Need some advice on a conflict with a player

[molten_dragon]

I'm currently running the Iron Gods adventure path. My wife recently had a baby, and I warned my players ahead of time that I didn't have a lot of time or energy to devote to preparing for gaming, which is why I'm running an adventure path. I asked that they all do their best to stay on the railroad tracks and not go wandering off too much. They all seemed fine with it.

Early on in the first session, one of the characters, let's call him Chuck, drank some goop that was leaking out of a fusion reactor. It had random effects, and the one I rolled turned him psychotic (i.e. chaotic evil) for a few days. I probably should have just re-rolled then, but I thought it might make for some interesting roleplaying, so I went with it.

Stuff went okay for a couple days, but then Chuck got chaotic stupid. He decided to go burn down the bazaar in the town they were in, and got caught in the act by a couple of town guards. He started a fight with them, got lucky, and killed them both. Unfortunately, the guards were smart enough to call for reinforcements before they died, and chuck got beaten unconscious. He woke up in a jail cell the next day, by which point the goop had worn off and he was back to chaotic good. When he was put on trial, he explained about drinking the goop, and begged forgiveness. This basically derailed an entire gaming session, and the rest of the party wasn't too happy about it since they didn't get to participate much.

At this point, I'm trying to figure out a semi-logical reason why the town wouldn't just hang Chuck for murder. The party had just rescued one of the prominent townsfolk who was an old friend of Chuck's. This guy did some experiments with the goop and proved it could alter minds. Since chuck was not completely responsible for his own actions, and the town was pretty desperate to have this quest completed (the PCs were the 5th adventuring party to attempt it, and the only one to find much success so far), the town council suggested the following deal to Chuck.

He would be forced to pay restitution to the families of the guards he killed, 500 gp each.
He would then be put under a lesser geas to complete the quest that they were in the middle of, but would receive no reward (everyone else was getting 1000 gp each I think).
After completing the quest, he'd be banished from the town, on penalty of death if he ever returned.

Chuck took the deal obviously, rather than his character dying.

After the session though, he e-mailed me and told me he was very unhappy about being railroaded like that. Basically the same argument that is posted on here frequently, that player agency is the most important part of the game for him and it wasn't fair of me to take his choices away, etc.

I haven't replied to him yet.

My personal feelings are that he had plenty of choices. He could have chosen not to try and burn down the town's market. He could have chosen not to murder two town guards when he got caught. He could have chosen to be hanged instead of take the deal. There were plenty of choices. The whole mess is pretty much his fault, and I don't feel like it's my job to fix it for him. Especially considering all I really did was force him to finish the story in the adventure path, which everyone already agreed to out of game anyway.

That being said, I might not be very objective. So two questions to the playground.

1. Would you have handled things differently? How?
2. What do I do now to try and smooth things over with Chuck?

[Kid Jake]

I think the big choice that you left out was that he could've NOT drank the mind altering mystery goop before he knew what it was. I could see him being a little upset if he thought you wanted him to play the part of the mass murdering mental patient while under the effects of the goop and then getting punished for it, but he's the one who decided to slurp it down to begin with so it sort of evens out.

[Deophaun]

There's a difference between taking choices away and enforcing consequences.

The question I have is: What was his solution? What alternatives did he offer? That's really the purpose of the trial: The prosecution isn't just there to prove he killed a bunch of guards, but also to prove that he deserves the harshest punishment they have on offer. Similarly, the defense isn't just there to say "no, he didn't," but also offer their own alternative sentence if the former strategy is too unlikely.

I don't think that your outcome was harsh or uncalled for. Perhaps the only failure in it is it didn't seem like the player's idea. But accomplishing that is a fine art, not a science.

[endur]

I generally try to GM a non-evil campaign. So when a player turns CE for any reason (lycanthropy, drinking the wrong goop, handling cursed items, mind control, etc.), that player becomes an NPC.

Offering the player the opportunity to atone for evil acts is a classic beginning to many quests.

If a player felt like he was being rail-roaded, he had other options ... fight to the death, be acquitted at trial, escape from jail etc.

[Urpriest]

I think you should explain to him that you didn't mean for "you are temporarily psychotic" to mean something so specific and disruptive. Precisely because you value player agency, you expected him to understand that he was supposed to interpret it according to his own storytelling tastes, and not feel forced to have a run-in with the town's justice system.

[Dysart]

As the end of the day this "Chuck" doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Players control players, the GM controls the NPCs. No discussion.

If he's unhappy about the decision maybe he should have role played his character better.

Defensive GM mentality aside though that doesn't help you deal with Chuck.

If I was in the situation I'd explain the the player that Chaotic Evil doesn't always have to means "BURN SOMETHING" and that it doesn't change a characters intelligence or personal goals, just the lengths and methods they'd be willing to take.
If anything he forced the hand of the town, what's stopping someone else from murdering someone they don't like and blaming it on 'goo'? The town needs to make an example but they understand the character is a proven heroic adventurer and so gets benefit of the doubt in this case.

As for the email, reply to him asking him what he believes the punishment for murdering two police officers would be in real life and then ask him if he prefers the campaign be plausible or just benefit him. That'd be my course of action but my players are used to a heavy foot on things like this, I always pre-warn them that I don't stand for too much rules-lawyering and if a decision is made by me that's how we're going to go with it even if they disagree.

[molten_dragon]

I generally try to GM a non-evil campaign. So when a player turns CE for any reason (lycanthropy, drinking the wrong goop, handling cursed items, mind control, etc.), that player becomes an NPC.

Generally I agree, however this happened within the first hour of the first session of the campaign. And it was temporary. I didn't really want to take the guy's character away that quickly and kick him out. I should definitely have re-rolled the effect though.

[unbutu]

So I see a couple of things here. It seems to me that:

-You feel the trial and consequences are logical for his character's action.

-You feel guilty for not re-rolling the effect. You also might feel like you are partly responsible for his actions, as you changed his alignment. (Wich he misunderstood, but that's something else.)

So it seems the dillemma is between behing fair to the world (Punish a character for his actions) or being fair to the player (Did he understand that such actions would have such consequences, and that you changing his aligment was not a free out-of-jail card. )

It would boil down to this:

Did he understand what he was doing, and did he do it on purpose ? If ''No'', just be as soft as possible, and take it as you are learning to communicate wich each other.

If ''Yes'', then having one's alignment changed is a peril, just like a Goblin, and his character did not pass it with a lot of success. He's now hanged or in a asylum, but eh, crit happens. BUT...

I always felt players should be encouraged to roleplay correctly, for the better or for worse. If you want your players to keep making true in character decisions, there should be a good side to doing what he think was the right thing.

[ZamielVanWeber]

If I was in the situation I'd explain the the player that Chaotic Evil doesn't always have to means "BURN SOMETHING" and that it doesn't change a characters intelligence or personal goals, just the lengths and methods they'd be willing to take.

This. When you take a turn from Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Stupid be prepared for some very unpleasant consequences. You can run CE without anyone ever really noticing because you are subtle and intelligent about it. Then again he drank an unknown substances so their this dude of the Dragonborn or not the brightest bulb in the box.

[Troacctid]

I've roleplayed a couple courtroom scenes--my last DM liked doing them when they made sense for the plot--and I never found them very appealing. Time in a session is limited, and courtrooms just aren't an interesting way to spend it. I'm not surprised that the other players seemed bored by it. And for the player who was the defendant, what else was he supposed to do? If you're doing a trial, he has to sit there for a whole season while he recaps the last session and then lets NPCs decide what happens to him. No wonder he felt railroaded.

I am inclined to say that you should not have done the trial at all. You probably could have had a quick OOC discussion about what the punishment would be, then handwaved past it.

