Game Masters taking control of player characters

[Talakeal]

It is quite common, both online and in person, for Game Masters to set limits on the type of characters which will be allowed in the game, for example, core only or no evil characters, as well as guidelines for behavior, for example no abusing WBL or PVP combat.

It is also quite common for people to state that the DM never has any right to tell a player what their character does; a character's actions are for the PC alone and sacrosanct to DM interference.

My question is, what happens when these two principles come into conflict?

For example, I have seen many DMs, both online and in person say, for example, "My PC's can't do X because X is an evil action, and I don't allow evil characters," or "I only allow core races, if you permanently polymorph into a giant you will no longer be a PC."

However, I haven't ever seen the issue actually forced.

So, has anyone ever actually seen a player taken away from a PC for bad behavior?

Philosophically, how do you feel about the issue? Who is in the right here? How should such a situation be resolved?

[OldTrees1]

Warning: Your phrasing(title and opening post) is a bit charged. Perhaps a quick rephrasing will help stave of the consequences.



You are asking what happens when a Player wants their PC to do something not allowed in the particular game.

Reminder: Many answers may include "talk to the player" but "talk to the player" is an incomplete answer.

Example 1:
In a no evil characters campaign Sir John has started to slip. Based on how the character evolved the character would slowly start to slip from neutral to evil. Does the DM countermand the Player's choice of evil action, allow the action but have the PC become an NPC so the Player will have a non evil PC, have an evil PC, or ???

Example 2:
The DM does not like using polymorph to permanently become a non core race. A Player of a Wizard PC attempts to permanently polymorph into a giant. Does the DM countermand the choice of action, allow the action but turn the PC into an NPC, allow the action, or ???


Personally I see degrees to each of these examples (at least when abstracted) and recognize that some of these judgements will be subjective (causing even more spread on the answer continuum). I countermand any action that I have ruled illegal (ban lists / balance rulings / breaking the social contract) as the role of referee dictates. Violations of conventions (silly things like a "no evil party" convention) would be allowed but render the PC an NPC*. If there is anything lesser to violate, I don't see it and probably would just accept the shift.


*The only such convention I have ever used is "All characters must have at least 1 approved homebrew feature. Features designed by the Player with me are encouraged."


Philosophically: The restrictions are placed prior to character generation (they should also have been communicated at that time). They are part of world building (just like setting the rules of the game and the in game physics). Player action still allowed by the rules (game and social) are under the player's sole control.

[JNAProductions]

Seconded on that being a charged as hell title. I'd rephrase, and quickly.

As for that... It depends on why the restrictions are in place, really.

[Winter_Wolf]

I've seen the drama of no evil PCs allowed before. The DM ended up telling the player that his character could feel the stain on his soul as he contemplated the alignment changing act and basically offered the choice of "change your mind and keep your character or do it and he's now an NPC." The player was entirely too graphic in his description of the intended torture of the prisoner. TMI, guy, TMI. I wonder if he was drawing on his military experience in that, but more likely he had some baggage the rest of the group didn't know about.

[Vitruviansquid]

Philosophically: The GM is like a king, like Agamemnon or Charlemagne. That doesn't necessarily mean the GM shouldn't compromise or listen to the players - good kings compromised and listened to their nobles. But at the end of the day, the king calls the shots, and everybody else falls into line.

Why?

1. MOST games require far more effort to be a GM than a player. I think greater effort put in should equate to greater creative control.

2. MOST games I know of are organized and hosted by the GM, rather than a player.

3. The campaign could survive if a player leaves. The campaign dies if the GM leaves.

I see a lot of really extreme, vocal rule-setting by GMs and players on this board. There are statements like the "NO GM should EVER tell you what your character thinks or how your character acts" you pointed out. But honestly, I have never seen a table that did not have plenty of room for compromise and working things out. Your table would be downright Talakealean if the GM and players are laying ultimatums at each other as commonly as the forums would have me believe.

[Slipperychicken]

I see your players are still terrible. I don't know how you've put up with it all these years.

Philosophically, how do you feel about the issue? Who is in the right here? How should such a situation be resolved?

