Revealing to The Players That They Are The "Evil" Clones Of The Real Party

[Leliel]

OK, here's a potential plot twist I had in mind:

Players, after encountering some situation that forces them to question their motives and actions as a force for good, wake up in a strange dungeon with no idea of how they got there-or any evidence of how they got there. When they go back to town, they find that aproximately two years have past since the end of their recollection of what happened, and now the townsfolk seem to be afraid of them. They then encounter the mysterious Masque, a, as the name would suggest, masked evil party who work against the BBEG with a resembelance in personality to them, only twisted beyond all recognition. When they finally see one of them unmasked, it's like looking into a mirror-he or she looks exactly like one of them! "Evil twin" plot, perhaps?

Nope. Well yes, but with a twist.

Although there are clones of the party with the opposite ethtical stance, they aren't the Masque-The PCs are. The Masque on the other hand, are not at all duplicates. You can see where this is going...

You see, after the morally-vague incedent, the original party went through a series of other morally-shattering events that resulted in them renouncing all of their morals in their wish to defeat the BBEG, turning the main quest's objective into little more than a selfish quest for revenge. The BBEG, who is intrested in the relationship between events and alignment, and how it turned his once-virtuious foes into the morally-despondent group of antiheroes they are today, decided to create perfect clones of them sans the two years that turned them into the Masque-the PCs.

So, how would you pull this off? More importantly, how would you pull it off without them killing you for messing with their PCs?

[Jasdoif]

Reminds me of Total Recall (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/), really.

Anyway, my first recommendation would be to not make it explicitly clear that the other group is the "real" party. Let them entertain the notion that it's all a lie, and the Masque are in fact clones (or similar duplicates) with some other consciousness embedded in them, and the characters are really themselves. Or maybe it's an elaborate version of microcosm, and the characters are the only real things in the world.

Regardless, let them wonder and try to determine what's "really" going on, and how they can resolve it. Get them involved in their own mystery.

[BRC]

I wouldn't do that, dictating your PC's ethical beliefs partway through the game?
Chooo! Chooo! All aboard the Railroad Plot

[Sstoopidtallkid]

No. Just, no. I cannot stand having someone else in control of my character, something like this would make me leave the game. You could break the group through this.

[Kol Korran]

i think it could only work with players who love roleplaying interesting sitations above everythign else...

the entire thing is dubious, but if you're goign to do it, i'd suggest to do it wihout the twist- the players were kidnapped/gotten two years ago (good luck makign that happen without it seeming like railroading) and the Masque are their duplicates, whcih were taken through the moral wrigner... (meeting them could be a "what if..." sort of encounter).

i concieve of no way of doing what you proposed, so bluntly, so without any chance to divert the outcome, without getting some, if not all of the players pisssed at you.

remember- it's a collaborative game, not your own story. (as i'm sure youknow, but we all forget from time to time)

[Leliel]

I wouldn't do that, dictating your PC's ethical beliefs partway through the game?
Chooo! Chooo! All aboard the Railroad Plot

Well, technically, the PCs beliefd haven't changed much. Their original characters did, but they didn't.

And why would it ruin the concept? If the players were OK with an "amnesia" plot to begin with, I don't see how much this is an alteration.

[Toliudar]

Well, it only works if your players:


Are at all interested in ethical dilemmas
Can be counted on to take the moral high ground in most situations
Won't just try to kill the "evil twin" selves every time they see them


I do like the idea of a BBEG who is consciously playing with the motivations and moral decay of his opponents, but it also forces the PC's into the role of foil for a set of NPC's edification, instead of being the protagonists. If they too slide into a morally vacant methodology, what good are they to the BBEG?

[Leliel]

[QUOTE=Toliudar;4224478
... but it also forces the PC's into the role of foil for a set of NPC's edification, instead of being the protagonists...[/QUOTE]

Nope, the players are still the protagonists. The Masque gave up their right to it when they started hurting innocent people.

[DiscipleofBob]

I think it's a brilliant idea.

At worst, you might get some complaints about the actions of the "Masque" characters, since they're the originals. It really depends on the PC's and just how vulnerable you think they are right now. You might try and subtlely ask the others how they'd feel about the situation. What they think their characters would do under those characters, etc.

You probably also have to worry about the PC's character's families and relationships. What happened in those two years? Do their families loathe them for their "betrayal?" Are they even alive? Depending on how much collateral is caused, this is probably the only thing I would object to if my DM did something like this to me.

In the long term, you really aren't changing their characters though, just creating a plot twist. If the clones are the same as two years ago, then the PC's don't really lose anything in terms of character development. Make sure you're prepared to explain exactly what made the originals go evil, there will be questions for that.

Another alternative is have the originals be under the effects of some mind control or forced alignment shift (especially when you said the BBEG loves playing with that kind of thing). Then one option the PC's have is during the final fight to break the mind control and suddenly the BBEG has double the heroes to worry about.

All and all, it's a great idea which most players I know would applaud you for the dramatic twist. ((steals idea for later campaign.)) The tricky part is finding the point in the campaign which you can justify switching to the clone PC's.

[Cuddly]

Great idea. Very Total Recall. Make sure you make the players wonder, as opposed to telling them exactly what happened (in fact, it might be best if even you don't know what really happened!).

Then leave it up to the players to roleplay/justify/discover why they are the good ones and the antagonists are evil.

[Rutee]

I don't think this can work without the players knowing from the start, honestly...

[TehJhu]

I like the idea. I wouldn't complain as a player, since the 'clone' is really still the same character I was. Make sure they keep their equipment and stuff.

I actually did something like this in a SW Saga game. One of the players was a scout and he didn't really have much of a backstory and also didn't know a lot of things about Star Wars (he's a weird nerd) irl so he'd often ask what the hell was going on...

So I came up with this evil scientist who works for the Empire. The PCs got captured by a Star Destroyer and when Dr. Mad-Scientist sees the scout he's all shocked.

Come to find out the scout was actually an Imperial captain who had worked with the Dr. and had eventually been turned on by him. The Dr. had brainwashed him with the PC's personality and dumped him on a remote planet as an experiment, but assumed he died in a crash.

It actually went over really well. Gave the game a nice twist, and opened up a huge antagonist in the Dr, as well as one cool dungeon where an AI of the original personality tried to reset the scout's brain and take over his body again. I'm hoping that at the climax of the campaign the scout will confront the Dr who'll say something like, "You're nothing, you're just a story I made up! You're not even a ghost!" and we'll get some cool affirmation that a person is more than... I dunno, who they're born as.

Anyway, I don't think people who like to roleplay should get upset over something like this, sure its a 'railroad', but without some railroading you end up with really boring, generic plots.

