Tolkien--like most authors--was doing his best to depict characters behaving in a way that was appropriate to a consistent, cohesive narrative. TTRPGs campaigns and narratives cannot be as pre-determined and purpose-driven as a novel, but ultimately PCs and NPCs don't act in a vacuum. They exist within a cooperative story. Yes, the GM is ultimately responsible for presenting players with challenges that are interesting and exciting, but there is a reciprocal obligation.
Within that context, square pegs and round holes are sometimes inevitable. Yes, dealing with the consequences of, e.g., a Paladin putting on a Helm of Opposite Alignment can be frustrating... but this is also a game where loss of limbs, senses or character levels, or even outright death are a possibility. "I'm not interested in that; anyway, I rescue the kitten" isn't exactly a viable--or fair--approach.
Beyond that, while I get that you were making a tongue-in-cheek closing statement, I'd like to think that there are more alternatives in a game between friends than simply dismissing an event and doing what feels good/convenient.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: "You failed your Will save. You now think this wizard is your best friend."
Player: "I stab the wizard."
GM: "That's not an appropriate response."
Player: "You don't get to tell me I'm wrong about my own PC! This game is about making choices and that's what I choose to do! Free will!"
I don't like to trick my players into putting on helmets of opposite alignment, because I don't like taking away their agency. But if they did, I'd expect them to act completely differently, same as if they were hit by 'Charm Person' or 'Dominate Person' or 'Hold Person', or turned into a rampaging werewolf.
The GM can't (usually) control the player character, but if the player tries to control their own character in a way that constitutes blatant metagaming or similar, the GM can tell them to stop doing that or leave the game. Or turn the character into an NPC and have the player make a new character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of enchantments like charm person, dominate, etc… more specifically charm person really… this spell is largely useless in combat and only really works to prevent combat in the first place… though it can be used to start combat too by commanding a charmed player or NPC to attack one to their allies… but once combat has started however, charm person gets broken very easily…
Dominate and other mind control spells are typically more reliable, though a lot of DMs seem afraid to actually take control of a dominated PC in combat. Personally if I were to ever DM and a PC were to get dominated, I’d subtly suggest that they feel as if something has taken hold of their mind, I’d let them declare their intended actions but then warp their decisions to harm/hinder their allies or to benefit their enemy.
For example:
Bob the barbarian gets dominated, bob’s player decides to charge at and attack the evil wizard.
Bob looks towards the wizard and can only watch in horror as his body moves on its own charging not at the evil wizard but instead at one of his allies and brings his axe down on his friend, to the others Bob’s expression is blank emotionless as if he felt nothing for what he had just done.
At this point I could either take full control of bob and treat him like an NPC for the duration of the spell or continue to let bob’s player attempt to control his character only for every action he declares to be twisted against the party in some way… even if the player chooses to not act, this can be used against the party.
At this point I could either take full control of bob and treat him like an NPC for the duration of the spell or continue to let bob’s player attempt to control his character only for every action he declares to be twisted against the party in some way… even if the player chooses to not act, this can be used against the party.
Or, if you have good roleplayers, they will continue to act against the party for you. This is a situation which most certainly separates the good roleplayers from the bad.
Or, if you have good roleplayers, they will continue to act against the party for you. This is a situation which most certainly separates the good roleplayers from the bad.
At this point I could either take full control of bob and treat him like an NPC for the duration of the spell or continue to let bob’s player attempt to control his character only for every action he declares to be twisted against the party in some way… even if the player chooses to not act, this can be used against the party.
True… if a player is willing to play ball with their character being dominated and actually perform actions accordingly, then there is certainly nothing wrong with letting them fully dictate their character’s actions while under the control of an NPC. The most common issue I’ve personally seen with this though is players deliberately pulling their punches or completely changing how their character fights so to not kill their allies while dominated… player agency is important but at the same time, metagaming is to be discouraged… players under the effects of a dominate spell are often more likely to metagame than they would have otherwise… so taking control away when that occurs may be necessary… and doing so on their first action when dominated will often help set the mood and illustrate how dire the situation may be.
