Making powerful Faustian pacts is not really something to be done as a 0-level character in your background.
I take it you didn't like the "Warlock" class.
Never mind your argument doesn't make an iota of sense.
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!"
Something you apparently never want to do according to Dabbler: Lesser Planar Ally the weakest of all celestials to fight for you and let it die.
It will cause an aspect of the god that likes celestials to appear and smite you apparently.
Making powerful Faustian pacts is not really something to be done as a 0-level character in your background.I take it you didn't like the "Warlock" class.
Never mind your argument doesn't make an iota of sense.
According to the fluff on the Warlock class, you get the powers because of a pact made by one of your ancestors, not you personally.
Something you apparently never want to do according to Dabbler: Lesser Planar Ally the weakest of all celestials to fight for you and let it die.
It will cause an aspect of the god that likes celestials to appear and smite you apparently.
There is a big difference between deliberately betraying, murdering and sucking the essence from something and summoning it to aid you in a fight. According to the original text, these were "powerful celestials" so I think they were higher up the food chain than a lowly lantern archon.
Let me clarify my position a bit.
First, the player had a character concept where he basically screwed over some very powerful forces in the Universe. The character got caught and busted. Cry me a river.
Second, it would have been better if the GM had said when the character was created, "Look Jimbo, you realize that if celestials ever caught up with you, it'd be bad for you, right?" (yes, it seems like an obvious point, but, apparently, the player didn't think of it and hind sight is 20/20). Apparently, the GM didn't say that.
Thirdly, I'm having a hard time having any sympathy at all for the player. I mean, the GM incorporated his backstory into the plot and gave the PC some motivation to have something to work for. This isn't a bad thing. It sounds like a maturity issue on the part of the player.
I am in complete agreement. The DM's mistake was that if he didn't spell out that this would cause major trouble, he should have. The rest is all down to the player.
|
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."
Actually no, I agree with that as well, but you're too busy making accusations about my playstyle to realize it.
According to the fluff on the Warlock class, you get the powers because of a pact made by one of your ancestors, not you personally.
I disagree. As does the text.
Many warlocks are champions of dark and chaotic powers. Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors)
There is a big difference between deliberately betraying, murdering and sucking the essence from something and summoning it to aid you in a fight. According to the original text, these were "powerful celestials" so I think they were higher up the food chain than a lowly lantern archon.
Have you seen Lantern Archons? To a level 0 character, they ARE a powerful celestial. Greater Teleport at will. An aura of menace, DR 10, immune to electricity, perfect fly speed, can shoot super powered light rays as a normal ability of the race!
I know players in our group who get upset when the GM "gifts" them with a magical greataxe that grows in power along with 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.It basically comes down to this.
A GM who gives a greataxe to a PC who is all about greatswords is failing his/her job as a GM. The GM needs to know what the players want, and what their characters are going for, and needs to work with that, not try to reshape them into something HE thinks is cool.
For example then, are you saying that the Wind Duke's weapons in Age of Worms should be changed into something the Party might actually want rather than stay as written and be useless to the party?
I'm not insane then? This is actually a mathematical inevitability?Godwin's Law is the popular term for the phenomenon of apparent Hitler/Nazi inevitability.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.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 wouldn't say it's probability 1, but it's definitely high. I would say it's higher than it is for major cultural and historical personages who sustain a lifetime of reading, contemplation, and discussion, such as Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and C Darwin.
It states it in the Law. The longer an online discussion progresses, the chance that a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is made approaches one.
Let me clarify my position a bit.
First, the player had a character concept where he basically screwed over some very powerful forces in the Universe. The character got caught and busted. Cry me a river.
Second, it would have been better if the GM had said when the character was created, "Look Jimbo, you realize that if celestials ever caught up with you, it'd be bad for you, right?" (yes, it seems like an obvious point, but, apparently, the player didn't think of it and hind sight is 20/20). Apparently, the GM didn't say that.
Thirdly, I'm having a hard time having any sympathy at all for the player. I mean, the GM incorporated his backstory into the plot and gave the PC some motivation to have something to work for. This isn't a bad thing. It sounds like a maturity issue on the part of the player.
Agreed.
Mostly, I think the problem beneath the surface isn't a matter of "control." Look at the second example with the axe: the slope is pretty slippery on this one, and you can easily see complaints along the same lines where the issue is the Player is selfish and the GM isn't catering to the player's every whim.
GM's exist to create problems for players. That's what an adventure is. That naturally exerts some degree of control over the form and shape of the characters.