[Tengu]

Hmm, I'm torn. On the one hand, it looks like a very interesting plot twist... but on the other, if I were a player I wouldn't like if something like that happened to me. Do you think your players would have objections and say that their characters would never act that way? Only if you're completely sure they won't you should consider this scenario, if you ask me.

[Project_Mayhem]

Yoink, I'm stealing this for my Eberron campaign.

Seriously, this would be such a good idea. I agree that you'd need good roleplayers interested in story over anything else, which unfortunately often seem to be in short supply, but with the right group, this would be immense.

It's sad that several people's responses were immediately of the 'no no no, touch my character and I'll harm you' variety. Think about it! How cool would that be as a sort of noir creepy horrorish thing! Especially if you had a very principled, moral character, like a paladin or knight. You could have the long slow build up, as the players work out what's happening, followed by a climactic bizarro showdown.

I actually tingle with excitement at this idea. Good Leliel. Cookie for you.

[Pronounceable]

It's brilliant. Love it.



It's sad that several people's responses were immediately of the 'no no no, touch my character and I'll harm you' variety.

Yeah, it's a rather sad reaction. Where's your sense of drama people?

You're definitely NOT changing the players' characters in any way. It's just the plot happening (a very smart plot, I might add). Only real troubling event would be the capturing of the PCs. Even that can be arranged with a carefully done TPK.

[Rutee]

Something those of you singing praises need to remember; You have the benefit of knowing the twist, and appreciating it from a more objective point of view. I think this kind of twist can work, but only with tacit player approval before even /starting/ it.

[BlackStaticWolf]

It's brilliant. Love it.



Yeah, it's a rather sad reaction. Where's your sense of drama people?

You're definitely NOT changing the players' characters in any way. It's just the plot happening (a very smart plot, I might add). Only real troubling event would be the capturing of the PCs. Even that can be arranged with a carefully done TPK.

Hell, I don't think you even need to do a TPK. Just have the PCs go to bed one night and wake up somewhere else two years later.

I think it makes for a better mystery if the players don't even get to see their defeat.


Something those of you singing praises need to remember; You have the benefit of knowing the twist, and appreciating it from a more objective point of view. I think this kind of twist can work, but only with tacit player approval before even /starting/ it.

I disagree. It's not screwing with the PCs backstories at all. Likewise, it's not forcing the PCs along any particular course of action. It's putting them in a mysterious situation and only giving them pieces of the puzzle. In a certain regard, I don't think it's any different from the somewhat more common "PC wakes up in covered in blood with no memory of the previous night" twist.

[TehJhu]

Something those of you singing praises need to remember; You have the benefit of knowing the twist, and appreciating it from a more objective point of view. I think this kind of twist can work, but only with tacit player approval before even /starting/ it.

But then the twist loses its whole point!

I think if someone is seriously annoyed by this, like, "Screw you guys I'm going home" angry, they should re-think their attatchment to the fictional character in a tabletop game.

[Rutee]

Twists can exist for reasons besides screwing with the viewers. Especially when the viewers are participating. I think you're risking too much disrespect of the players' narrative ability to not secure their permission first. I'd leave, but it has nothing to do with attachment to a character and everything to do with a deep and abiding love for actually getting a say. Further, the players can produce significantly better reactions and drama if they're prepared for it.

[The Sandman]

Sounds like a great idea to me. I would say it especially depends on what the BBEG is doing this for, though; is it just something he came up with on the side, or is this testing of alignment type stuff a key part of his goals?

And for some reason, I just thought of Planescape: Torment. In particular, the key question: "What can change the nature of a man?"

It would be really interesting, also, to see whether the players try to redeem their former selves, to establish their own identities, or something else.

If you want, a good way to clue them in to the BBEG's plan might be to have them run across the lab in which they (the clones) were created. If you want to be really cruel, have them be the second or third set of clones, and have them get occasional 'flashbacks' from the last set to slowly clue them in that something is wrong. Having them battle the minions of the BBEG amidst the empty vats they were spawned from, with additional clones being prepared for when the party dies, would be a great backdrop for a fight.

Also, for the duration of the storyline, make it so that your characters automatically get rezzed, via the clones. Don't tell them that, though; just tell the dead person that he wakes up in some random location with the gear he had at his last level-up.

[Heliomance]

I think part of the problem people are having is that the original post was somewhat ambiguous. I had to read it twice before I understood what you were getting at - at first glance it looks like you're turning the PCs into the Masque and telling them they all have to act evil. That would get everyone up in arms, but keeping the PCs as they were and having the evil originals should be fine.

[Lochar]

You don't actually have to capture them, that actually makes it more interesting.

If you can manage it, have them all remember a slightly different point that they last 'remember' all within a few days of each other. That was when the BBEG managed to get samples of them to clone with.

No need to capture them, since they're the clones. The originals kept on going and decaying. The BBEG got fed up with them after a while, cloned them from when they were still good, and then sent them out into the world. "I'm the BBEG dammit. You're supposed to be the good guys, and if you won't be, I'll make you be them!"

[JaxGaret]

I think it can be an interesting idea, but there's a few things that I'm not too clear on:

Are the PCs now under the control of the BBEG?

If not, why did the BBEG go to all these lengths and put so much effort into making these clones in the first place?

Are the Masque Evil now, or simply ambiguously Good/Neutral?


I'll come back with more questions after you answer these.

[Ascension]

If I may make an observation here, Leliel, it seems that almost all of the threads you start are focused on some major dramatic (and often somewhat controversial) plot point you want to throw at your PCs. It generally turns into a discussion of whether or not it's railroading, whether or not it's in good taste, etc.

Here's my question to you... Have your PCs ever had any trouble with any of your other shocking plot twists? How 'bout that BBEG who was going to try to breed the PC werewolves? How'd that one go over? If they didn't have any trouble with that, they won't have any trouble with this. In that case you have been gifted with a mature, roleplaying-focused party, and you're pretty well free to do whatever they're willing to allow. If they have resisted previous major plot twists... well, you might want to rethink this. It all depends on your party members' temperaments.

[TehJhu]

Twists can exist for reasons besides screwing with the viewers. Especially when the viewers are participating. I think you're risking too much disrespect of the players' narrative ability to not secure their permission first. I'd leave, but it has nothing to do with attachment to a character and everything to do with a deep and abiding love for actually getting a say. Further, the players can produce significantly better reactions and drama if they're prepared for it.

But this isn't mechanically any different than saying "The BBEG summoned evil versions of you from Bizzaro World and set it up so people think you're evil now."

Its just more sinister. The personalities of the PCs is unchanged as far as they are concerned, the clones are exactly the same people, only without whatever horrible thing made them evil. I fail to see how thats taking away the PCs contribution to the story more than anything else a DM does to create interesting situations.

