOC purposes, the only time she was effected was when she said, "I'm going to ____" and I replied, "No. No, you're not." Which happened very rarely, often no more than once a session.

Once a session is a LOT for something like that to happen.

The specter of it, the possibility of it happening, hangs over her every reaction.

[Martin Kauffman 530]

I would never play in a group where PvP is allowed. If it happened and the DM did nothing about it, I would quit immediately. Incidentally, it is for this reason that I will NOT become involved in Pathfinder Online. Pathfinder should be a cooperative game- not adverserial.

[gatherer818]

At this point, it seems like your best bet is to ask the player if they'd mind playing something (ANYTHING) different that actually fits in the game, killing the barbarian, and having the GM allow your players to stumble on a raise dead scroll for when the final showdown that all the original characters will be needed to win. They made a character that simply doesn't work at all with the game you're playing. They might as well as have run a Space Marine with levels in Sith Lord and a few skill ranks in Pilot(Giant Mecha).

[maouse]

I don't know how to express this fully, but having played CN in dozens of campaigns (it USED TO BE my favorite alignment) you guys really should have handled it better in game. Reward her player with "cookies" or whatever it took to keep the barbarian under control. Cheese dip and Kopins worked for Groo. And he is the most destructive CN barbarian ever scripted anywhere. I get that the other player was just plain disruptive, but IN CHARACTER was there NOBODY who could tame her character with bribery? Something CN people all tend to have in common is that they do what is BEST FOR THEM. Make the goals clearly BEST FOR THEM and they will achieve them. It is up to you to take the added spice and make a good chili out of it. IMHO, of course.

That said, you are totally allowed to mind control someone in game. I don't think you did anything wrong here. And I would have ADDED telling her character this would be the result of any more times she screws up your conversations. Make it a character to character thing to remind her that while SHE has a character, so do you. And while she can cut you down in one shot with her barbarian rage, you can have her kill herself with your mind control. CN characters should be able to handle this (and perhaps kill you later if you still pose a threat). But in ending you should have told her character that you would agree not to do it any more IF she behaved. LG enforcing of the LAW is fine with me. In fact, most paladins are jerks like this.

If she didn't get it, then so be it. I have had campaigns that ended in one night because one person didn't want to play with others (apparently they just wanted to be a horses behind). One memorable one a person played a CE necromancer in a party with a Paladin. That lasted until the first encounter when the Necro decided to try to attack the Pali, and everyone with even a touch of G alignment and even the CN neutrals gacked the Necro in one round. Another encounter a person (CN) just went off down a corridor by himself, which we all warned against doing, and which we all knew OOC was not a part of the adventure (he was just trying to be a horses butt and make the GM make something up for his character to do, on the spot). So the GM made something up for him, on the spot. Oh, failed the Perception Check. Oh, triggered the trap. The tunnel collapses for 400 feet in either direction. Oh, no transport spells? Start digging. You are the one who wanted something to do! (that was a nice GM, I woulda probably just killed him outright).

[DrDeth]

Geno wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

Well, actually, that's the thing. In-game, her character had to get the mental OK to do anything, but my character was so fast at giving it that there was no delay in her actions. So, for OOC purposes, the only time she was effected was when she said, "I'm going to ____" and I replied, "No. No, you're not." Which happened very rarely, often no more than once a session.

I'd simply say "I will not accept this" and wait for the DM to stop it one way or the other. If it means me leaving, so much the better.

[The equalizer]

As previously suggested, perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave her to explre the surrounding area when you're meeting with auhorities or certain influential individuals. In the crimson throne campaign I ran, thats what the party did for the CN werewolf barbarian. His presence in court was extremely disastrous, if not for a hasty (and lucky) diplomacy roll from the party warmage, the barb would have been killed or at best locked up and beaten. Later on, they did their own investigation on quests while the werewolf was left to explore the surrounding rural and urban areas.