These particular situations and solutions seem rather ham-fisted, though. "Yoink - swapped your bloodline!" is a dull choice. It's not interesting. It doesn't create story. Second example only needs one tweak, nearly trivial tweak (changing the weapon type) to make it interesting and good.
So it's not overbearing, and it's not really bad GMing, just kind of sloppy and imprecise.
These particular situations and solutions seem rather ham-fisted, though. "Yoink - swapped your bloodline!" is a dull choice. It's not interesting. It doesn't create story. Second example only needs one tweak, nearly trivial tweak (changing the weapon type) to make it interesting and good.
So it's not overbearing, and it's not really bad GMing, just kind of sloppy and imprecise.
Indeed. having something unusual happen when he accessed his bloodline powers, like black wings, harmful fire, and the like would be much more appropriate ... something slow and creeping that lets him know what's afoot.
I see a lot of assumptions and misinformation floating about.
For example, the theoretical character in question didn't "suck the power right out of a powerful celestial." He's not a vampire. Being "0-level" as many of you put it, such a thing would be near impossible or require powerful outside forces.
The theoretical character was GRANTED the powers BY THE CELESTIALS for [make up a SENSIBLE reason]. He then later betrayed them to their deaths for [make up a LOGICAL reason].
Another thing, I am not at all opposed to heavenly enforcers (or mortal enforces of the heavens) eventually figuring it out and taking steps to make things right. That's why I picked that background, so the GM would have a cool plot hook to use later on. However, I did not make it so the GM could smite the character at level 1. That is detrimental the player's fun, to the game, and to the story.
There is a lot of distortion in this thread just so people can get an imaginary upper hand in an online discussion.
It's upsetting.
There is a lot of distortion in this thread just so people can get an imaginary upper hand in an online discussion.
It's upsetting.
People can only react to the level of information you supply. All you have said is that at character creation 'The theoretical character' was able to get powers granted by Celestials (and the inferance there is they are powerful celestials because weak ones cannot grant 'power') and that 'The theoretical character' later 'betrayed and slew them all in such a way as no one knows' which is no small feat in itself, let alone no small feat for someone who will probably be WEAKER than the Celestials who are giving him power. We assume weaker because you have never stated at what level this happened so we assume pre level 1, which is where a lot of new campaigns start, in there background.
Also you have supplied 0 information on the means of gaining power and the means of betrayal and destruction so folks have to try to 'fill in the blanks' to make sense to themselves.
I have a couple direct questions for you:
1) Is this your character?
2) If not, does the PLAYER of this character have issue with what is being done to their character?
So far I have read your posts and you have said that the other players have almost all lost at least one character, you had one lost but returned and that OTHERS have been given weapons that are less than usefull but YOU have not.
You have also stated that the others are enjoying themselves and some are even having a lot of fun with how the game is going.
I have to ask, are you sure your playing in a game that suits YOUR playstyle best if the others are having fun?
I see a lot of assumptions and misinformation floating about.
For example, the theoretical character in question didn't "suck the power right out of a powerful celestial." He's not a vampire. Being "0-level" as many of you put it, such a thing would be near impossible or require powerful outside forces.
We have as much information as you gave us. Now you have clarified we can back-track a little.
The theoretical character was GRANTED the powers BY THE CELESTIALS for [make up a SENSIBLE reason]. He then later betrayed them to their deaths for [make up a LOGICAL reason].
Sensible reason: He must have been saintly in alignment and performed a great service for them with no expectation of reward, I suppose. I mean, celestials are really wary of granting power to mortals for just this reason. They are aware that power corrupts, no way would they grant it to anyone of less than impeccable character and Good alignment.
Logical Reason: He was corrupted by temptations of power or love by fiendish forces. I'm saying this because it would take fiends to destroy celestials, and I cannot think of any other reasons for such a radical about turn of character.
Another thing, I am not at all opposed to heavenly enforcers (or mortal enforces of the heavens) eventually figuring it out and taking steps to make things right. That's why I picked that background, so the GM would have a cool plot hook to use later on. However, I did not make it so the GM could smite the character at level 1. That is detrimental the player's fun, to the game, and to the story.
OK, so my grasp of this is that your issue is that the DM had the celestials figure things out a lot faster than you expected (well, they are part of the hot-line to omniscience) and the action he's taken isn't what you had imagined.
There is a lot of distortion in this thread just so people can get an imaginary upper hand in an online discussion.
No, we're trying to get a handle on a situation that you didn't initially describe very clearly.
