The World of Layonara

The Layonara Community => Ask A Gamemaster => Topic started by: drakogear on October 26, 2010, 12:01:08 PM

Title: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: drakogear on October 26, 2010, 12:01:08 PM
Have a well... new character thought up. May replace Zarlyn for a few reasons.

Despite the tiefling race not being allowed. I have a somewhat alternate idea. Mechanically and characteristically he is completely the default human save for nightmarish dreams and flashes of him becoming the creature from his dreams. This creature being a monstrous demon (or humanoid Pit creature). In addition triggered be various ways (fighting long battles, overcome with great anger or even the presents of other demon) he may enter a demonic fury (barbarian rage) with an insatiable desire to kill and destroy. This all being caused by a permanent demonic possession. Only partial though given that he still has his own free will.

Question is, would this type of character be allowed?
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: ycleption on October 26, 2010, 12:54:07 PM
Okay, two very distinct issues that this idea presents: First, I have no idea whether Layo pit creatures can possess others. Regardless, that is likely an Ed question, but I have my suspicions that it would not be allowed for a PC without being introduced on a quest or something like that.

The second issue is the idea of having two very distinct personas possibly creating alignment issues. "Insatiable desire to kill and destroy" is pretty much the definition of CE, and would not be allowed as part of a character for obvious reasons. We have had characters with a similar sort of split personality without possession (e.g. mental illness), but they required a great deal of careful definition from the player, in order to deal with any potential issues, and anything that would cause alignment violations would not be allowed. See here (http://forums.layonara.com/character-approvals/115163-new-character-submission-katrina.html) for an example - please note the effort the player put in, and the careful delineations of the personalities.
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: darkstorme on October 26, 2010, 01:09:46 PM
There has been an instance of a possessed character in the past, so there is precedent for this character concept.

With that being said, it would require extraordinary justification (not "Joe MacNeil woke up possessed one day."), and would have to be very carefully written to make it clear that this 'possession' would not cause alignment violations.

In addition, naturally, it would have to be clear that Joe MacNeil wouldn't get any extraordinary powers from this possession, whether GM-supervised or no.

So the answer is "probably yes, but with substantial strictures".
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: drakogear on October 26, 2010, 01:21:28 PM
Well I said it was pit creature given that there is no actual demons in layo and the idea of the character cam about from a sorta story character I have.

The original character was that of a rebellious demon who was outcast from his home realm and has since then had a hatred for all other demons. This would have been portrayed in layo as a Tiefling if they were still allowed but seeing as they aren't I figured I'd try an alternative.

The demon or pit creature became rebellious and outcast from his realm as too striped of his physical form, without witch his spirit would slowly deteriorate and be no more. Luckily he found a host that could harbor him and keep the demon alive. Thus this human warrior becomes possessed by the demon spirit.

As for the spit persona and the "Insatiable desire to kill and destroy" Its merely the role playing of the barbarian rage when its triggered. Pretty much goes into a frenzy. Attacking anything and everything, save for other players given the no pvp.

And the alignment issue? Well about 90% of the time hes human. CN at most. Frankly having the demon take over (entering a frenzied rage) is something he does not want.
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: drakogear on October 26, 2010, 01:29:50 PM
Quote from: darkstorme
In addition, naturally, it would have to be clear that Joe MacNeil wouldn't get any extraordinary powers from this possession, whether GM-supervised or no.


Awwww, so him becoming a Barbarian/sorcerer/spell sword with the act of the demons magical powers and knowledge returning (resulting in the last two classes) would not be doable?

Note: starting as Barbarian and later becoming a sorcerer and spell sword through either CDT, CDQ or both.
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: Acacea on October 26, 2010, 04:09:10 PM
This is just a general attempt at some advice, so I hope you read it as intended... There is an enormous amount of things you can do with a character, including royalty, demonic possession, divine intervention, all those things we have flagged or even outright banned at submission. Mine has been completely possessed, partially possessed, has had false dreams, prophetic dreams, and has met a goddess in the Heavens, and has a curse on her blood with a vulnerability to magic and some faulty astral locks. The act of resubmitting my main character now, however, with all these things in mind or as goals for development, would make her chances of approval at submission enormously low, and a little silly-sounding.

These things happen over time, at the mercy of gamemasters and character development, both spontaneous and evolving from planned roots. If I had tried to fit all these end-concepts in at the beginning, it would be a struggle to approve or impossible altogether... and it would have been more dull to play her for me, because it would have been set as the plan from the beginning, whether that plan be RDD themes or feral warriors.

If you can start with something relatively simple with a few quirks or openings, you can take them to way, way bigger places than you can fit into a submission. It's just my belief that the bigger the submission, the more limited the options... because you have planned it out, but are limited to a level 1 scope, instead of growing up and spreading out. Katrien could not have submitted for blood of the T'ol, nor Plen for hollow bones and wings. He was a Katian priest with a love and affinity for birds. Imagine the snort if Eldarwen had began, not as a cleric of Pyrtechon, but a memory of a soul in Lucinda's mortal past intended to be a diplomat of magic itself to the material world? heh.

The more you cram in the beginning, the harder it is to play, and the more they resemble NPCs, set at a particular time when they have come into their own... and less like developed characters that find their own way and are played at all stages of ability, rather than being intended only for an end-game.

There's a lot of wiggle room for unique visions of standard classes, but the more explicit you get in their sources, the harder you have to work to really justify them :) Sometimes if you just focus in time and effort on a single concept for awhile, it will outstrip from DM activity any "wouldn't it be cool if..." that you'd considered for others. I totally support creativity in your roleplay for your mechanical choices, but it is something to think about when coming up with the next "wouldn't this be awesome" concept if you find yourself unsatisfied with the way they work out. It can take a long time to see far-off goals realized, and it gets tiring when you've planned for nothing else since conception.
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: darkstorme on October 26, 2010, 04:43:01 PM
To be clear, drakogear:


So again, a guarded yes on the character concept, but a number of the details might have to be altered to better fit the world of Layonara.

Edit: Also, what Acacea  said.
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: darkstorme on October 26, 2010, 05:34:02 PM
To clarify - a Pit from which a critter similar to the one described in this character concept might spring would likely not be a nice place to be an underdog.  Some Pits are quite nice.
Title: Re: Partial yet permanent possession
Post by: Acacea on October 26, 2010, 06:21:43 PM
I didn't want to interject ;)
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2026, SimplePortal