How much control does / should a GM have over a PC?

lastknightleft wrote:

Well no offense, but that's your players faults, you all ignored knowledge skills and then say that it's unfortunate we're wondering around like a bunch of people who know absolutely nothing.

No, it's the DMs fault for not making allowances for the players who don't have knowledge skills.

If I found out about was happening like he did, I'd raise hell.

lastknightleft wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I hate that the shopkeepers know more about this thing than we do.

Then put some ranks in knowledge skills and stop blaming the DM.

BS. How many Knowledge skills do shopkeepers have? I am thinking none

And if the shopkeeper knows, make him tell you. These guys have to have SOME skills and Diplomacy and Intimidate can be used untrained.

Your games sound like good ones not to play. I hate DM v Players games except when I can't get any others.

Wow, I'm a DM vs. Player it's amazing how you figured that out from one post, it's not that your overly defensive and expect the DM to cater to you since you didn't bother to create a believable character but instead chose to have a character who managed to never learn anything about anything ever. And it's not like I said that the DM had some responsibility to actually call for the checks so that the players know they are needed. Nope, I just pit myself against my players every game and win because hey nothing in the rules says I can't drop a CR 20 dragon every session, YAY I WIN!

Lets see, a shopkeep requires appraise, diplomacy, sense motive, profession, and maybe a craft, why that's 5 skills out of six, oh right, they need climb. Totally unrealistic to have a shopkeeper that doesn't max his climb skill, oh and don't forget they have to max those skills every level, it's required, so you're completely right, they don't have enough skills to learn anything. They get 6+ skill points per level, and once again I can't stress enough that you're right, it's absolutely ludicrous to expect a shopkeep who deals in magic items, which are usually antiquities, to have any ranks in knowledge local, or knowledge history. What have I been doing making the unrealistic shopkeepers who actually bother to learn about what they're buying and selling.

Name Violation wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Talking about being overly melodramatic! The character -didn't- have his entire set of class abilites changed. He had his bloodline changed.

Which accounts for 50% of all class abilities.

change half the feats on a fighter,

More like change all the feats on the Fighter to make him something different entirely.

]

Cartigan wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Let me make this clear, I don't think the DM has handled it well, but the player was seriously asking for something like this by putting it in their back story.

Uh, what? Getting his character's class abilities changed by fiat is something he should have expected?

He must have expected something out of his back story, or else why write it that way? Why not just be born with celestial blood?

To make the character interesting? Personally I hate it when a DM takes backgrounds of those that write them and always use them to "screw" with the PC. All it does is encourage players to not make a history for their character. And yes I have played with people that refused to give there character any history at all for just that reason. In my opinion any player that takes the time to write a history should get a minor reward. Normally a few free skill points or something to fit their history or something.

Yes sometimes I might tie a plot hook out of their history as well. But I always make sure they get more good than bad from having the history. This encourages players to make histories. If I feel a history doesn't fit then i tell them upfront. No that won't work sorry, maybe next time.

As it stands now the OP is basically getting punished for trying to make something interesting and taking the time to make a history. If any DM didn't like the history they should have told him no up front or told him. Ok if you do this than understand their will be repercussions for this IC later on. If the player agree's then it is on them. But to just do it, is poor taste and just discourages characters with histories.

Not saying all this to you, Dabbler. Quoting your post to point out it can be done just to make the PC interesting. But then decided to add to it, on why I think that this GM is doing is bad and why.

Dabbler wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Let me make this clear, I don't think the DM has handled it well, but the player was seriously asking for something like this by putting it in their back story.

Uh, what? Getting his character's class abilities changed by fiat is something he should have expected?

He must have expected something out of his back story, or else why write it that way? Why not just be born with celestial blood?

To make the character interesting? Personally I hate it when a DM takes backgrounds of those that write them and always use them to "screw" with the PC. All it does is encourage players to not make a history for their character. And yes I have played with people that refused to give there character any history at all for just that reason. In my opinion any player that takes the time to write a history should get a minor reward. Normally a few free skill points or something to fit their history or something.

Yes sometimes I might tie a plot hook out of their history as well. But I always make sure they get more good than bad from having the history. This encourages players to make histories. If I feel a history doesn't fit then i tell them upfront. No that won't work sorry, maybe next time.

As it stands now the OP is basically getting punished for trying to make something interesting and taking the time to make a history. If any DM didn't like the history they should have told him no up front or told him. Ok if you do this than understand their will be repercussions for this IC later on. If the player agree's then it is on them. But to just do it, is poor taste and just discourages characters with histories.

Not saying all this to you, Dabbler. Quoting your post to point out it can be done just to make the PC interesting. But then decided to add to it, on why I think that this GM is doing is bad and why.

Yes, it can be just for the player to fix in their mind the kind of character they are playing. On the other hand, if I give a DM a in-depth background, I brace myself - I LIKE giving the DM ammunition for plot-hooks, sub-plots and more personal involvement for the characters.

At the end of the day it is something that the DM should have discussed with the player to see how much the player meant by it and how far they'd be comfortable going. I can understand why the DM wanted to involve it, and I don't think it's a bad idea, but it was handled wrong.

As for the Knowledge issue ... well, having been in a similar situation in a game, why aren't the party hitting the libraries and consulting the sages? They must have levelled, so they've had a chance to gain the knowledge skills ...

