(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 "cures-like" bloodline such as aberrant, abyssal, infernal, or undead.
In the context of the game's story arc, such a significant character change makes perfect sense, so the GM goes with it.
In the context of the game, however, the player is distraught. It was not his choice to have such a change occur. It is (or rather, was) his character and the GM has all but taken it away from him. He has lost what little control in the campaign world he had, his character. He can't even use his Flyby Attack feat anymore because his character no longer has Wings of Heaven!
So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?
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. 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 should a player deal with such a situation?
How should a player deal with such a situation?
Kill the DM. Take his stuff.
Mark L. Chance
Spes Magna Games
Kill the DM. Take his stuff.
This.
Ok, maybe not :)
1. The Celestial sorc- IIRC, the description of the bloodlines states specifically that they can be of ANY alignment, so "losing" the blood line makes no sense by RAW. I'll agree that the "story" aspect is pretty cool, but I think it crosses a line.
2. re: teh axe- why can't he sell/dispose of it? Sounds like it's cured to me, which has specific conditions to get rid of it. This falls less under a "cool" plot point, and more into "effing with the player". IMO. the DM should figure out a way to make it useful to the character, and make the fluff appearance changes easily cover able by common clothing.
|
Story wise, if she made a pact with celestial beings then betrayed them I'd say said pact were revoked and she lost the powers or they were struck from her by allies or other celestials of like mind to her sponsors. If she wanted to recoup the losses she'd have to cut a deal with some other sponsors cause I extremely doubt that other celestials would be foolish enough to aid or trust her again. That's an in game rational for changing her bloodlines. The way I see it, it's very hard to pull one over on outsiders since they've either heard of or seen first hand most shortlived mortals attempts at running cons. Seems the players wanted the celestial bloodline only for the mechanics and none of the story or background elements. On the flip side the other examples come off as the DM trying to force their own narrative or desires on the players which bothers me if they aren't willing to back off once the players says they aren't keen on the story effects.
My replies are counter to each other but basically it's cause in one I see the player trying to game the system mechanically while in the second the gm is forcing the narrative towards his/her own preferences with little care for if the player likes it.
I expect Viletta Vadim to drop by this thread at some point. Interested in seeing her thoughts.
Edit: cleaned up some typos
|
|
Munchkin BS, yet again employment of rule 0.
Plus messing with beings from higher plains is a bad idea, esp if you piss a god or demi-god off. These guys on the other planes of existence are significantly more powerful than on the material realm. The average village idiot commoner grunt type has significant power at his employ. I can understand being upset if you want to play up the celestial powers through the actual bloodline and wanting to keep them, but turning them into gifts from the gods even goes so far to change a few mechanical things. Bad situation to get yourself into.
To me it sounds like the player is playing the game for his character, not for the campaign or the game itself.
*Fluff* gets a bad wrap in these parts, I would rather play at a table where the games were 90% fluff, 10% everything else as opposed to a RAW-fest of muscle twitching dungeon delving and powerleveling
How should a player deal with such a situation?
Calmly and politely explain to the GM that, despite the best intentions of the GM, the "special" item isn't actually enhancing the player's enjoyment of the game, and the "fluff" baggage that goes along with said item is actually impacting the player's enjoyment in a negative manner.
Don't they make games for that.
Well, if u are sick of the munchkin, stick to the plan, if u wanna twist it storywise, do not give him another bloodline, just twist it.-
Give him, taintet "angelic" traits, Black wings and all the fluff, drop the initial attitude of all goodly beings with him one step closer to hostile and such stuff. You could use this as a good sidequest, at higher levels just smack him good... (Maybe the demigod/god/solar/planetar) who sired all those celestials found out where all his children power went, and why they suddenly dissapeared.-
|
the back story is just begging for a curse imho, but thats still a d*ck move on the part of the dm.
personally i'd have a church hunting down the sorc, or i wouldn't have allowed them to be celestial bloodline to begin with.
as for the axe thing.. why would the dm give an axe to a sword specialist to begin with? just to screw with them? also whats keeping it from being sold? even if it teleports back to the weilder they CAN try to sell it. I'd exploit the "cant be destroyed" and if it teleports back, its now my ranged weapon of choice.
i give "soul bound" items all the time (weapons of legacy but without the drawbacks), but i make sure it fits the character concept. like a long bow for an archer, or a special monk cetus that specifically lets monks use their unarmed damage.
really try talking to the dm and explain this isnt the character you wanted. yes its the dm's story, but your character in it and its not fun for you to be screwed over.
as for the glowing eyes and scaley arm, a shirt would help, and i think prestidigitate or maybe a hat of disguise should be able to counter the effects
How should a player deal with such a situation?Kill the DM. Take his stuff.
Mark L. Chance
Spes Magna Games
^ This.
