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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*Hops on the entitlement bandwagon*

(Since this is only a theoretical topic for the purposes of debate, it has been posted in General Discussion rather than Advice.)

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. 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 "curse-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?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On a related note, I've played in groups where the GM "gifts" the PCs with unique magical items, such as an intelligent magical greataxe that grows in power alongside the PC, but can never be traded, sold, or destroyed. Much like a cursed item, it can't be easily removed. The GM thinks it is "cool" and that the players will "love it." However, the player who gets "stuck with it" specializes in greatswords, not greataxes. Furthermore, the axe bestowed upon its wielder a permanent physical change (such as glowing eyes or scales on one arm) that is purely for fluff. How cool is that? Not very cool if you don't like being unable to shop at the local blacksmith because he thinks you are a monster or a demon. Suddenly, the player in question has lost control of his character. In the worst case scenario he is forced to use a weapon he doesn't want to use and won't get appropriate (or realistic) reactions from NPCs. In the best case scenario he forever has 12 pounds of worthless counting against his encumbrance.

How do you think a player should deal with situations such as this? Do they have any right? Or is the only recourse to find another game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

On a related note, I've played in groups where the GM "gifts" the PCs with unique magical items, such as an intelligent magical greataxe that grows in power alongside the PC, but can never be traded, sold, or destroyed. Much like a cursed item, it can't be easily removed. The GM thinks it is "cool" and that the players will "love it." However, the player who gets "stuck with it" specializes in greatswords, not greataxes. Furthermore, the axe bestowed upon its wielder a permanent physical change (such as glowing eyes or scales on one arm) that is purely for fluff. How cool is that? Not very cool if you don't like being unable to shop at the local blacksmith because he thinks you are a monster or a demon. Suddenly, the player in question has lost control of his character. In the worst case scenario he is forced to use a weapon he doesn't want to use and won't get appropriate (or realistic) reactions from NPCs. In the best case scenario he forever has 12 pounds of worthless counting against his encumbrance.

How do you think a player should deal with situations such as this? Do they have any right? Or is the only recourse to find another game?

I have only perpetrated one instance of such a monkey's-paw type artifact in my game, and the player rolled with the punch and came up swinging. In preparation for going through the classic GDQ series of modules, specifically the latter half which takes place in the Underdark, I had the party fight a band of orcish raiders led by a powerful warlord. He carried a powerful spear that (unbeknownst to the player) transformed the wielder into an orc. I did this so that everyone in the party would have some form of enhanced vision, as the skald (warrior-bard) in the group was human. He took it, as he had nice bonuses with spears, and slowly began to transform.

Instead of b%%&%ing about how he was ugly, or unable to deal with normal society, he played up his orcishness, posing as a high-ranking servitor of the rest of the party (surface elves disguised as drow). He even wound up inspiring a short-lived but spectacular slave uprising to serve as cover for the party's assault on the fabled Vault of the Drow.

I may be lucky in this regard, I know. Many players out there may be less willing or able to take lemons and make lemonade. I just think that a good role-player would be able to make the bizarre twists of fate that happen in magical worlds work for them.

Also, in your first hypothetical, if I were GM, I would likely change him from celestial bloodline to infernal. No loss in the flying feats, there. (I also expanded the infernal line's bloodline arcana to cover [Fear] spells as well as [Charm] spells. There are too few of the latter in the game.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In these situations, simply talking OOC with the GM should resolved these situations.

"Hey, [dm's name here ]I want & built my character to these specifications and would like to keep them that way. Is there any way I keep my alignment & these powers? I would point out the sidebar for Angels mentions fallen angels maintaining thier powers. And there are several examples of Evil Aasimar who keep thier powers... Alignment and these mechanics are seperate issues..."

"Hey, [DM], I don't like these powers your giving me with this weapon and would prefer. If it's meant to be a nifty cursed item, can I save for a chance to ditch this thing or have you already rolled for me? Or what would I need to be rid of it? Or, if all else fails, how can I reliably cover these up so NPCs won't attack me on the streets."

As a DM, I tend to give my players a lot of stuff I think would be cool. If however, they don't like them, all they'd have to do is talk to me and we'd resolve it. I mean, we're all adults here playing a game for fun. Shouldn't be an issue really.

If your dm won't work with you even to this degree, why are you playing with them?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

*Hops on the entitlement bandwagon*

(Since this is only a theoretical topic for the purposes of debate, it has been posted in General Discussion rather than Advice.)

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. 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 "curse-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?

I have one guiding rule that I never vary from. Actions Have Consequences. The GM "didn't take it away from you" You did by committing actions which had consequences. And so it was by your choice.

