Loss of player control, Good or bad? If so when is it okay?

[Arcasus]

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

And sometimes in a home campaign it's inevitable. You didn't want the party to get infected by werewolves. You honestly thought that wouldn't happen. Everyone likely to get bitten/scratched had freaking good fort saves after all. But the unthinkable happened. The fighter failed all the fort saves you asked him to make by 1 or more. He got infected, of course you didn't tell him what the fort saves were for did you? That would have provided meta knowledge that not all players can handle having.

So now you have a werewolf in the party. How do you deal with it? I do so by working that into the overall story arc of the campaign. I leave clues as to what happened without actually stating it. And have the players see the results of the rampages which the fighter doesn't remember.

Or you can announce what happened and take active control over the character when he's changed, causing one player to just sit there unable to do anything while you attack the party with his character. IMO that's a dick move.

Or you can give the player full knowledge of what happened, and expect him to roleplay it properly. But let's be honest, if the player KNOWS he got infected with lycanthropy from the get go, he's going to get that cured before the first new moon. But why does he even know he's now a werewolf? There was no obvious sign of it after all.

I'm with kahel. I was running rise of the rune lords about two years ago with optimized pcs so I decided to add a were wolf recruited by the main BBG in the first book. A player was bite and failed the save and started having urges and hallucinations throughout the first book. When they finally get to the BBG at the end her being a priest of lamashtu courpted the curse even more turning the pc into an abomination that fought against the pcs. It caught the entire party off guard. I let the person roll a will save he failed and started trying to kill his friends. At the end of the day we are adults and should act like it. It's a game. Talk to your players to make the most out of experince.

[Bob Bob Bob]

hiiamtom wrote:

The reason I say a lich being a lich means the character is over, is because a lich is a retired character. They achieved their goal and now they are the top of the necromancer heap... there's no good story left unless you really love just wandering around a lair making minions and sending other party members to fetch bodies for reanimation.

If you do face an enemy it's either doing something lame like playing the bad guys in a sports movie, or going against the literal good deities where the GM has to give you outsiders in ramping difficulty level making the story that of a video game. The few interesting stories I have seen with the supreme evil as the main character don't really fit into a tabletop adventure well.

So that's the thing, not all liches (lichs? lich?) end their character arc with the transformation. Sometimes immortality isn't the end but the means to the end. "I will blahblahblah and DEATH ITSELF CANNOT STOP ME!" To be fair, that sounds like every villain speech ever, but I never said they wouldn't be villains (see: baby eating evil acts needed to make phylactery). Just, if you're already letting the character be that kind of evil, them being a lich isn't significantly different (in terms of behavior, not power level) and isn't necessarily the end of their character arc.

[Nox Aeterna]

Honestly speaking , i dont see why people focus so much on a lich being evil , personally if i allowed a player to even become a lich , i consider making paths for good and neutrals PCs to get there also.

Always found pathfinder system to be guidelines when it comes to alignment and i atleast never even consider for a second that every single inteligent being of any kind can only have one alignment so yes , chances are the vampire will also be good and you are an ass for killing him without dialog and so on. You will also find good devils that might have left hell , same to demons and you better not always assume that angel there wont be evil either.

Most will be ofc based on the book guidelines , keyword being 'most'.

Ofc , my players do know this , so they rarely go around taking for granted alignments.

[GM Rednal]

My assumption as GM is that any intelligent, free-willed creature is capable of making moral choice and ultimately changing alignment. Of course, from a storytelling perspective, I think it's usually preferred to have most of a given kind of creature be a certain way, so that anything different is thus more noticeable and interesting to the players. XD

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Honestly speaking , i dont see why people focus so much on a lich being evil , personally if i allowed a player to even become a lich , i consider making paths for good and neutrals PCs to get there also.

Always found pathfinder system to be guidelines when it comes to alignment and i atleast never even consider for a second that every single inteligent being of any kind can only have one alignment so yes , chances are the vampire will also be good and you are an ass for killing him without dialog and so on. You will also find good devils that might have left hell , same to demons and you better not always assume that angel there wont be evil either.