Seriously though, the DM is being overbearing in both scenarios. If the sorcerer wanted to play an Abyssal sorceror, he would have chosen it. The bloodlines clearly state that they do not have alignment restrictions. To me, the Celestial power is more or less permanent. The deal was done and the sorc. got the heaven juice. End of story.
In the greataxe example, the PC is being forced to abandon his training (I'm assuming he's a fighter) in order to lug around a weapon the DM thinks is cool. Lame. If the DM really wanted that weapon effect, then why could it not have been a Greatsword instead of the axe?
The DM's job is to be a manager; to manage the game in such a way that fun is had by everyone. If the DM starts altering character concepts without the expressed permission of the players, then he has ceased being an effective DM.
The correct thing to do would be for the player in question to discretely approach the DM and address his concerns privately. Tell him that his decision to alter the character without your agreement is negatively impacting the fun you're having with the character. Try to work out a compromise if necessary. If the DM stonewalls you, well, maybe it's time to find another DM.
Creative Director
|
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.
If the GM had a problem with that character's backstory (which I can understand why he would), he should have dealt with it at character creation. At that point the player would be obliged to work with the GM to alter the character or make a new one. Letting the character into play for a long time and then springing the changes on the player seems like a power trip to me.
Giving the player that magic axe seems perfectly reasonable, but if my character felt the axe was a curse he would do his best to get it removed. If the GM completely blocks that effort then I would tell him politely that it is not something I picture as part of my character, give me a chance to get rid of it. If he refuses that I would leave the group.
Calmly and politely explain to the GM that, despite the best intentions of the GM, the "special" item isn't actually enhancing the player's enjoyment of the game, and the "fluff" baggage that goes along with said item is actually impacting the player's enjoyment in a negative manner.How should a player deal with such a situation?
Pretty much this.
I dont believe a dm should impose his will on a character unless there are rules for it. A paladin falling sure, but changing someones bloodline because of your backstory? I dont think so. I am all for including player background into the adventure. Having there be concequences for the character having betrayed celestials makes perfect sense. Maybe a paladin shows up inspired by his diety to end the players life. Or other celestials looking to right the wrong of the players power. But changing his class without his permission is not acceptable to me. The dm gets to control everything in the game EXCEPT the players. Taking control of a player's class, feats, appearance, etc is overstepping his bounds.
Munchkin BS, yet again employment of rule 0.Plus messing with beings from higher plains is a bad idea, esp if you piss a god or demi-god off. These guys on the other planes of existence are significantly more powerful than on the material realm. The average village idiot commoner grunt type has significant power at his employ. I can understand being upset if you want to play up the celestial powers through the actual bloodline and wanting to keep them, but turning them into gifts from the gods even goes so far to change a few mechanical things. Bad situation to get yourself into.
To me it sounds like the player is playing the game for his character, not for the campaign or the game itself.
How is this munchkin bs? All he did was change the flavor of the bloodline. He didnt change anything mechanically. He didnt try to come up with a super combo that was broken/overpowered. He changed his backstory from the stock one in the core rules. Having pissed off celestials in the story absolutely, but the source of bloodline powers is purely flavor, it has nothing to do with mechanics.
To me it sounds like a dm that cant handle when a player does something he doesnt like and doesnt have the good sense to just say, 'hey im not ok with that kind of flavor in my campaign, lets work something out so it fits my world.' and instead gets petty about it.
|
I realize its a matter of each GMs personal rules for the game, but changing someones sorcerous bloodline without previous agreement, and mid-game, goes beyond what is reasonable in my book, and I would strongly complain if I was the player. To me, this is akin to telling a character that he can no longer be a ranger, but must now play a druid, or can no longer be a paladin, but must now play a fighter. Whats more, they lose all their previous class abilities, but must keep the same feats, skills, etc. from your description of flyby attack.
If I was going to do this as a GM, I would discuss it with the player prior to player creation, when we were discussing his backstory, character vision, etc. Major changes to the character to fit the context of the story are okay, but ONLY okay if the GM discusses it with the player way beforehand and the player completely agrees with the changes. This should be agreed upon before play begins, or at least the possibility discussed, so that the player has the option to make a different background, character, etc that he likes better.
Unless the GM is making a decision to alter game mechanics due to an character imbalance issue (that also should be discussed with the player), the only control over a character that a DM should have to this degree is over social standing. For example, as a DM, I can have the Lord the character is serving suddenly boot him from his standing as general of his forces for story reasons, such as the lord being possessed, a conspiracy to discredit the character with his liege, etc. All of which should be fixable, or an alternate comparable social standing should be attainable.
In closing, its okay to want to pursue your story and cool events as a GM, but not at the expense of your player's fun playing the character.
