Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This will be my first time playing, but I am experienced in both creative writing and role-playing. I plan on my character having split personalities, in which one is an evil, conniving conman, with a quick with and a silver tongue, and the other being a kind, if unintelligent, fighter.

I was thinking of making separate character sheets with different stats for each, but my friend who is bringing me in advised against it. What assistance would you offer dakka?

I am also trying to think of some sort of trigger that changes them, that is at least semi-regular, like combat, or a day-night cycle.

moom241 wrote:This will be my first time playing, but I am experienced in both creative writing and role-playing. I plan on my character having split personalities, in which one is an evil, conniving conman, with a quick with and a silver tongue, and the other being a kind, if unintelligent, fighter.

I was thinking of making separate character sheets with different stats for each, but my friend who is bringing me in advised against it. What assistance would you offer dakka?

I am also trying to think of some sort of trigger that changes them, that is at least semi-regular, like combat, or a day-night cycle.

if you're new to the game, I would not recommend this. The GM may veto it for several reasonable and valid reasons: It's got potential to be power-gamey. It's definitely a potential 'scene stealer' where the GM has to spend more time dealing with you than the other players (unfair to them). It's not a 'standard' rules-option for most versions.

If you're set on it and the GM agrees, I do like having a regular trigger.

Yeah, make sure you have GM buy-in on this. If he's prepared to cope with it, only then should you proceed. You probably shouldn't have different stats for both. That complicates things and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Mental stats, maybe, but why should you suddenly get physically stronger just because you dumbed down? I could see temporary bonuses to mental stats when you're in Hyde-mode, but those should accompany a fitting drawback, such as compulsive vices you have to will save to resist following out on or something like that. I'm doing similar things right now in my game, but it's a lot of work.

Something else that would be good is if you didn't even know what the trigger was for your transformation, the GM just gives you the nod when it happens. Would be even cooler if you could keep it from the other players as best as possible. Is it a horror themed game? Maybe you could be aware of it and tormented by it. One of my guys gets puppeteered occasionally while he sleeps and made to do things. It's deeply unsettling for him, even though everything he's done has be almost prescient (and good aligned).

The problem is, going back to the initial point, is that this is all extra burden on the GM. Get the stamp of approval on it.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with don't. Even if the GM approves it and is good to go with the extra work, the players probably won't be.

Secretly evil characters in PC parties generally end up with player kills at some point. If the whole party isn't up for that, that can be a heavy bummer for them to take on.

Almost by definition it doesn't work, since you should have your party's consent, but then they know your secret.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I will say it definitely requires the rest of the party to be playing semi-dubious people also. We had a total miscreant in a party once with a paladin and it worked pretty well. The paladin did the "naive enough for our sake" thing, and let me (the bard) distract her whenever the evil guy needed to do his dirty work. We were all on the darker sides of neutral though except for her. It was a weird dynamic, but you really need everyone else in on it for it to work, but as pretre says, that defeats the purpose of this.

I think there's a difference between total miscreant and evil though. Of course, if the party is mostly evil or uncaring it doesn't matter.

In most 'normal' heroic games, one guy playing the secret bad guy can really mess stuff up for other players.

I usually see those things as finally getting exposed and then the player ending up having to play a new character because they run away or kill/get killed. It is possible that an understanding party might try to cure him, but it is just tough to tell without knowing your players.

Get your feet under you and a feel for your group before you make any big RP jumps.

I played a similar character who had a 'tainted' side - was with GM go ahead and all changes were with GM saying 'you change'.

Another way was done with another member in a different game who had a character who, if startled, hurt etc, would randomly transform (if they failed a check)into one of several alternate characters the GM and player had thought up. Was quite fun and some of the characters were very strange.

Personality changes also work out well when introduced to an existing party group. Be the "kind, if unintelligent, fighter" for 6 months - let the players get used to this character, then let the "evil, conniving conman" start to slip out. If played correctly, it should really freak the other players out.

The other question is, how much role playing does this group do? You need a very verbal group to get the most out of a character like this. If they just want to chop and fight, there is no point to multiple personalities.

Yeah, probably only mental stats, no physical. They are into roleplaying, the GM is willing to test run, but he doesn't know how the trigger will work. I'll tell him it's up to him.

If it doesn't work out, I'll just make a new character.

A good friend and long time gaming buddy of mine did something like this in a game of ours. I'll sketch out how it worked so you can get an idea.

Basically, he'd built a character that was a warlock with a split personality. One side of his personality (Arkright) was mild mannered and rather timid, and had us all fooled into believing he was an Artificer by using the Warlock's item deception abilities to use any wands and stuff we found. He never used the eldritch blasts or any of that other stuff. He wasn't combat effective but that didn't bother our group at all (so that's something you might want to check).

Then about 3-4 months in, he got hit by a nasty explosion and hit his head. He woke up and suddenly had an impatient, imperious personality which was fairly shallow and vain, and started vaporising enemies with eldritch blasts, and flying! However, the player decided not to use any of his knowledge skills when playing this character (Alloicious).