Most will be ofc based on the book guidelines , keyword being 'most'.

Ofc , my players do know this , so they rarely go around taking for granted alignments.

The problem is if non-evil demons and devils become so common that you could reasonably doubt one being evil, then the entire concept of these fiends becomes watered down and it becomes meaningless to have alignment based outsiders in the game.

Demons and devils, or angels for that matter exhibit the norms they do because they are alignment embodied.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Creating a Lich wrote:

“Lich” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery. A lich retains all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

CR: Same as the base creature + 2.

Alignment: Any evil.

...

This would be why. Vampire is the same:

Creating a Vampire wrote:

“Vampire” is an acquired template that can be added to any living creature with 5 or more Hit Dice (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Most vampires were once humanoids, fey, or monstrous humanoids. A vampire uses the base creature's stats and abilities except as noted here.

CR: Same as the base creature + 2.

AL: Any evil.

Since we're talking about when a character becomes one of these and not a character who is already one of these, they'd have to become evil by the standard rules. If you have your own houserules or other ways to become something similar but distinct from a lich that's fine, but that's different from what the standard rules say.

And in terms of fluff:

James Jacobs wrote:

...

There are no good liches. There might be a good lich-like being out there but it would have achieved its undead state via a non-evil method—creating a phylactery is needed to become a lich, and the manipulation of soul and life energy required for all the various methods of creating a phylactery is an evil act.
...

From here.

[Ryan Freire]

Oh bob, you're opening a massive postmodernist can of worms.

[thejeff]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Honestly speaking , i dont see why people focus so much on a lich being evil , personally if i allowed a player to even become a lich , i consider making paths for good and neutrals PCs to get there also.

Always found pathfinder system to be guidelines when it comes to alignment and i atleast never even consider for a second that every single inteligent being of any kind can only have one alignment so yes , chances are the vampire will also be good and you are an ass for killing him without dialog and so on. You will also find good devils that might have left hell , same to demons and you better not always assume that angel there wont be evil either.

Most will be ofc based on the book guidelines , keyword being 'most'.

Ofc , my players do know this , so they rarely go around taking for granted alignments.

The problem is if non-evil demons and devils become so common that you could reasonably doubt one being evil, then the entire concept of these fiends becomes watered down and it becomes meaningless to have alignment based outsiders in the game.

Demons and devils, or angels for that matter exhibit the norms they do because they are alignment embodied.

Same with most undead. Though it depends on which undead tropes you're working with. Maybe your vampires are sparkly superhumans with finicky eating habits, but vampires as monsters goes back a lot farther. Even the the Dracula - suave charming predator version is a lot more pleasant than most of the older versions.

I can and have played it both ways, but for straight fantasy, I tend to prefer the more horrific versions.

I also kind of like the idea that becoming a lich is a trap. You're not really becoming a lich. You're dying and something else that isn't you, even though it has your memories and skills, takes over. Even all those evil mages who committed atrocities to become undead and continue forever really just died.

[Nox Aeterna]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Honestly speaking , i dont see why people focus so much on a lich being evil , personally if i allowed a player to even become a lich , i consider making paths for good and neutrals PCs to get there also.

Always found pathfinder system to be guidelines when it comes to alignment and i atleast never even consider for a second that every single inteligent being of any kind can only have one alignment so yes , chances are the vampire will also be good and you are an ass for killing him without dialog and so on. You will also find good devils that might have left hell , same to demons and you better not always assume that angel there wont be evil either.

Most will be ofc based on the book guidelines , keyword being 'most'.

Ofc , my players do know this , so they rarely go around taking for granted alignments.

The problem is if non-evil demons and devils become so common that you could reasonably doubt one being evil, then the entire concept of these fiends becomes watered down and it becomes meaningless to have alignment based outsiders in the game.

Demons and devils, or angels for that matter exhibit the norms they do because they are alignment embodied.

Well , usually there is no need for such extremes , even if 99% are evil and the PCs have only seem very , very few neutral/good demons for example , they already pause to consider a little when they find one they know nothing about at all.