Step 1: talk to DM and explain what you had in mind for how this could develop.
Step 2: listen to his ideas about how he thinks the celestial forces would react.
Step 3: work out between you how this effects your character.
I think a DM should have control over just about everything that happens in the game he runs, he/she shouldn't abuse it to cause a case of non-fun though.
In the examples the dm has done some things badly, that doesn't mean a DM should but out off players backgrounds or guide players along.. every DM will run campaign as he likes and most of the time the players wont have issue with it unless the DM sucks and forgets his first duty is to make the game enjoyable for everyone.
I do not like the grand scope of the characters background, especially if the campaign starts at low level unless it is extremely well written I'd either disallow it or 'fix' it to fit into my campaign.
The background bloodline change could and should have been cleared with the player or reversible "Cursed".
The axe actually is cursed, look up the word cursed. However curses should have in game releases. Or be prepared for angery players.
That said the DM's job is not to carter to the whims and b~**@ing of the players. You don't like the game then write your own. You want a DMat to walk on fine go find one. As for the DM's job to keep the players happy? HA! Players should be playing to avenge the wrongs their DM has visited upon them. A DM's "job" is to provide a game in which to play for the enjoyment of the group. Player enjoyment is a group's job not the DM's.
Mr. Fishy would like to point out the munchkin is about playing style as much or even more than rules and numbers.
Player makes a super beast and breaks the curve for the whole party, MUNCHKIN.
Player plays a racist elf hating CE Dwarven Rogue then kills an elven party member and excuses himself with, "But my character"...MUNCHKIN.
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.
Thanks!! I really needed that belly laugh!
|
agreeI'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.
See it only took you guys 3 pages to figure out what I did on page one. :D
Seriously though, setting yourself up in such a way is asking for trouble and I can guarantee there was more than a little bit of munchkin plotting behind the scenes here.
This was bound to show up inevitably, and honestly, though it may be pretty rough from a player perspective, I think the DM handled it pretty gracefully. Everything that was taken away was logically explained and replaced with something else.
...so the GM would have a cool plot hook to use later on. However, I did not make it so the GM could smite the character at level 1. That is detrimental the player's fun, to the game, and to the story.
Dunno about that. Again, I think it's the wrong tool for the job, but if the GM was going to switch out bloodlines, isn't it much more of a mercy to happen at level one, than at level 10, after nine levels of powers, skills, et cetera based on having that bloodline?
Likewise, detrimental to the story or fun is impossible to answer in a theoretical context. It might be awesome for the story, if it fits, and turn out to be incredibly fun to play out.
|
|
The theoretical character was GRANTED the powers BY THE CELESTIALS for [make up a SENSIBLE reason]. He then later betrayed them to their deaths for [make up a LOGICAL reason].
I hope you can understand that the thing most are saying is that the SENSIBLE and LOGICAL reasons are very difficult to justify. As a whole there seems to be more people in this thread who just can't see it. The concept is good but the player involved is just too fantastical (no pun intended).
SENSIBLE reason = must be something big that attracted the attention of greater powers (rather than the characters mother did a couple of rounds in the back of a celestials van - at least she really could claim "this guy took be to heaven and back" I guess). Throw out some ideas that don't make this character the pivot point for the entire campaign to hinge around and the other PC's bit parts. I'm having issues - this guy is "Percy Whatever and the Lightning Thief"!
LOGICAL reason = so greater powers say "your great, have these cool abilities" and then sometime before 1st level the PC does the whole Anakin Skywalker thing?! Perhaps if done "in campaign" I would work with the PC and see what could be done - but at first level fooorrrrrggggeeeetttt iiittttttt.
I hope you understand that people aren't attacking your idea, just that the implementation seems a little nebulous.
Regards,
S.
Thanks!! I really needed that belly laugh!
No problemo. :)
Yeah, I'm sure Fighters know lots about Arcana.
You do know common knowledge is DC 10 and anyone can make it, right, Mr "friendly DM"?
....except that mere "common knowledge" doesn't exist for a lot of subjects, in game.
ravingdork, this is the simplest query you've put forth to the group. If the DM takes a player's choice regarding FLUFF, and deals with it by ALTERING THE MECHANICS OF A CHARACTER WITHOUT THE PLAYER'S CONSENT, it goes too far.
Though I have to ask......was this mentioned in any out of game talks between you and him?
|
I'm a story dm and I'll chime in. There is a lot missing, and it all seems to be in the players favor, but we need to know a few things.
