Quote from: deadDMwalking;692890Asking Jim to stop playing Sir Aramar the Paladin and suddenly switch to a mirror universe where he has a goatee is not an easy switch.  If you choose one character to play and they the personality is completely reversed, that is worse thn losing that character.  

I don't want to play an evil Paladin.  If I've chosen a Paladin, I have some pretty specific ideas about what I think would be a fun character.  

And if you do suddenly become evil, I could see how 'handing out' with people who like a Paladin is a bad idea in the long term.  Murdering them all in their sleep is totally a valid strategy.  It gets you all kinds of stuff, and gets them out of your way to go do the things you actually want to do right now - like conquer the world.

But surely if this happens because Aramar is charmed, or don's a silvery helm that throws him into a bloodthirstly rage, or picks up a sword that seems to slip and slide of its own volition etc etc ... these are all the sorts of things that make for great stories. Under the influence of the Doomblade Aramar does unspeakable evil, when the curse of it is removed he must seek to right the wrongs he has commmitted and perhaps regain his lost paladinhood.....

Now I would always treat that sort of thing as a curse that could be removed and not treat it as a character personality change that is just done.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693059But surely if this happens because Aramar is charmed, or don's a silvery helm that throws him into a bloodthirstly rage, or picks up a sword that seems to slip and slide of its own volition etc etc ... these are all the sorts of things that make for great stories. Under the influence of the Doomblade Aramar does unspeakable evil, when the curse of it is removed he must seek to right the wrongs he has commmitted and perhaps regain his lost paladinhood.....

Now I would always treat that sort of thing as a curse that could be removed and not treat it as a character personality change that is just done.

Some people don't want stories, they just want to play their character without having someone else's melodrama foisted on them.

Quote from: apparition13;693083Some people don't want stories, they just want to play their character without having someone else's melodrama foisted on them.

Eh?

It if happens to your character through play it is your characters story. That is the point right?

You may as well say you don't want your PC captured by bandits sold into slavery and forced to fight in the arena, or you don't want them bitten and turned into a vampire, or you don't want them to experience any event that forces them outside of a rigid character defintion you ascribed to them at the start of the game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693090Eh?

It if happens to your character through play it is your characters story. That is the point right?

You may as well say you don't want your PC captured by bandits sold into slavery and forced to fight in the arena, or you don't want them bitten and turned into a vampire, or you don't want them to experience any event that forces them outside of a rigid character defintion you ascribed to them at the start of the game.

Yeah, I have to agree with jibba. Part of the game is things happening to your character and meeting the challenge. That is half the fun of play: the surprising and unknown. Also we are talking about cursed magic items here. No one made you wear that helm. You chose to put it on. Cursed items are a risk in the game afterall. Just like any other danger. Maybe some groups don't like that stuff, but I really have zero problem with the GM including that stuff in treasure hordes (whether its rolled randomly or placed).

My favorite part of this complaint is the modern antipathy to bogus and cursed items. That used to make magic, well, magical! It was a risk, a gamble, to try things out unheeded before proper identification. And magic being an alluring and corrupting force to the careless has been a trope for ages.

I blame modern Magic Mart assumptions. When the expectation is "everything found better be useful -- or we might as well buy something at the store instead," then traps, curses, complications, and foils just read like the GM is dicking with you. When your tabletop adventuring boils down to searching for the best rare drops per raid, it's time to re-evaluate why you're bothering with playing pretend as a social game at all. There's other programs that run that better.

Now, a paladin that feels torn to use the relatively unknown +1 sword under duress, perhaps say innocents under attack from magical monsters... should use better judgment, hand off the sword to a stalwart peasant fending off danger, and activate protection of evil to save as many innocents as possible.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693090Eh?

It if happens to your character through play it is your characters story. That is the point right?

You may as well say you don't want your PC captured by bandits sold into slavery and forced to fight in the arena, or you don't want them bitten and turned into a vampire, or you don't want them to experience any event that forces them outside of a rigid character defintion you ascribed to them at the start of the game.

When bad things happen to your character,  you can respond in character.

When your character is removed from play and you're told to play a different one, you can't respond in character.   I'd rather allow my Paladin to become an NPC and roll up a character that I have an interest in playing.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693165When bad things happen to your character,  you can respond in character. When your character is removed from play and you're told to play a different one, you can't respond in character.

...PC captured by bandits sold into slavery and forced to fight in the arena
...bitten and turned into a vampire
...picking up a cursed sword
...putting on a cursed helm
...seeing Cthulhu in a mirror and having 12 insanities

Which of these removes your character from play?  None of them.