Rarely they are willing to kill it with no exchange at all , since it probably is evil , but it might not be and usually said outsider have major impact on the adventure and leave a mark on the players which will be a future reference.

Then again , i might get this outcome so easilly since usually the PCs are good.

PS: Bob i know that in general the books says X is evil and that is it , Y is good and Z is neutral. I prefer to apply houserules to change this heh , ofc i dont expect to ever playing something like PFS and finding this kind of approach there.

[thejeff]

Mind you, I can't think of any case in game where I'd let a PC become a lich and then take the character away.
Either we're playing the kind of game where I'm perfectly fine with letting the PCs play undead monsters or with happy friendly undead, or I'm not letting the PC become a lich in the first place. As GM, that's completely under my control.
If a player wanted to, I'd talk to him out of game about it, to let him know that it wasn't something I was willing to do. If he tried to pursue it in game anyway, he just wouldn't succeed.

Letting him do so - which involves defining a path for him to do so since there is no RAW method - and then taking the character away would violate the basic don't be a dick rule.

[Kahel Stormbender]

I've been in a campaign where the very evil red dragon we were hunting infiltrated the party as an elven bard with the intention to ruin our reputations then kill us... and discovered he actually liked helping others more then hurting them. Getting treasure for his horde by doing noble deeds it turned out gave unfamiliar good feelings. Thus shifting over time to Chaotic Good from Chaotic Evil.

Boy was that a surprise when we were told about it after the campaign ended.

But such events are rare. Drizt isn't such a famous character because he's a drow ranger. He's famous because he's one of the few good drow the surface knows about.

Something that's evil 99.99% of the time can make an interesting character study when that 0.01% case crops up. But it's a rarity that players likely wont encounter.

A "good" lich might exist. But this wouldn't be a lich who was good when he became a lich. It would be one that eventually had a change of heart. Even if the wizard started as a good man in life, he preformed unspeakable atrocities to become a lich. His moral code was eroded to the point where he saw nothing wrong with evil acts. Regardless of his reason to become a lich, he became a dark and twisted reflection of the man he once was.

Returning from that isn't easy. When you chose to walk down that dark path it's a conscious choice. And they do say the dead cannot change. Liches ARE dead, or rather undead after all.

[Ryan Freire]

To answer the OP most of my GMS have emailed or taken a party member aside when loss of control happened and explained the parameters and boundaries and tried to get them on board, never taking direct control unless they displayed an inability to avoid undermining the loss of control. Players get less squirrely about these things if they're participants rather than viewers

RE: core always evil things not necessarily being evil in peoples home campaigns. Its not really useful information, I feel pretty confident that anyone motivated enough to find a forum to ask questions on is aware they can change the rules. As an example, the privilege of moral grey in MY campaigns is reserved for the mortal races. Always good/always evil/chaotic/lawful beings exist in competition for the souls and support of beings capable of this moral grey as the fortunes of the planar war swing depending on the prevalence of certain aspects of alignment. Becoming undead/a demon/an angel/etc is the equivalent of an irrevocable contract with those facets of alignment and an agent (witting or no) of the greater principle in a planar struggle few mortals are aware of. A take more in line with the always good/evil aspects of core, but no more relevant than "well undead arent always evil in my world or even core" to the question of players losing control of their character.

[wraithstrike]

For spells like dominate I still let the player run the character. He is just limited to the command given. If he might kill the entire party I could have him do nothing.

As far as saying templates(vampires and lycanthropes) are only for NPC's the rules spelling out how they can turn a PC into one disagrees. One may think it's in bad taste, but people need to remember there is a big difference between "what I like" and what is objectively true.

[alexd1976]

GM decides to allow you a template.
GM takes your character away.

Punch GM in the junk and quit game.

In our games, templates are FINE, but they are accounted for in the build (i.e. a half-dragon will be two levels lower than a non-templated basic race).

As for 'evil' templates like Vampire etc... if it's an evil game, who cares?

Literally all templates are controlled/handed out by the GM (yes, even the Lich), so if your GM lets you have it and THEN takes your character away, he isn't doing his job properly.

[thejeff]

alexd1976 wrote:

GM decides to allow you a template.

