If another player tried to dominate my character the entire campaign I'm pretty sure I'd want to knock them out IRL. That'd be an instant "I'm changing characters or I'm out" moment. Then, I'd make a character to specifically resistant that effect and have a few more tricks for that specific character in case he tried again.
If another player tried to dominate my character the entire campaign I'm pretty sure I'd want to knock them out IRL. That'd be an instant "I'm changing characters or I'm out" moment. Then, I'd make a character to specifically resistant that effect and have a few more tricks for that specific character in case he tried again.
I bet half the forum would want to knock out a player IRL that thinks playing a retarded character in a social campaign and refusing to change so the game is more fun for everyone as well.
Then again, resolving to OOC physical violence over IC problems is highly moronic to say the least, not to mention the metagaming and double morality of making a character specifically resistant to something, and able to harrass the said character of instead not being Chaotic Stupid.
I said I'd want to. And I really would. I didn't say I would do it.
To hell with metagaming in relation to resisting that effect. I would do it and not even apologize. I'd feel proud. I'd feel even better if I in-game coup de graced the bastard. If PvP is okay then PvP is okay.
That's hardly the only option. He could talk to the group and the group could eject the character. That's probably the best way to deal with it. If you can't get group consensus then obviously it not as big of a deal as you thought. Instead, you're just a guy who's being a jerk yourself trying to dick over another player's concept.
I think the OP did well all things considering. The barbarian was a disruptive character that was ruining the concept of the campaign and their characters by forcing them to keep the barbarian with them. IC, these characters should most likely drop the barbarian at some town and just leave during the night.
Nah. An impulsive jerk is more like it. If it was a group issue then the group should have dealt with it. No one member should have taken it upon themselves to "fix" it by upping the ante by being the one to introduce PvP play. Because, as I said, it's PvP and once you cross that threshold all bets are off and play can become very, very antagonistic. It's a weapon of last resort and not the resort of "this annoys me so we'll see about that."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Johnlock90 pretty much sums it up. Getting charmed/dominated isn't that big of a deal. So I act in a restricted manner for a bit. No worse than fighting vampires with their at-will dominate supernatural ability. It's even better since I'm not going to be made to kill my party and I avoid the fang-bang afterwards. :P
If I get charmed/dominated I run with it. No biggie. It's not someone actually taking control of my character from me. I mean, I don't sit in the corner and cry when I get hit with a poison that puts me unconscious, or suffer ability damage, or get confused. I think in this case charm person would have probably been an even better spell to use since it would be less offensive and the barbarian's Charisma is probably pretty poor so telling them to behave would theoretically be pretty successful.
I just don't think that getting 'chanted for a short while to progress the plot is really something to get bent out of shape about. And I say this as someone who has had PCs who were charmed/dominated in games before. Just grab the baton and keep rolling!
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?
See, this is a big difference between how you're looking at it and how Ashiel and I are both looking at it.
I've had my character charmed in order for him to "get along" with a certain group before, until he could be persuaded normally and genuinely thought of the group as his friends. In this case, he wasn't controlled except for the idea that he had "friends" that he genuinely cared about (thus negating a few actions, and generally keeping him around).
Similarly, however, I've been in a group of PvP in which I thought it was fine (and it seemed tacitly encouraged by the GM), but the other player (much to my shock) hated - hated - that I dare use Charm on his character, despite the fact that she was actively harming the party chances. The GM dealt with this by allowing said character a way out with someone who was teleporting anyway, but the player didn't accept - he wanted to play the game with us and with that character, but at the same time was refusing to let her "get along" with any of the others (except my character who had, in fact, successfully charmed her).
The only thing I was trying to do (which I explained out-of-character to him) was allow his sorceress an in-character reason to trust us, get along for a while until she became real friends, and generally go along with the campaign instead of derailing it. While it pacified the player on my intentions, because I never tried the "force you to do stuff" option of charm, she pretty much ran roughshod over the group (except my character) and game, and ultimately caused the game to kind of implode after only a few sessions. Here's the thing: using that stuff was, for me, a way to help out in-character... and the other player eventually accepted that, but was still disruptive. He really didn't get it, and ruined a very interesting-seeming game.
On the other hand, I was in a game with a charming psion who literally charmed all the characters around her because all four were paranoid and didn't trust each other. It worked out great for all involved, we were all cool with it, and she let the charm drop as soon as trust was established. It allowed for in-character trust to exist, and then develop (and they didn't realize in-character, that they were charmed).
