I'm not sure that you necessarily need any new mechanics here. You can easily create this character mechanically through clever use of multiclassing and feat selection, while playing out the reasons for those choices.
If you use traits you can give him some roguish traits, the masterwork dagger could come from "Rich Parents" which let you start with 900 gp, etc.
I have to agree that there is no need for any changes to the game mechanics. A good background should be a requirement and does not need any extra rewards. This is what traits are supposed to be, but most people just look at the benefits even if the trait does not otherwise fit their background.
The Rich Parents trait has been suggested and that fits. There are a couple others that would also work vagabond child, child of the streets, and canter all give some rogue like benefits, Mostly in the form of class skills, or bonus to a skill.
I played a very similar paladin idea back in third edition. Came from a family threat was legit evil(demonic blood ran through the family). I had the dm randomly have parts of his heritage com out in game. What your describing though doesn't seem like you need anything more then a clever back story. Role play like a boss.
|
There are plenty of ways to play a character who has a very different philosophy from his family. The interesting bit is what caused them to distance themselves and how successful they are. What family habits are hardest to shake? What sort of obligations or old friendships might pull the character back? Does the family want the character back, or are they out for blood?
As for mechanics, that's what the trait system is for. The paladin from a family of thieves gets Canter or Child of the Streets or Dirty Fighter. The selfish mercenary from a family of healers and priests gets Sacred Touch or Child of the Temple.
|
|
Are you looking at this as a DM, then?
You definitely can't force that kind of thing, but you can encourage players. One easy option is to allow a character to start with a debt of sorts. This could be an actual debt, or a favour owed, but either way they have some advantage at the start (such as extra starting money for that masterwork dagger or a bonus trait) that will cause them a roughly proportionate amount of trouble down the line. Remember that if you want to encourage this, you should make sure that the trouble caused is more along the lines of roleplaying drama or adventure hooks. You don't want to give the impression that you're using backstory as a weapon.
If your group is amenable you could ask each player to provide one ally and one enemy from their past. Then have these people show up at dramatically appropriate moments.
Weirdo has a good idea.
Also if using Nate for your inspiration a LN Inquisitor would work wonders. As they make natural leaders (read: Masterminds).
If looking for an example build I might could give you a good example.
"Background as optional" Shudder! I guess if backgrounds are optional in your game that explains why mechanics might seem like a good idea. I've never played in a group like that before we require at least a basic back story. Hard to role play without a back story...
"Background as optional" Shudder! I guess if backgrounds are optional in your game that explains why mechanics might seem like a good idea. I've never played in a group like that before we require at least a basic back story. Hard to role play without a back story...
Agreed... Heck, one time my backstory helped to give the GM a nation/continent they were dreading making. It allowed them to shunt the large complex stuff to me.
|
|
Eh, it's not that important to go into a campaign with a detailed backstory. I know a guy - a dedicated roleplayer - who starts a character with just a one or two sentence character concept. I've seen him create a vivid, memorable character out of "I am a righteous warrior, seeking justice and destroying evil. I expect people to do as I say and will only accept advice from superiors in my order or (second PC)." His backstory was completely irrelevant. The whole point was that the guy was so dedicated to fighting the good fight that nothing else mattered, except maybe his friendship with his partner, the second PC.
Eh, it's not that important to go into a campaign with a detailed backstory. I know a guy - a dedicated roleplayer - who starts a character with just a one or two sentence character concept. I've seen him create a vivid, memorable character out of "I am a righteous warrior, seeking justice and destroying evil. I expect people to do as I say and will only accept advice from superiors in my order or (second PC)." His backstory was completely irrelevant. The whole point was that the guy was so dedicated to fighting the good fight that nothing else mattered, except maybe his friendship with his partner, the second PC.
Sounds like that character had a good background story. You mentioned he only takes orders from the superiors of his order and another PC. To me that is a background story. I never said it had to be a full binder full of notes.
The groups I game with for the most part require some reason for your character to be part of the party. In a lot of them the question will be asked is "Why are you a hero". If you can't answer that you don't play the character. This is mostly done in superhero games like Champions but it is a good test.
|
|
I don't think anyone's saying you need a binder full of notes. But I'm not sure that everyone would have called that character concept a "backstory." I consider a backstory to be significant events or characters from the PC's past that shaped who they are or might have other consequences in the present. If it's not "story" in the sense of having characters or plot, it's not "backstory," it's character personality or motivation.