Or are you saying that there can be no unforeseen consequences of a choice you make, especially a key one?

As a GM, I'm never out to get you, even if my NPCs are. But if you want to put yourself in the path of a cosmic buzzsaw, don't complain if you wind up cut in half.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Given this sentence under the Celestial Bloodline: Bloodline Powers: Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely.

I would say in the first case the GM is fully justified. Yes the player controls the PC, but the GM controls the world. If the PC is doing things that "violate" part of the character definition, then the GM has to rule that way. This is similar to case of a Paladin falling, the Paladin can't run around torturing people for fun.

In the second case, I think that the GM should get together with the PC and discuss the situation with the player about whether he wants the item or not. There are cases where the item is critical to the plot though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be pretty pissed myself.

The text Vod uses is fluff and nothing more. There are no alignment restrictions or even ways to change a blood line.

"Congratulations I've changed your entire heritage. Don't care if your dad was an angel. I've rewritten history to make your dad an imp. "

Bloodline is completely unaffected by alignment. GM screwing with that would be enough for me to get up and walk out there.


Vod Canockers wrote:

Given this sentence under the Celestial Bloodline: Bloodline Powers: Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely.

I would say in the first case the GM is fully justified. Yes the player controls the PC, but the GM controls the world. If the PC is doing things that "violate" part of the character definition, then the GM has to rule that way. This is similar to case of a Paladin falling, the Paladin can't run around torturing people for fun.

And on that point I think that's one solution, but only if the Celestial type creature's pursuing such a transformation. To a situation like this I'd suggest looking, as I said, the fluff on fallen angels:

Quote:
Many religions include stories of angels rebelling against a creator or becoming corrupt and evil. Sadly, this is indeed possible, though thankfully rare, and only the proudest or weakest-willed angels succumb to this fate. Fallen angels are exiles of the good realms, hunted by their former brethren and easy targets for fiends as well. The fallen lose some of the grace and light of their untainted kin, though many are said to still be tragically beautiful. Rarer still are those fallen angels strong and clever enough to join the legions of Hell, and who are often transformed into some type of devil, or those who become demons of the Abyss and carve out a niche in that horrible realm or come to serve a greater demon.

If I were the DM I'd have that character hunted by Angels & Fiends, but I wouldn't force them to switch unless they wanted to.

Again, if good extraplanar outsiders can get away with it why can't a lowly sorceror? Especially, when the text is just fluff and not a mechanic like with any other Alignment restricted class.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:

I have one guiding rule that I never vary from. Actions Have Consequences. The GM "didn't take it away from you" You did by committing actions which had consequences. And so it was by your choice.

Or are you saying that there can be no unforeseen consequences of a choice you make, especially a key one?

As a GM, I'm never out to get you, even if my NPCs are. But if you want to put yourself in the path of a cosmic buzzsaw, don't complain if you wind up cut in half.

This isn't an action taken in the game, but the character's back story: an explanation of how they came to become a celestial sorcerer. It shouldn't have consequences. If the GM didn't want it as is, it should never have made it past the character creation stage as is.

It really is no different then saying "my father was a dragon" or "long ago, my forefathers made a pact with fiends." It should have no more "consequences" than those. What an aweful word. It implies a form of punishment. Any GM who feels a need to punish his players (in game or out) is a GM I hope never to play with.

What it SHOULD have, are what all well-made characters should have: plenty of cool character hooks for the GM to utilize. Divine entities (both good and evil) watching the character closely and even taking an active role in the character's adventuring life is a perfect example of this. I don't see that as a consequence, but good cooperative story telling and fun roleplaying opportunities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM has the right to make changes to any character, however the maturity of the player puts a limit on what you can change without threatening immersion.

If the player isn't immersed, there is no point in putting work into a story anyway.

If they are, you should count it as a blessing and be careful jacking with their character.

Asking permission to make a change to a character can itself break immersion.

GMing is an art.


Ravingdork wrote:

*Hops on the entitlement bandwagon*

(Since this is only a theoretical topic for the purposes of debate, it has been posted in General Discussion rather than Advice.)

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. 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 "curse-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?

The GM is within rights, but hopefully will allow the player to trade out feats that no longer work. The GM and player both have a responsibility to make it possible for everyone to have fun. In the hypothetical scenario the player had a cool concept that could easily be abused. The GM is running a world where PCs cannot cheat celestials or cheat the gods without consequences.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First hypothetical,

1) The timing. You do not read a character's back story (which they give you before the game) and then later on invalidate a large selection of their mechanical choices because of the background fluff they gave their character without first talking to the player about it. No, it doesn't differ between post-start/mid/finish of the campaign, it's just a dick move. If you broached the idea that their bloodline changes and they were okay with it then sure. It's a co-operative endeavour. Springing it on the player is bad. Reflavouring is more appropriate. Purely cosmetic changes I'd be okay with. Not necessarily like, but conceptually okay with.