PS - A better choice GM choice IMO would be for a band of celestial bounty hunters to come after said character and capture him to take him somewhere to have his bloodline purged. This would allow party interaction to stop said change and also further the storyline of the celestial powers being unhappy with how he duped them.
Munchkin BS, yet again employment of rule 0.
No.
I dont believe a dm should impose his will on a character unless there are rules for it.
And maybe not even then. For example, when save-or-suck spells come up in my game, I'll give players a choice: roll your save and accept the consequences or voluntarily be affected to earn an Action Point.
In a recent game session, one of my player's PC was a few XP behind because he missed a session. At the end of the previous session his PC had gone off for a romantic rendezvous with an NPC.
I knew there was a doppelganger at work in the community, but I'd not decided who the monster had replaced. I contacted the player ahead of time and asked, "You want to help me out with next session's plot for some bonus XP?" He agreed. His PC's partner was the doppelganger, who overpowered and replaced him to infiltrate the party. The player spent the session roleplaying the doppelganger.
I'd never have set things up to force a player to not run his own PC for an entire session.
Mark L. Chance
Spes Magna Games
I can tell you first hand that the DM should probably re-inspect his personal involvement into the PC’s gear and story. I have made this mistake myself a couple of times when I thought the person would like the stuff I had given them. It turned out that, that wasn’t the same picture in their mind. I have since learned to give players the option of the taking the powers given and asking ahead of time how they would like to see their character develop. On that note I don’t believe on most occasions the DM should have any real control over a PC or their back round. However, players shouldn’t act surprised either if the DM ask them to come up with something different because it seems improbable to have happened.
|
|
No.Munchkin BS, yet again employment of rule 0.
i gotta agree with the above posters. changing fluff isnt munchkinizing. no more than saying my monk does a roundhouse kick suddenly requires a balance check.
if the celestial bloodline required good alignment you might have a leg to stand on, but as it is "sweep the leg"
now
PS - A better choice GM choice IMO would be for a band of celestial bounty hunters to come after said character and capture him to take him somewhere to have his bloodline purged. This would allow party interaction to stop said change and also further the storyline of the celestial powers being unhappy with how he duped them.
this is what i was talkin about. maybe start with palidans and clerics being sent to redeem the cause of good. then eventually up to solars, archons, and the rest of gilligans isle
the honest problem i hate is fluff getting in the way of rules mechanics and causing issues. Don't get me wrong, fluff is great, but when people want to start claiming fluff as rules it leads to a bunch of headache.
fluff is fluff, and rules are rule and may the 2 never cross paths. they need to keep out of each others territory, since people are rather territorial about both.
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?
General answer: "However much would be fun for all involved (including the DM, who isn't just the players' dancing monkey)."
My answer: My general rule of thumb is to never change any mechanics that the player chose. Anything else is fair game.
(In situations like the first example, I'd probably question the mechanics + fluff at the very beginning and steer the player to something more suitable for the campaign that I'm interested in running. I.e. Even before play begins, no being despicably evil with a celestial bloodline. That's just cheese, AFAIC.)
As far as changing the bloodline, I agree, it is over the top. However, he did double cross and betray powerful celestial beings - in his backstory. What is a backstory for? Roleplaying! So that's where he should pay the price - Roleplaying!
Someone above had what I thought was the perfect solution. Mechanics - totally unchanged, per RAW. However, appearance - wings go from pure shining white to moldy gray or black, other cosmetic changes as appropriate. The player cannot b****, he was the one who thought up the betrayal idea. His powers would remain intact, exactly what he planned on when he built his character. But the roleplaying aspect would be changed. Clearly something he was planning on when he started with that backstory.
In a case like this, where the player decided the actions that caused it and can roleplay fixing it, I don't really have a problem. I caution this type of thing though, because it can be done poorly very easily and piss off players. I had a GM in a Star Wars game who liked to horribly disfigure his players. Even using things like force healing could result in horrible consequences that made no sense to the player using them. He wasn't GMing long after that before the players decided they had had enough and left his game.
Story wise, if she made a pact with celestial beings then betrayed them I'd say said pact were revoked and she lost the powers or they were struck from her by allies or other celestials of like mind to her sponsors. If she wanted to recoup the losses she'd have to cut a deal with some other sponsors cause I extremely doubt that other celestials would be foolish enough to aid or trust her again. That's an in game rational for changing her bloodlines. The way I see it, it's very hard to pull one over on outsiders since they've either heard of or seen first hand most shortlived mortals attempts at running cons. Seems the players wanted the celestial bloodline only for the mechanics and none of the story or background elements. On the flip side the other examples come off as the DM trying to force their own narrative or desires on the players which bothers me if they aren't willing to back off once the players says they aren't keen on the story effects.