So what now? Well, your player's complaints are legitimate, and you kinda did screw up, but it was an honest mistake, born of inexperience. So I guess the thing to do is acknowledge that, apologize, and learn from it so you can provide a better experience for your players in the future.

[mvpmack]

The alternative is to run the case and have your players try to win. I know a lot of people don't like courtroom drama, but it's a possible way to do some intrigue and shed some light on the game world your characters live in. Give your team some options; maybe bribe people or diplomance outside the courtroom.

That being said, burning down a marketplace is a sure sign he done screwed up. No remorse for players who roleplay chaotic stupid, regardless of the moral leaning.

[atemu1234]

The alternative is to run the case and have your players try to win. I know a lot of people don't like courtroom drama, but it's a possible way to do some intrigue and shed some light on the game world your characters live in. Give your team some options; maybe bribe people or diplomance outside the courtroom.

That being said, burning down a marketplace is a sure sign he done screwed up. No remorse for players who roleplay chaotic stupid, regardless of the moral leaning.

Eh, both sides made mistakes. The DM should probably have rerolled, but the player could've not been so... destructive. On the other hand, going with the roll is why the table is there in the first place and the player WAS asked to roleplay psychosis.

All in all, he should help pay for the resurrection, because he CHOSE to drink the radioactive goop, and the DM should help with a redemption quest to smooth things out with the town.

[Kesnit]

I'm going to disagree with the others. You are the one who turned him CE and told him he was a psycho. (Well, your dice.) he did not go into the game intending to be a raving lunatic. (He did pick CG as his alignment.)

From his POV, you screwed with his character, and when he went along with it, you punished him.

Also, I would think in a world with mind controlling magic, there would be contingencies in place to deal with crimes committed under mind-changing substances. This is clearly that citcumstance.

[Frostthehero]

I would argue that psychosis would be lawful evil, but that seems trivial at this point.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I would argue that psychosis would be lawful evil, but that seems trivial at this point.

Psychosis is defined as a loss of touch with reality. Without my meds I periodically go psychotic and just sit down, shut up, and do nothing. If we talk about psychosis as in "crrrrrraaaaaaazyyyyyy peeeoplleeeee" *jazz hands* than I would argue for NE. They lose touch with reality and go cruel, sadistic, and became generally intractable.

[molten_dragon]

I'm not surprised that the other players seemed bored by it. And for the player who was the defendant, what else was he supposed to do? If you're doing a trial, he has to sit there for a whole season while he recaps the last session and then lets NPCs decide what happens to him. No wonder he felt railroaded.

There wasn't really a long trial scene. The town council basically sat him down, asked him to explain himself, he did, we skipped forward a week or so, and they offered him the deal. It took maybe 45 minutes of real-world time.


I'm going to disagree with the others. You are the one who turned him CE and told him he was a psycho. (Well, your dice.) he did not go into the game intending to be a raving lunatic. (He did pick CG as his alignment.)

From his POV, you screwed with his character, and when he went along with it, you punished him.

While I should have admittedly rerolled that particular effect, he chose to drink the goop, knowing ahead of time that it had caused some strange effects in other people who had been exposed to it. One guy even died. I feel like that makes it as much his fault as mine.


Also, I would think in a world with mind controlling magic, there would be contingencies in place to deal with crimes committed under mind-changing substances. This is clearly that citcumstance.

They did take that into account. He didn't get executed. I would have been more lenient if he were dominated and forced to do it, but he wasn't. He had his alignment changed, and everything that happened after was his choice.

[Troacctid]

There wasn't really a long trial scene. The town council basically sat him down, asked him to explain himself, he did, we skipped forward a week or so, and they offered him the deal. It took maybe 45 minutes of real-world time.

That's a long time. Remember that your players are sitting there twiddling their thumbs and not playing the game for almost an hour while you recap things they already know. You don't want that kind of downtime in your sessions.

[big teej]

There's a difference between taking choices away and enforcing consequences.


this.

something I tell new players trying to come to grips with the non-video-gamey aspect of tabletop gaming is.

"there is no Right or Wrong, there are only Consequences....


there is still Good and Evil though."

in your own words, the guy degenerated from Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Stupid

I would suggest, diplomatically, pointing these things out, and figure out where his head was at. if he thinks CE automatically means 'burn/kill Eeverything murder-hOBO, then yall need to have a talk about what CE means vs. chaotic stupid.


at the end of the day, *you* know your group best and how to handle them.

but for me? I'd let the ruling on the field stand.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think that, regardless of what else you do, you have to at least acknowledge that he accepted what happened to him (the CE switch) and tried to roleplay it. He may not have done it the way you would do it, but at least he tried.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

I'm going to disagree with the others. You are the one who turned him CE and told him he was a psycho. (Well, your dice.) he did not go into the game intending to be a raving lunatic. (He did pick CG as his alignment.)

From his POV, you screwed with his character, and when he went along with it, you punished him.

Also, I would think in a world with mind controlling magic, there would be contingencies in place to deal with crimes committed under mind-changing substances. This is clearly that citcumstance.

and it was temporary. he could have sat his character down, RP'd himself as noticing a MASSIVE shift in how he perceives things, who he values, his preferred methodology.

so instead of brooding and wangsting or just plain being conflicted until the effects wore off and then going "...Woah." he chose to interpret it as running around murdering people busting up buildings. he had plenty of agency.

So how long was the crazy juice in his system, OP?

[prufock]

He would be forced to pay restitution to the families of the guards he killed, 500 gp each.
He would then be put under a lesser geas to complete the quest that they were in the middle of, but would receive no reward (everyone else was getting 1000 gp each I think).
After completing the quest, he'd be banished from the town, on penalty of death if he ever returned.
The last part may be a bit too strict. There are still options, though.

The restitution is fine, but either banish him OR have him complete the quest. Give him the choice - if he doesn't complete the quest, he's banished on threat of death, if he completes the quest, he can come back (but will be watched carefully).

If you don't want to retcon anything, remind him he gets a will save versus the effect. If he passes the will save, he can just leave and be banished.

[Krobar]

You told him he was psychotic. He went with it.

I fail to see what your player did wrong from a roleplaying standpoint.

Stupid to drink unknown stuff leaking from a reactor? Sure. But YOU decided what it did to him.

[Tohsaka Rin]

I fail to see what your player did wrong from a roleplaying standpoint.

What the player did was decide to act like a 12-year old pyromaniac who's angry at his parents. (if you think I'm exaggerating, bless your innocent heart) There's WAY more than one kind of psychotic behavior, but they literally went for brainless mayhem.

"Lawl fire-murder spree!" isn't very creative from a role playing perspective.

WHY does nobody ever try to emulate the Riddler? WHY?

[HyperDunkBarkly]

You told him he was psychotic. He went with it.

I fail to see what your player did wrong from a roleplaying standpoint.

Stupid to drink unknown stuff leaking from a reactor? Sure. But YOU decided what it did to him.

judging solely on the words of the OP, the PC didn't even struggle with his psychosis. he went straight to the crazy stage. he had options, his own shortcomings and narrow(though admittedly common) interpretation of what a psychotic person is like advised him to take that as "well, time to go buck wild and murder guards."

that's roleplaying, so it's definitely not wrong, but well...cause and effect. it's freaking MURDER.

[Krobar]

He was told he's a psycho. What do you guys expect? If he was supposed to act like a sociopath instead of a psychopath, maybe he should have been told that.

DM brought this on himself. He could have done anything he wanted, and he chose poorly.

I'm not saying the character should have gone unpunished for his crimes, but the situation as it played out was 100% on the DM.