2) Fiends are fiends because they are made of evilly-aligned planar material and embody negative/evil things, characters become those things because they embraced them in life. That's how the cosmic punishment works for this sort of thing. Heaven sends in the holy vengeance and sends the person to hell that way. They don't really do corrupting curses, they might forcibly sever the pacts but I just don't feel it's thematically appropriate to change the bloodline like that.

3) There's no mechanical justification for it. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely. just speaks to me of the hit squad being dispatched, or at worst, the armies of heaven. As a player I'd feel that the entire thing was unfair and I was being singled out.

Second Hypothetical,

It's a cute idea but it sounds like it was implemented very badly. If a player doesn't want an item you make but you made it so they can't get rid of it you've basically just put them in shackles. They will either find some way of removing it, dealing with it, or just leave (either by rolling a new character or leaving the game).
If it was a more appropriate weapon, it let any weapon feat/feature apply to it, fulfilled a role (since it's a sentient character) in the party that was otherwise absent, then I'd deal with it. I'd probably like it regardless, if it was a well done character.
The GM has the right to do this because they directly control the setting and act as a medium which the party uses to interact with it. A GM can create an item with all these properties. That doesn't mean they should.
The players have the right to use or not use items they come across. Otherwise the DM should just hire actors or write the novel he's always wanted to.

Liberty's Edge

There's a delicate balance here. I agree with LazerX with respect to actions having consequences. However, the Group as a whole, possibly with a greater degree of influence from the GM, determines what rules resources that are available. The players design their PCs using those resources. The players choose their actions within the game. The GM chooses the responses of the NPCs, with the Gameworld essentially being an NPC in this context.

The degree to which fluff vs. crunch plays into this is part of the decision about rules resources. Fluff irrelevancy is a matter of group gaming culture, and varies tremendously. In theory, the scenario in the first post should be discussed at the time of character creation. The player and GM essentially have different opinions about the degree to which fluff is meaningful, and in a matter that is is in conflict with enough distance between the positions to make resolution difficult.

One might hope that the player and GM could come to a campaign driving resolution that might be played out through the PC seeking and possibly gaining a powerful ally who could act as patron in a way to bridge the gap.

Essentially, springing character altering consequences that are the result of non-disclosed differences of culture that occur prior to the start of game, that is, during character creation, is blindsiding the character. The GM inherently has a greater authority in this matter, and blindsiding is essentially bully type behavior.

As far as the difference between during creation or during gameplay, there is a certain amount of atypically beneficial metagaming that needs to be in play here. The description of the scenario in the OP is a fairly sophisticated character concept, one that the player presumably understands better than the character might. It again highlights the need for players and GM to have a common understanding about the game and gameworld so that the characters, whether PC, NPC, or gameworld-as-NPC can take reasonable choices to meet the goal of all participants involved.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM has no control, period. All changes to a PC are part of an agreement between GM and player, and as such should include a discussion if either are unconfortable.


Two separate issues, IMO:

1) the Sorc.
If the DM doesn't like the PC's backstory or doesnt think it fits what the PC has chosen to do (such as "rewriting" the Celestial to be "killed 'em for their power" or something) then the DM needs to bring this up with the PC at character creation and have it out as a talk. The DM has the right to say "it doesn't work that way"... but.
If I was the sorc in question and the DM gave the thumbs up at character creation and then 5-10 (or whatever) levels later essentially rewrote my character class (bloodline choice being a major thing for a sorc. Its not like "oh gee I have blue eyes now" or something) then me and the DM would have an issue. I may roll with the punch, but it happening at all would be a serious red flag for me.
Is he gonna decide my Sorc becomes a wizard next? or Oh gee your guy is an Oracle now, isn't that special!.
Such issues need to be at the beginning of the campaign, not halfway through.

2) Items.
I'd talk to the DM. If my character is 9th level with half a dozen feats for Greatswords and he gives me the Greataxe of Ultimate Orc Slaying or something that I can't get rid of and that insists on me using it. (yay intelligent weapons) then me and the DM need to talk.
As for whether I'd use the weapon in question? It would depend entirely on which one was better- unless my character had a strong in-character bond for his weapon. (No, I won't use that nasty Greataxes. The Clan of the Cavebear has been using Greataxes since my GreatGreatGreatGreat Grandfather (3 times removed) killed the King Cavebear with that old rusty greatsword he found, and I'm NOT going to be the first one in three hundred years to do my slaying with something different!) or whathave you.))