GM takes your character away.

Punch GM in the junk and quit game.

In our games, templates are FINE, but they are accounted for in the build (i.e. a half-dragon will be two levels lower than a non-templated basic race).

As for 'evil' templates like Vampire etc... if it's an evil game, who cares?

Literally all templates are controlled/handed out by the GM (yes, even the Lich), so if your GM lets you have it and THEN takes your character away, he isn't doing his job properly.

Out of curiosity, how do you handle templates acquired during play as far as levels go? Do you lose levels when you get the template? Stall at the same level until you're the proper number of levels behind?

[alexd1976]

thejeff wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

GM decides to allow you a template.

GM takes your character away.

Punch GM in the junk and quit game.

In our games, templates are FINE, but they are accounted for in the build (i.e. a half-dragon will be two levels lower than a non-templated basic race).

As for 'evil' templates like Vampire etc... if it's an evil game, who cares?

Literally all templates are controlled/handed out by the GM (yes, even the Lich), so if your GM lets you have it and THEN takes your character away, he isn't doing his job properly.

Out of curiosity, how do you handle templates acquired during play as far as levels go? Do you lose levels when you get the template? Stall at the same level until you're the proper number of levels behind?

Depends on how it is acquired, as well as what it is...

Lycanthropy can be cured, so if they choose to keep it, they wind up paying for the levels (if infected, instead of natural). We houserule that if they keep it long enough to pay off the levels, they now count as 'natural' instead of 'afflicted'.

Templates that can be deliberately sought out/added like Vampire or Lich are generally 'saved up for' and applied when they have enough levels/have accomplished the required goals in game. Note that in Pathfinder, you can add Half-Dragon AFTER character creation (it isn't necessarily an option that takes place at birth!)

RARELY do we apply templates DURING a game. 99% of the time the characters are built with them.

[wraithstrike]

Alex sometimes the template is not "handed out". It happens because the NPC does it due to you dying in case of a vampire. Now the NPC(GM) could let you just die, and not be a vampire.

I think killing an undead creature, and then using resurrection would bring you back as a normal person.

[Kahel Stormbender]

Could be true, but undead tend to crumble to dust when killed. Especially vampires. Thus it might take something stronger then Raise Dead. Even if that's not the case, how long was the person a vampire? This could mean Raise Dead can't work to begin with.

[wraithstrike]

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Could be true, but undead tend to crumble to dust when killed. Especially vampires. Thus it might take something stronger then Raise Dead. Even if that's not the case, how long was the person a vampire? This could mean Raise Dead can't work to begin with.

Resurrection is a spell that is stronger than Raise Dead. That is why I mentioned, but now I see that I didn't capitalize it.

[alexd1976]

wraithstrike wrote:

Alex sometimes the template is not "handed out". It happens because the NPC does it due to you dying in case of a vampire. Now the NPC(GM) could let you just die, and not be a vampire.

I think killing an undead creature, and then using resurrection would bring you back as a normal person.

Basically my point is that if a PC wants to 'keep' the template, they have to account for the levels... so being turned into a Vampire, they have two choices: Get rezzed (removing the template), or keep it and work off the levels it costs to have it.

We tend to enforce group alignments (as in, no good, or no evil) so if one person is a vampire, it isn't a huge deal because there will likely be a Lich or necromancer as well... thematically, it works.

Groups with mixed alignments (Like a Paladin adventuring with an Anti-Paladin) cause too much friction, so we just never make those.

[Kahel Stormbender]

The problem with that is the nature of how one becomes a vampire. If someone was to deliberately seek out becoming a vampire, it be honest I wouldn't have it happen. In fact I generally avoid vampires turning the player. It's happened a time or three. But if I'm crafting an adventure where it's possible, the focus of the adventure is preventing the vampire from accomplishing it's goal.

Unless you're a certain nobleman in Ravenloft, to become a vampire you must die. If this happened, chances are your allies failed to save you. Which means they are probably dead. You failed too many will saves too. And death tends to be the end of your adventuring career. If your allies got killed or otherwise removed from the equation enough for you to be turned (and I tend to do the 3 nights of feeding off the victim to turn bit), who's trying to slay the vampire that is wearing your face? And why would they bother trying to use magic to bring you back to life?