It's an OOC problem, and the only times I've seen it resolved properly were OOC. You don't tell the player what his PC does. You put on your serious voice and tell the player (the guy at the table, in real life) that he agreed to play in a certain way, and if he doesn't like that, then he will not play in your game. It's not your job to babysit him; when he goes against the game's rules and etiquette, he is wasting the free time of you and everyone else at the table, and that is not acceptable. If he continues to refuse to play by the rules he agreed to, then you kick him out. It's that simple.

[Talakeal]

I see your players are still terrible. I don't know how you've put up with it all these years.




It's an OOC problem, and the only times I've seen it resolved properly were OOC. You don't tell the player what his PC does. You put on your serious voice and tell the player (the guy at the table, in real life) that he agreed to play in a certain way, and if he doesn't like that, then he will not play in your game. It's not your job to babysit him; when he goes against the game's rules and etiquette, he is wasting the free time of you and everyone else at the table, and that is not acceptable. If he continues to refuse to play by the rules he agreed to, then you kick him out. It's that simple.

Honestly this is more of a theoretical problem than a real problem. I have seen both DM's and players make threats irl, but I have never seen anyone on either side actually push the issue.

I do see it all the time on the forums though.

A long time ago I mentioned I had a house rule not letting PCs farm one another for loot (basically loot a dead PC, refuse to raise them, and then have their replacement come in with full WBL), I was told almost unanimously by this board that as a DM I had no right to tell players whether or not they could have their characters loot something.

On the other hand I have seen several threads recently about undead in D&D and how if a player character decides to summon or become undead then the DM will quickly take control of their character away from them and convert it to an NPC.

Seconded on that being a charged as hell title. I'd rephrase, and quickly.

I guess its a little click-baitey, but I am not seeing why it is that inappropriate. Any idea what I should change it to or why?

[Slipperychicken]

Honestly this is more of a theoretical problem than a real problem. I have seen both DM's and players make threats irl, but I have never seen anyone on either side actually push the issue.

I do see it all the time on the forums though.

A long time ago I mentioned I had a house rule not letting PCs farm one another for loot (basically loot a dead PC, refuse to raise them, and then have their replacement come in with full WBL), I was told almost unanimously by this board that as a DM I had no right to tell players whether or not they could have their characters loot something.

Thankfully it doesn't come up much in real life because players usually know better. And also, if you can say with credibility that you'll kick out troublemakers, people understand and respect that. They're not as likely to push the limits then.

As for the looting thing, I used to think that way a while back, but I see the other side of it now. If your players agreed to the houserule, they really have no business trying to go against it. Also, 3rd edition and the culture around it had a huge degree of DM-disempowerment, where DMs were expected to allow players to do anything permitted by RAW, no matter how harmful it was to the game or the OOC social context. I participated in that myself, and I realize now that it was a deeply flawed and unhealthy attitude for the community to take.

[Segev]

Regarding "no right to tell PCs not to loot each other," I sympathize with that position (and it sounds like something I might have said), but I will point out that nothing requires you to allow the replacement PC to have a fresh stock of items for his level-appropriate wealth. You can declare that the party either leaves the stuff, or he has to get it from the party when he joins up rather than getting his own new set of WBL-provided loot.


Ultimately, there are points where a PC ceases to be a member of the party and has to be retired. This can happen for any number of reasons, and the "Sir John has become the enemy!" scenario is one of them. The party should not abide the evil PC's presence, given their overall goodness.

Of course, if the whole party is slipping that way, and it makes the game unenjoyable for you to run, the whole game gets retired. It's not a punishment; they just don't want to play the game you have planned. (Maybe somebody else will run a game for that party? You could even be a PC in it then, if you wanted.)

[Lacco]

I usually put two rules in place before the game starts.

First: Each person at the table is responsible for enjoyment of all attendees.
Basically - don't be a jerk to people, and try to have everone enjoy the game. If someone doesn't want to enjoy the game, he can leave.

Second: If you start PvP without prior agreement with the player who is under attack (or you provoke it), congrats, your PC changed into NPC.
I have no problem with two PCs fistfighting or even duking it out if that's what they enjoy. But if one of them directly starts - he is overstepping rule 1 and as such - can leave.

I have yet to use more than "strict voice" and some fatherly advice to the players involved - never had to take away control of PC, but mostly because the rules are in place and respected.