[Tengu]

But this isn't mechanically any different than saying "The BBEG summoned evil versions of you from Bizzaro World and set it up so people think you're evil now."

Its just more sinister. The personalities of the PCs is unchanged as far as they are concerned, the clones are exactly the same people, only without whatever horrible thing made them evil. I fail to see how thats taking away the PCs contribution to the story more than anything else a DM does to create interesting situations.

Because the originals are still the characters they created, only twisted and under permanent DM's control now. Some people might have issues with that, as it wouldn't fit how they envisioned their character.

[TehJhu]

Because the originals are still the characters they created, only twisted and under permanent DM's control now. Some people might have issues with that, as it wouldn't fit how they envisioned their character.

But its just semantics. Sure, they're the 'originals', but assuming the clones have the exact same gear and personalities, how is it any different than the Bizzaro Universe thing, aside from how it'll shake the PCs up?

[Tengu]

Because you're not controlling the same character whom you had - you have a completely identical one, but it's a separate entity who didn't experience what happened on the previous sessions. Your previous character is being controlled by the DM now, and taken into a direction that you (possibly) might never have taken this character yourself, as it would be against its concept and personality.

Semantics? Maybe. But some people would still have issues with that. And it doesn't make them less mature.

[Citizen Joe]

While swimming, have one of them point out the big scar on the right side of one of the others.

[TehJhu]

Because you're not controlling the same character whom you had - you have a completely identical one, but it's a separate entity who didn't experience what happened on the previous sessions.


Sure he did, he as all the same memories, scars, and tales as the old one. Just a new body. Hell, if you were playing a necromancr and cloned yourself and died and came back as the clone, would you complain then that you were a different character and insist that your original body be rezzed?

Just because this body wasn't 'there' when the previous stuff happened, dosn't mean anything. A person is his memories, not the events that caused them.

[Rutee]

But this isn't mechanically any different than saying "The BBEG summoned evil versions of you from Bizzaro World and set it up so people think you're evil now."

Its just more sinister. The personalities of the PCs is unchanged as far as they are concerned, the clones are exactly the same people, only without whatever horrible thing made them evil. I fail to see how thats taking away the PCs contribution to the story more than anything else a DM does to create interesting situations.

Who cares about mechanics? We're talking story. The difference is night and day, because the Bizarro Duplicates aren't the originals, even if people think they are. What's added by removing my narrative voice?



Sure he did, he as all the same memories, scars, and tales as the old one. Just a new body. Hell, if you were playing a necromancr and cloned yourself and died and came back as the clone, would you complain then that you were a different character and insist that your original body be rezzed?
No, but you set up the Clone. Remember, my objection is the lack of consultation, not the event itself.

[Mewtarthio]

I like the idea. I wouldn't complain as a player, since the 'clone' is really still the same character I was. Make sure they keep their equipment and stuff.

I actually did something like this in a SW Saga game. One of the players was a scout and he didn't really have much of a backstory and also didn't know a lot of things about Star Wars (he's a weird nerd) irl so he'd often ask what the hell was going on...

So I came up with this evil scientist who works for the Empire. The PCs got captured by a Star Destroyer and when Dr. Mad-Scientist sees the scout he's all shocked.

Come to find out the scout was actually an Imperial captain who had worked with the Dr. and had eventually been turned on by him. The Dr. had brainwashed him with the PC's personality and dumped him on a remote planet as an experiment, but assumed he died in a crash.

It actually went over really well. Gave the game a nice twist, and opened up a huge antagonist in the Dr, as well as one cool dungeon where an AI of the original personality tried to reset the scout's brain and take over his body again. I'm hoping that at the climax of the campaign the scout will confront the Dr who'll say something like, "You're nothing, you're just a story I made up! You're not even a ghost!" and we'll get some cool affirmation that a person is more than... I dunno, who they're born as.

"I had you built! I sent you [planetside], I called you back, showed you what you was, what you was capable of! Even that life you thought you had. That was something I dreamed up and had tattooed inside ya head! Now if that's not family, I don't know what is!"

It's also got a few shades of a certain other popular Star Wars game. I suppose the fact that the player was unfamiliar with such things was helpful. Not that I'm maligning your DMing, of course: It's a great twist, but someone familiar with the EU might have expected it.

Anyway, this situation is somewhat different. In the quoted situation, you had a guy basically start over from a blank slate. The actions of his past self are in no way reflective of his own personality. In the OP, the actions of the Masque are reflective of the PCs personalities. Whatever the Masque does, the PCs could potentially have done as well. That may be where they'd get upset with you: You are stating that their characters have the potential to go here. If you're playing with taint (or sanity) rules, in which it's expected that anyone could wind up falling to darkness, then that's okay, but otherwise, they may very well feel that you're defining their characters in a way they don't want to be defined.

[Rutee]

What? I thought I was the only one on this board who played Fall From Heaven 2.

[Dervag]

Because you're not controlling the same character whom you had - you have a completely identical one, but it's a separate entity who didn't experience what happened on the previous sessions. Your previous character is being controlled by the DM now, and taken into a direction that you (possibly) might never have taken this character yourself, as it would be against its concept and personality.

Semantics? Maybe. But some people would still have issues with that. And it doesn't make them less mature.Yes. On the other hand, only the DM here among us knows whether their own players will have issues.

If you want to set it up without totally giving away the surprise, sound out the characters and ask them "could you ever see your character going 'dark side'?"

Also, I really think it would be wise to allow the PCs to think that they're the real PCs, and not the clones of the originals. Set up the evidence in such a way that there's some ambiguity- is the evil wizard telling the truth about how he cloned you, or is he messing with your head?

[Mewtarthio]

What? I thought I was the only one on this board who played Fall From Heaven 2.

I didn't know anyone played Fall from Heaven 2 outside of boards dedicated to Civilization IV mods.

Too bad the OP's situation never shows up in that game. Otherwise, we could have had a discussion filled with lots of secret in-references that nobody else deserved to understand.


If you want to set it up without totally giving away the surprise, sound out the characters and ask them "could you ever see your character going 'dark side'?"

That could actually work. If you're in a roleplay-heavy campaign, you could try to give them the impression that a future plot twist will involve them facing their greatest temptations or something along those lines. Still, it's risky--unless taint is involved, in which case they should be expecting the possibility of turning evil anyway.

[JaxGaret]

This Fall From Heaven 2 sounds interesting. I googled it, but I couldn't find any descriptive information or reviews. I did see that it won an award for the best mod. What makes it so good, if you don't mind my asking?