Think about it, does your adventuring group go around using Resurrection to bring every vampire, zombie, and skeleton they fight back to life as a mortal? Or do they just slay the undead and move on?

[wraithstrike]

The vampire turn takes 1d4 days. So it could happen that the vampire was killed along with the infected party member, and he could not be rezzed before the turn took place.

The vampire also could have run away if he was loosing the fight.

So I really have no idea where "using Resurrection to bring every vampire, zombie, and skeleton they fight back to life as a mortal?" has a place in this conversation, but feel free to explain.

[wraithstrike]

alexd1976 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Alex sometimes the template is not "handed out". It happens because the NPC does it due to you dying in case of a vampire. Now the NPC(GM) could let you just die, and not be a vampire.

I think killing an undead creature, and then using resurrection would bring you back as a normal person.

Basically my point is that if a PC wants to 'keep' the template, they have to account for the levels... so being turned into a Vampire, they have two choices: Get rezzed (removing the template), or keep it and work off the levels it costs to have it.

We tend to enforce group alignments (as in, no good, or no evil) so if one person is a vampire, it isn't a huge deal because there will likely be a Lich or necromancer as well... thematically, it works.

Groups with mixed alignments (Like a Paladin adventuring with an Anti-Paladin) cause too much friction, so we just never make those.

I was talking about the post where you suggested kicking the GM, and I may have to read it again, but it didnt seen like that was just for your group, but more like a general suggestion.

[Kahel Stormbender]

wraithstrike wrote:

The vampire turn takes 1d4 days. So it could happen that the vampire was killed along with the infected party member, and he could not be rezzed before the turn took place.

The vampire also could have run away if he was loosing the fight.

So I really have no idea where "using Resurrection to bring every vampire, zombie, and skeleton they fight back to life as a mortal?" has a place in this conversation, but feel free to explain.

I think you might be misunderstanding what I said. What I meant was the classic Bram Stroker's Dracula style of turning someone into a vampire. As in the vampire is returning night after night to feed on the person. And only after the 3rd night do they die, to rise as a vampire several days later. If the vampire in question is being forced to flee before accomplish this on any of those 3 nights, then clearly he's failed to turn the person and would have to start from scratch.

Which means there's plenty of time, and incentive to track down the vampire and kill them. Against seasoned adventurers, such a task is actually kind of difficult. Especially once they realize what's happening, which should happen after the first night at least. As such, if the player's character did manage to get turned into a vampire... Either they did so deliberately, in which case that character wasn't suitable for the campaign (and I didn't allow them to be turned anyway) or the rest of the party is incapable of stopping things. Most likely due to being dead.

At which point, the Resurrection idea would require some random adventuring party who comes across the vampire slaying them, then using a spell to bring them back to life. Why would they do this if they are specifically hunting a vampire to destroy them? The players themselves are unlikely to try bringing any given undead back to life. So expecting the new characters to do so is unrealistic.

And that's aside from the fact that Resurrection is a 7th level spell. Meaning that a cleric has to be level 13 to cast it. I can't speak for others, but by the time a campaign is at that level, I'm probably not using vampires as the BBEG. Aside from the fact I use them as an infrequent enemy at best. When running a home campaign the entire campaign might have 3 or 4 adventures dealing with vampires, which I'll set clues and references to up well in advance since they're major players in whatever area they 'live' in.

[thejeff]

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

The vampire turn takes 1d4 days. So it could happen that the vampire was killed along with the infected party member, and he could not be rezzed before the turn took place.

The vampire also could have run away if he was loosing the fight.

So I really have no idea where "using Resurrection to bring every vampire, zombie, and skeleton they fight back to life as a mortal?" has a place in this conversation, but feel free to explain.

I think you might be misunderstanding what I said. What I meant was the classic Bram Stroker's Dracula style of turning someone into a vampire. As in the vampire is returning night after night to feed on the person. And only after the 3rd night do they die, to rise as a vampire several days later. If the vampire in question is being forced to flee before accomplish this on any of those 3 nights, then clearly he's failed to turn the person and would have to start from scratch.

