I rolled up a Doppelganger Chameleon.
(Doppelganger 4/ Rogue 1/ Chameleon 7)
He is lawful evil, working for an outside organization, and completely, undeniably capable of convincing the entirely good aligned party that he is, in fact, no more than a Lawful Good Cleric/Fighter.
The DM is the only person who knows the true nature of the character, and the character himself has the equivalent of the tattooed monk's white mask tattoo. (immune to detections spells regarding lies, thoughts, and alignment)
I plan on taking the following 10 levels in the Changeling prestige class, to make his shapeshifting more potent. And the character himself will work to convince the party that it is merely divine will and magic that allows him to alter his skin, or grow claws, etc.
Does this seem like a pretty sound character so far?
I usually tend to choose characters based solely on roleplayability,
but I always want to make them as powerful as possible within the bounds of the character I am trying to convey, for instance, this character would never do anything he thought might compromise his true ideals or identity, regardless of the possible gain.
You seem to have forgotten that D&D is ultimately a cooperative storytelling game. Neither the game, nor the world (as it may be hard to believe in your adolescence) revolves around you or is dependant upon your success or failure. The world is not a better place for all if you get everything or worse for all if you do not.
Here you have made the clear choice to play a villain. Within a cooperative game, assuming you aren't being stupidly selfish, there are only two good reasons to play a villain.
1) Introduce a character with some of the most corrupt aspects of humanity who is to be exposed to those who are more pure and over a succession of life, mind and heart-altering events come to find that their bitter, twisted, brutal view of the world is not necessarily the correct one and eventually come to change their nature to be more in line with that of their companions (but perhaps not before causing a lot of trouble for those companions via their darker traits).
2) Have the character plotting to stir up lots of trouble for the companions and cause situations to be more antagonistic than they should be only to ultimately be unmasked as a traitor, perhaps upon the verge of a seeming victory, and to then be defeated and disposed of for their trouble-- but perhaps being a far more memorable character for the experience than they would have otherwise.
Now, it seems to me that you are angling for path #2 here. As such I think you need to understand that there is 1 of you and however many other people who are at the table. It is better for all if you, as the antagonistic, ultimately lose and are killed for being a nasty, twisted traitor.
This means the character concept is "suicidal", but is NOT necessarily bad. Of course, the trick in order to pull this off is to see that both you and the other players are well aware of the path that this character relationship is supposed to and is likely to take and for neither you nor them to jump to that ultimate result too soon.
ICly it can be great fun for an attack to suddenly come from behind, for things to go from too easy to becoming quite a challenge because of an 'unexpected' betrayal. This is especially true in games where the challenge the DM is providing is inadequete for the calculated player builds. However, it is not fun for anyone at all for one player to betrayal and kill all the others and take the gold. Even for the player who is doing it, making a complete **** out of himself and thinking he is somehow 'winning' the game via this strategy will find out that the resentment they build amongst the other players is not worth whatever number they mark down in the money section of the character sheet for that session.
Here you have made the clear choice to play a villain. Within a cooperative game, assuming you aren't being stupidly selfish, there are only two good reasons to play a villain.
1) Introduce a character with some of the most corrupt aspects of humanity who is to be exposed to those who are more pure and over a succession of life, mind and heart-altering events come to find that their bitter, twisted, brutal view of the world is not necessarily the correct one and eventually come to change their nature to be more in line with that of their companions (but perhaps not before causing a lot of trouble for those companions via their darker traits).
2) Have the character plotting to stir up lots of trouble for the companions and cause situations to be more antagonistic than they should be only to ultimately be unmasked as a traitor, perhaps upon the verge of a seeming victory, and to then be defeated and disposed of for their trouble-- but perhaps being a far more memorable character for the experience than they would have otherwise.
3) You work with the DM to make sure that your backstory ties into the plot for the campaign. I find that generally players don't mind dieing or failing if it gives a great twist and fits in with the story. The campaign my group remembers the fondest is the one where the last session ended with my character ambushing and killing each other PC one-by-one. It was an epic ending to a great story because although none of them saw it coming until half of them were dead (we did each fight in another room and swore each dead player to silence about what had happened in the other room) they all loved it because it completely fit with the story.
Talk to your DM about it, but a 'destined to fail' story can be awesome.
3) You work with the DM to make sure that your backstory ties into the plot for the campaign. I find that generally players don't mind dieing or failing if it gives a great twist and fits in with the story. The campaign my group remembers the fondest is the one where the last session ended with my character ambushing and killing each other PC one-by-one. It was an epic ending to a great story because although none of them saw it coming until half of them were dead (we did each fight in another room and swore each dead player to silence about what had happened in the other room) they all loved it because it completely fit with the story.