My replies are counter to each other but basically it's cause in one I see the player trying to game the system mechanically while in the second the gm is forcing the narrative towards his/her own preferences with little care for if the player likes it.
I agree with this in principal, if a player approached me with this concept I would tell them that a corrupted version is all they'd be able to get with that background right at the outset.
Give him, taintet "angelic" traits, Black wings and all the fluff, drop the initial attitude of all goodly beings with him one step closer to hostile and such stuff. You could use this as a good sidequest, at higher levels just smack him good... (Maybe the demigod/god/solar/planetar) who sired all those celestials found out where all his children power went, and why they suddenly dissapeared.
Which is how I would do it at the outset, if I didn't make it a fiendish/infernal bloodbline (fallen angels, anyone?).
the back story is just begging for a curse imho, but thats still a d*ck move on the part of the dm.
Which is unfortunately what has happened. A curse should have been discussed with the character, not just imposed when it is something that big.
|
|
Sounds like a GM who is confusing running a campaign setting and telling a story, with writing the story the way he wants. A fairly common mistake for new GM's. They envision a story and want it to go like a movie script or novel. The problem is the players can't know the script so tend not to follow it and some GM's smack the PC's back in line with the story he is telling.
But it is poorly done for the GM to agree to the character backstory and then change things like that. If he didn't like it he should have said no in the first place. One of the worst things a GM can do is "punish" a player who takes the time to make a back story and history for their character but constantly using it as a excuse to screw with the PC.
As a long-time GM of several games, the GM's control over a PC should be mostly indirect - mainly by the application of the consequences of game play. The PCs encounter some enemy, for example, the GM can impose the results of any ensuing combat.
There are situations where more direct control is warranted, particularly when the PC's behavior is out of sync with some other kind of requirement. If the evil sorcerer's celestial powers were dependent upon some kind of pact he wasn't living up to, taking them away would be appropriate. The same holds for PCs who regularly act contrary to alignment or who break their paladin codes. The game world/cosmology should respond to character actions, not just to what's written on the sheet. If the LG player consistently plays like the PC is CE, then the character should be treated as CE when encountering things affected by alignment. If the paladin violates his code, the appropriate penalties (remedial atonement, quests, loss of powers) should be imposed.
But with this in mind, the GM shouldn't be overly broad in his interpretations of what consists of violation of character oaths, requirements, alignments, and so on, without giving the PC fair warning. I am fine with the GM playing the NPC high priest telling the paladin he's got to spend the next 3 nights wearing a hair shirt guarding the cathedral because he's been a little lax with his vows. That's minor. Stripping away paladin powers? The GM should warn the paladin player that he's risking his powers if he persists in the actions he's planning before he commits. After that, if the paladin continues on, I would encourage a GM to take those powers away.
Giving the PC a weapon they don't prefer that changes their look... I don't really see that rising to the level of the GM needing to have control over the PC. Having a magic weapon that has a cosmetic side-effect, not a problem, but it really should be a weapon that the PC would want to have in the first place. Then the player gets to make the choice whether to gain the benefit of the weapon and the drawback or not benefit from the weapon at all.
What I've found works best is that if a GM is going to cause a major change in the character due to fluff, there should always be a fluff way of being able to change back.
In fact most of the time when I've done this it was planned in such a way to anticipate that the player would be wanting to change back.
It's basically extrapolating the kind of redemption that any cleric or paladin would need to be done, but rather than it specifically being about morale redemption, is a kind of redemption that fits with whatever fluff the character is about.
And once they go through the process? They get something really cool that fits with their original concept, something fluffy and outside of the normal rules of the game to make it that much more special.
The key thing though is to not get engaged in the meta-game battle. If a player would come up to me and whine that they can't do this or that, or that their damage output is sub-optimal blah blah blah... I just steer them away from the meta and back into the story. If they want to fix it, they fix it in the game, not whining outside of the game.
As the GM though, these little dramatic story arc needs to be addressed in a fairly timely manner if the player doesn't seem happy with what has happened to their character. They might have to suck it up and play with the modified character for a couple of sessions, and not expect it to be handwaved and fixed after the next session, but at the same time the GM shouldn't be making them wait six months of real playing time to have to get it resolved.
So in the end, I think it's perfectly viable if the GM is doing things in an artful and measured way, attempting to provide a nice dramatic arc for the player. They also need to read the players interest in this. If you are going to attempt this with someone who's really only interested in roll-playing, is a powergaming, out-of-character talking, meta-gaming cheese cruncher then you'd better be a level 20 Super Game Master if you want to pull it off without a lot...
+1 definitely respond to fluff with fluff.
I definitely think these scenarios are indicative of a DM with a heavy hand, a leaden over-weighted hand.