Of course, this is invalidated in case of Toon or Paranoia...

[goto124]

Breaking rules that were in place before the game starts? That's rather clear-cut. Talakeal, you have my sympathies.

How do GMs deal with rules-lawyers attempting ludicrous things that are technically allowed by RAW?

[Vitruviansquid]

Breaking rules that were in place before the game starts? That's rather clear-cut. Talakeal, you have my sympathies.

How do GMs deal with rules-lawyers attempting ludicrous things that are technically allowed by RAW?

I tell them it's ludicrous and won't work, then consider changing systems.

[Geddy2112]

It is totally acceptable for a DM to say "in this game, you cannot be evil" or "in this game, there are no halflings" or in this game" no orcs, goblins, monster races". Just because there are rules for these things, the DM creates a game and setting as they see fit. They can choose to allow these things and the rules that support them, or choose not to.

Players should know clearly, up front, if any of these rules are in effect. They should also know things like "if your character becomes evil, or permanently transmutes into a hippo, they have to be retired as an NPC and you have to bring in something new". This should never be used as a "trap" or to punish "bad behavior". Sometimes, in a character's natural progression, they start to believe things and take actions that make them philosophically and practically incompatible with the party. This is natural, and players should understand that in the scope of this game they have to retire the character. This happens more in longer campaigns, where characters can develop and make major changes over a long time.

Bad behavior would be things that disrupt the game and party fun- it could be the character running a total joke, or acting like a dingus murderhobo. Or the player constantly texting and never paying attention, or constantly cracking unrelated jokes/anecdotes when others are trying to roleplay. None of this is solved by taking away their PC.

However, it might make sense that the party druid finds a place they feel they are needed, and tells the rest of the party they must stay behind and defend the sacred dryad grove or what have you. Maybe the cleric decided they need to go back and serve the clergy, or get into politics. Maybe the barbarian finally lost it for good and is unable to feel morality, slaughtering everything in sight. These characters won't continue on the adventure, but they did not do anything wrong-they went on an adventure and developed accordingly. There were not "gotcha" traps where a character commits one off hand evil act and gets the NPC stick. These should be conscious choices by the player, and by the character in game.

[WarKitty]

Are we including temporary "no, your pc didn't do what you just said they did" situations?

[OldTrees1]

Are we including temporary "no, your pc didn't do what you just said they did" situations?

That is the DM countermanding the Player's choice of action. So yes, that DM decision is relevant.

[Red Fel]

It is quite common, both online and in person, for Game Masters to set limits on the type of characters which will be allowed in the game, for example, core only or no evil characters, as well as guidelines for behavior, for example no abusing WBL or PVP combat.

It is also quite common for people to state that the DM never has any right to tell a player what their character does; a character's actions are for the PC alone and sacrosanct to DM interference.

My question is, what happens when these two principles come into conflict?

Here's the thing.

If a GM sets up expectations in advance of the game, those rules are part of the rules of the game world. "No Evil PCs" or "No Dragon PCs" or what-have-you become rules.

A player's expectations that his character remains within his control are subject to the rules of the game world. If one of these rules is "No X," the player is assuming the risk of consequence if he attempts to play an X. Thus, if the rule is "No Evil PCs" and one player makes his character Evil, he has knowingly forfeited the character. A warning is appropriate; after that, the character has broken the rule and gets NPC'd, much like a number of other contexts in which a character becomes unplayable.

That's not "bad behavior." Others have mentioned it, but it really, really bears repeating.

"Bad behavior" is a player problem. When the player is disruptive or unpleasant, or deliberately plays his character in a disruptive way, that's "bad behavior" and an OOC problem; it merits an OOC response. Taking away a character is not an OOC response; it is an IC response.

Alignment actions, however, are an IC action that merits an IC response.

For example, I have seen many DMs, both online and in person say, for example, "My PC's can't do X because X is an evil action, and I don't allow evil characters,"

This isn't okay. A DM doesn't get to retcon a PC's actions without the consent of the table, or at least of the player. The more appropriate action is a warning to the player - "That action was Evil. This is a non-Evil game. If your character continues to act in an Evil fashion, he'll have an alignment shift and become an NPC."

or "I only allow core races, if you permanently polymorph into a giant you will no longer be a PC."