1. Did the player discuss the backstory with the DM and get it approved? Yes I said approved, I will go a little more into this in a bit. If so, did the subject of retribution or even just the seriousness of the situation come up?
2. Was the player of said power trying to keep his celestial powers and sinister nature on the down low, or was he pissing off every paladin he found.
3. Is this a one shot or an ongoing campaign with consistency?
I sure there are other things, but lets look at these. If 1 is no, then BOTH dm and player are wrong. The players should have talked to the DM about it, to make sure it fit in. The DM should have taken more of an interest in what the player was looking to do.
2. If the player was trying to keep it a secret, not causing general strife, and it dosen't mess with anything else (see 3) then let it go. If the player was going around flaunting that he is a celestial tricking bad ass, then he deserves to get humped.
3. If the game is an ongoing campaign that relies on consistency, then maybe it would have not been right to let the player keep on going like he was. What happens next time archangel Michael comes to scare a man into leaving his family and going on a pilgrimage. The farmer may say "Yea right, You are nothing, you got pwned by a lvl 0 sore" This is also why your backstory should be approved. If the campaign has things a certain way and you don't fit in, you shouldn't expect everyone to change for you. You need to work to fit in.
Last thing, though I could say a ton more. Instead of warning your DM (Which is the easiest way in my game to get exactly what you warned against), crying, b**ching, coming to the boards to get back up, etc, why don't you look for a way IN GAME to fix it. Maybe try to redeem yourself. Maybe ask a devil for bat wings, maybe find the one who cursed you and get revenge... You just got a plot hook, play it, don't be a baby because it wasn't exactly what you wanted. Same with axe. If a GM gave a player only the stuff that made him awesome and nothing to throw a little flavor into the mix, then that would be the most boring game ever.
Oh and the DM has the right to control everything!!! including your bloodline, your stats, everything. I know people will not agree with me, but a good DM has things going on behind the scenes that you don’t know about and may influence things that you, nor your character can understand. And no he doesn’t need to tell you what why, or even if that is the case. You should deal with the situation presented and figure it out from there, just like you would if the thing happened in really life. There is no DM in life to explain why you just happened to wake up with that sore neck, but you still have to deal with it.
Course my answer are theoretical, as the situation is only theory, but if it was real, then this is what I would really advise.
>hands Noretoc pie< Nice.
i have tried to run a few games in the past that collapsed due to an unstable group. and have never been able to develop Dming skills.
"Wow that background sounds pretty intense. I'll probably make something out of it later on."
That is the proper way for a DM to do things.
Don't give me crap about how "Well the celestials would've never done this" or "A level zero character can't make this pacts" or blah blah blah. Yawn.
The game is about being adventurers and special awesome heroes in a fantasy setting, raiding deep and horrifying dungeons, battling fierce and dreaded dragons. You're allowed to have a cool backstory.
Oh and the DM has the right to control everything!!! including your bloodline, your stats, everything. I know people will not agree with me, but a good DM has things going on behind the scenes that you don’t know about and may influence things that you, nor your character can understand. And no he doesn’t need to tell you what why, or even if that is the case. You should deal with the situation presented and figure it out from there, just like you would if the thing happened in really life. There is no DM in life to explain why you just happened to wake up with that sore neck, but you still have to deal with it.
This is the only part that doesn't wash.
DM: Roll your spot check.
Player: Ok I got a 12 on the dice and I have 2 ranks and 14 wisdo..
DM: No you don't.
Player: What?
DM: You don't have a 14 wisdom and you don't have 2 ranks in spot. I control everything and I decided you don't have that.
Player: But that's what I rolled, and have on my sheet.
DM: To bad, I got things going on that you don't know about, that you and your character don't understand so I don't have to explain it and you just need to roll with it.
Player: Well I got a 12 on the dice then.
DM: Fine you see the monster it's advancing to attack you what do you do?
Player: Well I cast fireball at it.
DM: You don't have that spell.
Player: WHAT?!?!?! I got it from my bloodline.
DM: You don't have that bloodline anymore, I choose a different one for you.
Player: Fine I cast glorious fire out of my @$$ and good bye.
DM: Hey you don't have that... wait where are you going?
I'm not playing life, I'm playing a role playing game and as a player I expect and deserve for the rules that I've been told I'm playing with to be followed. Otherwise I might as well stay at home for my S&M thanks all the same.
|
|
Situational stuff
While that may be true, if you build a characters backstory with explicit intent and polish being that you pissed off some VERY powerful near-god-level group of creatures and don't expect it to be anything other than just useless fluff you have your head somewhere else altogether.