Wow, I'm a DM vs. Player it's amazing how you figured that out from one post, it's not that your overly defensive and expect the DM to cater to you since you didn't bother to create a believable character but instead chose to have a character who managed to never learn anything about anything ever.

Yeah, I'm sure Fighters know lots about Arcana.

The player might well have expected to have problems dealing with celestials he encounters in the future. But he certainly has no reasonable expectation that the nature of his powers will change, nor does the DM have reasonable authority to change it once play begins. The player wrote that backstory on the expectation that bloodlines, whether they represented descent or pacts, were a one-time infusion of power that could not be altered or changed once received, and presumably, due to a desire to play a 'devil with an angelic face' archetype. The DM could reasonably have asked him to change this during character creation, but once he's agreed to it and the game has begun, he should limit himself to things like angelic avengers coming after the character, and so on.

As for the weapon...with the context that has been provided since the opening post, it becomes clear to me that this problem is the result of a combination of factors--an inexperienced DM having trouble adapting to a deviation from the written adventure path, but also players who have refused to grab onto a plot hook. The weapon in question has no power to alter its physical form as written. Rather, it is retroactively considered to be whatever weapon is favored by the person the DM intends it for. Unfortunately, when that person dug it up, the party got spooked and packed it away, and that character subsequently died. Since this weapon has a close tie to the plot, scales to be a mighty weapon against the final boss and his minions, and is the best way for the DM to feed plot info to a party with no knowledge skills to learn it on their own, the DM proceeded to heavy-handedly force it to remain in their possession, and pawned it off on the first character who touched the thing, but could no longer reshape it to fit the new character's fighting style.

Warforged Gardener wrote:

snobi wrote:

It's like when you're a guest in somebody's house. His house, his rules. But that doesn't mean the host can overstep personal boundaries. Who/what a character is belongs to each player.

(note: not implying you or anyone else here is a Nazi)
Hitler overstepped personal boundaries because he didn't like who Jews were. I doubt the Jews expected him to be a self sacrificing martyr or to serve their desires. They probably just wanted to exist in his world while being who they are.

I swear that's the second holocaust reference Ive seen thrown into a Paizo thread this week. Maybe it's just me, but it seems really out of place whenever people use it to make their point unless that point actually relates to genocide. I'm sure it's just a totally random thing, but two different people doing it in two completely different threads just hit my weird button.

Godwin's Law is the popular term for the phenomenon of apparent Hitler/Nazi inevitability.

I'm not insane then? This is actually a mathematical inevitability?

I'm not insane then? This is actually a mathematical inevitability?

No, just an extremely likely outcome given enough emotion in an internet "debate". From here: "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust[.]"

Zo

I'm not insane then? This is actually a mathematical inevitability?

On the plus side, we know have been clued that Hitler's problem was a lack of proper boundaries in interpersonal relationships.

So the part about the weapon is a misunderstanding about it's significance as a macguffin. With regard to that, the DM should still have asked for knowledge checks at least to hint to the players that they may want to learn more about it. Then they could look for a library or someone who knows about it fill in the information they need.

If the PCs could know something from a knowledge check, then someone else in the world must know it (and perhaps have written it down) also. It should be possible for them to get the information they need, and asking for knowledge checks is probably the best way to let the players know they should be looking for those other sources of information. I'm not saying the information needs to be easy to find, but there should always be another source besides PC knowledge checks.

Part of the DMs job is to challenge the PCs. Setting a challenge in their path and then hand waving it away because the PCs weren't set up to overcome it is the same as not putting it there at all. Another part of the DM's job is to create a new path for the party to progress down they can't continue down the original path. In other words, if a certain obstacle requires a certain class/ability/action (or specific series of actions) to overcome and the party does not have that available (or can't guess/figure out the solution) , the DM's job is to allow another way for the party to move forward, whether it be providing more clues/hints, going around, finding someone who can get them through, or letting them use some other plausible method to overcome the obstacle.

Retconning the sorcerer's bloodline mid-game is still wrong though (unless the player is in on it and approves).

To make the character interesting? Personally I hate it when a DM takes backgrounds of those that write them and always use them to "screw" with the PC. All it does is encourage players to not make a history for their character. And yes I have played with people that refused to give there character any history at all for just that reason. In my opinion any player that takes the time to write a history should get a minor reward. Normally a few free skill points or something to fit their history or something.

Yes, but some backgrounds, say this one, practically beg to be "scr3wed with". Having said that, the DM shouldn't have just changed his bloodline. The possibility of severe consequences (not changing the bloodline, but maybe hostile celestials) should have been discussed with the player before the game started.

Yes sometimes I might tie a plot hook out of their history as well. But I always make sure they get more good than bad from having the history. This encourages players to make histories. If I feel a history doesn't fit then i tell them upfront. No that won't work sorry, maybe next time.

Curiosity, what "good" would come out of this background? Player's having histories is good. But too much of a good thing is not necessarily. In this case I'd say you would have told him "not such a good idea".

As it stands now the OP is basically getting punished for trying to make something interesting and taking the time to make a history. If any DM didn't like the history they should have told him no up front or told him. Ok if you do this than understand their will be repercussions for this IC later on. If the player agree's then it is on them. But to just do it, is poor taste and just discourages characters with histories.