Scenario #1: How I would resolve this is to simply start making all powers associated to the Celestial Bloodline begin to reflect the state of the Angel who they stole the powers from. The wings start to lose feathers and rot, when they use bloodline powers or spells they are surrounded with the stench of decaying flesh...
How do you stop these things? Find the Angel and give some plot hook to bring it back to life.
Scenario #2: If I was the player I would just stow the piece and treat it like a cursed item. Do everything I can to hide it's effects on me and continually ask around in town for a cleric or wizard to relieve me of it. Even if I eventually have to find someone capable of a wish spell.
My opinion? A GM should never change something about a character without asking the player first. In the case of the backstory for the sorcerer bloodline...that one is strange for me. It's neat, but I think that the 'made a pact with...' portion and didn't lose it afterward would be clunky. I'd probably (if I had a real problem with it) just not allow it in the context of the world, or I'd suggest something else, like getting it from a fallen celestial or such. Not just change it without even asking.
Personally, I think an awesome backstory for a Celestial sorcerer would be that of a fallen angel who was kicked out of heaven and lost most of his/her powers, being demoted to a mortal. Now, they must earn the right to re-ascend.
Though I do love Cydeth's idea for gaining powers through a fallen angel as an alternate idea.
*shrugs* My personal philosophy is to talk to a player about a character and work with them to get as close to their character concept as I can within the rules as I see them.
*shrugs* My personal philosophy is to talk to a player about a character and work with them to get as close to their character concept as I can within the rules as I see them.
Oh no I totally agree. I didn't mean to say that the actual sorcerer should lose most of their powers. I was just saying that it might be a neat character creation idea to have the Celestial sorcerer (and all that comes with it) start off as a demoted angel.
*facepalms, feeling silly* And I wasn't even trying to say that you were wrong. I love text interface...honest!
Anyway...your idea is neat, in my opinion, and I'd let it fly in my campaigns, depending on details. *shrugs*
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.
Maybe your point was more specifically related to OP than I took it, but if not I have to at least partially disagree. Certainly a DM needs to gear their campaign toward the players/characters sitting at the table, but Fightin' Bob shouldn't be assured of finding greatswords under every rock just because that's his pointy stick of choice. Now, screwing a player by forcing them into a predetermined role/path is pretty heinous, but I balk at the notion that DMs are obliged to give players their every wish. Part of the challenge of the game should be making lemons into lemonade. In my opinion.
I'm not cock-blocking, just trying to keep some sense of rationality in a campaign where my PCs can routinely handle APL+2 encounters. I write adventures based on what my players indicate their interest to be, and I'd be happy to create a quest to find the fabled massive Zweihander of Death and Doom, but it'd have to be a plot-point as well. Hiring someone to craft him a sword is an option, too, but again things like this are tied into the campaign story-arc.
It's a well-flogged dead horse, to be sure, but nothing (other than "Steve's Magic Emporium") kills my suspense of disbelief like opening a random treasure chest to find hand-picked, gift-wrapped loot. "Look, Whizzo, a Staff of the Magi. And it's even got your name on it!"
Zo
If the GM had a problem with that character's backstory (which I can understand why he would), he should have dealt with it at character creation. At that point the player would be obliged to work with the GM to alter the character or make a new one. Letting the character into play for a long time and then springing the changes on the player seems like a power trip to me.
Giving the player that magic axe seems perfectly reasonable, but if my character felt the axe was a curse he would do his best to get it removed. If the GM completely blocks that effort then I would tell him politely that it is not something I picture as part of my character, give me a chance to get rid of it. If he refuses that I would leave the group.
This is the way I feel as well.
Munchkin BS, yet again employment of rule 0.Plus messing with beings from higher plains is a bad idea, esp if you piss a god or demi-god off. These guys on the other planes of existence are significantly more powerful than on the material realm. The average village idiot commoner grunt type has significant power at his employ. I can understand being upset if you want to play up the celestial powers through the actual bloodline and wanting to keep them, but turning them into gifts from the gods even goes so far to change a few mechanical things. Bad situation to get yourself into.
To me it sounds like the player is playing the game for his character, not for the campaign or the game itself.
How is this munchkin bs? All he did was change the flavor of the bloodline. He didnt change anything mechanically. He didnt try to come up with a super combo that was broken/overpowered. He changed his backstory from the stock one in the core rules. Having pissed off celestials in the story absolutely, but the source of bloodline powers is purely flavor, it has nothing to do with mechanics.
To me it sounds like a dm that cant handle when a player does something he doesnt like and doesnt have the good sense to just say, 'hey im not ok with that kind of flavor in my campaign, lets work something out so it fits my world.' and instead gets petty about it.