[Rutee]

WEll, aside from it's slow start (Settlers are FREAKING EXPENSIVE, and it takes forever to get Cottages, Pastures, and Farms), it's got a pretty good setup. Religion matters more, there's more of a choice in development, both technologically, and in infrastructure. Techs are more expensive in general, so you can't get everything nearly as easily as you can in Vanilla Civ; Military Units can only be built with prerequisite buildings, which are /also/ expensive (All buildings are), so they require more specialization in general. Though the Win Conditions basically come down to "Kick everyone's ass", or Time Victory, the latter of which is unappealing. Civs are also way more different, with multiple UUs and UBs, and some leaders having multiple traits, or unique mechanics, such as Lanun getting +1 Food on Water. UUs are often more different as well, such as Vampires, which can eat population in exchange for experience. Experience matters more in it then BTS (Everything's pretty much doubled. Combat 1 is 20% rather then 10%, f'rex), there's magic spells and Hero units.. lotsa stuff.

Isn't there a Civ4 thread actually? >.>

[EvilElitest]

Something those of you singing praises need to remember; You have the benefit of knowing the twist, and appreciating it from a more objective point of view. I think this kind of twist can work, but only with tacit player approval before even /starting/ it.

If they know before hand, the point of the stunning reveal is useless. Imagine it, the players will be thinking that their clones have been ruining their lives and that they are just evil thems, but when they themselves are in fact clones it is simply shocking


Who cares about mechanics? We're talking story. The difference is night and day, because the Bizarro Duplicates aren't the originals, even if people think they are. What's added by removing my narrative voice?
I believe it was you Rutee who said that sometimes things must be sacrificed for the sake of drama. In order to get this plot going, you need to focus upon the drama

from
EE

[Pronounceable]

Whatever the Masque does, the PCs could potentially have done as well. That may be where they'd get upset with you: You are stating that their characters have the potential to go here.

What's there to be upset? Everyone has potential to do anything. Enough physical and mental pressure will make anyone do anything. Doubly so in a world with magic, demons, necromancers and dragons. And DM's not doing anything to "real" PCs.


Because the originals are still the characters they created, only twisted and under permanent DM's control now. Some people might have issues with that, as it wouldn't fit how they envisioned their character.

No, they're not. DM made twisted versions of those characters into NPCs and fiddled a bit. "Original characters" are always the ones being played by players. Bodies PCs were born with aren't the original PCs, except in the stictest biological sense. There's no change to players' PCs. There's only a major Evil Twin Syndrome with a twist.


No, but you set up the Clone. Remember, my objection is the lack of consultation, not the event itself.

This event is a plot point. DM's job is to supply these. Consulting the players is appropriate only if DM's changing something of their characters. PCs are not changed in any way.

[Rutee]

This event is a plot point. DM's job is to supply these. Consulting the players is appropriate only if DM's changing something of their characters. PCs are not changed in any way.
Au contraire. It's the GM's job to help facilitate plot points. The plot points themselves should be every bit as much supplied by the other players at the table.

[EvilElitest]

Au contraire. It's the GM's job to help facilitate plot points. The plot points themselves should be every bit as much supplied by the other players at the table.

View it as relativism, we presume his group enjoys high role playing. The idea is taht this is a main plot point, this is a major story line. We are presuming their capture has already occured and dealt with. That being said, what the PCs do in this situation is up to them and how they choose to react to his is up to them
from
EE

[Dervag]

Au contraire. It's the GM's job to help facilitate plot points. The plot points themselves should be every bit as much supplied by the other players at the table.Hmm.

I really do understand where you're coming from. If I were DM and you were a player in my campaign, and I knew you felt this way, I would never pull this on you.

However, I don't think this other person is wrong for pulling this on their players. The amount of control over the storyline given to the players is one of those things that varies from game to game. Obviously the campaign isn't likely to work if the DM has no control at all- if nothing else, the DM must retain control over NPC agents that can take their own actions "off screen." Only slightly less obviously, the campaign isn't likely to work if the DM has all control- if he can dictate the PCs' actions and attitudes.

In this case, what's happening is that the DM is "commandeering" the PCs' original bodies for the sake of the plot, while providing them with suitable (identical, even) replacements. Mechanically, nothing has changed. From an RP feel, yes, quite a lot has changed. On the other hand, "I was a villain!" or "What have I done!" are very common emotional revelations in fiction for characters with mysterious pasts or 'missing time'. This is by no means unprecedented.

Would it help from your perspective if the party of clones later finds out that the Masqued 'original' PCs were aided on their slide into darkness by some kind of mindwarping magic?






Yet again Rutee, your relativism doesn't seem to apply when your against an idea.C'mon, we can still keep this thread from degenerating into one of the standard snippy dogfights if we all cooperate. It's not too late... right?

[Rutee]

Would it help from your perspective if the party of clones later finds out that the Masqued 'original' PCs were aided on their slide into darkness by some kind of mindwarping magic?

Well, not particularly. The main issue is that with a gap like what you mentioned, I don't think it'd be any better to spring some really horrible surprise on the players' past, though you are correct hat what I'm talking about isn't the only way to play. Though, Leliel does tend to be very open ended in asking about whether his ideas work, so I don't quite consider that an issue. I mean really, everyone else is being just as presumptive about their style (AKA The GM supplies the plot), it's just a more standard assumption :P

Really, I don't mind the event itself at all. I just think Leliel should poke his players first. Maybe they're used to this and enjoy it, but I can't know that. Like I said, I would /totally/ agree to this if he asked me at campaign start. I'd be exceedingly annoyed if this was sprung on me without any actual input, though.

[Tengu]

No, they're not. DM made twisted versions of those characters into NPCs and fiddled a bit. "Original characters" are always the ones being played by players. Bodies PCs were born with aren't the original PCs, except in the stictest biological sense. There's no change to players' PCs. There's only a major Evil Twin Syndrome with a twist.


These characters have the same memories, personalities and appearances, but they have different, free wills and souls than the originals. They are not the same people.

[Jasdoif]

An advantage of not making it clear that it's the players who are the "clones", in addition to keeping players involved and on their toes, is that it makes it easy to change your mind entirely even during the middle of the plot, without much impact on the overall feel of the matter.

Little hints could help if the players get carried away. "This guy claims to be your evil 'true self', and you're taking his word at face value?"