I'd say this player is getting punished not for trying to make something interesting, but due to making something with severe negative consequences. Should what was done have been (switching bloodlines)? No, but *something* was bound to crop up sooner or later. And, yes, it should have been discussed with the player before play commenced.

Also, I'm old school I guess. A little background is good, but most of a players "history" should be made in game. A part of this comes with the type of game I run (I don't run APs, I run a sandbox game with more open ended possibilities) but I think some people put too much into their characters before the game starts. It limits their options in game (in some cases) and, this being D&D / PF, character mortality sometimes renders a lot of work... wasted.

I'd say this player is getting punished not for trying to make something interesting, but due to making something with severe negative consequences. Should what was done have been (switching bloodlines)? No, but *something* was bound to crop up sooner or later. And, yes, it should have been discussed with the player before play commenced.

I agree on all points here.

R_Chance wrote:

I'd say this player is getting punished not for trying to make something interesting, but due to making something with severe negative consequences. Should what was done have been (switching bloodlines)? No, but *something* was bound to crop up sooner or later. And, yes, it should have been discussed with the player before play commenced.

I agree on all points here.

agree

R_chance to respond to your points.

I don't disagree that background does beg to be screwed with. But the player should have been told up front he would be, if he took that background. Giving him a chance to change his mind, if he doesn't then yeah no problems.

I wouldn't have flat said no, but I would have wanted to tweak it and work with the player to make things fit and then let them know of the draw back that background would end up with. If they changed their mind, not a problem, if they stuck with it great.

We really don't disagree, other than i think it is worse to screw with the player for making the background than not to.

I am mostly saying if the player makes a background and the DM approves the background then the player should ultimently be rewarded for doing the extra work. IE more good than bad comes from the background. But then bad backgrounds should not be approved at creation or the player warned it will be a bad one.

I don't disagree that background does beg to be screwed with.

Apparently I am the only person who thinks "beg to be screwed with" is not the same thing as "change his entire character by fiat - if he agrees to it."

Dark_Mistress wrote:

I don't disagree that background does beg to be screwed with.

Apparently I am the only person who thinks "beg to be screwed with" is not the same thing as "change his entire character by fiat - if he agrees to it."

There are a ton of things that can be done with that backstory that go nowhere near "remake your character a different way halfway into the game."

If he agrees to it, surely it isn't a problem? I agree in this case he doesn't and it IS a problem, but why is it bad if he agrees?

This is why people don't make backgrounds - because in the end, some DMs want to use them as little more then terrible blackmail against the character.

"Man, another party where everyone's family has all died before they started adventuring. Why don't you guys try being more honest?"

"I'd rather they start dead then have you arbitrarily kill them off later in an attempt to be 'dramatic.'"

Likewise with the bloodline. Hey, someone made a cool and original backstory. You are a terrible DM if your first thought is "how can I use this backstory against the player?" Note that it isn't a cool and awesome and dramatic twist or turn or story, you're literally just beating them over the head with your DM dick and laughing about how you're abusing their trust and their own backstory.

It can be fun though.....like when the rakshasa wears the face of the alcoholic dwarf's overbearing mother who drove him to multiple neuroses....I think you have to be willing to consider what people are comfortable with and, as dungeonmaster, be willing to adjust.
It's great when you can make a villain who did something bad to your characters' friends and family; you get a sort of feeling of accomplishment when you fireball his b+*#! ass finally.
Or like, the hobbit barbarian who was raised by goblins, whose father the former chief who tried to push the hobbit off a cliff or whatever, comes back again and again in the cadre of this or that BBEG....and then the hobbit lets him go every time...
it's also a good way to introduce the hobbit's next upgunned "small sized" exotic weapon; hey, his father taught him how to use it so....naturally he's got one every time he shows up.....

There was no logical reason for the character to suddenly have his wings fall off and turn into Stretch Armstrong. (Celestial to Aberrant bloodline) There is a logical reason for his feathers to turn raven black thanks to the darkness of his heart. There's completely justifiable reason for a celestial to show up and tell him 'you killed my brother, prepare to die'.

This is why people don't make backgrounds - because in the end, some DMs want to use them as little more then terrible blackmail against the character.

"Man, another party where everyone's family has all died before they started adventuring. Why don't you guys try being more honest?"

"I'd rather they start dead then have you arbitrarily kill them off later in an attempt to be 'dramatic.'"

Likewise with the bloodline. Hey, someone made a cool and original backstory. You are a terrible DM if your first thought is "how can I use this backstory against the player?" Note that it isn't a cool and awesome and dramatic twist or turn or story, you're literally just beating them over the head with your DM dick and laughing about how you're abusing their trust and their own backstory.

Get a grip, there is a big difference between having a normal family and doing the equivelant of hanging a sign up saying "Orcs are Stupid" in the middle of Belkzen. That said, the DM did this badly, no mistake. the problem is not involving the back story, the problem is in how it's done.

Involving the character's back story can be as simple as a letter from home with a wedding invitation or as convoluted as the enemy you thought you beat suddenly turning up at the BBEG's right hand. It doesn't have to be bad, it does reflect the back story. In this case, given the nature of the back story ("Hey, my character tricked the servants of the gods out of power and murdered them afterwards for good measure!") ... well, that's not going to go well, is it? That's like standing on a hilltop under a tree in a lightning storm shouting "Thor is a pussy!" Still, the player should have had made clear to them at the time that it could lead to trouble ... as if they couldn't have guessed ...