It's like building a character that is missing an arm or is deathly afraid of water, and expect it never to come into play.
Example time!
Player-"I want my backstory to be that I once had an encounter with Cayden Cailean. I drank with him and when he wasn't watching I put my cigar out in his mug and ran away."
GM-"Ok, I'm fine with this it sounds pretty cool"
...Some time later
Player-"I drink my ale in celebration of this fine hour!"
GM-"As you drink it you realize it tastes a little off... Make a fort save... and better make it good"
Player-...
Oh and the DM has the right to control everything!!! including your bloodline, your stats, everything. I know people will not agree with me, but a good DM has things going on behind the scenes that you don’t know about and may influence things that you, nor your character can understand. And no he doesn’t need to tell you what why, or even if that is the case. You should deal with the situation presented and figure it out from there, just like you would if the thing happened in really life. There is no DM in life to explain why you just happened to wake up with that sore neck, but you still have to deal with it.
This is the only part that doesn't wash.
DM: Roll your spot check.
Player: Ok I got a 12 on the dice and I have 2 ranks and 14 wisdo..
DM: No you don't.
Player: What?
DM: You don't have a 14 wisdom and you don't have 2 ranks in spot. I control everything and I decided you don't have that.
Player: But that's what I rolled, and have on my sheet.
DM: To bad, I got things going on that you don't know about, that you and your character don't understand so I don't have to explain it and you just need to roll with it.
Player: Well I got a 12 on the dice then.
DM: Fine you see the monster it's advancing to attack you what do you do?
Player: Well I cast fireball at it.
DM: You don't have that spell.
Player: WHAT?!?!?! I got it from my bloodline.
DM: You don't have that bloodline anymore, I choose a different one for you.
Player: Fine I cast glorious fire out of my @$$ and good bye.
DM: Hey you don't have that... wait where are you going?I'm not playing life, I'm playing a role playing game and as a player I expect and deserve for the rules that I've been told I'm playing with to be followed. Otherwise I might as well stay at home for my S&M thanks all the same.
+1 and the words "good DM" should be replaced with "DM". Every game I have heard of has background stuff.
Situational stuffWhile that may be true, if you build a characters backstory with explicit intent and polish being that you pissed off some VERY powerful near-god-level group of creatures and don't expect it to be anything other than just useless fluff you have your head somewhere else altogether.
It's like building a character that is missing an arm or is deathly afraid of water, and expect it never to come into play.
Example time!
Player-"I want my backstory to be that I once had an encounter with Cayden Cailean. I drank with him and when he wasn't watching I put my cigar out in his mug and ran away."
GM-"Ok, I'm fine with this it sounds pretty cool"
...Some time later
Player-"I drink my ale in celebration of this fine hour!"
GM-"As you drink it you realize it tastes a little off... Make a fort save... and better make it good"
Player-...** spoiler omitted **
LOL. I once knew, actually still know, a player would would try that.
here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attempts,
there was no universal "magic mart" big cities may have individual shops that sell magical versions of items pertaining to the business. even if it's another existing item in a different slot. these items don't exceed generic pluses higher than +2. or common low level spells like cure light wounds.
any stronger or more unique magic items were aquired in the following ways (depending on the indivudal item)
negotiating with a family that kept the item as an heirloom through diplomacy. this varied with the power of the item.
commisioning someone to craft the item, this required a commision fee, a diplomacy check and the time to make the item. as well as a check to find someone powerful enough to make it
looting the item off the corpse of a homeade custom created boss creature with class levels, usually humanoid. no faceless mook carried magical bling.
here are some other rulings i would typically make.
everyone leveled when i said they did. not when thier sheet told them too. i did not track XP.
much higher stats than the norm for everyone and faster, bigger stat gains, this was to compensate for certain bits of gear being unavailable for long periods of time. in exchange, challenge rating would occasionally be ignored.
not every monster used it's exact bestiary stat block. some monsters might have thier changable feats, skill points, or spells redone case by case. some monsters through these means became quite lethal. even with a beefed up party.
|
|
here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attempts
All perfectly reasonable - in fact I like the idea of no-XP, like True20. I think the holy grail of "gaining XP" overshadows a game by players making sometimes strange choices because they think they will get MORE XP (and more XP is good).
+1 on your DM rulings.