[Deophaun]

Stupid to drink unknown stuff leaking from a reactor? Sure. But YOU decided what it did to him.
And he decided, out of the universe of possibilities, that his character would murder.

Me? I'd have had my character start getting mileage out of the Intimidate skill at every opportunity. Draw a knife on the street and begin playing with it in a threatening manner to random passersby. The character's actions would be disturbing, and could well wind up with him imprisoned for a time depending on the circumstances, but there's nothing that would force my character to kill an innocent person.

[Krobar]

Bottom line - if you don't want your PCs to go around murdering innocent people, don't tell them they're now chaotic evil psychopaths.

If you do, you should see this coming.

[Deophaun]

Bottom line - if you don't want your PCs to go around murdering innocent people, don't tell them they're now chaotic evil psychopaths.

If you do, you should see this coming.
The DM is not complaining that the PC went around murdering people. It's the player whose complaining that there were consequences for his choice to murder people.

[Kesnit]

The DM is not complaining that the PC went around murdering people. It's the player whose complaining that there were consequences for his choice to murder people.

Not quite. The DM told the player that the PC was now a psychopath. The player went with what the DM said, and got punished.

[Deophaun]

The player went with what the DM said, found the most disruptive path to being a psychopath, and then got the rational outcome and complained.
Fixed that for you.

[Psyren]

I'm going to disagree with the others. You are the one who turned him CE and told him he was a psycho. (Well, your dice.) he did not go into the game intending to be a raving lunatic. (He did pick CG as his alignment.)

From his POV, you screwed with his character, and when he went along with it, you punished him.

Also, I would think in a world with mind controlling magic, there would be contingencies in place to deal with crimes committed under mind-changing substances. This is clearly that citcumstance.

This. The poor communication was on your part in explaining the parameters of the effect, not his in acting the way you told him to. Own your mistake, apologize (in front of the group if need be) and move on.

[Tohsaka Rin]

The DM said 'Chaotic/Evil' not 'Chaotic/Stupid'.

Unless the character has an Int of 10 or less, then he might have an excuse.

[Psyren]

The DM said 'Chaotic/Evil' not 'Chaotic/Stupid'.

Unless the character has an Int of 10 or less, then he might have an excuse.

The DM said "psychotic." If that wasn't what he wanted, that is pretty poor communication.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

He was told he's a psycho. What do you guys expect? If he was supposed to act like a sociopath instead of a psychopath, maybe he should have been told that.

DM brought this on himself. He could have done anything he wanted, and he chose poorly.

I'm not saying the character should have gone unpunished for his crimes, but the situation as it played out was 100% on the DM.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy if that screams "murder randomly" and nothing else, that's a problem with a person not understanding their situation.

if you don't get psychosis, that's your fault. a players' knowledge pool is their own business to maintain.

[Invader]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy if that screams "murder randomly" and nothing else, that's a problem with a person not understanding their situation.

if you don't get psychosis, that's your fault. a players' knowledge pool is their own business to maintain.

This is oretty accurate. Psychotic doesn't go from 0 to arson and murder. There's a hundred ways he could have RPd it otherwise but he went for the extreme. Considering the outcome I'd say the OP handled it pretty fairly. If I go drop a ton of acid, burn down a church and kill a couple cops, I'm dang sure gonna have to come up with a better legal defense than "the goop made me do it".

[Psyren]

If you want goop to temporarily take over a PC's actions/morality, just make them an NPC for the duration. You can keep them fully in bounds for what you had planned and these kinds of digressions won't be an issue to bicker about later.

[P.F.]

If you want goop to temporarily take over a PC's actions/morality, just make them an NPC for the duration. You can keep them fully in bounds for what you had planned and these kinds of digressions won't be an issue to bicker about later.

This scenario strikes me as an inversion of V's plight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html), only instead of granting "permission" and nigh-unlimited arcane power without changing alignment, the character's alignment was changed, but he didn't lose control of his faculty. The player chose to do what he did. Was it evil? Yes. Did being evil make him do it? Hell no! If he had been an evil NPC at the time then he would at least be justified in his indignation over the in-game consequences. He wasn't. He could have gone about doing ordinary evil things, like insulting little old ladies or ripping the last chapter out of a novel, but noooooo, he had to engage in a sloppy, ill-timed arson attempt.

And all it's really costing him is 1000 gold and some indignation, with a side of dramatic tension for future sessions. If he really needs to go back, or they need him to fulfill a future quest, he might even get his sentence commuted.

I mean, I'm a wanted man in the state of Maine and banned form Baxter State Park, and you don't hear me complaining that the consequences of my sunrise on Katahdin took away my personal agency. It's not even like I can never go back there; only if I do, I'll have to keep a low profile, and carry enough cash to appease the Magistrate if I'm arrested. Chuck's situation is really no different.

[prufock]

Psychopathy is a pretty broad category. The DM said "act within these WIDE boundaries" and the PC decided to go as close to the boundaries as possible. He turned it up to 10 by his own choice.

Why not make it a modified geas/mark of justice combo? He's able to not pursue the quest, and return to the city, but each day (or portion of a day) that he spends in the city or each day (or portion of a day) that he doesn't take some action toward completing the quest, he gets cumulative penalties. Also he would be visibly marked so people in the city know to steer clear of him or watch him carefully.

[goto124]

something I tell new players trying to come to grips with the non-video-gamey aspect of tabletop gaming


The poor communication was on your part in explaining the parameters of the effect, not his in acting the way you told him to.

The player said he felt railroaded. Did he say WHY he felt he was railroaded? Had he thought he had to drink the goo to remain in-character? Had he thought the same way about murdering people after being told he turned psychotic? Did he think people would restrain him while he was under mind control?

He might've roleplayed badly, but treating him as if he was the murderer on trial will not help. Forcing him to sit through 45 minutes of courtroom won't help either.

Instead, in a calm manner, go over the scene, show him how he could've roleplayed the situation without going into murder. Perhaps his character thought the goo was disgusting, and decided not to drink it. Or his psychotic self didn't do any real harm, and just ran about the streets naked and screaming. Or other people (PCs or NPCs) managed to hold him back, or knock him out.

At least he is trying to roleplay. Show him the way.

[Solaris]

Maybe it's just me, but I think the fine and banishment were pretty light considering the player chose to commit murder. The player made a whole series of bad decisions, each of which could have ended in their character's death, and is now complaining about getting off lightly. He was careless and negligent in consuming the goop, and the only mitigating factor of him not being in his right mind due to his own actions doesn't get drunk drivers off; why should it get him off?

You weren't hard on the player. The player was lucky you went so lightly on his character.

[goto124]

Your reasoning would work better in RL.

[Deophaun]

Instead, in a calm manner, go over the scene, show him how he could've roleplayed the situation without going into murder. Perhaps his character thought the goo was disgusting, and decided not to drink it. Or his psychotic self didn't do any real harm, and just ran about the streets naked and screaming. Or other people (PCs or NPCs) managed to hold him back, or knock him out.

At least he is trying to roleplay. Show him the way.
So, basically, instead of letting him have free reign with his character and dealing with the aftermath, tell him he's roleplaying wrong and prevent him from influencing the campaign?

Just whatever you do, don't railroad.

[Callin]

I see where both of yall are coming from. He is out 1k gold off the bat and then anotber 1k from not being able to recieve the quest reward. That hurts a player. What level are yall by the way cus then it could really sting.
He felt like he was doing what he was supposed to, because thats what he heard.

You are making him pay for his actions for going overboard in your view of how be should have acted.

Myself I feel that it may be a bit overboard with the geas. That may be why he feels railroaded. Change the verdict to 500g for the bazzar to be rebuilt and 500 to be paid for both guards (250) mostly for burial and loss of wages for a short bit. Now he is only out 1k. Take the geas away and make it a moral choice for him to follow, and the banishment can be worked around. He might need a buddy to always be with him, peacebonded weapons, ect. Till he shows that he really isnt like the way the goo made him.