There was no logical reason for the character to suddenly have his wings fall off and turn into Stretch Armstrong. (Celestial to Aberrant bloodline) There is a logical reason for his feathers to turn raven black thanks to the darkness of his heart. There's completely justifiable reason for a celestial to show up and tell him 'you killed my brother, prepare to die'.

Yep, like that.

Now, say a player were to create a celestial bloodline sorcerer. Said character is wholly evil and regularly binds powerful fiends to her service to do her bidding.

It must be a very nice DM that he allows planar binding cheese. :)

The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."

Now, let's say there is also a GM who, part way through the campaign (or possibly near the beginning) declared that the above PC was (or would be) cursed by the gods for her vile treachery. The curse would take the form of the PC being changed from a celestial bloodline sorcerer to some other "cures-like" bloodline such as aberrant, abyssal, infernal, or undead.

In the context of the game's story arc, such a significant character change makes perfect sense, so the GM goes with it.

In the context of the game, however, the player is distraught. It was not his choice to have such a change occur. It is (or rather, was) his character and the GM has all but taken it away from him. He has lost what little control in the campaign world he had, his character. He can't even use his Flyby Attack feat anymore because his character no longer has Wings of Heaven!

So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?

This is a complete no-go.

An nice alternative to this drastic measure might be something similar to a fallen Paladin...have the char lose his powers until he atones, or make an evil (human?) sacrifice and change alignment.

Another alternative might be to increase the saves of the fiends in future, because they absolutely hate being forced to do a celestial's work.

But all considered, any DM who does not severely restrict Planar Binding will get problems sooner or later. Seems yours could not cope with the PB-abuse anymore and so tried to fix the problem with all the wrong measures...

R_chance to respond to your points.

I don't disagree that background does beg to be screwed with. But the player should have been told up front he would be, if he took that background. Giving him a chance to change his mind, if he doesn't then yeah no problems.

I wouldn't have flat said no, but I would have wanted to tweak it and work with the player to make things fit and then let them know of the draw back that background would end up with. If they changed their mind, not a problem, if they stuck with it great.

We really don't disagree, other than i think it is worse to screw with the player for making the background than not to.

I am mostly saying if the player makes a background and the DM approves the background then the player should ultimently be rewarded for doing the extra work. IE more good than bad comes from the background. But then bad backgrounds should not be approved at creation or the player warned it will be a bad one.

I'd say we do agree. That background should have been dealt with before play. He needed to see possible problems with it before he went with it and the way the consequences were handled was heavy handed and inappropriate.

Apparently I am the only person who thinks "beg to be screwed with" is not the same thing as "change his entire character by fiat - if he agrees to it."
There are a ton of things that can be done with that backstory that go nowhere near "remake your character a different way halfway into the game."

Cartigan, if you'll note a lot of people find the change innapropriate. They just feel his backstory is going to have issues. And yeah, there are a ton of things that could be done with that backstory. Unfortunately, not too many of them are "good".

This is why people don't make backgrounds - because in the end, some DMs want to use them as little more then terrible blackmail against the character.

"Man, another party where everyone's family has all died before they started adventuring. Why don't you guys try being more honest?"

"I'd rather they start dead then have you arbitrarily kill them off later in an attempt to be 'dramatic.'"

Likewise with the bloodline. Hey, someone made a cool and original backstory. You are a terrible DM if your first thought is "how can I use this backstory against the player?" Note that it isn't a cool and awesome and dramatic twist or turn or story, you're literally just beating them over the head with your DM dick and laughing about how you're abusing their trust and their own backstory.

PC, nobody is saying a backstory is a bad thing, just that some don't have good consequences for the player. I have the basic backstories for all my players. They help establish the character. None of them committed themselves to huge negative consequences. Example: One is half-elvish, got the boot early because mom and "dad" were both human and dear old dad wanted him gone. Has siblings, gets along with some, not others. A slightly bitter half elf who is out to get what he wants from a somewhat hostile world. Unique? No. But, it works to establish the character.

No one is saying your first thought as a DM should be how to use a players backstory against them either. This player made it d@mn hard not to have some negative problems out of his story. It didn't have to be your first thought, it's obvious that there are problems inherant in his background. Not easy, simple issues either. Take ressurection for instance. Do you think any "good" (celestial connected) god is going to give him a shot? And H3ll, literally, is probably just awaiting his arrival with open hands. It would be hard to stain your soul any darker than he already has. The feindish sides probably hoping he keels over before he can do anything to redeem himself...

And yes, this should have been pointed out up front. After that, it's up to him to decide if he wants to pay the bill.

'Good' results from a backstory don't have to be all sunshine and roses.

In this case, getting bushwacked by a pack of celestials would probably ruin the Character's day, but the Player might have a lot of fun (I mean, that's why we play the game, right? To overcome challenges?).

If the result is a rewarding play experience (even if that experience is rather harrowing for the character involved), thats a good outcome.

The key is talking with the player and figuring out how to engage them.

'Good' results from a backstory don't have to be all sunshine and roses.

In this case, getting bushwacked by a pack of celestials would probably ruin the Character's day, but the Player might have a lot of fun (I mean, that's why we play the game, right? To overcome challenges?).

If the result is a rewarding play experience (even if that experience is rather harrowing for the character involved), thats a good outcome.