Assuming no "attachment" to weapon type, then I'd just use the one that gave the best stats. But I'd still talk to the DM about the issue. Afterall- maybe he didn't realize you use Greatswords and just remembered the weapon had Great in the name. (DM's do have alot to keep track of, afterall).
-S


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Trying to figure out exactly how this thread brings anything to the table not already exhaustively explored on dozens of "paladin falls" threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Trying to figure out exactly how this thread brings anything to the table not already exhaustively explored on dozens of "paladin falls" threads.

I have never seen a paladin fall for stuff he did in his back-story before so I suppose that's new.


Ravingdork wrote:
LazarX wrote:

I have one guiding rule that I never vary from. Actions Have Consequences. The GM "didn't take it away from you" You did by committing actions which had consequences. And so it was by your choice.

Or are you saying that there can be no unforeseen consequences of a choice you make, especially a key one?

As a GM, I'm never out to get you, even if my NPCs are. But if you want to put yourself in the path of a cosmic buzzsaw, don't complain if you wind up cut in half.

This isn't an action taken in the game, but the character's back story: an explanation of how they came to become a celestial sorcerer. It shouldn't have consequences. If the GM didn't want it as is, it should never have made it past the character creation stage as is.

It really is no different then saying "my father was a dragon" or "long ago, my forefathers made a pact with fiends." It should have no more "consequences" than those. What an aweful word. It implies a form of punishment. Any GM who feels a need to punish his players (in game or out) is a GM I hope never to play with.

What it SHOULD have, are what all well-made characters should have: plenty of cool character hooks for the GM to utilize. Divine entities (both good and evil) watching the character closely and even taking an active role in the character's adventuring life is a perfect example of this. I don't see that as a consequence, but good cooperative story telling and fun roleplaying opportunities.

I kinda of disagree consequences are not punishments. If you don't have consequences in the game...like said a group fireballing a bunch of children hostages to get the bad guys...that immersion completely breaks down.

Also your background can totaly have consequences...actualy most backgrounds already do...it is just what the players write in thenmselves. But if you right a villain in your character's background...that is a consequence.

The only thing above example I would have a problem with is the gods taking that kinda of direction action...also conversely if the goods are trying to punish me...would not the dark gods I serve...seeing the value of my heritage to their cause protect me?

It is completely Ok to have action with consequences...the problem I see though is it seems DMs get caught up in the bad consequences and never the good consequences. If the GM is faired and logical and consistent with it I would not have any problems with the above.

The intelligent magic it...you should never make a item unable to go away period. They should always ne ways to get rid of it.


Ravinddork, both of your ideas sound interesting. I may very well roll with them, as a player...however, I would prefer the GM tell me his plans beforehand, because depending on my character, I might NOT want those changes. If the GM wants a plotline based around the sorcerer being 'cursed' or a 'cursed' weapon, that's great, many players would love that story hook...but it would be preferable for all if it's talked about beforehand (if possible). If the sorcerer's character concept relied heavily on a particular bloodline, maybe examine the bloodlines and find one that gives them, say, wings (for their Flyby Attack in your example), or consider a curse of another type. For the 'cursed' weapon, well, it's less 'cursed' if the weapon is one that they want to use, and they'll think it's way more cool. In either situation, talking things out can make the difference between an annoyed player, and a happy player. And annoyed players often lead to annoyed GMs, once the player stops liking the game (note, I'm not trying to say that player happiness>GM happiness).

tl;dr, communication is key.


The bit about the weapons reminds me of a game back in the 2E days where the GM gave us, at low level, these really awesome items that were tied to whatever our quest was. They weren't cursed or anything, just so overpowered it would be stupid not to use them.

But there was no real thought given in handing them out to the actual characters. I was playing a cleric, but I was trying to be a battle priest rather than the standard healbot. I got an artifact healing staff. Impressive enough that it really did make more sense for me to stand back and heal rather than fight. And we needed it, since we had all this extra power and were fighting really tough things.
Really frustrating. On one level, awesome toys. On the other, it took all the fun out of playing my character. He didn't matter anymore.

The game didn't last long.

Don't mess with the player's character concept if it'll break why he wanted to play it in the first place. Talk to him before any long term changes.

Silver Crusade

Sometimes fluff is not see easily ignored.

There are reasons for having the "they are watching you" clause in there. As a player you don't get to decide if and how they are watching you. Everything doesn't have to be spelled out in rule format for it to possibly affect you in some way.