(Disregard fee changes if they are of a decent level. 8 or so)

[Nibbens]

I asked that they all do their best to stay on the railroad tracks and not go wandering off too much. They all seemed fine with it.
....


he e-mailed me and told me he was very unhappy about being railroaded...

He agreed to be railroaded (a bit), then complains when he's railroaded (a bit)...

Chuck: 0
DM: 1

He values player agency, but doesn't value the fact that actions often have equal and opposite reactions, which is the true form of agency, dealing with the consequences of your actions however you wish.

Chuck: -1
DM: 1


Myself I feel that it may be a bit overboard with the geas. That may be why he feels railroaded ... Take the geas away and make it a moral choice for him to follow, and the banishment can be worked around. He might need a buddy to always be with him, peacebonded weapons, ect. Till he shows that he really isnt like the way the goo made him.

Now in the interest of keeping the group gaming, this I can agree with. (EDITS MINE) No need for the Geas. Let his punishment in cash be the exact amount he was going to earn from the quest, this way he only gets reward in the form of the loot he takes while doing the dungeon. If his allies don't vouch for him (IE. they say he didn't help complete the mission) then he'll never be allowed in the town again. Just because the town may not trust the bazaar-burner, don't mean they don't trust the other PC's. Use them to good effect.

[goto124]

So, basically, instead of letting him have free reign with his character and dealing with the aftermath

He misused the reins on his character, and doesn't like how the DM is making him deal with the aftermath.

[Psyren]

He misused the reins on his character, and doesn't like how the DM is making him deal with the aftermath.

He was given very poor/vague guidance in using those reins, and then punished for not being a mind-reader.

[kellbyb]

He agreed to be railroaded (a bit), then complains when he's railroaded (a bit)...

If you choose to do it, it's not railroading.


He misused the reins on his character, and doesn't like how the DM is making him deal with the aftermath.

I don't like how the DM is making him deal with it either. Right now he has exactly one way to go about things and is effectively a spectator to his own character. Remove the geas, lighten up a little, and let him demonstrate how he chooses to earn his redemption. Being good-aligned, I believe he will do so.

[goto124]

Remove the geas, lighten up a little, and let him demonstrate how he chooses to earn his redemption.

If he chooses to kill more people or some other decision similar to the ones made before, would it be a good idea to let him do so successfully?

[killem2]

First thing, because it is annoying the hell out of me to read people saying it, this wasn't rail roading. To Rail Road in these games I feel means no choice given. It's not like drinking potion 100% = C/E, it was rolled.

I wouldn't have rerolled it either. I wouldn't feel bad about not doing it.

Second thing, *Chuck* can't role play worth a ****. I mean, if that is his version of Chaotic Evil, then perfect he did it exactly as he wanted. Let me say that again. then perfect he did it exactly as he wanted. He could have chose to be subtle murderer. He could have just been an over the top zealous vandal.

Instead *chuck* is clearly butt hurt about his stupid choice to drink something unknown and it back fired horribly. So his childish email trying to guilt the DM is laughable at best. If you agree with *chuck* you're being obtuse on general principle and you have to really be grasping at straws to make a valid point.

There are far to many choices involved here by *chuck*. He chose to turn the dial to 11 in all instances.

F' *chuck*

[kellbyb]

If he chooses to kill more people or some other decision similar to the ones made before, would it be a good idea to let him do so successfully?

1. Since the goop responsible for this is out of the equation, I highly doubt that he will do such a thing again.

2. Yes and no. If he chooses to go an another killing spree, bring down the full wrath of the law, murder him, and if he complains, tell him that he has no excuses this time, he had already pissed off the law, and he should have known that there would be consequences.

Always provide the player with multiple options. I almost never put Geas or other long term compulsion on PC's because it overrides player agency. Punishing the character in a way that allows for the player to make his own decisions about his character's actions is a wonderful way to allow for character development. Forcing him down a certain path through compulsion is railroading and should be avoided at all cost.


First thing, because it is annoying the hell out of me to read people saying it, this wasn't rail roading. To Rail Road in these games I feel means no choice given. It's not like drinking potion 100% = C/E, it was rolled.

I wouldn't have rerolled it either. I wouldn't feel bad about not doing it.

Second thing, *Chuck* can't role play worth a ****. I mean, if that is his version of Chaotic Evil, then perfect he did it exactly as he wanted. Let me say that again. then perfect he did it exactly as he wanted. He could have chose to be subtle murderer. He could have just been an over the top zealous vandal.

Instead *chuck* is clearly butt hurt about his stupid choice to drink something unknown and it back fired horribly. So his childish email trying to guilt the DM is laughable at best. If you agree with *chuck* you're being obtuse on general principle and you have to really be grasping at straws to make a valid point.

There are far to many choices involved here by *chuck*. He chose to turn the dial to 11 in all instances.

F' *chuck*

I think we can all agree the Chuck's character needs to face consequences. However, let's go through the punishments to see if they add anything of value to the game:

1. Restitution fees to the tune of 1000 gp

Pretty par for the course, though depending on level this might be a rather hefty chunk of his wbl. Nothing much to see here.

2. Forced quest with no pay

Chuck's character gets to slog through the next quest with absolutely no motivation other than "I have to because magic." There are a load of ways this could be presented in which Chuck's character could genuinely want to go on the quest out of desire to redeem himself and make reparations, but no. Geas is a total cop-out that removes Chucks control of his character and effectively makes him a spectator in the game. I say this now and I will say it again as needed, Geas is railroading whenever it is used in such a heavy-handed way. Oh, and there goes another 1000 gold. At low levels, this is serious damage to one's wealth levels.

3. Banishment

This one could be the worst. In the lowest-impact example, the party never comes back to the town and it is completely pointless. At the most extreme, the party stays at the town for an extended period of time, meaning that the DM must design separate encounters just for Chuck or Chuck has to make a new character. In such an instance choice 2 will most likely occur, meaning that Chuck is the one being punished. Punishment for characters should always provide some sort of opportunity for roleplaying.

[Deophaun]

At the most extreme, the party stays at the town for an extended period of time, meaning that the DM must design separate encounters just for Chuck or Chuck has to make a new character. In such an instance choice 2 will most likely occur, meaning that Chuck is the one being punished. Punishment for characters should always provide some sort of opportunity for roleplaying.
In that case, I'd say the rest of the party are being jerks to Chuck. Because they really need a good reason for staying in that town with a party member forced to stand outside, and if they have a good reason, they probably also have the leverage to get the banishment lifted.

"Yes yes, you need us to stop the mad wizard that has opened a rift to the abyss in your town square. And we'd like to help, really. But our hands are tied as long as you don't allow our demon expert inside your town limits."

If they bother to try.

Or, you know, the Disguise skill is a thing. As are glamers. It's really not a difficult punishment to get around.

[Oddman80]

...
2. Forced quest with no pay

Chuck's character gets to slog through the next quest with absolutely no motivation other than "I have to because magic." There are a load of ways this could be presented in which Chuck's character could genuinely want to go on the quest out of desire to redeem himself and make reparations, but no. Geas is a total cop-out that removes Chucks control of his character and effectively makes him a spectator in the game. I say this now and I will say it again as needed, Geas is railroading whenever it is used in such a heavy-handed way. Oh, and there goes another 1000 gold. At low levels, this is serious damage to one's wealth levels...