 

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693165I'd rather allow my Paladin to become an NPC and roll up a character that I have an interest in playing.

How surprising that the Denner doesn't want his planned tactical number set to change.

If you don't find the idea of regaining lost paladinhood compelling, you shouldn't be playing a Paladin to begin with.

Oh, I do like playing to regain lost paladin-hood.  But a personality reversal is lame.

And I promise you, if I go from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, I'm going to kill my entire party.  Because I can, and it seems appropriate.  

So what's going to happen is I'm going to ruin your campaign because you included a stupid cursed item that never works out as well as anyone thinks it will.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693188And I promise you, if I go from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, I'm going to kill my entire party.  Because I can, and it seems appropriate.

Because Chaotic Evil = murdering psychopath.  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693188So what's going to happen is I'm going to ruin your campaign because you included a stupid cursed item that never works out as well as anyone thinks it will.

Wait...so, because you're unhappy with something at the table (that the DM alone is responsible for), you're going to actively try and ruin everyone else's fun? That's...really childish.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693188So what's going to happen is I'm going to ruin your campaign because you included a stupid cursed item that never works out as well as anyone thinks it will.

That is frankly, just being a dick at the table because you didn't get your way. It is the roleplaying equivalent of a tantrum. An epic whine that would get you kicked out of most functional groups (or at the very least result in a prolonged shaming). You are deliberately causing problems for the entire campaign and other players because you put on a cursed magic item and feel the GM was wrong to place it there. You are punishing everyone because you didn't vet your items for curses. That is like the GM killing your character with lightning because you didn't bite his adventure hook or killed one of his mary sues. I have no problem whatsoever with conflict in the party and player characters coming to blows. But right here you are using the alignment change as an excuse to ruin the game for everyone when something you don't like occurs. Sorry for the harsh language, but that is genuinely childish.

If you have an issue with the development that is fine. Everyone has different taste and preferences. But maybe you ought to speak with your GM about it after the game instead of blowing up the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;693178...PC captured by bandits sold into slavery and forced to fight in the arena

I'm still LG, so I organize a gladiator revolt.

Quote...bitten and turned into a vampire

If my alignment doesn't change, yay, LG vampire paladin. Life's more complicated, but it's still the same personality/character. If my alignment changes to evil, NPC, roll up a new character to play until and if it can be undone.

Quote...picking up a cursed sword
...putting on a cursed helm

Do these change my personality or not? If they do, have fun with your new NPC. Since you're so hot on playing this scenario, you do it.

If the effect is reversed, offer me the NPC back as a PC, and I'll decide whether I want to play a once again LG PC seeking to regain it's paladinhood.

Quote...seeing Cthulhu in a mirror and having 12 insanities

Why am I playing CoC with a D&D character?

More to the point, if you're playing CoC, "you go insane" is one of the games endpoints. If you stuck Cthulhu in D&D, "you go insane" isn't automatically part of the bargain.

QuoteWhich of these removes your character from play?  None of them.

The ones that radically change my characters personality. Congratulations, you've just killed my character, you know, the personality and person I've been roleplaying. You're telling me to roleplay someone else. I'd rather go roll up a new one, just as if my PC had been licked to death by a horde of happy golden retrievers.

QuoteHow surprising that the Denner doesn't want his planned tactical number set to change.

The roll-playing hasn't necessarily changed, the role-playing has.

QuoteIf you don't find the idea of regaining lost paladinhood compelling, you shouldn't be playing a Paladin to begin with.

If I'm playing a paladin, it's because I want to play an unambiguous hero and go around saving the day, not because I want to be angsting around like Angel being all broody (and I'm a huge fan of the show). If you find the idea of regaining lost paladinhood compelling, find a DM to accomodate you and go play it. It sounds like you have some story you want to game, I don't.

There are a lot of ways to lose a character, and permanent personality changes are one of them. If that's a deal breaker for the player, the effect is no different than killing them with a save or die, or in many of these cases, no save - just die, spell or effect.

Quote from: CRKrueger;693178...PC captured by bandits sold into slavery and forced to fight in the arena
...bitten and turned into a vampire
...picking up a cursed sword
...putting on a cursed helm
...seeing Cthulhu in a mirror and having 12 insanities

Which of these removes your character from play?  None of them.

 How surprising that the Denner doesn't want his planned tactical number set to change.

If you don't find the idea of regaining lost paladinhood compelling, you shouldn't be playing a Paladin to begin with.