I'm inclined to agree. All it is, is a flavorful back story. It even gives the GM some great plot hooks to use (like celestials and/or church affiliates seeking revenge for his crimes). I can see a GM limiting certain back stories (just because you say you are a king as flavor doesn't mean you are going to get free mechanical benefits such as starting with infinite wealth and a holy avenger at 1st-level), but totally taking character control out of a player's hands and warping their character until it is no longer recognizably their character...
...I just can't think of a better way to get someone you don't like to leave your game. :(
There are situations where more direct control is warranted, particularly when the PC's behavior is out of sync with some other kind of requirement. If the evil sorcerer's celestial powers were dependent upon some kind of pact he wasn't living up to, taking them away would be appropriate. The same holds for PCs who regularly act contrary to alignment or who break their paladin codes.
Though I partially agree with you, that isn't the case here. The character fullfilled his pact, got a bunch of permanent no-take-away powers, and then killed his benefactors in an act of betrayal.
Except for those who knew the slain celestials, there is no one left to punish the character.
(Paraphrased) A fallen angel should look like one with torn black wings, the smell of brimstone, evil aura, etc.
If the player agrees to a change of appearance, than this is absolutely a great solution. But what if the player wants his high charisma sorcerer to remain angelic and beautiful in terms of appearance? After all, the most dangerous kind of evil is the kind that you didn't know was evil. If you were to FORCE the "evil if ugly" paradigm on the player's character, you are potentially limiting his choice of concept.
Another thing to note is that the character in question is NOT a fallen angel and isn't necessarily subject to the same in-universe rules that angels/fallen angels are subject to. He is simply an evil character with angel like powers.
The background story could just as easily have been "a mad wizard infused his veins with angelic blood as a babe."
(paraphrased) Why is the GM giving the sword fighter an axe?
*or*
A GM who forces the sword fighter to wield an axe isn't a very good GM.
We found it buried in the ground. The fighter was the first person to touch it. It could just as easily have bonded with the wizard (such as if he tried to identify it).
Could you just imagine a pissed off player of an 8 strength wizard FORCED to carry around 12 pounds of useless dead weight?
There's a cursed item for that: It's called a loadstone.
We now have had 3 such items in 2 campaigns, none of which truly match up with their respective characters. That's part of why I started this thread. It's a growing trend which I fear. The other players are fine with it for the most part (it's happening to them), but I just know I am going to throw a fit if it happens to me.
That's part of the problem: I'm going to end up being the bad guy when it is all said and done (and kind of already am for warning the GMs about this kind of "treasure").
We found it buried in the ground. The fighter was the first person to touch it. It could just as easily have bonded with the wizard (such as if he tried to identify it).
Legacy of Fire?
It turns into whatever weapon the PC favors the most. That is explicitly written in the module book, to say the least.
The weapon—called Tempest in some of the
wall frescoes—is left intentionally untyped, to best match
the interests and strategies of the player infested with
the moldspeaker. If that character is built to use swords,
Tempest is a sword of the type already favored by the PC.
If the character wields a staff, it’s a staff. If the character
prefers unarmed strikes, Tempest is a magic-infused scarf
that can be wrapped around the fist to gain the benefit of
weapon qualities and enhancement bonuses. The point is
that this magic weapon should be one that the moldspeaker
already favors.
I think your GM sucks?
We found it buried in the ground. The fighter was the first person to touch it. It could just as easily have bonded with the wizard (such as if he tried to identify it).Legacy of Fire?
** spoiler omitted **
Yes. It's Legacy of Fire.
Typed up a HUGE rant going into detail about our situation. Boards ate it.
Not even going to bother retyping it now. Might be for the best. I may have regretted saying some of those things.
|
|
We found it buried in the ground. The fighter was the first person to touch it. It could just as easily have bonded with the wizard (such as if he tried to identify it).Legacy of Fire?
** spoiler omitted **
Yes. It's Legacy of Fire.
Typed up a HUGE rant going into detail about our situation. Boards ate it.
Not even going to bother retyping it now. Might be for the best. I may have regretted saying some of those things.
you should point out its supposed to be whatever weapon the wielder wants the most
Give him, taintet "angelic" traits, Black wings and all the fluff, drop the initial attitude of all goodly beings with him one step closer to hostile and such stuff.
+1, I like this idea quite a bit, it's mostly 'fluff' changes, but would still have a ROLE-playing impact on the world around him. It reminds me of several classic stereo-types where good wears white and bad wears black. If the character is played anything like his background story, he's probably not getting tons of friends anyway, I would think he's a bit of a jerk. (the character, not the player)
I Also agree... definitely respond to fluff with fluff.
My other thought would be if the player has feats invested in certain abilities you should probably not CHOOSE to specifically hump him/her. The 'Infernal' bloodline also gets wings and IMO is the polar opposite to 'Celestial', that would be the one I choose given the circumstances... IF he absolutely had to change bloodlines. You do still lose all the cool Cleric spells though, that was MY favorite part of the 'Celestial' bloodline.