Talk to your DM about it, but a 'destined to fail' story can be awesome.
Yeah... I am... sure... they all remember it as fondly as you do.
That's why YOU the guy who killed the rest of the party are here bragging about having done so and they are not here saying how great it was for one member of the party to kill all their characters.
Or, moreover, YOU are not talking about how great it was when another party member unexpectedly decided to kill yours and the rest of the table's characters at the end of a session.
You are NOT the person to be in the position to claim it was good for the table morale. You can't claim that it was fun for everyone else, you can only claim it was fun for you because you are only in your position and only in your shoes. As such you have provided real counter arguement that it isn't crap for table morale, just that wankers like to brag about having killed the rest of the party afterwards and selfishly think everybody else enjoys it.
Seriously, please find someone who is going to post here and say how much they love it when their character is killed by another party member at the end of an adventure and they hope it happens every time at the end of every adventure because it is so much fun to be backstabbed and killed by other players at the table.
This post is not a winner. Please play again.
3/4 BAB and all good saves.
you just need 10 ranks in concentrate.
first level is wild shape 3/day and extra shifting (extra use of natural shape shifting ability a day = Shape shifter level)
I'll give you more details if you want (they aren't printing OA any more if that worries you)
Seriously, please find someone who is going to post here and say how much they love it when their character is killed by another party member at the end of an adventure and they hope it happens every time at the end of every adventure because it is so much fun to be backstabbed and killed by other players at the table.
This post is not a winner. Please play again.
I was once in a game where our party paladin was corrupted by a demon about half way through the campaign. The rest of us in the group had no idea this had happened, and it's amusing to think back on all the "evil" things we killed, taking the paladin's word that they detected as evil.
At the BBEG fight, with the demon that had corrupted the paladin, when the demon called upon his minion to help destroy the party, most of us were expecting some other creature to show up. I was completely surprised when our "loyal" paladin turned around and smote my poor cleric. We went on to lose the battle, victory going to the paladin and the demon.
It's a very memorable moment for me and was a good way to "lose" a game of DnD via TPK. I don't recall any hard feelings from anyone in the group, but, I can obviously only speak for myself. It is entirely possible to be killed off by another party member as part of the story and not be upset about it in the end.
So there's my story of being "backstabbed" by another party member and enjoying the game as a whole. There are different ways to play the game and different ideas about what is fun. Simply because you cannot envision a game where being killed by another party member would be fun does not mean that such games do not exist. I do not "hope it happens every adventure" as your exaggerated replay states, but it is possible for it to happen and not be a terrible thing.
To the OP:
Sounds like an interesting character. Looks ok to me, good luck with the game.
...As such you have provided real counter arguement that it isn't crap for table morale, just that wankers like to brag about having killed the rest of the party afterwards and selfishly think everybody else enjoys it.
Seriously, please find someone who is going to post here and say how much they love it when their character is killed by another party member at the end of an adventure and they hope it happens every time at the end of every adventure because it is so much fun to be backstabbed and killed by other players at the table.
This post is not a winner. Please play again.
Damn, aggressive much?
Of course I'm no mind reader so I can't say 100% that they enjoyed it. It could be that they all hated the way the campaign turned. It could be that that laughter and smiles and looks of 'enlightened shock' they had in that last session were perfectly executed deceptions to make me feel good about doing something terrible to them. It could be that the fact it's by far the most frequently reminisced adventure is because they feel a need to frequently reinforce their false smiles and faked fond memories of it to make sure I never suspect that they hated it.
Of course all I have to go on are their reaction to the events and what they tell me. But sure, you're probably right and I'm just a selfish wanker coming onto a messageboard to boast about killing my friends who now hate me. Heaven forbid I'm actually someone trying to give advice to a player who's asking for it.
There are a couple of other examples I could give where I was a character who was killed by another character, but they're not as good examples. Not because I was on the receiving end and thus they weren't fun (they've always been fun twists), but simply because they weren't planned as well. The time when it was me being the turncoat was perfectly planned; me and the DM met up outside of the usual sessions and worked it out and planned it thoroughly. Hell, it wasn't even my idea to do it - it was something the DM came up with. It's a small group of 5 people who have roleplayed together once a week, almost without exception, for 4 years. We all know each other pretty well and have a pretty good idea of what will or won't work in the group and wouldn't never have done it if it wouldn't have been fun for everyone.
Different roleplay groups enjoy different things. In my group we like story and atmosphere above all else. We enjoy the journey far more than the goal. Not all groups are the same, some enjoy being the heroes every time and getting the princess and saving the world. Some don't, some would rather see the world burn if it made for a more interesting story than saving it.