This is trickier. On the one hand, Polymorph is an acceptable core option for casters. On the other, if they're using it to deliberately and permanently turn into something on the banned list, that's an exploit. It's certainly acceptable to warn them that a character who permanently becomes a banned race will be NPC'd.

The bottom line is this: Rules that are established at the outset of play are part and parcel with the game rules. If a character reaches -10 HP, he dies and becomes unplayable unless raised. That's a game rule, and people don't complain about that. (They complain about dying, but who doesn't?) Similarly, creatures with Int of 2 or less are not playable; if a character's Int is permanently reduced to that level, they become an NPC. Again, non-issue. So if you make a similar rule that certain alignments or races are banned, it is understood that a character who violates those bans becomes an NPC. It is not okay to retcon the PC's action without the player's permission. It is, however, appropriate to NPC the character.

[OldTrees1]

Here's the thing.

If a GM sets up expectations in advance of the game, those rules are part of the rules of the game world. It is not okay to retcon the PC's action without the player's permission. It is, however, appropriate to NPC the character.

That this is true in the general case is self evident.

What about when the Player tries to do some thing more like this: "Spell XYZ is banned in this campaign" "My Wizard researches spell XYZ and then casts spell XYZ". Is this a case where the action should be retconned/countermanded/otherwise not happen?

If the answer is yes, then how does one identify the divide between "retcon/countermand" and "now they are an NPC"?

[Douche]

I was discussing the spell Geas with my party the other day... Someone said it was basically put in there for DMs to use against unruly players.

The fact that a 3rd level Remove Curse can take it off when it's cast at 9th level kind of sucks though

[Red Fel]

That this is true in the general case is self evident.

What about when the Player tries to do some thing more like this: "Spell XYZ is banned in this campaign" "My Wizard researches spell XYZ and then casts spell XYZ". Is this a case where the action should be retconned/countermanded/otherwise not happen?

If the answer is yes, then how does one identify the divide between "retcon/countermand" and "now they are an NPC"?

Think about it this way. A player has to tell you what his character is doing. It's not like, if the camp is raided in the middle of the night, a player can say, "Nope, didn't happen, because I cast Alarm last night," despite the fact that he told nobody. The player doesn't get to backtrack and claim he did something if he failed to tell everyone (unless you give him a pass).

So he has to tell you he's doing it, before he does it. And you can remind him that it's impossible. Much like if a Fighter says, "I punch the moon," you can point out that he's not even next to the moon, like not even close, and how does that even work seriously you guys. This is a context in which something is impossible to do. It's not a case of it not being allowed, it's not possible.

This is the distinction. If a PC decides to go murder orphans and puppies, it is possible. In fact, it's remarkably easy. It's also the player's choice, and not an action you should countermand as DM. It's also Evil, and grounds for getting NPC'd. If, on the other hand, a PC decides to breathe fire - despite having no apparatus or means whatsoever to do so - it is impossible. As DM, you simply point that out - "This is an impossible thing. You fail."

When you have banned certain abilities or features, as opposed to courses of action or the consequences thereof - those abilities become impossibilities. It is not inappropriate to inform the player that their character is attempting to do the impossible, and will fail.

[Pyrous]

That this is true in the general case is self evident.

What about when the Player tries to do some thing more like this: "Spell XYZ is banned in this campaign" "My Wizard researches spell XYZ and then casts spell XYZ". Is this a case where the action should be retconned/countermanded/otherwise not happen?

Yes.

"Oh, your wizard researched spell XYZ, that I told you was banned. I guess that's my wizard now."

"Spell XYZ fizzles."

"Please don't do this. We agreed that this spell was banned."

If the answer is yes, then how does one identify the divide between "retcon/countermand" and "now they are an NPC"?

If the group agreed to a houserule, and one player breaks it, they are giving up the PC, trying to be disruptive, or simply forgot/weren't paying atention. The first results in NPCing the character, the last in retcon/countermand, and the second needs to be dealt OOC.

Of course, the GM should always remember the player that there is an agreement to not take the action. If the player says "My character would do this and if he gets NPC'd, that's OK.", then you should NPC the character. If the player says "Oops sorry, I forgot.", you retcon it.