I myself have been the disruptive character. I thought I had a cool character concept for a game quite some time back, but had built-in player conflict into it. Fortunately for the people I was playing with at the time, I had to leave, because otherwise, on this side of it, I could see the conflict have severe repercussions later on the group. I would personally have felt terrible about it later.
I really don't really have sympathy with the weretiger*. I want the player to get over it, and I want the OP to drop his domination, but given their set up, unless we get new and very strange information, it's really all rather legit. It's not the ideal solution, because people respond differently all the time, but personally, if I were in the weretiger's shoes, I'd try to go along with it. If I felt that my character had learned her lesson, I'd say so out-of-character, and get the in-character off-the-hook, so to speak, and allow it.
And domination of a creature isn't an evil act. Point in fact, he's allowing her as much freedom as he reasonably can do without putting the entire world in danger, and doing so under orders from the gods.
A suggestion for the GM, however, is to allow the weretiger to be replaced. For ineffable reasons, the weretiger has lasted "as long as she needed to", and now someone else can replace her. Alternatively, find an Atonement spell (and diplomacy her into taking it) and change her alignment to lawful good... though as others have stated, talk to her out of character about it first, and get her to accept that way.
This would allow her in-character reasons to change her ways without the continuing domination.
But basically this is an out-of-character issue. It would have been better to solve that way, but you both more-or-less agreed to it before hand, and complaining about it now... meh.
* Though I do empathize with the feeling of having a character forced to do stuff against their will, she's basically straining against the bonds of the campaign and everyone else's fun, and pushing it to the breaking point. This means I lack sympathy, though I have empathy.
[Johnlock90 pretty much sums it up. Getting charmed/dominated isn't that big of a deal. So I act in a restricted manner for a bit. It's not someone actually taking control of my character from me. ... I think in this case charm person would have probably been an even better spell to use since it would be less offensive and the barbarian's Charisma is probably pretty poor so telling them to behave would theoretically be pretty successful.
I just don't think that getting 'chanted for a short while to progress the plot is really something to get bent out of shape about. And I say this as someone who has had PCs who were charmed/dominated in games before.
Ashiel, we are NOT talking about “acting in a restricted manner for a bit” or “getting 'chanted for a short while to progress the plot“.
THE BBN WAS DOMINATED FOR THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN. Pls read all the posts.
Yes, it IS “someone actually taking control of my character from me”.
That's 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 campaign
And Johnlock90 agrees with me. Being charmed or dominated for one encounter can be interesting. Taking your character away for the entire freaken campaign is another thing altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, we are NOT talking about “acting in a restricted manner for a bit” or “getting 'chanted for a short while to progress the plot“.
THE BBN WAS DOMINATED FOR THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN. Pls read all the posts.
I think you missed the fact that they houseruled Dominate a bit so that the player in control could choose to stop specific actions and let the other player do whatever he wants the rest of the time. The barbarian was really only effectively dominated for one action in each session. That's very different from completely losing control of your character for an entire campaign.
I'm not taking either side here. I'm just saying that you're blowing the situation out of proportion.
From what the OP sez, it’s true that he didn’t constantly make the BBN dance like a puppet. But every single action the Bbn wanted to take was controlled by the Op, even if it was just to allow her to do it. It’s like having to play “mother may I’ constantly. The Bbn specifically wasn’t allowed to get out of range, etc.
And like we said, there were plenty of other ways to stop disruptive actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was responding to the initial post. That being said, I could care less if I was charmed for an entire campaign. Dominated might be an issue but only if it was truly obnoxious. In the case of being charmed I'm still playing the same character but with certain considerations and may occasionally have to make an opposed Charisma check or do something I wouldn't normally do. I find this less annoying than geas/quest (which is common among bad GMs to use).
Dominate has the potential to be annoying since you must take on the actions given at the exclusion of others. However, even dominate isn't an issue if your dominator isn't being a jerk with it (ordering my character to not insult a diplomat for example would be something that's not gonna disrupt my mojo much). It can even be useful as an extra defense against other forms of mind control.
On a side note, a potion of protection from law/good would have effectively removed that issue. As would an errant dispel magic (I'm almost shocked that with the sheer usefulness of dispel magic that the effect didn't get stripped during combat sometime along with other buffs).
Most things in extremes can be bad though. If it was more extreme than the OP implied, then certainly it could have caused trouble. But general interparty charming/dominating? I'd probably be slow to anger with that if I was in the 'chanted's shoes.
On the other hand, I was in a game with a charming psion who literally charmed all the characters around her because all four were paranoid and didn't trust each other. It worked out great for all involved, we were all cool with it, and she let the charm drop as soon as trust was established. It allowed for in-character trust to exist, and then develop (and they didn't realize in-character, that they were charmed).