Just kill the PC already since he feels so deprotagonised . Honestly, I never understood the whole idea of throwing, as Brendan noted, a tantrum, because something changed my character. The only thing I dislike is my character dying (because I'm probably way too emotional about stuff, but I also sometimes sniff sadly when characters die in books, so bear with me - I don't throw a tantrum when my character dies, just feel a moment of emptiness). Changes, however? Awesome, role - playing challenges.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;692891You may not enjoy this, and i can certainly appreciate that, but i have to say these kinds of items really add to the fun of the game for me (whether i am gm, the player affected by the item, or another person in the party). This sort of stuff really makes the game interesting and exciting IMO.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;693196I have no problem whatsoever with conflict in the party and player characters coming to blows. But right here you are using the alignment change as an excuse to ruin the game for everyone when something you don't like occurs. Sorry for the harsh language, but that is genuinely childish.

If you have an issue with the development that is fine. Everyone has different taste and preferences. But maybe you ought to speak with your GM about it after the game instead of blowing up the table.

So the situation is that a paladin PC is turned chaotic evil by a curse - and then, being evil, he betrays and kills his team-mates.  

I agree that the player should talk meta-game before proceeding to killing other PCs. On the other hand, I agree with deadDMwalking that part of the responsibility is on the DM for this. If I as GM introduce something make a PC chaotic evil, then there is an onus on me to foresee problems this could cause. It's childish on my part to make a PC evil, then put the blame purely on the player when the PC does evil things.

If I hold the player responsible for making the game fun for others, then I have to hold myself responsible for making the game fun for him.

Quote from: Rincewind1;693230Just kill the PC already since he feels so deprotagonised . Honestly, I never understood the whole idea of throwing, as Brendan noted, a tantrum, because something changed my character. The only thing I dislike is my character dying (because I'm probably way too emotional about stuff, but I also sometimes sniff sadly when characters die in books, so bear with me - I don't throw a tantrum when my character dies, just feel a moment of emptiness). Changes, however? Awesome, role - playing challenges.

I wouldn't kill other PCs without a meta-game discussion first unless I knew everyone well enough to know they'd be OK with it. However, I also feel that screwing with my character's personality is in many ways more intrusive than killing him. The times when I have gotten really pissed off at the GM wasn't when my character was killed, it was when the character was warped or twisted in other ways.

In Call of Cthulhu, there is a built-in expectation that my character can and probably will go insane. However, I would not introduce such personality-warping into another campaign without checking with players first.

Rather, I'm going to have good in-game reasons to take the actions to take.  I'm telling you what they will end up being.  

A chaotic-evil individual isn't going to get along well with a good-aligned party, will he?  His interests will diverge with theirs in matters both large and small.  

In the short term, he'd be better off finding some new companions that align with his current goals more closely.  Also, in the short term, a big pile of cash would be helpful.  Killing his former companions (who now have nothing to offer him) and taking their stuff (which does have something to offer him) is exactly what you'd expect him to do.  

This might be different if the party were not so good-aligned and he could see some benefits in the short term, but Chaotic Evil characters, by definition, do what benefits them the most with little regard to long-term planning.  

Call it being a dick if you want, but I see it as playing the character appropriately.

Ultimately, I think putting a player in a position where it is most reasonable for his character to ruin the game for everyone else is a dick move.

Quote from: jhkim;693247So the situation is that a paladin PC is turned chaotic evil by a curse - and then, being evil, he betrays and kills his team-mates.

I wouldn't kill other PCs without a meta-game discussion first unless I knew everyone well enough to know they'd be OK with it. However, I also feel that screwing with my character's personality is in many ways more intrusive than killing him. The times when I have gotten really pissed off at the GM wasn't when my character was killed, it was when the character was warped or twisted in other ways.

.

No, the issue says he sets out to destroy the campaign, very explicitly, to teach the GM a lesson for using cursed items that invert alignment. Whether a good character turned chaotic evil immediately loses any sense of attachment or connection to his party and murders them like a raging psychopath is another discussion.

If you have a problem with the GM using cursed items from the rulebook, then there is a mature away to address that.

QuoteIf I hold the player responsible for making the game fun for others, then I have to hold myself responsible for making the game fun for him.

I never said otherwise. That is why I compared his action to a GM lobbing a bolt of lightning at player characters who deviate from his adventure or tick him off. But ruining the campaign because there was a cursed item in the treasure horde, and you chose to wear it, is entirely out of proportion. The later is a deliberate attempt to ruin the fun of the game, the former is an attempt to make the game interesting and has the unintended consequence of irritating a player who doesn't like it. These actions are not at all comparable. Again, it is the whole "I am going to ruin your campaign" thing that is childish. He's clearly upset because his character's personality was changed and is trying to get revenge on the GM.