Strangely, this reminds me of an extremely awkward situation which happened in game recently. Its nowhere near as sensitive as the original post but still odd. The monk I'm playing is visited by a fellow martial artist and a scout to challenge him for a piece of an artifact. The rules are outlined for the duel. The party ninja decides to issue a challenge to the scout. The duel begins and the ninja dispatches the scout within three rounds. My monk and this travelling monk are quite evenly matched despite him having a dancing sword. Then the ninja jumps in and attacks him sevrely injuring him in the process. The injured scout throws something which makes me and the ninja sneeze for a dozen rounds or so. scout is blown to bits by npc warmage. It was really awkward. Managed to prevent him from being killed but there was a fair amount of awkwardness. Thats the difference between lawful good and chaotic neutral. Its difficult to get along from time to time.

[Diego Rossi]

DrDeth wrote:

Geno wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

Well, actually, that's the thing. In-game, her character had to get the mental OK to do anything, but my character was so fast at giving it that there was no delay in her actions. So, for OOC purposes, the only time she was effected was when she said, "I'm going to ____" and I replied, "No. No, you're not." Which happened very rarely, often no more than once a session.

I'd simply say "I will not accept this" and wait for the DM to stop it one way or the other. If it means me leaving, so much the better.

So disrupting the other players game is allowed, having your game disrupted isn't? Truly CN, but not a good way to keep a game going.

The weretiger is making the other player actions meaningless, so she is not without blame at all. She is actively disrupting the campaign for her whims, I don't see why, if she is allowed to do that, she feeel that doing that to her isn't allowed.

I still think it will end badly and the best option is to scrap the campaign.

The equalizer wrote:

As previously suggested, perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave her to explre the surrounding area when you're meeting with auhorities or certain influential individuals.

From what Geno said it is a social campaign, so she would be sitting in her chairs, doing noting and fuming for plenty of time, exactly the same situation as being dominated.

She is a square peg in a round hole. The other players should accommodate to her a bit but she need to do most of the work, as she is one and can't pretend that all the other players should follow her whims.

I had a player like that: "I want to play a Cthuluesque campaign with evil characters". Other players and GM "We want to play a campaign were we are mostly heroes and in no way we want clerics that are cultist of outer space horrors or similar things.", "Ok". Within three levels he would convert to be the follower of some outer space horror, use the most inappropriate spells on most party members (dominated, pah, try being entombed in a jade coffin for your safety, or being covered with green slime to protect you from a swarm). After several characters and years of playing we have banned him from our RPGs.

[3.5 Loyalist]

The equalizer wrote:

As previously suggested, perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave her to explre the surrounding area when you're meeting with auhorities or certain influential individuals. In the crimson throne campaign I ran, thats what the party did for the CN werewolf barbarian. His presence in court was extremely disastrous, if not for a hasty (and lucky) diplomacy roll from the party warmage, the barb would have been killed or at best locked up and beaten. Later on, they did their own investigation on quests while the werewolf was left to explore the surrounding rural and urban areas.

Strangely, this reminds me of an extremely awkward situation which happened in game recently. Its nowhere near as sensitive as the original post but still odd. The monk I'm playing is visited by a fellow martial artist and a scout to challenge him for a piece of an artifact. The rules are outlined for the duel. The party ninja decides to issue a challenge to the scout. The duel begins and the ninja dispatches the scout within three rounds. My monk and this travelling monk are quite evenly matched despite him having a dancing sword. Then the ninja jumps in and attacks him sevrely injuring him in the process. The injured scout throws something which makes me and the ninja sneeze for a dozen rounds or so. scout is blown to bits by npc warmage. It was really awkward. Managed to prevent him from being killed but there was a fair amount of awkwardness. Thats the difference between lawful good and chaotic neutral. Its difficult to get along from time to time.

Your party has a lot of chaos, and neutrals that are used to taking down foes without honour. Normally that is good, great even, but...