We eventually figured out (when he got blasted back to being Arkright later on) how the trigger worked, and of course, being players, would seek to set it off on purpose. It worked well, but I think that's mainly because Allocious wasn't out to get us- he was still on our side, he was just an imperious douchebag who liked fancy clothes.

I've also played a couple of evil characters. One was in a "Good" group, and he was a neutral evil athasian bard. But once again, the key was that my goals aligned with the groups. The fun came from my using unscrupulous tactics they would disapprove of, quietly and without their notice. If they'd caught me, I would have considered it a fair cop. The character actually ended up switching to true neutral over the course of the campaign as he began to appreciate a bit more of what was at stake.
I also played a chaotic evil character in a mostly neutral or neutral evil group in a planescape campaign. He had no real goals beyond increasing his own power and enjoying himself, so I decided he would be someone who enjoyed having friends. I reasoned that even someone like him who has total disregard for the suffering of others would still enjoy having drinking buddies and understand the need for allies in an unfeeling world. So while he was violent and unpredictable as well as greedy and downright awful to anyone outside the group, to his "mates" he was pretty friendly and very, very generous (he didn't put much value on money). I also decided to make sure that he was generally on board with party goals.

I think it is important in these situations to always remember that roleplaying is a group activity and plan your character accordingly. Think about whether he will increase or decrease the fun of the other players and make some concessions to the concept for the sake of the group- I can almost guarantee you'll have a better game.

Maybe my character isn't quite evil as he is is "Self-centered and unnecessarily antagonistic,"

The Hyde's personality would be more about what's best for him, and how he could gain from any situation.

Oh, that's a bit different then. That should be fine.

Most adventurers are self-centered and unnecessarily antagonistic. It comes with the territory.

Yep, that sure is a Malkavian vampire.

Only really a strange character if you're unfamiliar with WoD/Storyteller systems, IMO.

I tend to find that unless your group is heavy into the rolEplaying of a campaign, interesting characters like that either get ignored or get killed because they're not effective enough for the rest of the party.

I made a chaotic neutral barbarian once who kicked down doors, threatened kobalds and threw people off roofs after they gave me information I needed. I got kicked out of my friends' D&D group. My first (out of 3) game ever. Of course, I did make the Paladin player so mad that he burned down an entire town just to kill me, then told me if I couldn't take the game seriously, I wasn't welcome back.

Thats exactly what I was warning against. D&D is a group game. You are all there to have fun, not just one person.

I understand. I'll clear it with the DM, and the other players if need be. I planned on this character being serious, and I plan on taking the story seriously.

Good luck and enjoy!

Chaotic Neutral means never having to say "I'm sorry." It irritates me when people use that alignment as an excuse to be a total jerk.

Da Boss wrote:Chaotic Neutral means never having to say "I'm sorry." It irritates me when people use that alignment as an excuse to be a total jerk.

Yeah, I mean, I get why it's there, but it is taken as kind of a carte blanche to just be an absolute sociopath.

"I'm Chaotic Neutral! I'm walking on my hands for no reason! I have genitalia painted on my shield! Wheeee!"

"No. None of that happens."

timetowaste85 wrote:I made a chaotic neutral barbarian once who kicked down doors, threatened kobalds and threw people off roofs after they gave me information I needed.

So, you made a Chaotic Evil Barbarian and said it was Chaotic Neutral.

Platuan4th wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:I made a chaotic neutral barbarian once who kicked down doors, threatened kobalds and threw people off roofs after they gave me information I needed.

So, you made a Chaotic Evil Barbarian and said it was Chaotic Neutral.

And then was surprised when you got kicked out of the group.

daedalus wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Chaotic Neutral means never having to say "I'm sorry." It irritates me when people use that alignment as an excuse to be a total jerk.

Yeah, I mean, I get why it's there, but it is taken as kind of a carte blanche to just be an absolute sociopath.

That's because no one actually READS the Chaotic Neutral descriptor. They don't respect Law and Order, they don't prefer Good or Evil, but they're not sociopaths. They simply follow whatever whim takes them at the time, ie. doing whatever they want, enjoying whatever they find desirable, and mostly being unreliable. Think Jack Sparrow. They do, in fact, care about other people, though.

If you want to play a sociopath, you play Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil. They actually ARE the MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME, MINEMINEMINEMINEMINEMINE alignments.

Balance wrote:

moom241 wrote:This will be my first time playing, but I am experienced in both creative writing and role-playing. I plan on my character having split personalities, in which one is an evil, conniving conman, with a quick with and a silver tongue, and the other being a kind, if unintelligent, fighter.

I was thinking of making separate character sheets with different stats for each, but my friend who is bringing me in advised against it. What assistance would you offer dakka?