[Zeful]

I don't think that there should be any consolation on the player's part. It makes it a cheesy plot twist and makes the experience boring. But I don't think that you should reveal everything at once. It should happen in very distinct stages.
1. general NPC anxiety, hints of something being very wrong.
2. A hack-n-slash quest, to keep them on their toes. Has nothing to do with the Masque.
3. Hint at the Masque, not much, make it seem like it's "the way things are" and no one likes to talk.
4. Masque show up, but only for a bit, leaving few clues about who they are.
5. Set the idea of the Masque as the BBEGs firmly in the player's mind, have them research things about their strengths and exploits , finding things vaugy familiar with their own history, but make it seem like the masque are taking credit for the PCs accomplishments.
6. The first real fight against the masque. Have it be hard, but not impossible, The masque have two or three levels on the PCs but that is all.
7. The PCs scramble to learn more about the masque. when approaced by the real BBEG offering much of the known information, but in a manner that presents a clone consperousy (gah spelling alert!).
8. The second confrintation against the masque, a little better prepared and it's the first reveal. They look identical to the PCs!
9. Quest Filler.
10. The Masque are fighting with the BBEG (and thus the PCs) and final reveal is made of the PCs being the not-so-evil twins.

This should take two or three months to put together and there should be no bleed though of the truth to the PCs.

[SofS]

Alright. Are you aware of the Hal Jordan debacle? If not, consider reading this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Jordan) from the heading "Emerald Twilight and Zero Hour" and ending at "Green Lantern: Rebirth". This may give you some very good ideas about the kind of twists that can drive people up the wall (especially in the later bits, where they essentially just undid everything that they had done for some reason).

If you're going to have the PCs turn evil to be confronted by their past good selves (as this is essentially a battle of the conscience writ into real events), the most important thing is to take it as far as it needs to go. If you soften the blow or make things seem better than they are, it'll be the worst of both worlds: character identity and player agency lost to a dumb twist. This can lead to much better things (strengthened and clarified character identity, reaffirmed agency through the players making decisions in spite of their fates, and a very memorable twist), but it won't be easy.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

For everyone who supports this, from my PoV, for a player it would look like setting up a character, running him for a month, then having the GM come in and replace him with a new character and telling me my original character is now evil, no matter if I think that is completely against his personality. I can see how this would make a great story, but I really would be angry if I ever had a GM do this to me. I know what my character would do far better than he does, and having him tell me "Your character does X" always annoys me. This is that times 10.

[AslanCross]

I think it's a great idea. If you know your players well enough to know they wouldn't go "NO, YOU ARE NOT CHANGING MY CHARACTER'S BACKSTORY!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" I think you can pull this off fine.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's The Sixth Day comes to mind: The hole time he thought he was the real guy, but he finds out in the end he was a clone of the guy. In any case, as long as the players can go about their lives even with this knowledge (or in spite of it), and they aren't being directly controlled by the BBEG and/or are required to act in a certain way from now on, then I don't think player freedom is being impinged upon in any way.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

In any case, as long as the players can go about their lives even with this knowledge (or in spite of it), and they aren't being directly controlled by the BBEG and/or are required to act in a certain way from now on, then I don't think player freedom is being impinged upon in any way.But what about the freedom to know that their original view of the character will remain unless they change it. Yes, all characters should change over time, but it should be a change the players want to have happen. The original characters are acting in a way that the players didn't intend for them to do, and that IMHO breaks one of the fundamental tenants of the game.

[Smight]

No. Just, no. I cannot stand having someone else in control of my character, something like this would make me leave the game. You could break the group through this.

QFT
I had character leave the game when he found he was a clone,
so proceed at your own risk.

[Jade_Tarem]

Just show them this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNS0wj3YSk&feature=related) and let them work it out on their own. (3:45 for the short version.)

Coincidentally, this is why you should never, ever use the mirror of opposition or any similar "evil clones ploy" in a campaign run by a sadistic or literal DM.

And yes, I agree with those saying that this may be a bad idea. In general, most players get truly upset when you "box text" their characters - especially if you box text them a lot. For two years. In a direction they didn't want to go.

"It's Defective...It's Defective...It's Defective..."

[SofS]

It seems to me that a previous poster's suggestion of leaving things ambiguous is definitely the most practical way of going about this. That way, you can start the plot, see how the players react, and make the decision when you have a better idea of what they think about it. I'd take it even farther and possibly never have the decision made, leaving it forever ambiguous as to who's the clone and who's the original. That way, you get the mystery and dramatic tension without telling people that their original characters are now totally out of their control and doing nasty things. If it's an unresolved mystery (or a mystery that can be reolved, but only with further work and adventuring), it'll be much more memorable than something very cut-and-dried. The existentialist dilemma of the situation comes across more clearly if you can never really know the circumstances of your creation.

As an aside, it's interesting to see the ideological lines that develop around this question. It seems to me that most posters on this thread have a fairly strong reaction to this idea one way or the other. Similar situations have cropped up in games I've been in, and it polarized players to almost equal degrees. I guess free will is the final boundary.

[Kompera]

OK, here's a potential plot twist I had in mind:

[snipped for brevity]

So, how would you pull this off? More importantly, how would you pull it off without them killing you for messing with their PCs?

I think it'd be a fun plot story to play out, under a couple of conditions.

Someone earlier suggested that the events leading to the 'originals' changing alignment to evil be left unexplained. And I agree. For those who might say , after the unveil, "My character would never turn evil if <event X occured>" this leaves them without a specific argument. Leave it vague or unexplained and they have no ammunition. There are magics which can force an alignment change, but they are fairly plot-cheesy, so again leaving things vague is best.

Second, a part of your unveil is that the party is no longer looked upon as heroes, and people treat them with fear. You didn't go into too many details, but I'll assume that the 'originals' are more of the "kick the dog" type while in towns, laughing in the faces of people they once would have helped and in general acting like jerks, and not wholesale slaughterers of innocents. Even that can completely screw with a players goals for their character. If a player has worked to become highly regarded and has that as one of their goals for their character then destroying that via what is essentially a deux ex machina railroad stunt won't be very well received. It's all fair if a player has to defend themselves against a false accuser to protect their sterling reputation, and that can make for an interesting role play session. But the "you wake up two years later" aspect of your plot gives the player zero chance to defend their reputation before it is utterly ruined, and if that is important to them then I'd recommend against using this plot line. In addition to questions of reputation there are several other things the two year 'replaced by evils' time span can screw with the players direction for their characters. Advancement within their church, military order, etc will have been ruined.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Simple solution to everyone's worry that your players may be giant, blubbering vaginas:

Tell them to make characters with questionable morals or background where they made moral compromises for the greater good or something.Try not to resort to ad-hominims, please. Some people have an investment in their characters and feel that they should have a say in whether the character they created and played becomes a rampaging lunatic. Odd, I know, but they do get upset when control of someone that is effectively them is taken out of their hands.