You won't be running around killing innocents and thinking you are going to keep the "good" title.

I'm not sure where this, if there isn't a written rule then it can't effect me without my permission, line of thinking comes from.


shallowsoul wrote:

Sometimes fluff is not see easily ignored.

There are reasons for having the "they are watching you" clause in there. As a player you don't get to decide if and how they are watching you. Everything doesn't have to be spelled out in rule format for it to possibly affect you in some way.

You won't be running around killing innocents and thinking you are going to keep the "good" title.

I'm not sure where this, if there isn't a written rule then it can't effect me without my permission, line of thinking comes from.

Didn't OP say that the hypothetical sorcerer was evil?


In scenario 1 the GM should have talked to the player before the game started to fix those problems. I agree that actions have consequences, but if the player doesn't want to play the now changed character, that's a serious problem (and the GM's fault, as it should have been taken care of in the character creation process).

I'm kind of confused about the point of scenario 2. If I was GMing a game I would never give a player an intelligent weapon they didn't want to use b/c I thought it was cool. As a player I would just look at my GM w/ that look of wtf, what's that about? I think I'd just let my character keep it, never use the weapon, and let everyone else enjoy my character slowly going crazy as this random intelligent weapons annoys me constantly. :P


shallowsoul wrote:

Sometimes fluff is not see easily ignored.

There are reasons for having the "they are watching you" clause in there. As a player you don't get to decide if and how they are watching you. Everything doesn't have to be spelled out in rule format for it to possibly affect you in some way.

You won't be running around killing innocents and thinking you are going to keep the "good" title.

I'm not sure where this, if there isn't a written rule then it can't effect me without my permission, line of thinking comes from.

Because the ability is independent of being good. Its not a clause. It's fluff, inherently worthless to actual gameplay.

Its like saying Paladin's can't use dirty trick. does it say its evil or even dishonorable anywhere in there? No? THEN IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ACTUAL SKILL.

Its a bloodline. You can be chaotic evil mass murderer celestial if you want. If its been approved, its been approved. There are no alignment restrictions or "falling." There are also no rules set in stone for changing bloodlines.

This isn't to say a GM can't do these things, but doing so would be a pretty dick move in my opinion. Furthermore, it would be 100% without a doubt a house rule. There is nothing in the rules to support such an act. You can't pretend fluff are rules. They're not rules. They're fluff.

On a final note, even from a RP standpoint this is odd. The celestials are watching you. Your alignment is independent of your parentage. It doesn't matter if they're watching you. You think they're going to alter your race effectively? I mean I don't doubt you can but if you even read the fluff above it.

Celestial Bloodline wrote:
Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention. Although this power drives you along the path of good, your fate (and alignment) is your own to determine.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Sometimes fluff is not see easily ignored.

There are reasons for having the "they are watching you" clause in there. As a player you don't get to decide if and how they are watching you. Everything doesn't have to be spelled out in rule format for it to possibly affect you in some way.

You won't be running around killing innocents and thinking you are going to keep the "good" title.

I'm not sure where this, if there isn't a written rule then it can't effect me without my permission, line of thinking comes from.

Because the ability is independent of being good. Its not a clause. It's fluff, inherently worthless to actual gameplay.

Its like saying Paladin's can't use dirty trick. does it say its evil or even dishonorable anywhere in there? No? THEN IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ACTUAL SKILL.

Its a bloodline. You can be chaotic evil mass murderer celestial if you want. If its been approved, its been approved. There are no alignment restrictions or "falling." There are also no rules set in stone for changing bloodlines.

This isn't to say a GM can't do these things, but doing so would be a pretty dick move in my opinion. Furthermore, it would be 100% without a doubt a house rule. There is nothing in the rules to support such an act. You can't pretend fluff are rules. They're not rules. They're fluff.

On a final note, even from a RP standpoint this is odd. The celestials are watching you. Your alignment is independent of your parentage. It doesn't matter if they're watching you. You think they're going to alter your race effectively? I mean I don't doubt you can but if you even read the fluff above it.

Celestial Bloodline wrote:
Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention. Although this power drives you along the path of good, your fate (and alignment) is your own to determine.

You have never been more wrong I'm afraid.

Fluff has a lot to do with gameplay. I'm not sure if you are new to Pathfinder or new to role playing games in general but walking around with that thought will run you into trouble real quick.

There is a reason for fluff, you don't get to decide what fluff is to be ignored just because you want to escape the fluff in order to gain the benefits.

Bloodline Powers: Your celestial heritage grants you a
great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of
the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely.