And if the player says "It's my character and the rules says I can do it and you can't take my character.", then the player is being deliberately disruptive. You should stop the session and discuss this with the group.

[Segev]

"Spell XYZ is banned, and you know it. It doesn't exist in this game. Pick a different one."

[Talakeal]

The bottom line is this: Rules that are established at the outset of play are part and parcel with the game rules. If a character reaches -10 HP, he dies and becomes unplayable unless raised. That's a game rule, and people don't complain about that. (They complain about dying, but who doesn't?) Similarly, creatures with Int of 2 or less are not playable; if a character's Int is permanently reduced to that level, they become an NPC. Again, non-issue. So if you make a similar rule that certain alignments or races are banned, it is understood that a character who violates those bans becomes an NPC. It is not okay to retcon the PC's action without the player's permission. It is, however, appropriate to NPC the character.

Ok, here is a gaming story:

In my last group, which was run by a terrible DM, we had a DMPC thrust on the party. We complained, and the DM said "She is joining the party and won't take no for an answer. There is nothing you can do about it, and she is going to follow you around and help no matter what you say or do" I said, "Technically, we could just let her follow us into the wilderness, wait until she makes camp, and then murder her in her sleep,"

At which point the DM said "Oh no you can't. As soon as you declare the intention to attack her, that turns you evil. And since I don't allow evil PCs you become an NPC. And as soon you are an NPC you are under my control, and I decide not to go through with the murder. At that point the PC becomes good again and you can have control back, but keep in mind if you become evil again the same situation will occur."

I just laughed it off as another example of my terrible DM being terrible. But since that I have noticed an alarming number of threads on this forum (most involving the creation of undead) that echo that sentiment almost exactly and make me feel that it is actually a common line of thought for DMs rather than one off craziness.

Second: If you start PvP without prior agreement with the player who is under attack (or you provoke it), congrats, your PC changed into NPC. I have no problem with two PCs fistfighting or even duking it out if that's what they enjoy. But if one of them directly starts - he is overstepping rule 1 and as such - can leave.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by provoking it? I am not sure if I really like this rule or hate it, depending on what you mean by provoke.

For example, in my current game I am playing a "big dumb fighter with a low charisma," and I commonly find myself in a situation where I say something mean and blunt to another player (RPing my low Cha) or do something they don't approve of, so they retaliate by attacking my resources (either stealing from me or trying to turn one of my allies against me through manipulation) as I lack the cleverness or social skills to respond in kind my only recourse is to attack them physically, but the DM has a no PVP rule so I am left at an impasse.

How would your rule on this situation?

[Segev]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by provoking it? I am not sure if I really like this rule or hate it, depending on what you mean by provoke.

For example, in my current game I am playing a "big dumb fighter with a low charisma," and I commonly find myself in a situation where I say something mean and blunt to another player (RPing my low Cha) or do something they don't approve of, so they retaliate by attacking my resources (either stealing from me or trying to turn one of my allies against me through manipulation) as I lack the cleverness or social skills to respond in kind my only recourse is to attack them physically, but the DM has a no PVP rule so I am left at an impasse.

How would your rule on this situation?

Personally, the reading I give to "or provoke it" is to make sure that the jerks who are stealing from you can't point fingers and say you're to blame for retaliating IC with violence. That you PvP'd and that they did not. Their PvP was the provocation of your PvP. i.e. "they started it."

[Red Fel]

Ok, here is a gaming story:

In my last group, which was run by a terrible DM,

Say no more.

Seriously, though. No more.

we had a DMPC thrust on the party. We complained, and the DM said "She is joining the party and won't take no for an answer. There is nothing you can do about it, and she is going to follow you around and help no matter what you say or do" I said, "Technically, we could just let her follow us into the wilderness, wait until she makes camp, and then murder her in her sleep,"

At which point the DM said "Oh no you can't. As soon as you declare the intention to attack her, that turns you evil. And since I don't allow evil PCs you become an NPC. And as soon you are an NPC you are under my control, and I decide not to go through with the murder. At that point the PC becomes good again and you can have control back, but keep in mind if you become evil again the same situation will occur."