PS: Ask any of my players ever - I hate the idea of "magic shops", and I'm about as tight as a seals backside when it comes to handing them out. Adventuring is about the players being heroic not collecting pluses... RANT over and out :)
The DM, according to the rules, does have complete control over the game. So it isn't a matter of if he should or not, but a matter of how he should use it.
For example, every trap? DM fiat. There aren't any rules telling you precisely where a person is standing or how the detection magic linked to the trap works, but you figure it out anyway. I once saw a group doing poorly, so I had a trap go off early in a corridor due to bad maintenance. That? IS CHEATING. That's me affecting the characters directly by denying them a possibly damaging encounter. I'm scribbling out damage on their HP by making sure it never happened. Does that make me a bad DM? No. Doing something the players won't enjoy would make me a bad DM. That is a completely arbitrary qualifier for that kind of label.
Take me for example. I don't like having a win handed to me. Ever. If I go through your game and I'm not being challenged, I'll invent challenges for myself. I'll do something stupid to see if it kills me or hurts me. I actually changed one of my characters into a kobold voluntarily upon being reincarnated and still annihilated the DM's encounters. As a fighter.
So guess what? If I'm in your group and you haven't nearly killed me at least once every 3 sessions and you've never killed me during the whole campaign? Sorry but you're a bad DM, and judging from a lot of the half-baked justifications in this thread I can just say that that's the way it is, so it is. If I've never played in your game you can justify it in this way as well apparently.
Aren't double standards fun?
Yeah I don't mind campaigns that don't have magic marts. Especially if this is before the game starts -- same with most house rules.
If the GM says "Hey guys there aren't any druids, wizards, sorcerers, or clerics in this campaign world. Paladins and rangers don't get spells. The only spell casters are bards and adepts." I can play with that happily -- up until we are going against our 15th wizard/druid/sorcerer/cleric of 16 BBEGs, and all their minions are similiar spell casters too.
Now if that same GM had said, "I don't want any PC wizards, druids, sorcerers or clerics." And it turns out all the primary spell casters in the world had their magic corrupted or something then I could dig it again.
As in most things it's all about how it is presented and consistency.
It's when the GM decides in the middle of things to throw down some half thought out bs and expects the players to treat it as holy writ that I start having an issue.
So guess what? If I'm in your group and you haven't nearly killed me at least once every 3 sessions and you've never killed me during the whole campaign? Sorry but you're a bad DM, and judging from a lot of the half-baked justifications in this thread I can just say that that's the way it is, so it is. If I've never played in your game you can justify it in this way as well apparently.
I'm not sure what you are ranting about with this -- and honestly I'm pretty sure it's a DM rage going on over something else -- something you want to share?
Now I'm amused by the idea of a character (maybe a cleric of the man himself!) that is engaged in a friendly game of pranks and such exchanged back and forth with Cayden. I'm sure Cayden is the kind of god that would find it a right laugh. :D
here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attemptsAll perfectly reasonable - in fact I like the idea of no-XP, like True20. I think the holy grail of "gaining XP" overshadows a game by players making sometimes strange choices because they think they will get MORE XP (and more XP is good).
+1 on your DM rulings.
PS: Ask any of my players ever - I hate the idea of "magic shops", and I'm about as tight as a seals backside when it comes to handing them out. Adventuring is about the players being heroic not collecting pluses... RANT over and out :)
for the first few levels, i tend to be stingy with the loot and end up feeling that i have to compenaste the party by making more loot show up in hordes. but with most of my creatures, if any of them owns any magic equipment, expect them to use it against the party. once in a while, i will tailor loot to the pary's needs. not neccessarily a full wish list. maybe just an item i may feel that the pcs need. possibly in a convenient slot or 2. but my items tend to come from special bosses with special houseruled stackable dm only templates. these templates are based off the 4th edition solo template but with a few changes to make it pathfinder compatiable.
the template does the following each time it's applied
Elite monster template (DM only)
multiply total maximum hit points by 5 (each time increases the total multiplier by 5) (x10, x15, etc)
increase all stats by 4 each time applied
increase natural armor by 2 each time applied
increase racial bonus to saving throws by 2 each time applied
add an additional initiative count (full set of actions) each time applied
each effect applies once per application, this template is indeed stackable. but each time adds +3 to the monster's challenge rating.
the template itself isn't bad in concept. it actually works for BBEGs. as long as you don't stack it too much. i wouldn't reccomend more than 2 applications. reserve this template only for solo boss monsters (or humanoids) that are supposed to be a challenging encounter in and of themselves. don't just hand it to every npc willly nilly.