Every word is a part of the Bloodline Power here, you don't to decide that you are accepting the powers but ignore anything else that may cause your character a problem. You accept the powers then you accept the fact that the lords of the higher planes are watching you, which the DM is the controller of said lords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here, the DM could of (and maybe should of) rejected the idea of a Evil Celestial Sorc from the get-go. That is 100% within the DM's purview.

OTOH, the change is something that should have been discussed with the Player OOC beforehand, even if the DM can't reveal everything: "Bob, I have a cool story line coming up for your Sorc, but it will result in your bloodline changing, what do you think?"

As for the magic weapons, i have have yet to see one, other than a truly cursed weapon, where the PC couldn't get rid of it, and even so, even with cursed weapons, the PC has to choose to wield it without having it checked out first, and then that's his fault.


shallowsoul wrote:


You have never been more wrong I'm afraid.

Fluff is fluff. Rules are rules. I've been playing RPG's for 6 years. Youre effectively arguing that the "Barbarians are mistrustful of magic" clause back in the 3.5 manual in the other class relation sections meant that barbarians couldn't be wizards or sorcerers.

Silver Crusade

DrDeth wrote:

Here, the DM could of (and maybe should of) rejected the idea of a Evil Celestial Sorc from the get-go. That is 100% within the DM's purview.

OTOH, the change is something that should have been discussed with the Player OOC beforehand, even if the DM can't reveal everything: "Bob, I have a cool story line coming up for your Sorc, but it will result in your bloodline changing, what do you think?"

As for the magic weapons, i have have yet to see one, other than a truly cursed weapon, where the PC couldn't get rid of it, and even so, even with cursed weapons, the PC has to choose to wield it without having it checked out first, and then that's his fault.

The player should have talked it over with the DM first instead of jumping right into it and then expecting the DM not to do anything.

The DM would have told him "If that's what you want to do then fine but I'm warning you now that there will be consequences for your actions".


Changing the bloodline on the PC is not cool. The PC should be responsible for their actions, the GM for describing the consequences of those actions. Creating a curse to change the character's build to something else based on the fact that they built their character a certain way is not to dissimilar to telling the player to use a pre-rolled character instead. If it happened down the line as a consequence of something the character does in-game, then fine - but not as part of their background.

Having the PC stuck with the equivalent of a 1e artifact (I was thinking Axe of the Dwarvish Lords when reading the scenario) is fine. It's a consequence of picking it up without doing research about such a powerful item first. The player should embrace it and develop their character with it as part of the unfolding story. Either that or lead the story into a quest to get rid of the thing.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I have all the control over the PCs. I tell them what to do, where to do it, and how.

And they think it's all THEIR ideas!

Sovereign Court

As far as PC back stories go, I have always viewed them as an added level to the world creation. As such, character back story, and actions the character took in their back story, can very well have an impact in the way the world develops in direct relation to the PC.

If the back story is nothing but fluff, then it should not elements that could very well would have had repercussions if they occurred in game. If a player wants to give their PC a back story where they have dealt with and turn on extra planar creatures, especially those which actually held power, then yeah, there should be repercussions and those are up to the GM to decide.

Silver Crusade

Hugo Rune wrote:

Changing the bloodline on the PC is not cool. The PC should be responsible for their actions, the GM for describing the consequences of those actions. Creating a curse to change the character's build to something else based on the fact that they built their character a certain way is not to dissimilar to telling the player to use a pre-rolled character instead. If it happened down the line as a consequence of something the character does in-game, then fine - but not as part of their background.

Having the PC stuck with the equivalent of a 1e artifact (I was thinking Axe of the Dwarvish Lords when reading the scenario) is fine. It's a consequence of picking it up without doing research about such a powerful item first. The player should embrace it and develop their character with it as part of the unfolding story. Either that or lead the story into a quest to get rid of the thing.

Then the DM needs to explain to the player what's going on, what's going to happen, and if he wants to continue playing that character or not.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Fluff is fluff. Rules are rules.

Rules are useless without fluff to give them context. That part about being watched by lords of the higher planes is meaningful. It's not useless text.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Fluff is fluff. Rules are rules.

Rules are useless without fluff to give them context. That part about being watched by lords of the higher planes is meaningful. It's not useless text.

The same way that barbarians can't cast magic because the fluff says they're superstitious back in 3.5. Wait. No thats wrong. The fluff there has absolutely no bearing on the rules whatsoever. You could take 1 level of Barbarian and then dip into every other arcane caster in the game if you wanted.

Silver Crusade

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Fluff is fluff. Rules are rules.