The key is talking with the player and figuring out how to engage them.

True, and if that's what the player wants (and his fellow PCs don't mind being in the middle) that's fine. The point is that the player needs to be aware of the possibilities.

Godwin's Law AND TvTropes?

I love you guys.

I'm in agreement with most of the posters in that yes, it was a ham-handed way of dealing. Cosmetic changes are appropriate, and the character would get warnings, visions, visitations at least three times before it all hit the fan, since it was not addressed at creation.

True, and if that's what the player wants (and his fellow PCs don't mind being in the middle) that's fine. The point is that the player needs to be aware of the possibilities.

Exactly.

Cartigan wrote:

Apparently I am the only person who thinks "beg to be screwed with" is not the same thing as "change his entire character by fiat - if he agrees to it."
There are a ton of things that can be done with that backstory that go nowhere near "remake your character a different way halfway into the game."

Cartigan, if you'll note a lot of people find the change innapropriate.

Only in that they think he should have asked him first before completely changing his character.

Only in that they think he should have asked him first before completely changing his character.

Hardly anyone has taken that stance, and you've yet to address why they're wrong in the first place.

If all parties involved give their consent and everyone is happy with the change, why shouldn't the change be made?

Ravingdork wrote:

Now, say a player were to create a celestial bloodline sorcerer. Said character is wholly evil and regularly binds powerful fiends to her service to do her bidding.

It must be a very nice DM that he allows planar binding cheese. :)

Ravingdork wrote:

The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."

Now, let's say there is also a GM who, part way through the campaign (or possibly near the beginning) declared that the above PC was (or would be) cursed by the gods for her vile treachery. The curse would take the form of the PC being changed from a celestial bloodline sorcerer to some other "cures-like" bloodline such as aberrant, abyssal, infernal, or undead.

In the context of the game's story arc, such a significant character change makes perfect sense, so the GM goes with it.

In the context of the game, however, the player is distraught. It was not his choice to have such a change occur. It is (or rather, was) his character and the GM has all but taken it away from him. He has lost what little control in the campaign world he had, his character. He can't even use his Flyby Attack feat anymore because his character no longer has Wings of Heaven!

So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?

This is a complete no-go.

An nice alternative to this drastic measure might be something similar to a fallen Paladin...have the char lose his powers until he atones, or make an evil (human?) sacrifice and change alignment.

Another alternative might be to increase the saves of the fiends in future, because they absolutely hate being forced to do a celestial's work.

But all considered, any DM who does not...

The evil celestial bloodline sorcerer in this thread and in the other thread in which you refer, are only theoretical in nature. It has not seen play.

The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."

See I think this should have been drowned at birth. This to me is the "justify something because it's background" argument. Right up there with "and my father passed on the Vorpal sword as his father before him.". Even if the player had the best of intentions, never mind curses, they would be dead, dead, dead in a matter of minutes. I sure (at least in my campaign) that unless the player had some REALLY big infernal friends that the p-ed off celestials would make an example of a mortal betraying them - and they would not wait until their CR was appropriate either. I would have a quiet word with the player and let them know that their background would make the character almost unplayable and explain what "realistically" in game was very likely to happen (i.e. angel fodder in the first few days).

S.

Ravingdork wrote:

The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."

See I think this should have been drowned at birth. This to me is the "justify something because it's background" argument. Right up there with "and my father passed on the Vorpal sword as his father before him.". Even if the player had the best of intentions, never mind curses, they would be dead, dead, dead in a matter of minutes. I sure (at least in my campaign) that unless the player had some REALLY big infernal friends that the p-ed off celestials would make an example of a mortal betraying them - and they would not wait until their CR was appropriate either. I would have a quiet word with the player and let them know that their background would make the character almost unplayable and explain what "realistically" in game was very likely to happen (i.e. angel fodder in the first few days).

S.

The character isn't an idiot. He probably made it look like somebody else was responsible--such as a group of true fiends.

The only perfect crime that exists is not the one that remains unsolved, but the one which is solved with the wrong culprit.

Stefan Hill wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."

See I think this should have been drowned at birth. This to me is the "justify something because it's background" argument. Right up there with "and my father passed on the Vorpal sword as his father before him.". Even if the player had the best of intentions, never mind curses, they would be dead, dead, dead in a matter of minutes. I sure (at least in my campaign) that unless the player had some REALLY big infernal friends that the p-ed off celestials would make an example of a mortal betraying them - and they would not wait until their CR was appropriate either. I would have a quiet word with the player and let them know that their background would make the character almost unplayable and explain what "realistically" in game was very likely to happen (i.e. angel fodder in the first few days).

S.

The character isn't an idiot. He probably made it look like somebody else was responsible--such as a group of true fiends.

The only perfect crime that exists is not the one that remains unsolved, but the one which is solved with the wrong culprit.

Given the exist of magic I would think that unless the PC is already casting 9th level magic this would be an almost impossible feat! I honestly can't see how this would work in-game. The character isn't an idiot but the pretext for the background implies that immortal celestials are...

S.

<edit> Of course this is my opinion on the matter only. I have this "best lies contain mostly truth" approach to my campaign worlds. This background I just have a hard time justifying. How did the PC trick the celestials? Why couldn't magic divine (no pun) the truth? If you remove the source of the bloodline can the "gods" revoke the power of being a sorcerer? That kind of thing ends up for me in this case as a lot of hand-waving. i.e. The celestials don't know the truth because they don't etc.