There are a couple of other examples I could give where I was a character who was killed by another character, but they're not as good examples. Not because I was on the receiving end and thus they weren't fun (they've always been fun twists), but simply because they weren't planned as well. The time when it was me being the turncoat was perfectly planned; me and the DM met up outside of the usual sessions and worked it out and planned it thoroughly. Hell, it wasn't even my idea to do it - it was something the DM came up with. It's a small group of 5 people who have roleplayed together once a week, almost without exception, for 4 years. We all know each other pretty well and have a pretty good idea of what will or won't work in the group and wouldn't never have done it if it wouldn't have been fun for everyone.
But, you see, all of that is from your personal perspective. The perspective of the person who kills the rest of the party.
In fact, because you have been on both sides of it as you now reveal but the ONLY one you decided to mention was when YOU killed the rest of the party and you outright say that the others 'weren't as fun', regardless of whatever excuse you may give, it just cannot come across as very sincere.
My statement was straight out that doing this, as I have seen it done numerous times before, is a very good way to alienate all the people you play with. You come back and say "Oh, it was great fun when I betrayed and killed the rest of my party." and now you say "well, I have been on the other side and it wasn't as fun-- but.. not because of the betrayal aspect! Oh, no... mine was just much cooler and better than theirs!"...
How.. how can you seriously expect for this to come across as sincere at all?
Maybe you are, but, again, the only was it would sound even remotely sincere and you could counter it brewing bad blood is if a person who wasn't into backstabbing their own group came and said it was great fun when another player unexpected killed their character.
But... you didn't do that and even though you are kind of implying it right now, you preface it by saying it wasn't as fun and then try to pin the blame on something else entirely-- in other words, being on both sides of it you were unwilling and unable to directly say, without any kind of preface or condition or qualifier, that it was fun when another PC killed yours during an adventure.
In fact, given the text of the OP-- does it really seem at all likely that this is the kind of group that enjoys betraying one another at the drop of a hat?...
The suggestion that the entire rest of the group is expected to be good-aligned certainly attests otherwise to me.
Maybe if the group was expected to be made up of Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil, then it would be easier to give the concept a green light.
In fact, because you have been on both sides of it as you now reveal but the ONLY one you decided to mention was when YOU killed the rest of the party and you outright say that the others 'weren't as fun', regardless of whatever excuse you may give, it just cannot come across as very sincere.
So basically you're not going to not going to believe me not matter what my reasoning or explanation is? No point in debating further then. I've said my piece for the OP so I'm out.
But, you see, all of that is from your personal perspective. The perspective of the person who kills the rest of the party.
In fact, because you have been on both sides of it as you now reveal but the ONLY one you decided to mention was when YOU killed the rest of the party and you outright say that the others 'weren't as fun', regardless of whatever excuse you may give, it just cannot come across as very sincere.
My statement was straight out that doing this, as I have seen it done numerous times before, is a very good way to alienate all the people you play with. You come back and say "Oh, it was great fun when I betrayed and killed the rest of my party." and now you say "well, I have been on the other side and it wasn't as fun-- but.. not because of the betrayal aspect! Oh, no... mine was just much cooler and better than theirs!"...
How.. how can you seriously expect for this to come across as sincere at all?
Maybe you are, but, again, the only was it would sound even remotely sincere and you could counter it brewing bad blood is if a person who wasn't into backstabbing their own group came and said it was great fun when another player unexpected killed their character.
But... you didn't do that and even though you are kind of implying it right now, you preface it by saying it wasn't as fun and then try to pin the blame on something else entirely-- in other words, being on both sides of it you were unwilling and unable to directly say, without any kind of preface or condition or qualifier, that it was fun when another PC killed yours during an adventure.
In fact, given the text of the OP-- does it really seem at all likely that this is the kind of group that enjoys betraying one another at the drop of a hat?...
The suggestion that the entire rest of the group is expected to be good-aligned certainly attests otherwise to me.
Maybe if the group was expected to be made up of Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic Evil, then it would be easier to give the concept a green light.
I think I am going to have to concur with the "calm the **** down" response. He stated that it was unanimously enjoyed (and gave sufficient justification that certainly we can make the same conclusion), noted that he enjoyed other occasions when it happened to him, and stated that the reason why they were not so note worthy was not a matter of enjoyment, but a lack of forward planning, information which probably is pretty useful to the OP. Certainly looking at the scenario SlightlyEpic described I can see how I would enjoy it as a climactic ending, whichever side I was on (or, indeed, if the "good guys" prevailed and managed to best him in single combat).
So unless you are going to call him an outright liar without any evidence or justification, you are rather overstepping the boundaries of common sense with your objection.