I think you have overstated the affect this lesser geas has on the player. The spell is going to last at a couple weeks max. He is being forced to participate in the quest HE WAS ALREADY ON! It's not like this is some new quest he would have never gone on...
And what does Lesser Geas compel? Oh that you continue toward completing your goal... So the dude, if really bitter, can drag his feet, making a little progress each day, until the spell wears off... Or... Like the lawful good character he said he is playing, he could throw himself fully into the quest - proving to himself and others that he isn't the monster the had a glimpse of while on the goop. Or he can act like there is still a little hoop in his system and buy (or have ally obtain for him) a 700gp potion of remove curse before they leave (under guise of getting supplies for the quest).. And lift the geas. Or just pay a cleric 180 go to cast the spell directly... Does the party not have a level 6 cleric? They could just fix the problem for him - and say "Buh Bye" to the town and continue on with whatever they feel like doing. Maybe if this had been Greater Geas, you would have a point about railroading...


On another note.... This whole thing reminds me of a parent asking their kid what the appropriate punishment should be, after they have been caught doing something they know they shouldn't... And the kid comes up with something far worse than what the parent would have picked...
This chuck guy was presented with "something vaguely bad is happening to your LG character... What should it be?" And the player was all like "I become a murdering arsonist that can't be stopped - I must kill kill kill!!!!"
And the DM is like "Oooookkaaaay.... I was just going to go with you being rude and manipulative.... Maybe start inner party conflict throu a series of deceitful whispers... Or, you know, you start a bare fisted brawl, or something... But if you want your character to go all Scarface Climax... Ok"

[icefractal]

They did take that into account. He didn't get executed. I would have been more lenient if he were dominated and forced to do it, but he wasn't. He had his alignment changed, and everything that happened after was his choice.You know what? I'm with the player here.

How often have we heard stories about players who won't go along with any influence on their character? Charmed? They make up a reason not to help their "friend" very effectively, if at all. Under an illusion (that they know about OOC)? They "just happen" to do things that would help them disbelieve it. And so forth. Why can't these players just stop trying to 'win' and go with the story for a little bit, is a common complaint.

So here's Chuck. He drinks some ooze (ok, not the smartest, but frankly it's a game, what the hell is the point of being cautious about everything?). And the GM tells him it made him "psychotic". Now Chuck could take the easy way out, just have the character mutter creepy things under his breath and not act any different, justify it by saying he's plotting for his evil scheme ... later. But no, Chuck goes for it, he jumps in whole heartedly, going for "psychotic" without trying to avoid trouble for his character. He's doing the GM a favor, right?

Wrong, apparently. Because the GM didn't actually want the result from his own table. How Chuck was supposed to know that, I have no idea. And so because of that, the GM imposes a fairly harsh penalty, despite temporary insanity being proved, and has a "dammit Chuck, this is what you get for doing stupid things" attitude about it (even if you didn't say that, it can leak through subconsciously enough for people to pick up on).


A lot of people seem to be coming at this as if Chuck had asked to play a CE character and then acted this way. That would indeed be "chaotic stupid", and worthy of whatever consequences happen. But he didn't. Things that change alignment forcefully break the normal rule that alignment comes from actions. You pretty much have to adopt an exaggerated attitude of the new alignment, or else the effect doesn't really do anything.

TL;DR - from the player's perspective, the GM requested that he act psychotic, and then got mad and punished him when he did. Not cool.


Edit: The more I think about this, the more it annoys me. You know what else? Your 'light' punishment is actually worse than execution! It's the first session of the AP, right? So the characters are 1st level and don't have much history together. Dying would not honestly be a big deal, you come in with a new character, keep playing, no worries.

Instead, you told the player to keep playing a character that's hated, that's going to be weakened for a while, and eventually will be banished. If this town is important to the AP, that means he probably has to switch characters anyway at some point, making this effectively a prolonged form of death.

And while I'm not psychic so I can't say for sure, it sure feels like you took out your out-of-game stress on this player for not knowing what you had in mind.

[Deophaun]

But no, Chuck goes for it, he jumps in whole heartedly, going for "psychotic" without trying to avoid trouble for his character...
You have to explain how he should avoid trouble by not trying to avoid trouble.

I can't help but find that every argument on the side of Chuck suffers from crippling internal contradictions. "Damn the consequences, but damn those consequences!" seems like the best example so far.

[icefractal]

You have to explain how he should avoid trouble by not trying to avoid trouble.

I can't help but find that every argument on the side of Chuck suffers from crippling internal contradictions. "Damn the consequences, but damn those consequences!" seems like the best example so far.He's not supposed to avoid trouble! The DM told him to get in trouble, as far as the player knows. What part of "you are now psychotic" sounds like advice to lie low?

It's not that the consequences aren't realistic, it's that the way the GM ran things, there was effectively a trap with no save that caused his character to be hated and exiled. And that apparently the right answer was to half-ass the roleplaying cue he was given.


Consider this alternate scenario:
GM: In my game yesterday, one of the PCs fell under a curse that made him psychopathic. However, he just negated it by saying that CE didn't force him to do any specific action, so he kept acting normal until the curse wore off.

Would your reply be - "Well of course he did, that's what any good player would do."?


Edit: Regarding various people's comments about the player "taking CE too far".
1) He was not told CE, he was told psychotic.
2) Get your realistic psychology out of here, this is D&D, we're operating on "pop-culture psychotic" here. And pop-culture psychotic means murdering people, or a similar degree of intensity.
3) As far as "not mind controlled" - Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive. So by the rules, the Helm of Opposite Alignment, or any other forced alignment change, does jack ****. You keep doing what you were doing, and the only effect is how you register to spells. If you want a forced alignment change to mean anything, some degree of pseudo-mind-control has to be assumed.

[Deophaun]

He's not supposed to avoid trouble! The DM told him to get in trouble, as far as the player knows. What part of "you are now psychotic" sounds like advice to lie low?
It would be fantastic advice if you really wanted to cause trouble, as that would mean the party would leave the safety of the town on their quest with a crazy evil person.

Playing it up just means it gets caught quicker and the cause diagnosed easier.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this here for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

Would your reply be - "Well of course he did, that's what any good player would do."?
So, knowing how I would have handled the situation had I been the player, you believe I would not call myself a "good player."

Interesting.

[icefractal]

It would be fantastic advice if you really wanted to cause trouble, as that would mean the party would leave the safety of the town on their quest with a crazy evil person.Pretending to be unaffected and then slitting the rest of the party's throats while they slept would reasonably fit within CE, sure. I kind of doubt the GM would have enjoyed that result any better. :smallwink:

I think what the GM wanted to happen was "Chuck starts acting all creepy, but with enough time for the other PCs to restrain him, they do so, and he thrashes around tied up while everyone is alarmed by the goop's effects. Luckily he returns to normal in time." Which is fine, but a pretty specific type of behavior that "act psychotic" does not come close to conveying.

I'm not remotely saying that arson is the only way to play CE or even psychotic. I'm just saying that in the absence of any other direction, it's a pretty reasonable way, and people can't be expected to read the GM's mind.

[Deophaun]

I think what the GM wanted to happen was...
The entire problem with this line of argument is this:

It.
Is.
Not.
The.
GM.
Complaining.
About.
The.
Character's.
Actions.

So that pretty much destroys that.

[icefractal]

The entire problem with this line of argument is this:

It.
Is.
Not.
The.
GM.
Complaining.
About.
The.
Character's.
Actions.

So that pretty much destroys that.Well, not complaining, because he already imposed punishment on the character for them, so why would he need to complain any further?

If you're saying that "it was the logical consequence, GM's hands are tied" - nope, not buying it. As the GM, you control the world. You can't dodge responsibility by claiming "it's what would happen", because you are the one who created the situation and the one who determines how every NPC reacts.