[3.5 Loyalist]

Diego Rossi wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Geno wrote:

Avatar-1 wrote:

Unfortunately the situation sounds a bit biased towards you, it'd be good to hear the other side. Everyone is right about how mind control can hurt groups though - OOC, you are making a player sit there and watch instead of playing, unless she can roleplay her mind controlled character well.

Well, actually, that's the thing. In-game, her character had to get the mental OK to do anything, but my character was so fast at giving it that there was no delay in her actions. So, for OOC purposes, the only time she was effected was when she said, "I'm going to ____" and I replied, "No. No, you're not." Which happened very rarely, often no more than once a session.

I'd simply say "I will not accept this" and wait for the DM to stop it one way or the other. If it means me leaving, so much the better.

So disrupting the other players game is allowed, having your game disrupted isn't? Truly CN, but not a good way to keep a game going.

The weretiger is making the other player actions meaningless, so she is not without blame at all. She is actively disrupting the campaign for her whims, I don't see why, if she is allowed to do that, she feeel that doing that to her isn't allowed.

I still think it will end badly and the best option is to scrap the campaign.

The equalizer wrote:

As previously suggested, perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave her to explre the surrounding area when you're meeting with auhorities or certain influential individuals.

From what Geno said it is a social campaign, so she would be sitting in her chairs, doing noting and fuming for plenty of time, exactly the same situation as being dominated.

She is a square peg in a round hole. The other players should accommodate to her a bit but she need to do most of the work, as she is one and can't pretend that all the other players should follow her whims.

I had a player like that: "I want to play a Cthuluesque campaign with evil...

Solution to a spellcaster that attacks the party. When combat is over, heal up, and attack.

Incapacitate, coup de grace.
Refuse to hire any new clerics, or other spellcasters for the time being. If pressed to explain the party have had bad experiences and need some time, perhaps 6 months in game before they take in new members. S*%&ty player will move on.

[Ashiel]

I am apparently the only person who would have neither cared nor have refused to simply played along with it. As the "victim" of such a thing, I concur with the OP. I don't really think he did anything wrong other than playing with people who are too whiny. Your mileage may vary.

[Ashiel]

On a side note, trusting your party enough to willingly be charmed or dominated by them has great benefits. If there was someone I'd feel comfortable dominating / charming me, it'd be someone who was LG, NG, or CG (who I also knew and was my good friend).

[Cheeseweasel]

hogarth wrote:

I agree with those who are saying you both messed up.

She failed in her responsibility to make a PC that doesn't force the other PCs to wonder "Why do we let this jackhole hang around with us, anyways?"

You failed in your responsibility to avoid non-consensual player-vs.-player conflict.

That latter "responsibility" isn't one, in my opinion.

It isn't the GM's job to micromanage the PC interactions so that everyone is happy; folks can put on their Big Player pants and work together, or not. The fallout from "not" isn't up to the GM to clean up.

And, given the actual example/events of the OP, the response to the obnoxious PC (I'm tempted to say 'obnoxious player') was pretty mild.

I'd have to research the Dominate spells (I haven't used 'em) -- I have issues with the target not knowing who's doing the Dominating; I wouldn't think that's concealable. I've been wrong before...

But honestly; if a player has a problem conforming to the campaign, my typical response is to invite them to leave. Since that doesn't seem to be an option, someone else putting the brakes on the problem behavior is a mild response. Imo.

[james maissen]

Ashiel wrote:

I am apparently the only person who would have neither cared nor have refused to simply played along with it. As the "victim" of such a thing, I concur with the OP.

I think it boils down to the premise that he puts forth, and question how well everyone understands that premise.

Premise: The PCs are unfettered by OOC concerns; such as would a given player find something objectionable.

If this is really the case, then it is a question whether or not all the players really understand this.

Next, given the situation would the PC look to dominate the other PC?

I don't fault the players for either of these. If the situation is untenable I fault the one that painted them into this corner: the DM.