I told a story to a friend of mine on Skype recently after posting in this thread. Here's that story copy/pasted, since I think you might be amused by it.
=========================IMHO enchantment spells and effects have a very high potential to be misused (IE - evil), but can be used for good purposes just the same. I had a telepath PC whose psionic-charm (slightly different name in the PF rewrite but it's the 1st level telepath charming power) was used liberally.
She very rarely exerted control over her new "allies". She legitimately wished to be friends with them and used her psionic powers as a sort of ice-breaker. Once the party was getting destroyed by a group of drow and she charmed one of the drow clerics. After the fight there was a question as to what to do about the drow. I had no intention of killing her. My character explained to the drow that she (the drow) was trying to kill her (my PC) and the party moments ago (which the drow recalled just fine) and that she had charmed her because she didn't want anymore bloodshed.
The drow, taking this in the best way possible (as per the charm description) was relatively pleased at this outcome since it meant that she and her new "friend" were no longer in conflict. My psion explained that if she released the charm she may suddenly lose her appreciation of this bond and attack her. This idea sounded abyssmal to the drow under these conditions (between being "free" versus maybe killing your new bestest friend, being "free" didn't seem like such a cool idea at the moment). So my PC re-applyed the charm each day to the willing drow, and the party kept the drow relatively safe.
Later on the drow became a recurring NPC because their bond became one that wasn't magical but one of shared experiences. She never treated the drow like a puppet but as a person. So the drow ended up through these circumstances eventually having a change of heart and I think a shift to Neutral alignment.
Ashiel, we are NOT talking about “acting in a restricted manner for a bit” or “getting 'chanted for a short while to progress the plot“.
THE BBN WAS DOMINATED FOR THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN. Pls read all the posts.
I think you missed the fact that they houseruled Dominate a bit so that the player in control could choose to stop specific actions and let the other player do whatever he wants the rest of the time. The barbarian was really only effectively dominated for one action in each session. That's very different from completely losing control of your character for an entire campaign.
I'm not taking either side here. I'm just saying that you're blowing the situation out of proportion.
In this case I doubt it would have bothered me at all. If anything it seems like a pretty solid method of being able to play a character who is a total asshat while also not ruining the campaign when your being "in character" would be hazardous. :P
Though I don't tend to play asshats. ^-^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what the OP sez, it’s true that he didn’t constantly make the BBN dance like a puppet. But every single action the Bbn wanted to take was controlled by the Op, even if it was just to allow her to do it. It’s like having to play “mother may I’ constantly. The Bbn specifically wasn’t allowed to get out of range, etc.
And like we said, there were plenty of other ways to stop disruptive actions.
How is that different from one player controlling the whole social aspect of the campaign with her negative influence?
How is that different from one player controlling the whole social aspect of the campaign with her negative influence?From what the OP sez, it’s true that he didn’t constantly make the BBN dance like a puppet. But every single action the Bbn wanted to take was controlled by the Op, even if it was just to allow her to do it. It’s like having to play “mother may I’ constantly. The Bbn specifically wasn’t allowed to get out of range, etc.
And like we said, there were plenty of other ways to stop disruptive actions.
Because she didn't get that choice and they had a choice. In any case, only one player didn't care for her actions, it's not like it was the entire party or the DM.
If you don;t think a PC is being a good member of the party you just ask them to leave, you don;t kill or take their character options away. The Op admitted they never even tried to get her to moderate her actions or get her to pick another pC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is that different from one player controlling the whole social aspect of the campaign with her negative influence?From what the OP sez, it’s true that he didn’t constantly make the BBN dance like a puppet. But every single action the Bbn wanted to take was controlled by the Op, even if it was just to allow her to do it. It’s like having to play “mother may I’ constantly. The Bbn specifically wasn’t allowed to get out of range, etc.
And like we said, there were plenty of other ways to stop disruptive actions.
Because she didn't get that choice and they had a choice. In any case, only one player didn't care for her actions, it's not like it was the entire party or the DM.
If you don;t think a PC is being a good member of the party you just ask them to leave, you don;t kill or take their character options away. The Op admitted they never even tried to get her to moderate her actions or get her to pick another pC.
Yes, because players who willingly and knowingly bring chaotic stupid barbarians to a delicate social event always step down when asked to. The OP also stated that she warned the player, which for normal people would be enough signals that you're doing something harmful to at least one player.