"Wow that background sounds pretty intense. I'll probably make something out of it later on."
That is the proper way for a DM to do things.
Don't give me crap about how "Well the celestials would've never done this" or "A level zero character can't make this pacts" or blah blah blah. Yawn.
The game is about being adventurers and special awesome heroes in a fantasy setting, raiding deep and horrifying dungeons, battling fierce and dreaded dragons. You're allowed to have a cool backstory.
Sorry PC, but it's not one player "uber alles". Players have to have respect for the DM and the other players in the game. You can't shoehorn every possible background into a given game and you shouldn't.
As an aside, first level characters don't have those type of backstories, "raiding deep and horrifying dungoens" or "battling fierce and dreaded dragons". Or they wouldn't be first level. would they? Even games starting with higher level characters don't need the "super epic" background (barring starting an epic game). That should come *in game*. That's where the heroics happen.
You are allowed to have a "cool backstory" but it has to fit the level, the game and not screw with other players (or the DM). This didn't, from what I've heard, fit the level, it might have fit the game (or not), and it certainly messed with the other players ("oh, yeah, Jane here has really powerful enemies who may try to kill her and us") and the DM who had to fit this beast in.
It's not a "Lone Wolf" solo game book, it's about more than one players backstory and fun, there are other people involved. They may not appreciate the effects on their game and enjoyment.
LOL. I once knew, actually still know, a player would would try that.Situational stuffWhile that may be true, if you build a characters backstory with explicit intent and polish being that you pissed off some VERY powerful near-god-level group of creatures and don't expect it to be anything other than just useless fluff you have your head somewhere else altogether.
It's like building a character that is missing an arm or is deathly afraid of water, and expect it never to come into play.
Example time!
Player-"I want my backstory to be that I once had an encounter with Cayden Cailean. I drank with him and when he wasn't watching I put my cigar out in his mug and ran away."
GM-"Ok, I'm fine with this it sounds pretty cool"
...Some time later
Player-"I drink my ale in celebration of this fine hour!"
GM-"As you drink it you realize it tastes a little off... Make a fort save... and better make it good"
Player-...** spoiler omitted **
edit:....who would try that
"Wow that background sounds pretty intense. I'll probably make something out of it later on."
That is the proper way for a DM to do things.
Don't give me crap about how "Well the celestials would've never done this" or "A level zero character can't make this pacts" or blah blah blah. Yawn.
The game is about being adventurers and special awesome heroes in a fantasy setting, raiding deep and horrifying dungeons, battling fierce and dreaded dragons. You're allowed to have a cool backstory.
Sorry PC, but it's not one player "uber alles". Players have to have respect for the DM and the other players in the game. You can't shoehorn every possible background into a given game and you shouldn't.
As an aside, first level characters don't have those type of backstories, "raiding deep and horrifying dungoens" or "battling fierce and dreaded dragons". Or they wouldn't be first level. would they? Even games starting with higher level characters don't need the "super epic" background (barring starting an epic game). That should come *in game*. That's where the heroics happen.
You are allowed to have a "cool backstory" but it has to fit the level, the game and not screw with other players (or the DM). This didn't, from what I've heard, fit the level, it might have fit the game (or not), and it certainly messed with the other players ("oh, yeah, Jane here has really powerful enemies who may try to kill her and us") and the DM who had to fit this beast in.
It's not a "Lone Wolf" solo game book, it's about more than one players backstory and fun, there are other people involved. They may not appreciate the effects on their game and enjoyment.
I agree. If I hand a DM a back-story that says my first level character is a famous dragonslayer who wiped out three ancient red dragons single-handedly, I'd expect nothing but hoots of laughter. Players do not have carte blanch to extract the urine from the game by dreaming up unlikely and ridiculous back-stories at first level. At 20th level it's a different situation, but I don't know many adventures that start there.
back-story needs to be:
1) Relevant and consistent to the character and the game.
2) Believable. Owlbears do not adopt orphans, they eat them. First level characters do not beat ancient dragons with one hand tied.
3) Deep - the character had a life before adventuring, they have one to go back to sometimes between adventures. Back-story is primarily used to add depth to the character and explain why they are adventuring.
I could actually see a dragonslayer background at level 1 so long as it didn't stipulate that the level 1 character was famous or able to singlehandly slay ancient dragons. After all, most knights have squires that would occasionally get a shot in with a crossbow as part of their training; the knight might even track down a baby or adolescent dragon specifically for that purpose. It would be enough that the association with the famous dragonslayer would have ramifications, both positive and negative, but still believable.