[Liliedhe]

Of course it changes the character. It tells me what my character would have done in situation X. That’s meddling with his personality. Yes, I still have an unchanged version of the character to play, but that’s not the point. The point is that no one can tell me what my character would do in any given situation, especially not under her own free will. Yes, I would leave if this scenario happened to me. In fact, I have done so in similar circumstances.

One DM I know once did a similar adventure, only it was drugs, not evil clones. The PCs suddenly woke up in unfamiliar surroundings, their gear gone and a SWAT (this was Shadowrun) kicking the door down. At first they were ok with it, but later they found out that they had slaughtered children and hurt their own families while under the influence of the drug. They swallowed it because it was not their own free will to act that way but there are still hard feelings in that group and repercussions from the adventure. One PC had to leave his home, a married couple of PCs became estranged (they eventually patched it up), and one almost died and had to sell herself to the corp she had escaped from earlier to survive. Two other characters became drug addicts and one threw his life away in an attempt to get revenge on the ones who had exposed the PCs to the drugs. No, the “oh ****, that’s us?” moment is not worth the hard feelings and the ruined characters.

[EvilElitest]

Of course it changes the character. It tells me what my character would have done in situation X. That’s meddling with his personality. Yes, I still have an unchanged version of the character to play, but that’s not the point. The point is that no one can tell me what my character would do in any given situation, especially not under her own free will. Yes, I would leave if this scenario happened to me. In fact, I have done so in similar circumstances.

One DM I know once did a similar adventure, only it was drugs, not evil clones. The PCs suddenly woke up in unfamiliar surroundings, their gear gone and a SWAT (this was Shadowrun) kicking the door down. At first they were ok with it, but later they found out that they had slaughtered children and hurt their own families while under the influence of the drug. They swallowed it because it was not their own free will to act that way but there are still hard feelings in that group and repercussions from the adventure. One PC had to leave his home, a married couple of PCs became estranged (they eventually patched it up), and one almost died and had to sell herself to the corp she had escaped from earlier to survive. Two other characters became drug addicts and one threw his life away in an attempt to get revenge on the ones who had exposed the PCs to the drugs. No, the “oh ****, that’s us?” moment is not worth the hard feelings and the ruined characters.

The difference however is essential, because in the clone example the PCs are controlling themselves with their own personalities, and the new PCs are like seperate beings.


However, it might be better as a new game rather than revisting an old one if hte PCs react badly
from
EE

[Pronounceable]

I'm afraid I'm gonna get a little philosophical (and a bit metagamey) here. What I'm saying is:

In-game, players' characters become NPCs while an identical set of characters are created for the players to play. Out-of-game, PCs are unchanged in any way. It's the gameworld which has changed (which is DM doing his job of providing story). What players are controlling is the exactly the same thing they had before.

"Original" PCs turning evil is what naysayers is objecting, saying it's like DM confiscating the characters. The PC is the avatar of the player (fluff and crunch) in the game. But the individuals existing in a gameworld themselves are avatars of PCs. The PC is an abstract thing, which is "incarnating" in the gameworld as an individual. It easily could've been incarnated into another fictional setting, another game run by a different DM, where it'd be another individual which happens to be identical to someone in another world/universe.

So these incarnations of players' avatars are no more immune to DM's actions than any other NPC. The true avatar of player, the PC, remains unchanged...

I know this sounds ridiculously far fetched, but think about it. It'll make a kind of sense.


If DM was changing the actual PC in any way without consulting players, it'd be bad.

[Aquillion]

Nope, the players are still the protagonists. The Masque gave up their right to it when they started hurting innocent people.What happens if the players start hurting innocent people in your games? Do you bump them down to non-protagonist status?

[Rutee]

The true avatar of player, the PC, remains unchanged...

The declaration that your character would do this, in situation X, is by default a change. It also does not change that the players' narrative voice is being co-opted by the GM. I'm all for recognizing that characters aren't people, just fictional constructs, but that doesn't change the offensive (To me) segments of this plotline (Which are both remedied by asking for the players' permission first).

[Learnedguy]

Well I for one thinks it's a brilliant twist. Well worth the railroading:smallamused:
Oh, and regarding the railroading, here's an idea how to do it:

Simply have the party walk into a room that seals shut behind them. Then let them figure out how to get out. Thing is, once they do get out, they notice that they got out in another place altogether. That's your first hint that something is wrong:smalltongue: .

(What really happened. The party got stuck in the room, and while they were there they got scanned by...something...Two years later someone uses the scan to recreate the party. To the clones though, it seemed as nothing happened. Possible they'd experience a small flicker and their positions might change a bit. To them and their memory, it's as if nothing happened at all)

[hamishspence]

I like the way its done in certain novels, the basic mirror plot: they think they are original, meet duplicates, destroy them, return to society, and are asked: Why is the old scar that was on the left hand side of the face now on the right hand side? and look in the mirror to see the duplicate. But as a PC storyline it might irritate the players.

Or the one with the bomb disguised as a man, only realises the truth when he sees the real man's dead body. "But if thats jones, then I must be...BOOM"

Its been done before but might work if players like the concept.

[Dervag]

As others have pointed out, this is a really good plot twist for fiction in general. It's only in RPGs, where the 'characters' have their own volition that is jealously guarded (with reason) against 'author' incursion, that there is a problem.


Really, I don't mind the event itself at all. I just think Leliel should poke his players first. Maybe they're used to this and enjoy it, but I can't know that. Like I said, I would /totally/ agree to this if he asked me at campaign start. I'd be exceedingly annoyed if this was sprung on me without any actual input, though.And other people would find it really neat if it was a surprise because they like the "Gasp!" school of character drama. It's mostly a question of different strokes, I guess. I'm not sure what I'd think of it.

[Rutee]

And other people would find it really neat if it was a surprise because they like the "Gasp!" school of character drama. It's mostly a question of different strokes, I guess. I'm not sure what I'd think of it.

:smallconfused:

You can only write or act in drama if you don't know what's going on? Liking drama has nothing to do with needing to be surprised. It is a false statement that only through surprise can you build suspense. Suspense can be built in a variety of ways, surprise being the single most commonly held notion of it, but that same feeling of excitement doesn't require it.

[EvilElitest]

:smallconfused:

You can only write or act in drama if you don't know what's going on? Liking drama has nothing to do with needing to be surprised. It is a false statement that only through surprise can you build suspense. Suspense can be built in a variety of ways, surprise being the single most commonly held notion of it, but that same feeling of excitement doesn't require it.

In this situation however i does, almost all of the shock value comes in "Oh my god, i'm not a real person. And my real self is evil. And i look sexy in dark leather, damnit". The real joy and meat of the game is the players slowly figuring out something is wrong, making wrong conclusions, and the final reveal.
from
EE

[Jayabalard]

You can only write or act in drama if you don't know what's going on? No, you can only not know what's going on if you don't know what's going on, and you can only be surprised by the surprising plot twist if it's actually a surprise.