Calmly and politely explain to the GM that, despite the best intentions of the GM... isn't actually enhancing the player's enjoyment of the game... it's actually impacting the player's enjoyment in a negative manner.
This is probably the best route IMO, but I can easily see a DM taking this poorly, as either a complaint against their gaming skills or as player being a cry-baby. {insert tacky cliche here} The DM and their players have to work together to create a story in which it is fun for everyone.
You should point out its supposed to be whatever weapon the wielder wants the most.
I think he knows.
My character, having made a successful Sense Motive check to know that she was being magically influenced, warned everyone not to touch it as it might be dangerous (my fighter is kind of magic shy).
So a few sessions went by without anyone ever physically coming into contact with the weapon. It simply sat in the barbarian's bag of holding up until she died. The bag then went to the party's new archer (that used a greatsword). The archer, being a new character (a different player from that of the barbarian) asked us if he could use the axe. We warned him of the potential danger, but he grabbed it anyways.
Thus, the Mold Speaker was born.
To this day the GM has been wholly unable to communicate to me clearly just what that thing is. Best I can figure, it is a +1 frost greataxe that "levels" with the player. He also said something about it emitting strange voices.
Me: Is it sentient then?
GM: No.
Me: Then it must be cursed!
GM: No.
Me: Then where are the voices coming from?
GM: The mold.
Me: Ah, so they used the sentient item rules, but heavily reflavored it to make it seem like the mold on the PC's arm is what is sentient?
GM: *Gave up trying to explain it*
I am now fairly confused as to what it really is. If anyone could enlighten me without spoiling too much of the module, I would greatly appreciate it.
It seems NPCs are familiar with the weapon, or at least familiar enough to recognize its effects and dub the affected PC "the Mold Speaker." Nevertheless, we are kind of clueless.
(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 "cures-like" bloodline such as aberrant, abyssal, infernal, or undead.
In the context of the game's story arc, such a significant character change makes perfect sense, so the GM goes with it.
In the context of the game, however, the player is distraught. It was not his choice to have such a change occur. It is (or rather, was) his character and the GM has all but taken it away from him. He has lost what little control in the campaign world he had, his character. He can't even use his Flyby Attack feat anymore because his character no longer has Wings of Heaven!
So I ask you all this: Just how much control does/should a GM have over a player's character? Does the amount or form of character control differ during character creation then it does during the middle of a campaign?
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. Furthermore, the axe bestowed upon its wielder a...
My personal opinion is that a GM has no right to control the emotions, actions (except in the case of mind controlling effects and even then the player should remain in control but act as if theyre under the influence of said effect), or beliefs of a character. Basicly anything internal is completely off limits. Thats the line I draw in my games because by not crossing it I make sure that the characters remain the players.
A GM does have the right to effect characters by external means. Curses. Fine. Good/Bad guys getting involved. Fine. Adventures. Fine. Townsfolk. Fine. Rivals. Fine. Gifted items. Fine if everyone else gets them (otherwise it looks like favoritism).
Slightly off topic, sorry.
...kicked out of heaven and lost most of his/her powers, being demoted to a mortal. Now, they must earn the right to re-ascend.
We had an Aasamir Paladin with that same basic plot (the player's design), he(we) received minor assistance from both good and evil emmisaries that only he could see. (information, channel energies, etc.) The evil emmisary was doing the 'wolf in sheep's clothing' routine, while the good emmisary was more militant(kinda angry) and straight to the point... which to listen too?! (both were female) I actually got to help the DM with reference material and such. It was really awesome to see in action, but then the game fell apart. :(
You should point out its supposed to be whatever weapon the wielder wants the most.I think he knows.
** spoiler omitted **
We had the same thing happen, except...
That's right-- the GM picked out the spellcaster to give the magic weapon to. :/
We were unamused when the druid left, citing that we all sucked, and the DM refused to turn it into anything but a sickle. We eventually peer-pressured him down into making it into a greatsword for the cleric of Gorum in the party, but then the cleric of Gorum died in the encounter with the wereleopard in the module's set piece adventure. When we completely re-made characters-- it was a TPK, since the DM had no idea what he was doing and later, we learned, was reading the module as he ran it, and the wereleopard is there assuming several outside factors and behaviors that the DM ignored-- we argued it should turn into a scythe, for our scythe-wielding rogue, and then the scythe-wielding rogue quit the game and moved to California. Then we quit the campaign.
The moldspeaker role is cursed.