Which means there's plenty of time, and incentive to track down the vampire and kill them. Against seasoned adventurers, such a task is actually kind of difficult. Especially once they realize what's happening, which should happen after the first night at least. As such, if the player's character did manage to get turned into a vampire... Either they did so deliberately, in which case that character wasn't suitable for the campaign (and I didn't allow them to be turned anyway) or the rest of the party is incapable of stopping things. Most likely due to being dead.

At which point, the Resurrection idea would require some random adventuring party who comes across the vampire slaying them, then using a spell to bring them back to life. Why would they do this if they are specifically hunting a vampire to destroy them? The players themselves are unlikely to try bringing any given undead back to life. So expecting the new characters to do so is unrealistic.

And that's aside from the fact that Resurrection is a 7th level spell. Meaning that a cleric has to be level 13...

Except that's not really how it would likely work in PF, since there's little need for the vampire to come every night to feed or to turn someone into a spawn. All they need to do is kill them with Blood Drain or Energy Drain.

With adventurers that's most likely to happen in a fight, which does suggest that it's likely either the vampire or the whole party will be dead at the end of it. It's possible however that the survivors could flee, leaving the vampire to raise the dead PC as a spawn.
The other option would be for the vampire to use its dominate ability to isolate one PC, kill them and raise them as a spawn.

In either case, 1d4 days have to pass, which might or might not be enough for the group to recover/realize someone's missing and track them down. Someone randomly resurrecting undead they find isn't really necessary.

Since vampires are templates, classed vampires work well as enemies at any level. Even below 13th level though, the party could pay for a Resurrection if they needed to.

[wraithstrike]

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

The vampire turn takes 1d4 days. So it could happen that the vampire was killed along with the infected party member, and he could not be rezzed before the turn took place.

The vampire also could have run away if he was loosing the fight.

So I really have no idea where "using Resurrection to bring every vampire, zombie, and skeleton they fight back to life as a mortal?" has a place in this conversation, but feel free to explain.

I think you might be misunderstanding what I said. What I meant was the classic Bram Stroker's Dracula style of turning someone into a vampire. As in the vampire is returning night after night to feed on the person. And only after the 3rd night do they die, to rise as a vampire several days later. If the vampire in question is being forced to flee before accomplish this on any of those 3 nights, then clearly he's failed to turn the person and would have to start from scratch.

Which means there's plenty of time, and incentive to track down the vampire and kill them. Against seasoned adventurers, such a task is actually kind of difficult. Especially once they realize what's happening, which should happen after the first night at least. As such, if the player's character did manage to get turned into a vampire... Either they did so deliberately, in which case that character wasn't suitable for the campaign (and I didn't allow them to be turned anyway) or the rest of the party is incapable of stopping things. Most likely due to being dead.

At which point, the Resurrection idea would require some random adventuring party who comes across the vampire slaying them, then using a spell to bring them back to life. Why would they do this if they are specifically hunting a vampire to destroy them? The players themselves are unlikely to try bringing any given undead back to life. So expecting the new characters to do so is unrealistic.

And that's aside from the fact that Resurrection is a 7th level spell. Meaning that a cleric has to be level 13...

I was talking about the game rules, not some movie or book.

By the rules the vampire doesn't have to keep you around for any time at all. He has to kill you by taking your constitution or negative energy damage. Once that happens he can just leave and wait for you to turn.

Also the vampire can still be a BBEG. Throw in some caster level and minion support and you have a boss fight.

Just because you won't use one as a BBEG, that does not mean someone else won't. This is not specifically about your games. It is a general outlook.

The party might also not be a traditional party. They may also not know the BBEG is a vampire for various reasons*, and the resurrection spell may not be immediately available.

*Not catching hints and/or not doing research happens. Some GM's force the answer on you, but some won't.

PS: It doesn't even have to be a BBEG level vampire to do this. A fairly challenging encounter and a few good dice rolls is all it takes.