Rules are useless without fluff to give them context. That part about being watched by lords of the higher planes is meaningful. It's not useless text.
The same way that barbarians can't cast magic because the fluff says they're superstitious back in 3.5. Wait. No thats wrong. The fluff there has absolutely no bearing on the rules whatsoever. You could take 1 level of Barbarian and then dip into every other arcane caster in the game if you wanted.

This is hilarious.

Your aren't even using examples that are remotely close.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM's control over a PC is limited to inflicting HP damage, stat damage or drain, and negative levels and adjucating alignment drift or Druid/Paladin/Cavalier code violations.

The GM has veto, but if exercised at any time after character creation the player should have full rebuild rights

The GM technically has the right to inflict a combination cursed item and plot critical DMPC on the party, but if they do they need an intervention and a course of treatment from Powertrippers Anonymous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

This is hilarious.

Your aren't even using examples that are remotely close.

Funny because the fluff here is contradictory or did you not read the section I posted?

YOUR FATE (AND ALIGNMENT) IS YOUR OWN TO DETERMINE.

I dare you to find one section in there, just one, that says that "if the deities judge you not to be good you lose your bloodline."

See what you're doing is using fluff (non rule related crap) to make junk up. Which is fine. But quit pretending that its RAW or even RAI. Its not. Its houserules. Play the way you want but its not even RAI.

Silver Crusade

Atarlost wrote:

The GM's control over a PC is limited to inflicting HP damage, stat damage or drain, and negative levels and adjucating alignment drift or Druid/Paladin/Cavalier code violations.

The GM has veto, but if exercised at any time after character creation the player should have full rebuild rights

The GM technically has the right to inflict a combination cursed item and plot critical DMPC on the party, but if they do they need an intervention and a course of treatment from Powertrippers Anonymous.

Source?


shallowsoul wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:

Changing the bloodline on the PC is not cool. The PC should be responsible for their actions, the GM for describing the consequences of those actions. Creating a curse to change the character's build to something else based on the fact that they built their character a certain way is not to dissimilar to telling the player to use a pre-rolled character instead. If it happened down the line as a consequence of something the character does in-game, then fine - but not as part of their background.

Having the PC stuck with the equivalent of a 1e artifact (I was thinking Axe of the Dwarvish Lords when reading the scenario) is fine. It's a consequence of picking it up without doing research about such a powerful item first. The player should embrace it and develop their character with it as part of the unfolding story. Either that or lead the story into a quest to get rid of the thing.

Then the DM needs to explain to the player what's going on, what's going to happen, and if he wants to continue playing that character or not.

I respectfully disagree, the GM sets the framework but the players control the action. The GM can't know what's going to happen (other than privately consider some possible outcomes) because the player hasn't decided on their course of action.

Now, if the GM is playing a railroad adventure where the players have no control over their destinly then both the GM might as well narrate a story or just give the player a book to read - it's a more efficient use of time. If the player is the kind who sulks everytime something bad happens to their character then they should play computer games and save often instead.

Silver Crusade

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

This is hilarious.

Your aren't even using examples that are remotely close.

Funny because the fluff here is contradictory or did you not read the section I posted?

YOUR FATE (AND ALIGNMENT) IS YOUR OWN TO DETERMINE.

I dare you to find one section in there, just one, that says that "if the deities judge you not to be good you lose your bloodline."

See what you're doing is using fluff (non rule related crap) to make junk up. Which is fine. But quit pretending that its RAW or even RAI. Its not. Its houserules. Play the way you want but its not even RAI.

That's right, so if you decide to go down that road with fate and alignment then you have to accept the consequences. You don't get to decide what happens, well you get to decide the road you want to go down and if it conflicts with something in the DM's world then he decides what the final outcome is.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM should stay away from the PC. If a GM made a "mechanical" change to my PC like that I would, at the least, just play something else. I might even allow him to find someone to take my place at the table.

Silver Crusade

Hugo Rune wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:

Changing the bloodline on the PC is not cool. The PC should be responsible for their actions, the GM for describing the consequences of those actions. Creating a curse to change the character's build to something else based on the fact that they built their character a certain way is not to dissimilar to telling the player to use a pre-rolled character instead. If it happened down the line as a consequence of something the character does in-game, then fine - but not as part of their background.

Having the PC stuck with the equivalent of a 1e artifact (I was thinking Axe of the Dwarvish Lords when reading the scenario) is fine. It's a consequence of picking it up without doing research about such a powerful item first. The player should embrace it and develop their character with it as part of the unfolding story. Either that or lead the story into a quest to get rid of the thing.

Then the DM needs to explain to the player what's going on, what's going to happen, and if he wants to continue playing that character or not.