Lets look at it:

1. He made the players make monstrous PCs.
2. He did not have the players make PCs that would all wish to work to 'be redeemed in the eyes of humanity'.
3. He mandated that all the PCs were 'essential'.

He's railroaded the situation that we have described here... and done so in a slipshod manner.

As to those railing against the situation.. I subject you to two anecdotes.

A counterpoint from ages past: one of the more interesting roleplaying campaigns I was in had my character magic jarred for 3-4 sessions. The DM had me roleplay it, and gave me parameters for the 'new character' that I was playing. I made reasonable and (from an outside perspective understandable) 'slips' here and there, but the party both IC and OOC had no idea what was going on until I was able to throw off the possession.

And one from more recent (3.5E in Living Greyhawk): A friend's PC was hit by a memory loss arrow. The Chaotics he adventured with had a field day bluffing the hell out of him telling him what he had forgotten. This was around level 5. When he was 12th level they adventured with a cleric that had no idea of all of this either IC or OOC. When the PC in question was severely hurt the cleric went and hit him with a heal spell. One of the chaotics (with spellcraft and knowledge arcana) screamed 'NO!!' which confused the poor cleric (and his player), who then healed the memory loss PC. The ensuing threats (IC not OOC) from the PC to the Chaotic during combat were quite funny.. but the player of the cleric's dumbfounded reaction to all of it going on was what made it priceless.

The key to both situations is that the people in question accepted the premise, and did not take a character's actions as the player's actions. The playstyle was acceptable to all, and there was never any confusion between IC and OOC involved. That seems like the situation you describe, but the reaction of the other player seems like that was not the situation as she understood it.

This is ignoring issues with the mechanics involved, which is something that your DM might care to address.

-James

[JohnB]

Geno wrote:

To respond, in order;

Yes, PvP is allowed. It's not common (unless we're playing in an evil campaign) but, because the group is so dead-set on everyone having the freedom to play their... etc etc

I am awfully glad I don't play with your group :)

[DrDeth]

Diego Rossi wrote:

So disrupting the other players game is allowed, having your game disrupted isn't?

Umm, no. I have said several times that the CN player has to modify her behavior or the party should ask her to leave.

[DrDeth]

Ashiel wrote:

I am apparently the only person who would have neither cared nor have refused to simply played along with it. As the "victim" of such a thing, I concur with the OP. I don't really think he did anything wrong other than playing with people who are too whiny. Your mileage may vary.

You’d honestly be OK with letting another player control your PC? Why even play? For the cool snaks?

[Emmit Svenson]

My advice for moving forward with the game situation is to roleplay your character having a crisis of conscience. The barbarian, he realizes, was a friend and ally who had saved his life in combat many a time, and he had turned her into a puppet.

Have your character go to her, release the spell, confess what he did to her, and beg her forgiveness. Have him explain he did it with the best intentions, with the stakes being so high, but that he should have tried to work with her instead. That he finally realized that her friendship was too important to him for him to use her so.

From there, the onus to make the game work is on her. Perhaps her character will have some growth, and realize that chaotic neutral doesn’t have to mean sociopath, and practice some self-control when it is in her and her friends’ best interest to do so.

Good luck.

[TimD]

Sounds like several bad calls on the part of the GM adding up to a worse situation.

First, the command - If the character was normally disruptive and suddenly stopped (which is what you indicated) they should have received a save each time your compulsion would have prohibited them from acting normally. For a psycho raging barbarian, I would expect it to take maybe a few minutes for a natural 20 to come up on that flurry of die rolls.

Second, the “I’m so smart I can run two characters at once and ignore action economy” – Dominate Person specifically calls out that it’s a move action to change or give orders. Smart or not, it should not be seamless. The “Goose-Gander” ruling on this one makes me wonder how your group would have felt if you had been on the receiving end of NPCs ignoring action economy because they were “just that smart” or “just that cool”.