If the OP feels like having the NPCs react in a different way would be too detrimental to the consistency of the game, then he shouldn't have put a goop with such effects there in the first place. And yeah, it was an AP, he didn't realize what would happen. Not a big deal, everyone screws up. But it was still a screw-up.

[Deophaun]

If you're saying that "it was the logical consequence, GM's hands are tied" - nope, not buying it.
Good, because I didn't say that. In fact, I asked for what alternative consequences the player offered.

Again, you know this because you read the thread. So, you can stop with the strawmen.

[goto124]

So much talk about whose fault it was, and nothing about WHAT they should do next, so that they can continue playing.

[Deophaun]

So much talk about whose fault it was, and nothing about WHAT they should do next, so that they can continue playing.
How about whatever they were going to do before this happened?

Really, the punishment is utterly inconsequential.

2000 gp: That means more loot gets dropped to keep them at WBL. This is just wealth deferred.

Geas: For a quest he's already on.

Banishment: An RP punishment for the character, which actually makes it a reward for the player. Any group with an ounce of creativity between them can overcome this.

So what's the big deal?

[Psyren]

You know what? I'm with the player here.

*snip*

And while I'm not psychic so I can't say for sure, it sure feels like you took out your out-of-game stress on this player for not knowing what you had in mind.

*claps*


So much talk about whose fault it was, and nothing about WHAT they should do next, so that they can continue playing.

*points at post #31 on the last page*

[Sliver]

But the player wasn't being railroaded. The effect of "you are CE and psychotic now" is vague. That gives the player a lot of choices on how he acts. He chose one of them, so he faces the consequences of this choice. How is that railroading?

Are you suggesting that the geas of "do what you were doing" is railroading?

[Psyren]

But the player wasn't being railroaded. The effect of "you are CE and psychotic now" is vague. That gives the player a lot of choices on how he acts. He chose one of them, so he faces the consequences of this choice. How is that railroading?

Are you suggesting that the geas of "do what you were doing" is railroading?

It might not be railroading in a strict sense, but it's still punishing him for following bad instructions from the GM. I don't know that there's a succinct word for that, (well, I can think of one, but the board filter probably wouldn't like it) so "railroading" will do.

[Oddman80]

It might not be railroading in a strict sense, but it's still punishing him for following bad instructions from the GM. I don't know that there's a succinct word for that, (well, I can think of one, but the board filter probably wouldn't like it) so "railroading" will do.

Do you think the DM needs to constantly tell the players "you live in a world with other people, and there are consequences to actions made in this world, please keep that in mind." at the beginning of every encounter, every social interaction... the lack of instruction - the freedom to act does not make a railroad.

All he has done with the punishment is created a minor challenge. The character isn't being followed everywhere by level 10 ciuty guards making sure he never deviates from his one and only quest... he has been railroaded no more than a player who opened a door without checking for traps and now finds themselves under a curse... Ok - solve the problem. either ride it out or find an alternate solution - the choice is theirs. Like I said before, pay 180 gp, get the curse lifted and then get a hat of disguise. you have now circumvented every punishment... it cost you about 1550 gp... but its your choice. Or don't come back, be out 180 gp... and move on. It seems like his only restriction is self imposed based on just how LAWFUL GOOD he is playing his own character... but again, that isn't a DM railroad.

Railroad = Player wants to do X, DM says no, you have to do Y instead.

This is Player wants to do X, DM says okay. Oh and Player also did V, R, and P... which caused F, K and W to happen... but lets move on, and get back to you doing X now...

[Psyren]

Do you think the DM needs to constantly tell the players "you live in a world with other people, and there are consequences to actions made in this world, please keep that in mind." at the beginning of every encounter, every social interaction... the lack of instruction - the freedom to act does not make a railroad.

No, but the player did not show up at the table saying "I want to play a psychotic character" either. If you're going to alter the player's character that much, either make him an NPC or be very clear when setting expectations.

Or you could simply deal with the fallout, as the OP is doing here, but speaking personally I would want to avoid that up front.

[P.F.]

If you're going to alter the player's character that much, either make him an NPC or be very clear when setting expectations.

I'm reasonably sure this isn't your intended meaning, but it's hard for me not to read this as,


If you're going to include alignment-changing or mind-affecting effects in the game, make sure you really railroad the player completely instead of just letting him role-play it out with potentially unforeseen consequences.

I suppose it could be thought of as more like "zone-walls" and less like a mine-cart. Perhaps Chuck could have used a more clearly defined set of boundaries, rather than being left in the sandbox at large where he could get himself into trouble. Perhaps the DM could have been clearer about his expectation that Chuck not drink the goop in the first place?

In any case, he still has choices, and going forward, it looks like three good options have been suggested:

1. Chuck's character really does his best to complete the geas, apologizes profusely, and goes about bemoaning his cruel fate, "Why! Oh why, did I ever drink that evil goop!?!?!?"

2. Chuck's character drags his feet and does the minimum possible to complete the geas, sulking and resenting the townsfolk for their misguided notions of mercy and for not understanding that it really was all the goop's fault.

3. Chuck's character openly disparages the town's judgement and makes arrangements to weasel out of doing the quest at all, waiting out the duration of the geas or obtaining a potion of remove curse or a casting of the same.

Other options range from hiring a cutthroat lawyer to appeal the town's decision in a Royal or ecclesiastical court, to deliberately sabotaging the quest and bringing about the ruin of the town. This latter is probably the exact thing the townsfolk hoped to avoid by placing him under a geas in the first place.

Surely there are myriad other options as well; it does not appear to me that Chuck's faculty has been damaged much, if at all. It isn't an issue of his ability to control his character, but the situation his character is in that he objects to. I might object to my character being at the bottom of a 100-foot pit, but if I fell into it as the result of my own player choices, the walls of the pit aren't restricting my player agency, they're restricting my character's options.

[rrwoods]

So I don't have an opinion on how to continue as either the player or the DM, but here's something to consider.

The player rolled up a CG character, and has presumably thought about how to RP such a character to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Presumably he's thought about this for a fair amount of time. Hours at least, right?

Then, suddenly, he's told "you're CE. Go." and he's got to think fairly quickly about what that might mean. If he's not played a CE character before, or thought about it for any length of time (given the discussion so far I would assume this is the case) then he's almost certainly going to do something different from what a "real" CE character would do.

Again, not sure how this affects the DM's decision, just food for thought.

[Psyren]

I'm reasonably sure this isn't your intended meaning, but it's hard for me not to read this as,

I don't see how you could read it that way. You see, unlike the goop in this thread, actual mind-affecting effects in the actual game are a lot better thought out, and include either (a) a clearly-defined action or set of actions for you to choose from, (b) interact with existing/familiar systems like the Diplomacy rules ("treat the target as friendly"), and/or (c) include escape clauses like "actions against your nature risk breaking the compulsion," and "suicidal or self-destructive orders are never followed" and the like.

"You're chaotic evil and psychotic now," is a bit lacking compared to those, no?



Then, suddenly, he's told "you're CE. Go."

This is the thrust of my issue and why I find it hard to take the DM's side here.

[rrwoods]

That's true. If the player doesn't understand what CE means, and

1) he's aware that he doesn't understand, then it's on the player to ask relevant OOC questions to determine what is expected, especially when it's clear he's not being railroaded and has agency over his actions.

2) he thinks he knows (but just misunderstands) then it's on the DM to correct that as soon as it's noticed.

If 1), I take the DM's side mostly. If 2), then we got really really far before "as soon as it's noticed" happened and I would have the opinion that some amount of retconning is in order.

[P.F.]