I just laughed it off as another example of my terrible DM being terrible. But since that I have noticed an alarming number of threads on this forum (most involving the creation of undead) that echo that sentiment almost exactly and make me feel that it is actually a common line of thought for DMs rather than one off craziness.

I... must not have been reading the same threads.

I've seen plenty of threads that might say something along the lines of, "You attempt to murder a sleeping, helpless target, you go Evil." I've seen threads that say, for instance, "You create an Undead army, you go Evil." And I've seen threads that say, "Okay, your character went Evil. Time to roll up a new character."

But I haven't seen threads that say, "You declared an Evil action, roll up a new character."

It's a very faint distinction, but one that makes a difference. In one case, your character is being booted because you - the player - pondered a course of action with which the DM disagreed. In the other case, your character is being booted because of something the character did.

Have you ever read or watched Minority Report? The spoiler-free premise is that it deals with a society in which crime can be predicted, and therefore people are charged with "future crimes." In the context of a game, that's bad. Banning the character because the player intended to do something is an out-of-character issue and a problem. Banning the character because the character's actions directly resulted in it becoming unplayable is a reasonable result. The key distinction is that the actions had to happen in order for the consequence to properly result.

[daremetoidareyo]

Ok, here is a gaming story:

In my last group, which was run by a terrible DM, we had a DMPC thrust on the party. We complained, and the DM said "She is joining the party and won't take no for an answer. There is nothing you can do about it, and she is going to follow you around and help no matter what you say or do" I said, "Technically, we could just let her follow us into the wilderness, wait until she makes camp, and then murder her in her sleep,"

At which point the DM said "Oh no you can't. As soon as you declare the intention to attack her, that turns you evil. And since I don't allow evil PCs you become an NPC. And as soon you are an NPC you are under my control, and I decide not to go through with the murder. At that point the PC becomes good again and you can have control back, but keep in mind if you become evil again the same situation will occur."

I just laughed it off as another example of my terrible DM being terrible. But since that I have noticed an alarming number of threads on this forum (most involving the creation of undead) that echo that sentiment almost exactly and make me feel that it is actually a common line of thought for DMs rather than one off craziness.



Can you elaborate on what you mean by provoking it? I am not sure if I really like this rule or hate it, depending on what you mean by provoke.

For example, in my current game I am playing a "big dumb fighter with a low charisma," and I commonly find myself in a situation where I say something mean and blunt to another player (RPing my low Cha) or do something they don't approve of, so they retaliate by attacking my resources (either stealing from me or trying to turn one of my allies against me through manipulation) as I lack the cleverness or social skills to respond in kind my only recourse is to attack them physically, but the DM has a no PVP rule so I am left at an impasse.

How would your rule on this situation?

You pondered killing a DMPC? Out loud?


Little secret: Use high damage area effects where the DMPC is fighting. They always survive. Never fail a save...because if they did fail the save, well then the DMPC might not survive to feed you the next plot point.

You can't kill a DMPC because that is the framework by which the DM gets to enjoy their gameworld. It's like sundering the PC paladin's holy avenger. You'll never ever ever ever hear the end of it. And the holy avenger always returns.

Warning: The following is bad advice. But it is fun to kick around, and perhaps implement, but only because you enjoy someone else's frustration.

You can use the plot armor as a hickup. Flask throwing fire and acid with irresponsible splash control is highly suggested. Or just being an "absent minded" blaster mage. Just heap the area affects on the DMPC whenever they are surrounded by more than one enemy.

Also make battle plans that put the DMPC in the highest amount of direct damage fire, and then tactically retreat with your team. Once your a good movement distance away, disguised as tactical movement for ranged shots, then shout, "Retreat!!!" and see if the DMPC makes it through. They do. And they might even defeat the rest of the bad guys for you. If this is the case, really chew them out as "not being a team player. They could have died." (yeah right) Tell them that the whole team was planning on drawing the enemies out and kiting them, and that the their lonewolf showboating is dangerous for the team. Then demand that they leave. The DMPC won't, but absent minded stuff like the stuff above, becomes far more plausible when you have constructed the DMPC as an unwelcome and meddlesome combatant who happens to be on their side.