True… if a player is willing to play ball with their character being dominated and actually perform actions accordingly, then there is certainly nothing wrong with letting them fully dictate their character’s actions while under the control of an NPC. The most common issue I’ve personally seen with this though is players deliberately pulling their punches or completely changing how their character fights so to not kill their allies while dominated… player agency is important but at the same time, metagaming is to be discouraged… players under the effects of a dominate spell are often more likely to metagame than they would have otherwise… so taking control away when that occurs may be necessary… and doing so on their first action when dominated will often help set the mood and illustrate how dire the situation may be.For me, its simply a logistics issue. I have a lot of things on my plate as a GM and I don't have the intricacies of a PC's full attack routine memorized. The player is the best person to actually engage the mechanics of the PC because they know it best. I shudder at trying to do a Circling Mongoose Slayer Full attack or a UMonks's flurry in addition to whatever else I'm working on that turn. Getting Spellcasters is easier, but they rarely fail the saving throw.
It still should throw up a lot of red flags if you have a player who regularly makes full attacks, uses power attack, vital strike, or spends every round casting spells, who when they are affected by a mind-control effect suddenly are making one melee attack per round, fighting defensively and/or taking a penalty to deal non-lethal damage so that they are less likely to hit and deal as little damage as possible… its pretty obvious when players deliberately stop taking advantage of every tool in their arsenal. And this sort of behavior is infact metagaming and should be discouraged.
If you ever dominate a Barbarian and you hear the words “I stop raging”… then it is time to take direct control for the duration of the spell.
Levels, limbs, senses, death...these can be solved with a spell. So can alignment changes. It does not have to be a big deal. "Oh no. Anyway." is just as valid a response as any other.
Is it really, though? Is saying you're not going to take a given effect seriously okay because it dictates how your character would think and act as opposed to, e.g., what they're able to do in combat or how well they're able to do it?
And my point is, the GM does not get to decide if that's an appropriate response.(Common Decency aside, but that's a table issue not a game issue) The GM controls everything but the player character. Its okay for a GM to be disappointed if their big twist or hard hitting beat didn't land, but they don't get to say the player is wrong for having their PC react a certain way. That's how they're choosing to play it, and the game is about making choices.
What a GM doesn't get to do is regulate someone's tastes (story-wise) or feelings (in terms of how they react to a plot-twist). With respect, I don't see how your initial response to me, which amounted to hand-waving and then doing precisely what a character would have done had nothing happened, meets a "common decency" threshold.
My point was that a GM should know their audience.
Of course, that's a given. And a GM should absolutely be receptive to players expressing concerns and frustrations. Again, though, these things and "anyways, I do this" are completely different things.
Granted, when I tell a GM I'm not interested in a plot development its usually before its sprung on me because my GM communicates things like that, "Hey, how do you feel about something like X happening?" Its a behavior I really appreciate because when I was sitting in the GM seat, I recall a few times when I did not and I really hurt a player's feelings and looking back, would not do it that way again.
Most players are reasonable, game to flow with punches, and usually quite eager to play their dominated PC against the party. A player saying, "I'm not doing that." usually means that the GM took a shot and badly missed and maybe people should take a step back and consider if they even want to continue on this path.
Again, with respect, "spoiler alert, but how do you feel about [Insert Plot Hook]?" doesn't strike me as an exactly viable approach, and that's before we talk about slippery slopes. More to the point, I get wanting to distinguish between the relatively short-term effects of spells and long-term or permanent effects... but this is really only a thing if the GM is somehow unwilling to introduce a means to correct the alignment change. Absent that rather extreme example, a player just ignoring the change doesn't help anything.
This got a little far afield of alignment class restrictions, but alignment is a facet of the game I feel strongly about, but alignment almost always ends up talking about the table in question because so much of it is dependent on the group playing.
I totally get it--I feel very strongly about alignments as well. We might not agree on some of these points, but I respect where you're coming from!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Domination honestly should have had some sort of stages of success system built into it… where depending on how far above or below the DC you are on your roll determines how in control you are… like if you failed by 10 or more you have no control over your own actions, 10 or less giving you limited control allowing you to resist the commands and deal less damage or perform simple actions, barely passing should leave you still being compelled but completely in control, and passing by 10 or more the spell failed.
The most common issue I’ve personally seen with this though is players deliberately pulling their punches or completely changing how their character fights so to not kill their allies while dominated…
Perfect example of "Bad" Roleplay by a player..... and why it separates the good from the bad.