[Rutee]

Yeah, but that's not a requisite of drama. That's a totally separate taste. If you as a person genuinely like being shocked more then telling a story, then yes, I would expect that you'd rather /not/ have this confirmed for you.

But your character's reaction can really only be refined by /you/ knowing the deal.

[EvilElitest]

Yeah, but that's not a requisite of drama. That's a totally separate taste. If you as a person genuinely like being shocked more then telling a story, then yes, I would expect that you'd rather /not/ have this confirmed for you.

But your character's reaction can really only be refined by /you/ knowing the deal.

But shock and story telling aren't separate, their quite similar. A storyteller needs to shock his audience with what they don't expect
from
EE

[Jayabalard]

Yeah, but that's not a requisite of drama.Noone has claimed that it is.

The claim was the other way around. That people who like character drama are likely to enjoy playing that sort of scenario. No claim was made about having to play such a scenario in order to be playing dramatically.


But your character's reaction can really only be refined by /you/ knowing the deal.Quite the contrary. It's possible to portray a very believable reaction by not "knowing the deal"; it comes rather naturally, since you don't have to have any separation between character and player knowledge. The course of action that your character takes while you, the player, try to figure out what is actually going on, tends to be a very natural portrayal.

[Kasanip]

So, how would you pull this off? More importantly, how would you pull it off without them killing you for messing with their PCs?

Well, seeing as you recognize you are messing with their PCs, maybe that right there should tell you how to [Not] pull it off.

If this was Star Wars, it could likely be comparable to say a team of Jedi PCs of low/mid level running around in the Old Republic. Then one session you tell them that two years have passed and in those two years not only did they fall to the dark side, but now the characters are playing clones.

Woah. That just doesn't sit right.

I think you had a good idea with the setting that the characters have a downfall through various morally vague incidents, as you mentioned. But as a player, I would rather play through those events, rather than be told that they happened and my character responded as X to said event.

I just can't see how some members can view a sudden "Two years passed and now you are a clone/evil" as not railroading or Messing with characters.

[Jayabalard]

I just can't see how some members can view a sudden "Two years passed and now you are a clone/evil" as not railroading or Messing with characters.I think you've misunderstood the scenario. The players are indeed playing clones, but they aren't any different morally than the characters they created... the only difference is that they are clones, and skip two years, where the originals, who have become NPCs, become the "evil" ones.

[hamishspence]

you know what this remind me of. Red dwarf season 7, where the characters meet their own evil future selves, and when they realize just how evil they are, the heroes take them out. In the words of Rimmer:
"Better dead than smeg!"

[Heliomance]

This situation is exactly the sort of thing I can imagine our DM pulling on us. It's one of the reasons why we think he's such a fricking awesome DM. I'd love a story like that, if it was handled well, it's an incredibe twist, carries some real shock value, and requires the players to slowly find out what the heck's going on. I say go for it.

[hamishspence]

the Future self= Villain plotline was done by Dan Abnett in comics, twice, where villain travels back in time to murder present day self and fails (Durham Red, Malus Darkblade)

Cloning helps avoid the time-travel shenanigans. so, it would be a very intersting plotline if done right. and if DM knows players play style well enought to make the older, evil selves convincing. fear of failure is a great motivation: they get to see that there are worse ways of "Failing" than merely dying.

[Ralfarius]

I think that narratively, this is certainly an interesting storyline to explore. It's obviously not completely original, but it's also quite obviously a concept that warrants a lot of discussion and introspection. All in all, I like it as an idea.

However, I do think that this is something quite tricky to gracefully weave into the collaborative storytelling experience that is pen & paper role playing. I can see this as something that would require quite a bit of assessment of the group's tastes on the part of the DM.

I mean, any of the options available could be quite acceptable, depending on the group. Do they like collaboration in the structure of the setting? If they do, then asking them some questions about this sort of idea will not only help you be certain they'll enjoy the dramatic paradigm shift, but will also give them some opportunity to really play up their parts and enrich the experience as a whole.

I have always leaned towards having a say in what I'd like to happen in a campaign/story. Not to say that I would tell my DM what to write, but when I come up with a character concept I have a general idea of what manner I would like for him to grow. Explaining this to a DM has assisted in the writing of the campaign to involve events that help my character grow and change in a manner that makes me feel satisfied.

If your players are more interested in having you write an intriguing story and playing off what happens with no prior knowledge, then by all means. Spring it like a tigger's tail. It's a risk, but if your players thrive off giving you complete control, then they'll more than likely thank you for it.

If your players lean more towards the collaboration, but don't react positively to the suggestion, then you're better off not wasting everyone's time on a frustrating and invasive story that doesn't appeal.

Honestly, any of the above possibilities do not suggest "better" or "worse" role players. Rather, they suggest different tastes and styles of gaming. Just because someone doesn't like having control of their character wrested from their grasp doesn't mean they're immature, or not fitting into some sort of idea of 'high' role playing. In fact, they could simply be more interested in playing through that slippery slope, feeling the emotions and reacting to each step down the primrose path as Kasanip suggested.

Remember, folks; Just because it does/doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Though, giving frank responses does help the OP in getting a cross section of various role player thoughts and feelings, which is rarely a bad thing.

[The Sandman]

But your character's reaction can really only be refined by /you/ knowing the deal.

As Jayabalard said, this depends very heavily on the degree to which you can avoid even unconscious metagaming. To be blunt, it's much simpler to keep the players as much in the dark as the PCs than it is to tell the players what's going on and expect them to run their characters as if they didn't know what was happening.

[Draz74]

I think the whole idea is awesome, and you should do it if your players trust you and aren't too attached to their original characters.

[Rutee]

As Jayabalard said, this depends very heavily on the degree to which you can avoid even unconscious metagaming. To be blunt, it's much simpler to keep the players as much in the dark as the PCs than it is to tell the players what's going on and expect them to run their characters as if they didn't know what was happening.

Yes, and it would be more simple to use Fudge for all your mechanics needs, because it's such a simple system. Simple or graceful isn't always better to more complex. I expect Meta in full, pretty much all the time. I think a mature understanding of Meta relies on not blanketly saying it's bad, but distinguishing between different OOC motivations.

[EvilElitest]

actually, ignoring the debate i need to apologizers for something. As informed to me by a member of these forums, i allowed person feelings to get in the way of making a reasonable option and instigated taht Rutee was a hypocrite because of comments made on other boards. The comment has since been edited, but i will say that it was wrong of my to judge you rutee for prior comments, and i am sorry for allowing my temper to get ahead of me. Thank you for that person who caught me on taht, and again rutee i'm sorry. It was wrong of me, being arrogant, rude and uncivil and i will try my best to avoid that in the future

from
EE

[JaxGaret]

Is the OP ever going to come back and shed some light on the questions we all have?