They didn't have a choice tho, the op said that the gm made them all Chosen for this grand world saving. How exactly do you leave out the barbarian chosen by fate out? How can you ask a friend to leave the rp table even if they act annoyingly (unless they are douchebag scum by default)?
I just find it a bit onesided that I can ruin the social aspect of the game with skill checks, feats and roleplay, making my partners useless in many situations (that 18 cha won't help if a barbarian friend of yours publicly makes a fool of your group), but the moment a caster uses magic, it's all fire and pitchforks. Next we'll forbid the bard from making a taunting song of a PC he doesn't like, or god forbid he uses Bluff to spread a bad rumour about a player, that's taking control from them, making their charismatic character into a womanizer.
Is this the correct spell? Wouldnt it have to be dominate monster?
Was there something preventing the group from simply being like "away with you, demon!"?
I have only read the OP, but personally think this sounds like a classic party dynamics. Personally I see nothing wrong with this as far as players go, but the barbarian should be pissed as hell at you, and I wouldn't have been surprised had you told us that she had killed you after she regained control. I personally love when things like this happen in my game.
Personally, I think a better solution would have been for the spellcasters (the witch?) to create a helm of opposite alignment and get her to put it on instead of dominating her.
It makes her alignment more conforming to that of the party, and gives the player an opportunity to modify their character in game vs wrenching control.
See the "serene barbarian" archetype on d20pfsrd for something that could have happened.
Personally, I think a better solution would have been for the spellcasters (the witch?) to create a helm of opposite alignment and get her to put it on instead of dominating her.
It makes her alignment more conforming to that of the party, and gives the player an opportunity to modify their character in game vs wrenching control.
See the "serene barbarian" archetype on d20pfsrd for something that could have happened.
Since I perceive that the main problem was that the player wanted to play a character who was actively disruptive to the campaign, I think forcing the helm on her would have resulted in the same in-game strife. And would have, IMO, also counted as a PvP action. So, same end result.
|
I find it ironic that with all of the complaints about GMs restricting player choices, some of those same people have no issue allowing other players to control their character, and that isn't considered a problem behavior for group dynamics.
I never realized how accurate a description "Player Entitlement" was until I read this thread.
|
|
And because I think it important to always state what your position actually is, rather than just cowardly aside taking pot shots and refusing exposure, if a player trys to do anything to control another player, they better have a damn good reason.
And if the controlled player wants to retaliate for what happened, guess who is now the new table BBEG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure what players vs GMs have to do with anything. Vampires, succubi, and all sorts of things have the option to charm or dominate PCs. Easily for extended periods of time. Pit fiends can suck your soul out of your body and spend it as money. In terms of ways that you can find yourself not wholly under your control, having a party member doing so to keep your campaign from falling apart seems fairly mild if it wasn't used maliciously. So it wouldn't bother me much until it was being used on me maliciously (by maliciously I mean using my character as a pawn, jerking his/her chain constantly and so forth). Of course as I originally said, that's just me and YMMV.
I really don't think that there is a need to try and make everything about players vs GMs though.
|
Dominate should never, ever, EVER be used by one PC on another PC. I'm even leery of doing it as a GM to a player. Her counter-party play can be problematic, yes, but Dominate is an extreme overreaction.
Beyond removing the player's agency (the whole point of playing the game), stripping a person of control (especially with the literal term Dominate) can be triggering for survivors of sexual violence. Allowing this at the game (and on a female player, no less) is just plain irresponsible.
I'm certainly not suggesting your intentions, but if the player had an unknown history to you, your intentions wouldn't matter. That's how triggering works. Of COURSE the player is angry. Having the GM and another player, maybe even multiple players ganging up on her for voicing dissent is even worse.
Again, I'm certain you wouldn't have done anything remotely of that nature to the character, being placed in a situation of vulnerability like that can cause tremendous psychological damage.
A better solution with a problem character is for the GM to come up with ways to motivate that character personally to go along with the party. I played a Lawful Evil character who ran into a burning building to save some orphans, because
A) Evil as he was, he could not abide children being harmed
B) Tragedies like child deaths are TERRIBLE for business
CN characters by nature are motivated by the self. Wealth is a good motivator, as are clues or tenuous relations to important aspects of the character's backstory. Clearly, the character acts in a way that she sees is appropriate for her character, which means she's put some thought into the character's personality and backstory. The GM should take this as an opportunity to create hooks for the character, not just force her into situations that make her act against type.
But never, EVER dominate another player character. I'd have immediately dropped your alignment to the lower end of neutral, and probably have ejected you from my table.
Since I perceive that the main problem was that the player wanted to play a character who was actively disruptive to the campaign,
I will point out that the DM wanted her to play that character that way too. Part of his plan.