Oh, and Tempest is the manifestation of one of the templar of the Four Winds' soul. He entered a pact where he lives forever or something, and then was totally annihilated, but since he lives forever he can't die, so he remains "alive" as a large patch of mold under the monastery. This backstory-- that Tempest was used by this genie-- is obvious throughout the entire monastery. Whatever weapon that this genie wields is the one the PC's find and can readily identify from any of the art in the monastery. The fact that you guys are clueless what it is speaks volumes. In addition, whoever the Moldspeaker is actually gets infused with... Vardishal? I think that's the genie's name... his personality and memories. So they should know right away almost exactly what Tempest is.
On the flip side, it's stupid that the DM refuses to let it transform into a weapon that will actually benefit anyone. And it even encourages the next person who dies to make a greataxe specialist so that they can use the weapon. :rolleyes:
It seems he may derive pleasure from making you guys annoyed. As a person who frequents the forums, I end up reading a lot of your posts so I have a sense of how the campaign is going so far... it seems your party has a huge body count by the end of the first book? I would take this as a sure sign that the DM is honestly out to get you guys. I would quit, especially if this celestial sorceror is yours. Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't want to play knowing that the guillotine is hanging over my head for when the DM decides to completely screw my character concept because he's on a power trip.
|
|
You should point out its supposed to be whatever weapon the wielder wants the most.I think he knows.
** spoiler omitted **
We had the same thing happen, except...
...
On the flip side, it's stupid that the DM refuses to let it transform into a weapon that will actually benefit anyone. And it even encourages the next person who dies to make a greataxe specialist so that they can use the weapon. :rolleyes:
It seems he may derive pleasure from making you guys annoyed. As a person who frequents the forums, I end up reading a lot of your posts so I have a sense of how the campaign is going so far... it seems your party has a huge body count by the end of the first book? I would take this as a sure sign that the DM is honestly out to get you guys. I would quit, especially if this celestial sorceror is yours. Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't want to play knowing that the guillotine is hanging over my head for when the DM decides to completely screw my character concept because he's on a power trip.
+1
hell + a bajillion
Dork, i keep hearing your horror stories and sympathize with the pain.
Its not the same, but my 3.5 groups knew i knew all the books by heart, so i was banned from using anything but the ph and 1 complete or races book per character as punishment.
We had the same thing happen, except...
** spoiler omitted **...
One of the players is on his 3rd character. Another player is on his 2nd character. I'm on my first character, but there was a time we thought he had died (actually captured by the enemy) and I made a 2nd character which I played for all of one session. We later rescued my 1st character and I resumed playing it. That means that out of the four players we have, 2.5 of them have had their characters killed. By the time we finished the first adventure, we had lost 3 characters and, for a time, thought we had lost 4.
If you count my captured character as a "death" then that means only one player still has his original character.
Also...
There seemed to be little to no connection between the gnolls, the slavers, the genie, the axe known as Tempest, or the church and demon therein. It was almost like being run through a series of random encounters.
I think we as players didn't ask the right questions, but you'd think a decent GM would at least attempt to steer us in the right direction.
Playing that module under that GM was like watching LOST. The farther you get the more questions that arise. In the end, you are just left confused wondering what you were doing the entire time.
|
I think who a character is, his background, what he looks like, his opinions, etc. belong solely to the player. The only thing the DM has partial say in is the character's actions. For example if the character is very much into Subject A, and Subject A makes the other players in the group very uncomfortable, then the DM may rule that while it's fine for the character to be into Subject A (this still falls under the purview of the player), that the character should not bring up Subject A or do Subject A as that offends the other players and the goal after all is for all players and the DM to have fun.
If my character couldn't trade some gift from the DM that he didn't want and it altered his appearance in some way I didn't like, my character would commit suicide and I would bring in a new one.
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.
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.
This actually doesn't bother me too much.
It makes sense to me that a techno gnome might not be an appropriate fit for a Norse mythology campaign featuring vikings.
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.This actually doesn't bother me too much.
It makes sense to me that a techno gnome might not be an appropriate fit for a Norse mythology campaign featuring vikings.
But Techno Viking is essential.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hw_fdMxW6A
|
|
It makes sense to me that a techno gnome might not be an appropriate fit for a Norse mythology campaign featuring vikings.
I agree it's not a logical fit. But if the DM's ultimate goal is for everyone to have fun and being restricted to something that fits the DM's campaign = no fun for one or more players, the DM should check himself. He should be flexible enough to deal with whatever characters turn up. Maybe my character somehow arrived from another dimension and bam he's stuck in the Norse world. That's fine to me as a player. The world belongs to the DM.
I understand the DM needs to have fun too. But if he only has fun by micromanaging PCs then something's wrong.
Also consider the movie the 13th Warrior.
Antonio Banderas' character is basically an Arab diplomat running around with 12 big burly Vikings. Great movie.
Though I would also tend to stay away from extreme genre breaks. Sorry to all the Nippophiles out there, I'm tired of all the ninjas showing up.