[Pronounceable]

The declaration that your character would do this, in situation X, is by default a change. It also does not change that the players' narrative voice is being co-opted by the GM. I'm all for recognizing that characters aren't people, just fictional constructs, but that doesn't change the offensive (To me) segments of this plotline (Which are both remedied by asking for the players' permission first).

But I didn't say anything about situation X which changed the characters. I can see that saying "BBEG had your mom killed by these elves, and you snapped and slaughtered the elf village" would upset a player. There was a situation X which changed the PC, but it won't be revealed to the players.

My stance is that this plot doesn't interfere with players' PCs in any way. That is, unless the event that changed the PC into an NPC is revealed to the player.


You can only write or act in drama if you don't know what's going on? Liking drama has nothing to do with needing to be surprised. It is a false statement that only through surprise can you build suspense. Suspense can be built in a variety of ways, surprise being the single most commonly held notion of it, but that same feeling of excitement doesn't require it.

You're right, but this is obviously intended to be a surprise to players. And asking them beforehand would ruin it.


But your character's reaction can really only be refined by /you/ knowing the deal.

Maybe for an author, but not a roleplayer. An author can think long and hard on how a character will react to a surprise. But the game is for the players, not PCs. The aim here is to surprise the players (implicit assumption: everyone likes little surprises). Tipping them off so they can construct their PCs' response to a surprise is quite contrary to the main point. It may make a more internally consistent story, but at the cost of a surprise ruined for the player (again the assumption: everyone likes cool surprises).


But shock and story telling aren't separate, their quite similar. A storyteller needs to shock his audience with what they don't expect

Not exactly. An unsurprising story is like a zoo without an elephant. It's still a zoo, but visitors will feel unsatisfied when they leave.


Honestly, any of the above possibilities do not suggest "better" or "worse" role players. Rather, they suggest different tastes and styles of gaming. Just because someone doesn't like having control of their character wrested from their grasp doesn't mean they're immature, or not fitting into some sort of idea of 'high' role playing.

But the PCs aren't being wrested away as I've tried to prove (quite confusingly) above. They're just changing hands, so to speak.

[Rutee]

But I didn't say anything about situation X which changed the characters. I can see that saying "BBEG had your mom killed by these elves, and you snapped and slaughtered the elf village" would upset a player. There was a situation X which changed the PC, but it won't be revealed to the players.

My stance is that this plot doesn't interfere with players' PCs in any way. That is, unless the event that changed the PC into an NPC is revealed to the player.
Well, here we must simply disagree. We have the same grasp of the facts, and different priorities on a level that causes a shift to be improbable. My stance is that it does not matter if it changes the PCs, because it's still removing player choice on two levels (In a narrative sense, and in the less abstract and more widely valued character choice sense; Even if it doesn't change my /avatar/, ti's still dictating to me what my avatar would have done if event X had happened)



You're right, but this is obviously intended to be a surprise to players. And asking them beforehand would ruin it.
True, but he also asked us how we would run it. I wouldn't run it as a surprise, period.




Maybe for an author, but not a roleplayer. An author can think long and hard on how a character will react to a surprise. But the game is for the players, not PCs. The aim here is to surprise the players (implicit assumption: everyone likes little surprises). Tipping them off so they can construct their PCs' response to a surprise is quite contrary to the main point. It may make a more internally consistent story, but at the cost of a surprise ruined for the player (again: everyone likes cool surprises).
No, they do not necessarily like cool surprises. The way I see it, you can't treat a player as more of an audience member then a playwright. In general, you have to treat them as equal parts both. In general, I would be fine with a cool surprise on me, as a whole, provided it did not do one of two things:
1: Dramatic shift in story tone. A 'cool surprise' that turns a mecha game into an utter soap opera would be a sufficient shift in story tone that would break it. I always expect even the most comic and silly to take an eventual, if temporary, shift towards the serious, but not the core assumption of the game's tone.
2: Dictating the one thing in the setting that is to be unequivocally in my control.



Not exactly. An unsurprising story is like a zoo without an elephant. It's still a zoo, but visitors will feel unsatisfied when they leave.
Not exactly. An unsurprising story is like a zoo without an elephant. If you came there expecting an elephant and didn't get one, you'll feel unsatisfied. But if you'd rather go to the snake pit, or the pengins, and don't give a damn about the elephants, you won't mind much ~.^


But the PCs aren't being wrested away as I've tried to prove (quite confusingly) above. They're just changing hands, so to speak.

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. You've only demonstrated that per your metrics, nothing has changed. This doesn't prove that by all metrics, nothing has changed.

[Kompera]

What happens if the players start hurting innocent people in your games? Do you bump them down to non-protagonist status?
If they commit enough evil acts for you to rule them as having changed alignment to evil, of course.


The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.
Unless you're house ruling evil alignments for player characters, once they become evil you ask for the character sheet and run the character as an NPC.

[Heliomance]

Um - evil characters aren't a house rule. There is an entire sourcebook - The Book of Vile Darkness - dedicated to helping you run a game with evil characters.

[Cuddly]

Try not to resort to ad-hominims, please. Some people have an investment in their characters and feel that they should have a say in whether the character they created and played becomes a rampaging lunatic. Odd, I know, but they do get upset when control of someone that is effectively them is taken out of their hands.

Yeah, and I offered advice if that was the case.
Lighten up, dood.

[Dervag]

:smallconfused:

You can only write or act in drama if you don't know what's going on? Liking drama has nothing to do with needing to be surprised. It is a false statement that only through surprise can you build suspense. Suspense can be built in a variety of ways, surprise being the single most commonly held notion of it, but that same feeling of excitement doesn't require it.However, some very artistically good drama has been done by directors who kept secrets about the script from the actors.

Example: Dr. Strangelove. Slim Pickens, playing the B-52 commander, is hilarious in context. However, he wasn't actually told what the movie was about. He was just given the script for his parts and told to play it absolutely straight. It's not clear if he could have done as marvelous a job of portraying the heroic gung-ho bomber pilot if he'd realized the movie was about a crazy general ordering his squadron to nuke Russia, and about his otherwise heroic efforts to get his bomber through to a Soviet missile launch pad triggering doomsday.

Maybe he could. Maybe he couldn't. Hard to say, but the product was certainly good as it was.

[Leliel]

Is the OP ever going to come back and shed some light on the questions we all have?


Sure. Ask away.