Yea, the part where we were brought together by Apsu the Waybringer, by way of his chosen champion (the bugbear paladin), to each fulfill our specific roll in saving the entirety of reality from imploding... Which, we each ended up doing Something important (the DM had set the game up to work that way), but that wasn't until after all this happened.
How did you know that *HER* “chosen role” wasn’t being disruptive?
And it’s not only doing a Dominate, it’s doing a rather cheating method of dominate where she had no way of breaking it that was so unfair.
If a player at the table is bound and determined to create a disruptive character that can only be controlled by the players literally removing free will from the character, there is a very simple solution to a much larger problem.
I agree with that 100%. I still don't get how this GM vs Player or Player vs GM stuff has anything to do with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I perceive that the main problem was that the player wanted to play a character who was actively disruptive to the campaign,I will point out that the DM wanted her to play that character that way too. Part of his plan.
Also completely true. The campaign was kind of borked right from the start. Not to forget that the group is apparently all about letting everybody play whatever they want, but then the disruptive player is not ready to deal with the consequences.
*shrug* The domination seems fine to me, given that PvP was allowed and the target was still given most control over their character. The barbarian should have gotten a +2 for every time that they were stopped from doing something, and the caster would probably have ended up dead one day when the domination broke and the barbarian figured out what was going on.
Also, the player was able to play their character, but with some limitations. Have you never had your character trip the rogue so that she doesn't just pull all the levers and push all of the buttons in a dungeon? Or interrupted someone that you knew was going to do something terrible with a hasty diplomacy check? The dominate doesn't feel any worse than that, to me.
Can you actually use a Dominate Person spell in that way? I thought Dominate Person was quite invasive and basically turns the subject into a puppet. One command has to be replaced by another and they will only do that aside from basic survival stuff. So there would be no room for them to just act with their own will normally in between.
"Act normal until I give you another order."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At which point I would plot to kill the caster most likely. :D
Can you actually use a Dominate Person spell in that way?
Only with GM ruling (not RAW; probably not RAI). It is how they were using it, though, so that's not really something that needs to be discussed. The GM allowed it.
Ninja'd: I didn't consider a command like "Act normal until I give you another order" when I was writing it up. That sounds like it would work all right.
RAW it's legit. Why wouldn't it be?
*shrug* The domination seems fine to me, given that PvP was allowed and the target was still given most control over their character. The barbarian should have gotten a +2 for every time that they were stopped from doing something, and the caster would probably have ended up dead one day when the domination broke and the barbarian figured out what was going on.
No, PvP was not allowed, except one way. Yes, the snake guy could dominate the Bbn, but the BBn could not kill the snake guy.
Next it was a special Dominate that somehow lasted for a week per casting, with only one chance at a save, and that required two natural 20’s in a row. Which is pretty much cheating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At which point I would plot to kill the caster most likely. :D
Seems legit. Though the caster being able to kind of read your mind if they focus on it might make some speedbumps that way. That being said, if someone was being malicious with it then plotting their death would probably be natural.
Though I doubt most of my characters would immediately plot the deaths of their oppressor unless they were being malicious about it. I tend to play good guys and I myself probably wouldn't murder someone just because they had some power over me unless they were abusing that power. It's a sensitive subject, but in many ways it's probably less offensive than stuff that is often played for laughs in other things. I mean, I've see similar things abused far worse. :P
Honestly, a weretiger barbarian that is prone to outbursts and bad social manners being friendly-dominated to seems like a pretty good IC way to have a loose cannon PC who can also be sneaked through social situations where it would be bad. In fact, I think such a thing could be really cool if it was intentional between the players. The only thing that saddens me about this topic is that there was a problem. Otherwise, I merely noted that if it were me in the same situation (I actually have played a weretiger barbarian a long time ago who really fun and cool to play) I'd probably have been unfazed unless it was malicious.
"Act normal until I give you another order."Er, doesn't that contradict the spell description? Since other people can tell they aren't actually acting normally with a Sense Motive check while they are enspelled.
Only with GM ruling (not RAW; probably not RAI). It is how they were using it, though, so that's not really something that needs to be discussed. The GM allowed it.Fair enough. :)
Well it notes that the reason you notice it at that DC is because of their single-minded focus on that given task. Presumably if their single mindedness was not present (specifically because you told them to act naturally) then the DC would be the usual 25 to sense an enchantment rather than 15 (subject to GM discretion). At least that is how I would run it if they were given free reign over themselves based on the circumstances.
Your mileage my vary. :)