I don't see how you could read it that way. You see, unlike the goop in this thread, actual mind-affecting effects in the actual game are a lot better thought out, and include either (a) a clearly-defined action or set of actions for you to choose from, (b) interact with existing/familiar systems like the Diplomacy rules ("treat the target as friendly"), and/or (c) include escape clauses like "actions against your nature risk breaking the compulsion," and "suicidal or self-destructive orders are never followed" and the like.

"You're chaotic evil and psychotic now," is a bit lacking compared to those, no?

I'm operating under the assumption that the goop is part of the published adventure which the DM is using. The goop is a story element which the adventurers are there to save the town from. They knew that it could make people behave oddly or possibly die. The particular effect is probably not meant to be any different than a Helm of Opposite Alignment, they just added some flavor text. I'm imagining a table that looks something like

d% . . . . Effect
...
56-70: Character becomes an idiot for 1d6+2 days (Intelligence score is reduced to 5)
71-87: Character becomes psychotic for 2d4 days (change alignment to Chaotic Evil)
88-95: Character becomes deathly ill (treat as Demon Fever)
...

And when the DM rolled "becomes psychotic" he knew he should have re-rolled (because the player couldn't handle it?), but thought it could be some interesting role-playing, and so stuck with it.

So I'm imagining a scenario where the DM says, "Does your character really actually do that?" because sometimes we will jokingly say, I'll drink the vial of poison, when we don't really mean it, and Chuck says, "Hell yeah I do woohoo Freedum!" and the DM says, "Umm, okay ... uh ... *rolls dice* ... Umm, your character is *swallows* psychotic ... So, uh, change your alignment to Chaotic Evil until the effects wear off" to which Chuck replies, "AWESOME!!! Let's go do some broad-daylight arson!"

I'm guessing your scenario is more along the lines of, DM: "MWAHAHA you drank the goop!! Now you're ... PSYCHOTIC!!!! Change your alignment to Chaotic Evil and go raise some hell!" to which Chuck replies "aww geez, i wanted to play a chaotic good character, but ... umm ... i guess if i HAVE to ... umm ... i go burn the market down now, since that's the only chaotic evil thing i can even think of for my character to do."

In the former case, it's the player problem and the player has to deal with it ("CONSEQUENCES!?! Whaddaya MEAN I have to deal with consequences?!? The goop made me insane! My character should be scott free!"), while in the latter case it's certainly on the DM ("i only even drank that goop because i thought you wanted me to then you told me I had to be psychotic and I didnt even know how else to role play it and now i have to have even lower numbers than my friends and i feel like your not even respecting my freedom of choice and your making the game unfun for me on purpose").

I would agree that in that case, the DM would be kinder to simply say, "you're psychotic, give me your character sheet and you can have it back when the effects wear off," and then have the character pursue whatever mild and nonviolent psychosis he had in mind, after which the player regains control with no lasting harm.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

2. Forced quest with no pay

Chuck's character gets to slog through the next quest with absolutely no motivation other than "I have to because magic." There are a load of ways this could be presented in which Chuck's character could genuinely want to go on the quest out of desire to redeem himself and make reparations, but no. Geas is a total cop-out that removes Chucks control of his character and effectively makes him a spectator in the game. I say this now and I will say it again as needed, Geas is railroading whenever it is used in such a heavy-handed way. Oh, and there goes another 1000 gold. At low levels, this is serious damage to one's wealth levels.

"I have to redeem myself, even if just a little." is plenty motivating, and the DM can catch him up on WBL at any time loot would come out. this really isn't a massive issue.

because even if the drugs made him do it, he still did it. he is now an arsonist or murderer. he has plenty of opportunities for roleplaying, so meet that **** with a challenge.

[kellbyb]

"I have to redeem myself, even if just a little." is plenty motivating, and the DM can catch him up on WBL at any time loot would come out. this really isn't a massive issue.

You're right. It should be enough motivation, which means the the Geas is completely unnecessary.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

You're right. It should be enough motivation, which means the the Geas is completely unnecessary.
I do agree it's excessive, but I'd probably take it as one more reason to get on with it. it shows the townsfolk are serious and don't trust me. it shows I do have something to prove.

[Psyren]

I'm operating under the assumption that the goop is part of the published adventure which the DM is using. The goop is a story element which the adventurers are there to save the town from. They knew that it could make people behave oddly or possibly die. The particular effect is probably not meant to be any different than a Helm of Opposite Alignment, they just added some flavor text.
...
I would agree that in that case, the DM would be kinder to simply say, "you're psychotic, give me your character sheet and you can have it back when the effects wear off," and then have the character pursue whatever mild and nonviolent psychosis he had in mind, after which the player regains control with no lasting harm.

He doesn't HAVE to take the sheet away. But if he's not going to, he needs to provide firmer guidelines on what he expects the player to do (and more importantly, not do) if he wants to avoid these kinds of situations and hurt feelings.

If, as you theorize, the goop is based on an existing effect in the game, referencing that effect might be a good idea - including to the player himself, who may have been subject to such an effect before, or likewise to the other players at the table, who might chime in with roleplay suggestions.


You're right. It should be enough motivation, which means the the Geas is completely unnecessary.

I'm with Hyper on this one, a Geas is a good idea. It's something the justice system would logically do in this situation, and if the player has no intention of going off the rails again it won't actually penalize them in any way, plus added roleplay as their character meekly accepts the punishment to prove his penitence. Best of all, if he ends up influenced again, the Geas will give him a chance to fight it off, depending on whose effect has the higher Charisma backing it. (Or the GM can simply handwave some kind of magical sympathetic cancellation/negation without rolling.)

[kellbyb]

I do agree it's excessive, but I'd probably take it as one more reason to get on with it. it shows the townsfolk are serious and don't trust me. it shows I do have something to prove.

You're probably right. I'll admit that I do have a rather kneejerk reaction to magical control effects on PC's.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

I'm not familiar with the setting at all but the OP did reference the adventure path they're playing in.
http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/ironGods
if anyone else is familiar with it, they can probably find the page and range of effects for the goop.

You're probably right. I'll admit that I do have a rather kneejerk reaction to magical control effects on PC's.
in my first campaign(so basically...last auguest through november) my first character(shield slam fighter) had gone through
1) Eating a badly cooked(I.E. Poor craft roll) BLT sammich in attempt to show off to the healer. gave him the runs for 5 days.
2) basically becoming Gollum. like...I put on a cursed ring, got extremely possessive and crazy, and eventually had a fight with my character's best friend(a sorcerer) while holding a midas mace. I threatened to pound his brain into gold and sell it to buy a box for the ring.
3) Picked up a midas mace and licked it. friends BS'd pouring holy pelor water(eventually nicknamed Pelor Juice and Sunny D) onto my tongue to get it off. I mean, the Barbarian ran headfirst into potential traps and exploding chests, and nothing ever really happened to him.

basically, my character was weak, had bad luck, and did stupid things. my second character was a crossdressing beguiler who would hit on too many cute guys and tried showing off. almost lost his member to a trap when he tried pressing mouth-housed buttons with it.

basically, being derpy and doing stupid stuff can lead to opportunities for RP, comedy, and suspense. that's what I always assumed before I got into D&D and I've yet to find anything that convinces me otherwise. helped me develop a thick skin for consequence.

[goto124]

(still isn't sure why the players didn't get frustrated or annoyed)

[Solaris]

"I have to redeem myself, even if just a little." is plenty motivating, and the DM can catch him up on WBL at any time loot would come out. this really isn't a massive issue.

because even if the drugs made him do it, he still did it. he is now an arsonist or murderer. he has plenty of opportunities for roleplaying, so meet that **** with a challenge.