Godwin's Law AND TvTropes?

I love you guys.

I'm in agreement with most of the posters in that yes, it was a ham-handed way of dealing. Cosmetic changes are appropriate, and the character would get warnings, visions, visitations at least three times before it all hit the fan, since it was not addressed at creation.

Pardon me for being dense, but before what hit the fan? The character seems to be, by all accounts, totally "legal" in a RAW and RAI sense. Does having an interesting backstory that has absolutely no impact on the mechanics of the character, that does not go beyond the scope of the Pathfinder book, constitute some kind of cheating?

You can also note from my previous post that I'm not opposed to using the backstory for plot hooks. What I can't fathom is the attitude that the the player has "gotten away with something," or has broken the rules or gotten some kind of unfair advantage somehow -- because objectively speaking, the character is totally legal by the rules.

The bloodline has no alignment prerequisite. All the player did was come up with a rather intriguing way to explain why this evil character has a celestial bloodline.

It all boils down to this: the player has an evil character with a celestial bloodline. This is totally within the rules. The rules are written to permit this. The rules are working as intended.

So what on Earth is the big problem? Why does this need to be "corrected"? Why is this something that is "going to hit the fan"? What needs to "be addressed at creation" when the creation is entirely in line with the rules?

Does every celestial bloodline character need to be a cookie cutter image of each other? What about an infernal bloodline character who is chaotic good, struggling to overcome his heritage -- isn't that an interesting concept also? Yet by the attitude of many posters here, this should also be disallowed.

Yet by the attitude of many posters here, this should also be disallowed.

I have no issues with mechanics (as there are none), just the background states "caused death of celestial". This is a tricky part in my little mind. It's a death sentence for the PC unless they can somehow convince me of how exactly the blame was shifted in the face of divination magic being common.

S.

Given the exist of magic I would think that unless the PC is already casting 9th level magic this would be an almost impossible feat! I honestly can't see how this would work in-game. The character isn't an idiot but the pretext for the background implies that immortal celestials are...

Divinations and other such things don't help you if you don't think to utilize them.

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

If the celestials perceive the villain to be an ally at the time, they likely wouldn't even think to cast zone of truth or similar magic. Even if they have something like that on all the time, a high charisma sorcerer might be able to tell partial truths or manipulate them despite being truthful.

Such manipulations happen all the time in real life and even smart people are killed as a result.

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

And pray tell, how is a 0th level character going to do that? It's not a plausible story. I don't have any problem with an evil character having the celestial bloodline; I have a problem with this particular story. It's just not internally consistent. It sounds like some kid on a power trip.

Swordpriest wrote:

Yet by the attitude of many posters here, this should also be disallowed.

I have no issues with mechanics (as there are none), just the background states "caused death of celestial". This is a tricky part in my little mind. It's a death sentence for the PC unless they can somehow convince me of how exactly the blame was shifted in the face of divination magic being common.

S.

And yet, the same might be said for good-aligned PCS as well. Why wouldn't causing the death of powerful fiends working the dark will of their masters on the material plane be a death sentence for a character as well?

As far as that goes, openly smiting devils and demons is part of the PCs' job. Why doesn't it result in their inevitable death as the overlords of these fiendish beings use all their resources to squash the meddling insects who are opposing them?

Or is it assumed that the celestial powers are more efficient with revenge than the infernal ones?

(Please note that I'm not trying to be difficult here -- I'm genuinely enjoying this debate and interested to see where it will lead.)

Ravingdork wrote:

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

And pray tell, how is a 0th level character going to do that? It's not a plausible story. I don't have any problem with an evil character having the celestial bloodline; I have a problem with this particular story. It's just not internally consistent. It sounds like some kid on a power trip.

Devil's advocate mode engaged.

He made a deal with a powerful devil/demon/fiend to lure the celestial into a trap, and said evil ally defeats the celestial, and as he drains the celestial's supernatural life force, he gives some to the PC as a reward.

Zurai wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

And pray tell, how is a 0th level character going to do that? It's not a plausible story. I don't have any problem with an evil character having the celestial bloodline; I have a problem with this particular story. It's just not internally consistent. It sounds like some kid on a power trip.

Devil's advocate mode engaged.

He made a deal with a powerful devil/demon/fiend to lure the celestial into a trap, and said evil ally defeats the celestial, and as he drains the celestial's supernatural life force, he gives some to the PC as a reward.

That's definitely a possibility.

Yeah, the mechanics behind it are fine. I don't see why people are saying there should be any changes at all (cosmetic or otherwise).

The sorcerer isn't a Paladin. It's not a reflection of his alignment. At best it's "in his blood", and honestly the rules don't even really enforce that (he could be infused with magical auras that cause the abilities/magic, etc).

If someone was born with celestial blood and abilities, but was simply a jerk, he could be Evil and have NOTHING that indicates it (no raven wings, no slide to abyssal powers, no nothing).
He's not a Paladin or Cleric, he has no reason for alignment to get in the way of his powers.

.

That being said, this person's backstory is fairly aggressive. He wanted to have a backstory that screws with eternal forces. While that doesn't justify screwing with the player's character or his abilities, when a roleplay situation comes up (such as interaction with a celestial), it should apply somehow.
Otherwise, what's the point of a backstory?