On the original subject, it is hard to say whether or not the DM was out of line in changing the bloodline in the hypothetical situation as there are way too many details not mentioned, like level that the betrayal occured at, exactly which celestial(s) were betrayed, what level the smackdown occured at, and how much pregame, out of game, or even in game conversations/actions/warnings on the possibility of it happening.
The bit with the axe, if it's part of an established story, as some of the posts suggest that might be, than someone in the party gets the joy of eating it until they figure out what is going on with it; if the shopkeeper's know something the PC's don't that just means that the PC's have a reason to get friendly/rough (depending on party alignment) with the shopkeeper in hopes of getting the information out of him. If the DM was just throwing it in there for his own amusement, that is another matter, and he could have at least made it a useful weapon to the party even if he chose to make it a cursed one.
here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attemptsAll perfectly reasonable - in fact I like the idea of no-XP, like True20. I think the holy grail of "gaining XP" overshadows a game by players making sometimes strange choices because they think they will get MORE XP (and more XP is good).
+1 on your DM rulings.
PS: Ask any of my players ever - I hate the idea of "magic shops", and I'm about as tight as a seals backside when it comes to handing them out. Adventuring is about the players being heroic not collecting pluses... RANT over and out :)
The problem is of course what do you do about the number of spells that include EXP as a cost to cast the spell?
|
I know players in our group who get upset when the GM "gifts" them with a magical greataxe that grows in power along with 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.It basically comes down to this.
A GM who gives a greataxe to a PC who is all about greatswords is failing his/her job as a GM. The GM needs to know what the players want, and what their characters are going for, and needs to work with that, not try to reshape them into something HE thinks is cool.
+1
The problem is of course what do you do about the number of spells that include EXP as a cost to cast the spell?here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attemptsAll perfectly reasonable - in fact I like the idea of no-XP, like True20. I think the holy grail of "gaining XP" overshadows a game by players making sometimes strange choices because they think they will get MORE XP (and more XP is good).
+1 on your DM rulings.
PS: Ask any of my players ever - I hate the idea of "magic shops", and I'm about as tight as a seals backside when it comes to handing them out. Adventuring is about the players being heroic not collecting pluses... RANT over and out :)
There aren't spells with exp cost in PRPG.
There aren't spells with exp cost in PRPG.The problem is of course what do you do about the number of spells that include EXP as a cost to cast the spell?here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attemptsAll perfectly reasonable - in fact I like the idea of no-XP, like True20. I think the holy grail of "gaining XP" overshadows a game by players making sometimes strange choices because they think they will get MORE XP (and more XP is good).
+1 on your DM rulings.
PS: Ask any of my players ever - I hate the idea of "magic shops", and I'm about as tight as a seals backside when it comes to handing them out. Adventuring is about the players being heroic not collecting pluses... RANT over and out :)
So he has always played PF RPG?
So he has always played PF RPG?There aren't spells with exp cost in PRPG.The problem is of course what do you do about the number of spells that include EXP as a cost to cast the spell?here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attemptsAll perfectly reasonable - in fact I like the idea of no-XP, like True20. I think the holy grail of "gaining XP" overshadows a game by players making sometimes strange choices because they think they will get MORE XP (and more XP is good).
+1 on your DM rulings.
PS: Ask any of my players ever - I hate the idea of "magic shops", and I'm about as tight as a seals backside when it comes to handing them out. Adventuring is about the players being heroic not collecting pluses... RANT over and out :)
And why are you assuming he has always played with this rule? Could it not be a rule from after Pathfinder?
It's a rule I've only started instituting as a DM after we started playing Pathfinder, for example.
Finally, a pet peeve of mine is when a DM says that you can't be Character X because it doesn't fit in with his world or campaign. Again, I feel strongly that a player should have control over who and what his character is.
As a DM who does this all the time, I have to counter with- If I lay down the rules BEFORE you agree to play the game (IE I'm running a South East Asian inspired setting, so Paladins, Druids, and Bards are a no go. Also, no Elves, or Gnomes, but you can use 1/2 Ogre and all 1/2 Orcs are called Common Rakhshasa and have tiger heads) then it is more fair? I still end up with people who make elf druids, claiming to be travelers from a far off land, etc. Who is being unfair here? Me for the restrictions, or the player for flagrantly flouting them?
But once the base char gen rule are out, I leave the back story and such to the players. My group, I'm lucky if they remember to name their PCs, much less invent ANY kind of back story :(