DMPCs really hate being off camera. So splitting up, changing focus to different quests after starting to investigate one, or anchoring a number of PCs to one location through "family" "business" "mentors" and mechanical advantages derived from them is a good way to frustrate the adventuring desires of a DMPC. They will go off screen and finish the quests that you don't want to do. I've seen it happen. I've seen players trapped listening to the tale of the adventures of the great and fabulous Dee'em Piecy, aasimar PC with a Unicorn Mount. Because the players drug their heels on one plot line and pushed the boundaries of another until it bore fruit.

Another option, one which I have never tried, but I think would be an absolute blast is to roll up a character, dump charisma. And take every flaw and feat pertaining physical ugliness there is. And constantly hit on the DMPC. Aberrant spawn deformity half orc. Really push the bounds of it, in a classy way, of course. Like legit Mad Martigan fall in love: recite good and bad poetry to them. Be visually disgusting and revolting and sweet as a little cupid on a cloud. Just enough to grow revulsion and disgust playing your character. If you die, promise to wait for the DMPC in heaven. Force the beauty and beast narrative constantly. And eventually...

...

...

You will get talked to out of character. Which is your chance to express how cool the DMPC is. Or complain about having the group space being taken up by a character that cannot possibly have the same solidarity as PCs constantly spying on them. For all the PCs know, the DMPC is a doppleganger. Or maybe it's uncomfortable to share the spotlight with the DMPC, or whatever it is that makes having a mandatory little brother around stink. Explain that being the affectionate PC allows you to be in the spotlight too. You orginally wanted to be an ugly monster working for redemption, but it was difficult to play that character ark when it felt like there was a distractingly out of place character thrust upon you after discussing with the other players what the team composition was going to be.

[Darth Ultron]

So, has anyone ever actually seen a player taken away from a PC for bad behavior?

I do it all the time. If a player is a jerk and disrupts the game I will take control of the character in a second.

Though this also counts for things like the player agreed to not be evil and 10 minutes later he wants to burn down a home for lost children just to get some XP. Then yes, I'll take control and say ''your character does not do that''.

I'll even go the route of when the player is just being silly and they want to ''pull on the beard of the kings dwarf guard..hehe'', that I will just say ''you don't do that''......or just stop them in the game..or have the action not matter...or just out right punish the player.

Philosophically, how do you feel about the issue? Who is in the right here? How should such a situation be resolved?

The DM is always right.

One of the DM's main jobs is to keep control of the game. So this is just part of that. The DM has too keep the game fun and exciting and interesting for everyone. The group is more important then an individual.

[Talakeal]

The DM is always right.

One of the DM's main jobs is to keep control of the game. So this is just part of that. The DM has too keep the game fun and exciting and interesting for everyone. The group is more important then an individual.

Ah, but what if the individual in question IS the DM?

[Darth Ultron]

Ah, but what if the individual in question IS the DM?

What is the DM is the one disrupting the game? Well, there is no ''in game'' cure for that. The players can't ''out vote'' the DM or take control of the game world The players can only ''talk'' to the DM or leave the game.

[valadil]

There are two versions of each character. The one in the player's head and the one in the GM's head. When they get out of sync, someone has a bad time.

What I do when a player attempts something that seems out of character to me isn't to tell them "so-and-so wouldn't do that, so you can't do that." Instead I use something like "That action doesn't jive with my understanding of so-and-so. Could you tell explain why it's in character so I can fix my understanding of who the character is?" It's totally non-confrontational. The player can back out (they usually do), but it doesn't look like I took their choices away. I'm sure an antogonistic player could abuse me, but I try to avoid inviting them to games.

[nedz]

For example, in my current game I am playing a "big dumb fighter with a low charisma," and I commonly find myself in a situation where I say something mean and blunt to another player (RPing my low Cha) or do something they don't approve of, so they retaliate by attacking my resources (either stealing from me or trying to turn one of my allies against me through manipulation) as I lack the cleverness or social skills to respond in kind my only recourse is to attack them physically, but the DM has a no PVP rule so I am left at an impasse.

this is PvP - complain to your DM
Either they can't do this, or you can attack them.

I don't ban PvP BTW - it just never happens; OK except for IC reasons, but they are very rare.