This is like having a backstory of being "an enemy of city-state <blah>". If that's your backstory, and you run into some soldiers from that city state, and they know who you are, then you'd expect that the DM will roleplay the situation as being disadvantageous (well, in that you'll likely have diplomatic options taken off the table from the get go).

Conversely, if the "celestial backstabber" were to go into a seedier part of town, or magical society.. he might be recognized and have allies among his peers. Working in the backstory doesn't have to always be a horrible issue.
He might even get contacted by a LE Outsider who loved the whole "screw over celestials" bit he did, and want to provide mutual partnership (I hold the celestials wanting blood at bay, while you do me some favours down the road).

Involving the backstory (for good or ill) is appropriate.

Making a player's build useless (losing access to fly feats, etc) and outright changing the player's choices on his character build without consent is a horrible way to DM.
If the Player was okay with the change, or if it were a temporary thing that he could change back (similar to when lycanthrope or vampirism threatens to change a person's character), then of course it's a different situation.

But yeah, everything done should be towards making a fun experience. As soon as you step over the line of "Fun for me at the expense of others", I'd have to say it's a legitimate time to call "badwrongfun".

Zurai wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

And pray tell, how is a 0th level character going to do that? It's not a plausible story. I don't have any problem with an evil character having the celestial bloodline; I have a problem with this particular story. It's just not internally consistent. It sounds like some kid on a power trip.

Devil's advocate mode engaged.

He made a deal with a powerful devil/demon/fiend to lure the celestial into a trap, and said evil ally defeats the celestial, and as he drains the celestial's supernatural life force, he gives some to the PC as a reward.

Sorry, doesn't work. The background specifically says that the character made pacts with celestials and betrayed them. Later it was tacked on that the character somehow was able to pin the betrayal on a group of fiends.

Further, there's no reason that a fiend would make such a risky pact with an absolute nobody. Even the chaotic fiends aren't stupid. Why make a pact with a nobody when there are plenty of kings, queens, emperors, priests, and (especially) advisors to the above to corrupt?

Making powerful Faustian pacts is not really something to be done as a 0-level character in your background. They're generally reserved for plot points and NPCs, not thrown in to a background to justify something that could easily be justified right out of the book (just because you have a celestial bloodline doesn't mean you're good; look at the villains from PF#1).

Sorry, doesn't work. The background specifically says that the character made pacts with celestials and betrayed them. Later it was tacked on that the character somehow was able to pin the betrayal on a group of fiends.

Further, there's no reason that a fiend would make such a risky pact with an absolute nobody. Even the chaotic fiends aren't stupid. Why make a pact with a nobody when there are plenty of kings, queens, emperors, priests, and (especially) advisors to the above to corrupt?

Making powerful Faustian pacts is not really something to be done as a 0-level character in your background. They're generally reserved for plot points and NPCs, not thrown in to a background to justify something that could easily be justified right out of the book (just because you have a celestial bloodline doesn't mean you're good; look at the villains from PF#1).

1) Understood. However, my point was to illustrate that such a deal isn't outside the realm of possibility for a "nobody." #2 outlines why, and how it could also be a pact with celestials whom the PC betrayed.

2) If the fiend knows the the PC is an associate (ostensibly trusted associate as well) of a celestial, and the powerful fiend knows that it could handle defeating the celestial single-handedly, and it knows that the celestial trusts the PC because it made a pact with him, the question becomes why would it not jump on an opportunity to take out an enemy? Add on the deliciousness of orchestrating a betrayal and twisting the PC to the dark side, and you got yourself a solid deal. Certainly the fiend would probably prefer a long-term deal with an emperor, but if the fiend knows it could kill a celestial right now with relative ease, why not? Why would you miss the positively scrumptious opportunity to use someone with Celestial powers against the cause of good? Plus, the fiend probably knows the PC will suffer for it somehow down the line anyway.

3) Why should Faustian deals be limited to plot points and NPCs only? After all, there are the Abyssal and Infernal bloodlines, Blackguards, evil clerics, etc. As long as the power gained through such a pact does not violate balance, I see absolutely no problem with it.

Sorry, doesn't work. The background specifically says that the character made pacts with celestials and betrayed them. Later it was tacked on that the character somehow was able to pin the betrayal on a group of fiends.

Further, there's no reason that a fiend would make such a risky pact with an absolute nobody. Even the chaotic fiends aren't stupid. Why make a pact with a nobody when there are plenty of kings, queens, emperors, priests, and (especially) advisors to the above to corrupt?

Making powerful Faustian pacts is not really something to be done as a 0-level character in your background. They're generally reserved for plot points and NPCs, not thrown in to a background to justify something that could easily be justified right out of the book (just because you have a celestial bloodline doesn't mean you're good; look at the villains from PF#1).

<Devil's advocate>

Well, since this is still a hypothetical character, the background can be a little more fluid. Plus, they could hypothetically be starting at high level, where a Faustian bargain might make sense.

</Devil's advocate>

Which really just highlights the fact that there is no GM, no powers were replaced/lost, nothing happened mid-campaign because there is no campaign for it to happen during, and all of this is completely made-up. Maybe, I dunno, Ravingdork could be pulling a "My Friend has this problem..." but I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt.