I am also trying to think of some sort of trigger that changes them, that is at least semi-regular, like combat, or a day-night cycle.

if you're new to the game, I would not recommend this. The GM may veto it for several reasonable and valid reasons: It's got potential to be power-gamey. It's definitely a potential 'scene stealer' where the GM has to spend more time dealing with you than the other players (unfair to them). It's not a 'standard' rules-option for most versions.

If you're set on it and the GM agrees, I do like having a regular trigger.

Perhaps it could be simplified, such as moderate stat changes and a regular trigger. He could turn into the Hulk...

pretre wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:I made a chaotic neutral barbarian once who kicked down doors, threatened kobalds and threw people off roofs after they gave me information I needed.

So, you made a Chaotic Evil Barbarian and said it was Chaotic Neutral.

And then was surprised when you got kicked out of the group.

First time ever playing, and the DM recommended Chaotic Neutral as an alignment. And I talked to plenty of other D&D'ers after this game-one said that I played correctly and the paladin should have immediately been turned chaotic evil for his actions, another person told me I would have gained extra experience in his games for acting this way. I also had two full D&D group praise my actions as perfectly in character (my second and third/final games). The only person pissed off was the paladin player, so the other guys asked me not to come back just to avoid hearing him make a stink. I was, and still am friends with all of them-I just avoid D&D. I played a character who met his goals, got done what he needed to get done, and tied up loose ends in the process. I didn't do bad things maliciously, I just didn't care about the evil character's lackeys. I broke down an evil lord's door and threatened his kobald servant, after ordering information out of an informant who worked for him-I got rid of him after he was no longer useful. I apologize for none of my actions in the game. Perhaps more information was needed for you guys-sorry if there wasn't enough before. But as I said, I talked to my uncle who plays, a friend from my old game store, a group in my second college and a group in my old game store-not a single person said I was in the wrong-only the paladin was. All of these people I have argued with on separate occasions, so they'd have no problem telling me if I was in the wrong.

Also, pretre-I believe you meant "were surprised," not "was surprised" as the person of topic from your point of view should have been "you"-"you were," not "you was." Your friendly neighborhood English lesson is brought to you by the letter facepalm.

I think characters like this are best left to development. Too much interest is in creating interesting characters for start up. Frnkly I think start up characters should be generic, and then let them become interesting.

Sadly the D&D rules dont fully support this, you have to become the freak then find the freakshow, however with a GM's blessing you can work to a script by which for example a standard fighter gets possessed and wins back partial control, or aborbs a partial soul of another more mentally agile individual.

D&D character gen particularly in 3.0 and later editions removed the life journey and started at the destination, with only the skill plusses missing.

timetowaste85 wrote:First time ever playing, and the DM recommended Chaotic Neutral as an alignment. And I talked to plenty of other D&D'ers after this game-one said that I played correctly and the paladin should have immediately been turned chaotic evil for his actions, another person told me I would have gained extra experience in his games for acting this way. I also had two full D&D group praise my actions as perfectly in character (my second and third/final games). The only person pissed off was the paladin player, so the other guys asked me not to come back just to avoid hearing him make a stink. I was, and still am friends with all of them-I just avoid D&D. I played a character who met his goals, got done what he needed to get done, and tied up loose ends in the process. I didn't do bad things maliciously, I just didn't care about the evil character's lackeys. I broke down an evil lord's door and threatened his kobald servant, after ordering information out of an informant who worked for him-I got rid of him after he was no longer useful. I apologize for none of my actions in the game. Perhaps more information was needed for you guys-sorry if there wasn't enough before. But as I said, I talked to my uncle who plays, a friend from my old game store, a group in my second college and a group in my old game store-not a single person said I was in the wrong-only the paladin was. All of these people I have argued with on separate occasions, so they'd have no problem telling me if I was in the wrong.

Yeah, yeah. CSB. I still disagree with the way you played it, but whatever.

Also, pretre, I believe you meant "were surprised," not "was surprised", as the person of topic from your point of view should have been "you."I.e. "you were," not "you was." Your friendly neighborhood English lesson is brought to you by the letter facepalm.

No, I mean was surprised. As in 'he was surprised'. My response was to Platuan4th's statement who said "you". Since I was not replying to you directly but to a statement by another user, the pronoun 'he' is implied. Also, don't be a nitpicker. Nobody likes a nitpicker. As a final thought, you should be aware of Muphry's Law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:D&D character gen particularly in 3.0 and later editions removed the life journey and started at the destination, with only the skill plusses missing.

Ugh. Can we avoid edition wars?

This is flatout false. No edition of D&D allowed you to create everything you wanted in your character. No edition starts you at the destination. Every edition provided you with a framework for creating a character and doing things with that character. Actual character development and roleplaying has always been independent of the system (unless you count the random personality trait charts in the 1st ed DMG).

Seriously, stop propagating that one edition or another is ROLL playing instead of ROLE playing. It is still not true. ROLL vs ROLE is created by the DM and the group.