This call back to my earlier point about alcoholics not getting off from vehicular manslaughter just because they were drunk at the time.
Him drinking the goop without knowing the consequences still makes him guilty, even without the out-of-game knowledge that the player directed his actions all throughout (and nothing forced the character to kill anybody; he did that of his own volition).


basically, being derpy and doing stupid stuff can lead to opportunities for RP, comedy, and suspense. that's what I always assumed before I got into D&D and I've yet to find anything that convinces me otherwise. helped me develop a thick skin for consequence.

... That can get old fast.

[Psyren]

basically, being derpy and doing stupid stuff can lead to opportunities for RP, comedy, and suspense. that's what I always assumed before I got into D&D and I've yet to find anything that convinces me otherwise. helped me develop a thick skin for consequence.

This is true up to a point. If you end up stealing the spotlight with your antics or getting the other PCs into easily avoidable hot water, you can quickly end up as the group's Kender, except without divine providence to protect your character from getting lynched.

[SangoProduction]

This thread basically devolved into a slug fest of people trying to determine who really is at fault here, and who's right or wrong.

Take the answer from the first page: ask the player why he felt railroaded. From there, you can actually formulate an answer. And, in all honesty, the penalties are incredibly light. But, given the extremely limited amount of information we have, we can safely say the player's only real defense inexperience.

And, as a DM who is currently running with a bunch of people who aren't experienced in roleplaying, I know there are things that experience and general knowledge would dictate should be simplified and more streamlined. And, even with several years of roleplaying experience, if something is never used before, they probably don't have experience in it. (For instance, if your group never plays with metamagics, you don't have experience with metamagics. Same with evil alignments, and so on so forth) One of the jobs of a GM is to slowly increase your players' competence, and allow them to do more complicated things, this could mean pulling the reigns in, and not giving "total" freedom, but allow them to act within a certain context.

Generally, alignments outside of "good" are -extremely- noob-unfriendly. In fact, I quite dislike alignments at all, and banish them from my games, regardless of experience - for extremely numerous reasons. (Like seriously, how is psychosis "evil"? lol) You just are how you act. As for what you should have done for the goop, is either reroll, or expose them to some of the evil alignments, and tell them they are hearing voices in his head. Or, perhaps something that requires a bit less micromanagement, like paranoia over people watching him. If he says that this would cause him to start murdering people, remind him that he's still basically a good person at heart - though if he persists, let him do it, and take the consequences. And after it was done, if done well, you could inform him that it simulated him dipping slightly into the evil alignment for a bit.

"Evil" has some preconceived notions, and the only way to break those down is to show them that "evil" doesn't mean "rape/murder/steal everything." (Especially in D&D where you could be a shining knight of the most obtuse holiness, and still murder millions of sentient creatures without mercy. Or the other way round, you could be the most well-meaning lich in the world, and serve to advance mankind, but you are still evil. Because reasons.)

[prufock]

I don't see how you could read it that way. You see, unlike the goop in this thread, actual mind-affecting effects in the actual game are a lot better thought out, and include either (a) a clearly-defined action or set of actions for you to choose from, (b) interact with existing/familiar systems like the Diplomacy rules ("treat the target as friendly"), and/or (c) include escape clauses like "actions against your nature risk breaking the compulsion," and "suicidal or self-destructive orders are never followed" and the like.
I think the crux is that the player is complaining about being railroaded. If he's unsatisfied with temporarily losing some of his player agency (through lesser geas), making him a temporary NPC is temporarily taking away all of his player agency, and thus should make him more unsatisfied.

[Solaris]

And don't forget, at the beginning of the game the DM asked his players if they were alright with him railroading them a bit on account of not being able to come up with extra material. That... that kind of hamstrings any complaints of being railroaded.

[icefractal]

I think the crux is that the player is complaining about being railroaded. If he's unsatisfied with temporarily losing some of his player agency (through lesser geas), making him a temporary NPC is temporarily taking away all of his player agency, and thus should make him more unsatisfied.He's probably complaining about railroaded to a bad place. IME, you can railroad people to awesome, and you can have a sandbox and put both awesome and suck in it, but when you railroad people to suck it's a bad experience all around.

Re: Light penalties.
For a higher level character, they might be light. For a 1st level character, they're pretty heavy:
1) For a while, you get to be weaker, and also hated.
2) But you'll catch up, right? Except that the character in question probably has to leave the game by that point, being banished and all.
3) Can't even try to prove repentance by taking the quest on, you're geas'd into it.

And while the DM could mitigate a lot of these effects, ie. giving him loot to catch up later, making the town reconsider the banishment after further events, etc ... I don't see any evidence that this would happen. The OP still seems to have the attitude that the player is a disruptive element, for interpreting psychotic the way he did, and doesn't seem inclined to cut him any slack.

[Alikat]

As much as I wanted to side with the DM on this, I think about how I would react as a player. When I hear chaotic evil psychopath, the Joker comes to mind not the Riddler. Mayhem would ensue.

[Red Rubber Band]

I honestly don't see where the DM went wrong.

The player ingested some goop. That's on the player.
The goop had a random effect. Fair enough. What else would you expect? Death, maybe. But surprise! We're not dead despite eating goop after evidence showing it was a possible outcome.
Character becomes psychotic. Oooh, time for some interesting roleplay!
Burn down a bazaar, kill some people that try to stop me. That's fine you decided to RP that way. But both of those are on the player. Own your decisions.
Get annoyed when situational appropriate consequences happen.

[goto124]

This thread basically devolved into a slug fest of people trying to determine who really is at fault here, and who's right or wrong.

Take the answer from the first page: ask the player why he felt railroaded. From there, you can actually formulate an answer. And, in all honesty, the penalties are incredibly light. But, given the extremely limited amount of information we have, we can safely say the player's only real defense inexperience.

And, as a DM who is currently running with a bunch of people who aren't experienced in roleplaying, I know there are things that experience and general knowledge would dictate should be simplified and more streamlined. And, even with several years of roleplaying experience, if something is never used before, they probably don't have experience in it. (For instance, if your group never plays with metamagics, you don't have experience with metamagics. Same with evil alignments, and so on so forth) One of the jobs of a GM is to slowly increase your players' competence, and allow them to do more complicated things, this could mean pulling the reigns in, and not giving "total" freedom, but allow them to act within a certain context.

Generally, alignments outside of "good" are -extremely- noob-unfriendly. In fact, I quite dislike alignments at all, and banish them from my games, regardless of experience - for extremely numerous reasons. (Like seriously, how is psychosis "evil"? lol) You just are how you act. As for what you should have done for the goop, is either reroll, or expose them to some of the evil alignments, and tell them they are hearing voices in his head. Or, perhaps something that requires a bit less micromanagement, like paranoia over people watching him. If he says that this would cause him to start murdering people, remind him that he's still basically a good person at heart - though if he persists, let him do it, and take the consequences. And after it was done, if done well, you could inform him that it simulated him dipping slightly into the evil alignment for a bit.

"Evil" has some preconceived notions, and the only way to break those down is to show them that "evil" doesn't mean "rape/murder/steal everything." (Especially in D&D where you could be a shining knight of the most obtuse holiness, and still murder millions of sentient creatures without mercy. Or the other way round, you could be the most well-meaning lich in the world, and serve to advance mankind, but you are still evil. Because reasons.)

Which was what I meant by 'going over the scene again'. Teach the player.

[prufock]

He's probably complaining about railroaded to a bad place. IME, you can railroad people to awesome, and you can have a sandbox and put both awesome and suck in it, but when you railroad people to suck it's a bad experience all around.
This is possible, and what I personally suspect. It's not just the bad situation, it's not just the railroad, it's the combination of the two. If so the DM should talk to the player to communicate this more effectively. I offered suggestions earlier about less stiff penalties.