Third, the fact that it’s only a DC 15 Sense Motive check to “determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect”. See again, the flurry of die rolls each time the normally obnoxious barbarian kept their trap shut or well, did anything, per your command. Obviously the entire group would have had to be in on it, in-play. Simple statistics mean that SOMEONE is going to get a DC 15 check.

Fourth, alignment – that’s definitely Lawful Neutral logic, maybe even Lawful Evil (and believe me, I’ve played A LOT of Lawful Evil). While I agree that alignment opinions differ almost as much as pizza preferences amongst gamers and the “what is LG?” bandwagon can be as toxic as the “we hate guns in our fantasy” and the “no stinkin’ psionics” combined, even I’ve gotta agree that’s a long way from LG. Dominate definitely falls under the “oppressing” of Evil and away from the “concern for the dignity of sentient beings” of Good. Especially when you add the fact that you were also intentionally misleading your other companions in play about the fact that you had enchanted the barbarian.

In short, this sounds more like an issue of you outsmarting the GM than the other PC’s character. I think the other player has a legitimate grievance against what happened, but the fault is not entirely yours (excepting on the execution of your alignment).

-TimD

[johnlocke90]

DrDeth wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

I am apparently the only person who would have neither cared nor have refused to simply played along with it. As the "victim" of such a thing, I concur with the OP. I don't really think he did anything wrong other than playing with people who are too whiny. Your mileage may vary.

You’d honestly be OK with letting another player control your PC? Why even play? For the cool snaks?

Because presumably I wouldn't spend my entire game dominated. I am also okay with my character being stunned or knocked unconscious, even if that causes me to lose control of my character.

Dominate Person allows a new save each time the PC does something against his nature, meaning every time the OP says "no you don't do that" the character gets a new save with a +2 bonus.

From what the OP has said, I would take issue with them using the spell incorrectly. It should be obvious to the party that he is being mind controlled(DC 15 sense motive check). The party won't know what is mind controlling him though, so they would most likely want the effect removed. If the entire party knows about it and is okay with me being mind controlled, I would conclude that my character doesn't fit the party and would roll a new one.

[iLaifire]

All of this has been pretty much said before, but I just want to add my support of what you did Geno. If what you said is true, and this was a last attempt (having talked both IC and OOC) and the player didn't get it, then there is nothing wrong with having dominated her character.

As far as I see it the people at fault are the other player, and possibly the DM. I don't know about your group but when I create a new character for a new game I do my best to talk to the DM about the major goals of the campaign, and to the other players to see who they are playing so I can create a character that will fit in with the story and the group. By what it sounds all of you knew before you started creating characters what the story would be (monstrous characters trying to redeem themselves in the eyes of society to save the world), in not creating a character that worked with that idea she started sabotaging the game (whether or not she was aware of that). I blame the DM for allowing the character into the game in the first place, and then when they acted out punishing the entire group instead of just her character.

[DrDeth]

johnlocke90 wrote:

Because presumably I wouldn't spend my entire game dominated. I am also okay with my character being stunned or knocked unconscious, even if that causes me to lose control of my character.

Dominate Person allows a new save each time the PC does something against his nature, meaning every time the OP says "no you don't do that" the character gets a new save with a +2 bonus..

Except that's not how they are playing it ". As the save was well over 30, and her will save was only 10, she had to roll a natural twenty to make the save; and, thanks to some optimizing on my part, I ensured that the spell was persistent, effectively making her chances of overcoming the effect nonexistent. As the duration of the spell was ten days, I only ended up having to cast it on her four times over the entire campaign. (IC, the adventure only lasted a month.)"

She only got 4 saves and had to make a nat 20 and if she got that nat 20 she had to re-roll.

Thus she spent the entire month dominated.

Now, sure, one encounter? If the charmer and I had a OOC discussion about this, I would go along with it for fun and party cohesion. But not for the entire camapign.