was reading through a thread where a GM intended to force one of his players to take on the mantle of a dark god.
I too was planning on using an amulet that would forcibly change the elements of the spells one of my players used, as well as grant other bonuses.
then it occurred to me, since this has never happened to me as a player, how do they usually react when a GM forces some kind of change on their character like forcing a paladin to have all dark powers, or even the other way around forcing a dark mage to become a light mage. or something not so good/evil more like mine where I'm switching his fire magic to the ice element.
have you ever done this as a GM? has this happened to you as a player? share and let me know if this is a good or a bad thing.
Fucking horrible plan. Never change something dramatic about a character unless you have their consent. They'res nothing more buzz kill than your paragon of purity that you're having fun playing being fiated into a servant of a dark god. It kills your motivation for roleplaying the character that you've been developing
>>47288711
Bad idea, I would say. A change fire magic -> ice magic might go alright but better if you asked the player beforehand. A change good -> evil without asking the player is probably going to go badly and they might even kill off their character and make a new one.
That said, I have no RPGing experience so perhaps take what I say with a pinch of salt.
>>47288711
Terrible plan, as others have said. Major changes to a character that players have no control over are bad.
>using an amulet that would forcibly change the elements of the spells one of my players used, as well as grant other bonuses
Would the player be able to take off and not use the amulet? And would using the amulet in the first place without knowing what it does result in something bad for the players even if it only happens once?
D&D-style cursed items are okay since they negatively impact a character's abilities but can be removed somehow. They don't change a character concept. An item or ability that has bonuses and drawbacks can work well if the player can choose how to use it.
>>47289139
he can take it off, its a tradeoff, he's a fire mage and he always resorts to fire, he heard rumors of an amulet that would greatly boost his magical abilities (in game it will double damage and grant extra castings) and all they know is it belonged to a powerful ice mage.
when he puts it on ill inform him that when he rolls damage double it, and he has double castings,however the next time he casts a fireball spell ill describe a flurry of snow and ice forming to create an icicle and launch out. he will probably figure out the ice mage was known as an ice mage because the amulet changed his powers to become that.
if he takes it off the bonuses and the ice will go away
didnt know if i was gonna make it permanent after prolonged use, was gonna wait to see how the player reacted first
>>47289244
This is not sounding as bad as I thought, I missed the line about switching fire magic to ice magic. Being able to take it off with no ill effects besides losing the bonuses and hearing about it in game helps. I don't know what system you are using so I don't know if the bonuses will disrupt the game.
One issue is that the player might use the amulet all the time even if they don't like to. Also it becoming a crutch.
>didnt know if i was gonna make it permanent after prolonged use, was gonna wait to see how the player reacted first
The double damage, double castings, and ice magic are permanent or just the ice magic part? I would recommend against it for easier management.
Is pic related your inspiration?
>>47289571
no, is that what happened in adventure time? his crown made him a powerful ice mage?
>>47289666
An episode in season 3, Holly Jolly Secrets, shows how Ice King got his powers.
It wasn't just the ice magic switch though, it was the power boost and possibly permanent after prolonged use that reminded me.
>>47288711
This is one of those things that I always talk about with the players before a campaign start, or when someone new joins.
Not to like, spoil the surprise or anything, but just to make sure that they know that stuff like this is on the table, it might happen, it might not, and if they are not okay with it now is the time to speak up.
I find that players are usually okay with almost any kind of content or GM shenanigans as long as they feel they know what they're getting themselves into.
I always let people know that I routinely let players play the parts of npcs as well as their characters to make things more fun in situations where not all characters are present, that losing control of your character can possibly happen, that I expect everyone who doesn't trust themselves to not use out of character knowledge in character to step out/be muted when important things happen that their character is not aware of, things like that.
99% of DM problem threads on tg happens because of lack of communication, so communicate.
What's okay, what's not, what's fun and what's great are things you should have a conversation with your players about when you're getting things set up.
>>47289139
I think the whole character agency thing is overplayed a lot on /tg/.
If you avoid it on principle you're missing out on a lot of cool stuff that can happen in fantasy settings (possession or whatnot, to name one), and you're giving the players a lot of meta-knowledge that doesn't make a lot of sense.
>Nothing can ever happen to me that I don't have a say in, because it's a game!
Is not really helping anyone get immersed.
I say everything is fair game as long as the players know they had a hand in arriving at that event. Don't railroad them, but don't pull punches when they get themselves in trouble either.
>>47288859
This. Instead of forcing the paladin to take the amulet, give the amulet to a wizard. Once they get the amulet, have a book which explain that it grants dark powers, which get amplified when worn by those who are loci of light. The player has that option to call on the darkness when their foes are truly powerful. Makes a better story too. Make it so if they try to get rid of it, new evil warlocks keep rising up with the amulet. Too dangerous for anyone else to have
>>47288711
You're the GM, it's your setting, you can put anything you want in it.
Having some magical amulet that makes something drastic happen that might make a character lose control or change permanently isn't any worse than say, stepping on a mine, opening a boobytrapped door or stumbling on other kinds of big trouble.
IMO you're only really being a dick if you trick the players there. If all they can do is follow the path you set out for them, then yes, you're kind of being a dick, but that's true regardless of if you're just railroading them into an adventure or if you're forcing some magical amulet on someone.
Just give the players the options they should reasonably have. Like choosing to not pick up the amulet. Or having someone who knows about amulets have it a look, if convenient.
If your setting has magical amulets that forcibly reverse elements or whatever, then that's what happens if someone gets their hands on one of those, that's just the way it is. There's no reason why you should limit yourself just because people on the internet told you that things about a character getting changed without the players consent is terrible.
I mean. Think about it. By playing the game the players are agreeing that their character might end up DYING, how is that any worse than "your ice thing is a fire thing now yo."
For actual alignment changes I think that needs discussed beforehand. The paladin player might want to remain a noble goodguy through the game, but maybe the drow player would like going from a lawful evil ass into lawful neutral with good tendencies. Talk about it before drastic choices are made without their consent.
>>47290180
>For actual death I think that needs to be discussed beforehand. The player might want to remain in the game. Talk about it before drastic things like death happens without the players consent.
what about giving the player a big heads up in game but not irl.
lets say for example i put before my players a cursed AF sword, and even on the statue it says "any who wield the sword may never turn back"
it would be justified to completely change anything like their powers or alignments, because the player and character knew the risk?
Character death and forcing a character to be different aren't the same. Death just takes the character away. Changing their character on a fundamental level means that they have to play with a character that maybe don't want to play. At the very least, there should be some kind of warning that it's about to happen, or there should be some way to reverse or avoid it.
The amulet that makes your spells stronger and ice now, but slowly speaks evil thoughts into their head as long as they wear it seems fine with me. Maybe make the character make some kind of save, in D&D terms, to avoid a sudden, irresistible urge to do something that the amulet wants. It'd send a pretty strong signal to the players that they're playing with fire.