Ravingdork wrote:

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

And pray tell, how is a 0th level character going to do that? It's not a plausible story. I don't have any problem with an evil character having the celestial bloodline; I have a problem with this particular story. It's just not internally consistent. It sounds like some kid on a power trip.

+1, the story is the problem here, not the concept and not the character in terms of mechanics.

True, and if that's what the player wants (and his fellow PCs don't mind being in the middle) that's fine. The point is that the player needs to be aware of the possibilities.

How can you make a background like this and NOT be aware of the possibilities?

The character isn't an idiot. He probably made it look like somebody else was responsible--such as a group of true fiends.

The only perfect crime that exists is not the one that remains unsolved, but the one which is solved with the wrong culprit.

Let's get this straight, the people he is trying to fool do not have access to spells like commune, they are the ones who answer the commune spells when they are cast. You can safely assume that their supernatural and divinely supplied wisdom is going to uncover what really happened in very short order. I beg to differ that the character is not an idiot, you'd have to be an idiot to assume you could get away with this for longer than it takes to get a head start running.

Divinations and other such things don't help you if you don't think to utilize them.

See previous answer. Celestial good guys != stupid.

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

And of course a being with a superhuman level of intelligence and wisdom used to the subtle machinations of diabolic forces is never going to think to check and make sure ... <rolls eyes> No, in fact I think that will be their first resort:

Minor Celestial: "Master, Bob and Phil haven't reported back for days, what has happened to them?"
Major Celestial: "Hang on, I'll check up the chain of command. Oh divine light, what has become of Bob and Phil?"
Divine Light: "They were betrayed by the mortal who lured them away to steal their power!"
Major Celestial: "Break out the DIVINE RETRIBUTION!"

If the celestials perceive the villain to be an ally at the time, they likely wouldn't even think to cast zone of truth or similar magic. Even if they have something like that on all the time, a high charisma sorcerer might be able to tell partial truths or manipulate them despite being truthful.

Let me see, they have been betrayed and fooled many times by evil beings of super-human intelligence and power hungry mortals since time began, so they are easily going to be tricked by a fast-talking human of evil alignment ... NOT! Not only is the background bad, it's pretty much impossible for a low-level human to pull off without fiendish assistance, and in that case you are likely to end up with a fiendish, not a celestial blood line.

Such manipulations happen all the time in real life and even smart people are killed as a result.

As for real life events, go watch America's Most Stupid Criminals for a long list of people who thought they could get away with it and they had everything covered, and then found out that they didn't. The reason we know about these cons is that the people doing them got caught.

Ravingdork wrote:

If the villain in question lured the celestial(s) to a dangerous area (such as one where celestials and fiends frequently clash) and then betrays them (perhaps by luring them into one such group of fiends) than anyone coming across the scene will likely come to the most obvious solution: It was just another clash, one in which it seemed like the fiends won.

And pray tell, how is a 0th level character going to do that? It's not a plausible story. I don't have any problem with an evil character having the celestial bloodline; I have a problem with this particular story. It's just not internally consistent. It sounds like some kid on a power trip.

I have to agree with this. Moreover, any celestials approached by a mortal are going to check his alignment first. Biggest problem, celestials don't do pacts.

I really sounds like this is either some kid coming up with an "I think celestials are stupid, so I'll come up with a background that proves it and that makes my character look awesome!" background without actually thinking it through. A bit like the character didn't think it through.

As backgrounds go, it truly sucks. The thing the DM did wrong was not point this out to the player at the time, and warn him there would be serious consequences. Then again, given the way this has been argued perhaps the DM DID tell the player, and the player was dumb enough to try and argue it away ...

Player: "No, no - no-one knew! No-one would ever find out!"
DM: "Of course they would, look you take this background, you're going to get shafted at some point by some ticked off angels."
Player: "But they wouldn't know! I'm taking the background because they wouldn't know!"
DM: "It's your funeral ..."

WARNING: Treating your DM as an idiot you can get one over on is about as smart as your character doing the same to divine servants of the gods.

Hmm.. I thought this was a background, as in pre-level 1 stuff essentially.

I assumed we were talking about a mortal who tricked a Lantern Archon into getting killed so he could steal it's essence (probably through the help of some conniving force, as "Stealing essence" isn't exactly an ability PCs get, let alone a non-classed mortal).

It seems like people are treating this like a non-classed human tricked a bunch of solars into giving him powers or something.

While I agree, some investigation/tracking down might happen... but killing a Lantern Archon doesn't warrant unleashing the golden forces of good on this guy right off the bat.

*Edit*
As a direct example, my players are going through a campaign setting where they were pitted against people using celestials (like a lantern archon), but opposed their ideals enough to warrant lethal force.
Killing the archon would have put a sore spot on the player's interactions with celestials, possibly... if any cared to really dig into the death of lantern archon during a time of war.

But "unleash the solar for holy retribution!"... not really.

.

After rereading the first post, it *does* say "powerful celestials", so yeah.. I can see why people might assume this.

Since it's hypothetical though, I'd just say let's tone back the background to a more realistic level, and it should be fine.

R_Chance wrote:

True, and if that's what the player wants (and his fellow PCs don't mind being in the middle) that's fine. The point is that the player needs to be aware of the possibilities.

How can you make a background like this and NOT be aware of the possibilities?

Somebody came up with this background and you're asking that? :D