I respectfully disagree, the GM sets the framework but the players control the action. The GM can't know what's going to happen (other than privately consider some possible outcomes) because the player hasn't decided on their course of action.

Now, if the GM is playing a railroad adventure where the players have no control over their destinly then both the GM might as well narrate a story or just give the player a book to read - it's a more efficient use of time. If the player is the kind who sulks everytime something bad happens to their character then they should play computer games and save often instead.

You can disagree all you want but it doesn't change anything. The DM controls the universe that you play in so if you do something that causes the ball to start rolling then you don't always get to decide where it's going to go.

The Celestial Bloodline makes it perfectly clear that the lords are watching you very closely and the DM gets to decide if that's serious fluff or if he wants to ignore it. "You" don't get to make that call.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
The GM should stay away from the PC. If a GM made a "mechanical" change to my PC like that I would, at the least, just play something else. I might even allow him to find someone to take my place at the table.

Gotta live with your actions.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Luckily, I DON'T have to live with the actions of my PC! :D


shallowsoul wrote:
The player should have talked it over with the DM first instead of jumping right into it and then expecting the DM not to do anything.

Maybe the player did? The hypothetical situation never said the player DIDN'T ask--simply that partway through the campaign, the Gods laid down a curse.


shallowsoul wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

This is hilarious.

Your aren't even using examples that are remotely close.

Funny because the fluff here is contradictory or did you not read the section I posted?

YOUR FATE (AND ALIGNMENT) IS YOUR OWN TO DETERMINE.

I dare you to find one section in there, just one, that says that "if the deities judge you not to be good you lose your bloodline."

See what you're doing is using fluff (non rule related crap) to make junk up. Which is fine. But quit pretending that its RAW or even RAI. Its not. Its houserules. Play the way you want but its not even RAI.

That's right, so if you decide to go down that road with fate and alignment then you have to accept the consequences. You don't get to decide what happens, well you get to decide the road you want to go down and if it conflicts with something in the DM's world then he decides what the final outcome is.

Disclaimer:
Please all take this with a chuckle. I Just had to stand up and walk away from my desk when I read the above as this passed through my head.

Oh, and great was the day when the skies opened and the light of truth was upon us all! For on this day of days did Shallowsoul admit someone else was right and acknowledge his own choice of House-rules!

Truly was this blessed event heralded by the highest choir weaving a bittersweet song of hard won victory as light came to the land and we all walked in truth once more!


shallowsoul wrote:
That's right, so if you decide to go down that road with fate and alignment then you have to accept the consequences. You don't get to decide what happens, well you get to decide the road you want to go down and if it conflicts with something in the DM's world then he decides what the final outcome is.

There is no inbuilt game mechanic for what you suggested. At all. Nothing anywhere that says "if you're not good you can lose the celestial bloodline."

Like I said, he can make up whatever he wants. Quit pretending its a paladins code. Its not. As per raw or RAI, what you're suggesting is not possible. Quit pretending it is.

GM can do whatever he wants. This is a dick move that blindsides players.


shallowsoul wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

The GM's control over a PC is limited to inflicting HP damage, stat damage or drain, and negative levels and adjucating alignment drift or Druid/Paladin/Cavalier code violations.

The GM has veto, but if exercised at any time after character creation the player should have full rebuild rights

The GM technically has the right to inflict a combination cursed item and plot critical DMPC on the party, but if they do they need an intervention and a course of treatment from Powertrippers Anonymous.

Source?

Common courtesy and a modicum of respect for your fellow human beings.

Shadow Lodge

You can't make a PC drink, but you can damn sure lead him to water.


@shallowsoul - I think we're agreeing but I'm not sure. The GM set the framework but the player decided to perform the action. That action has consequences. It's then up to the player to decide how to deal with the fallout of those consequences.

Where I disagreed with you was the GM having to tell the player what happened and what is going to happen and then giving the player the option to change character. What happened should be self explanatory at a high level. Taking scenario 1 - you p*ssed off a God enough that they took time out of running their part of the multiverse to personally alter reality so that you've got a different bloodline. Taking scenario 2. You've picked up the Axe and now have an overwhelming urge to keep it [Will save DC999 or whatever to drop].

What is going to happen is also up to the player. With scenario 1, they could decide to keep it, find out why they got cursed, go on a quest to restore themselves, two or three of the above or anything else - it's up to the player. With example 2, they could go - cool I've got an uber-axe, what is it I should find a sage, or go on a quest to get it removed. All player choices, not GM ones. All th GM knows is that everytime the axe is used, or after x period of time something happens.

1 to 50 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How much control does / should a GM have over a PC? All Messageboards