Personality and motivation are essential. Backstory in the sense of characters or events is nice, but for many players it's optional.
Some mighty fine hairs your splitting on that one. My idea of a back story is explaining why your character is who they are. A Narrative is one effective way to do that but all i ask of the player is that they have thought of a coherent concept. To effectively role play you have to create a character and act as that character would other wise your playing yourself or just randomly choosing actions. The key to a good character is knowing what that char would do and consistently doing that. If you haven't thought out in advance the who, the what, and the why you can't do that. Your friend obviously did that even if he only gave you a 2 sentence summary.
my bad.
1. have the party go on missions that disrupt the thieves guilds plans(knowingly or not). Force interaction between father and son or fathers minions.
2. father is caught and sentenced to death and son has a chance to try to free him.
3. father has been using his sons position to intimidate and black mail rivals without the son knowing and he finds out.
4. Son tries to redeem father
5. Father takes son's path as an insult and disowns him while actively trying to do him harm.
6. Father rats out rivals to son knowing he will be compelled to bring them down.
Alot of it comes down to how loving/antagonistic you want their relationship to be. If they really care for each other but are on opposite sides of the law they will be drawn to protect each other. This could lead to the guild leader talking less profitable actions to save son from harm and embarrassment, or dropping leads to him. If they dispose each other they will take risks to hurt the other. Might also be interesting if one loves the other but he hates him back. Some of these get trickier if you go paladin because of all the code of conduct entails. An inquisitor has more flexibility to work with the father or at least not against him.
If he is a Paladin his father will probably create some problems due to the Paladins code. This will depend a lot on his deity. Sarenrae is a lot more forgiving then Iomedae so the choice of deity is going to be very important. As to the mechanics simply use your traits to pick up a couple of non class skills, and maybe some extra wealth. Although if the wealth comes from something against the Paladin's code he would probably donate it so again not much of a problem.
If you are going for an inquisitor there is not really any problem since operate outside the rules. As long as his deity is good with his conduct he is fine. From a mechanical stand point this is probably easier to pull off since you have a lot of the same skills as a rogue and enough skill points that you can pull it off. You may need a trait or two to get some skills as class skills, but probably only need one. This is probably the best fit for what you described.
As to his father that will depend a lot on if his father is straight up evil or more neutral. A thieves guild does not have to be out right evil even though many are. If his father's guild sticks to stealing and other nonviolent crimes he can probably get away with more. If his father's guild is also into murder and assassination then he will go after his father.
You may want to look at some books for idea's. Raymond E Feist (Duke James otherwise known as Jimmy the hand), and David Eddings Ruby Knight come to mind. Both have characters who started out as thieves but later became nobles.
|
|
Right, back on topic.
3. father has been using his sons position to intimidate and black mail rivals without the son knowing and he finds out.
OR, father has been using his position to eliminate his son's enemies or perceived rivals. Perhaps a petty criminal who has been giving the PC trouble ends up dead. Perhaps a paladin or inquisitor who disapproves of the PC (or the PC's background) is crippled or killed by a gang of thieves. PC has to deal with daddy's extremely misguided idea of helping.
I like Chaos_Scion's idea of having the father be caught and sentenced to death, and having the PC have to decide whether to step in, though if the PC decides not to intercede you'll end up with a dead NPC.
As another variant, the father is falsely accused of murder. The PC knows that although dad is a thief, he isn't a killer. The PC could try to clear his father's name, facing his peers' accusations that the apple doesn't fall far etc. Or he could let his father hang, knowing that even if the father isn't guilty of murder his guild activities are worthy of the death penalty - but also knowing that whoever actually committed the murder is getting away with it.
PC could also have direct evidence of father's crimes and be asked to testify against him.
EDIT: Darn, I keep taking too long and missing posts. My first suggestion's probably too antagonistic. But if you do put the father in a mess and present the PC with the option to help get him out of it, any still-friendly people in his father's organization would make great advocates for dad.
I like the idea that while the father may react one way toward the son other members of the guild may be either more or less fond of him. This could give you a a lot of options for bringing the father in without him being the direct antagonist. For example his second in command that always was jealous of the son and fears he will one day come back to serve at his fathers side stealing his job. Such a villain could directly target the PC without the fathers knowledge possibly even looking like its the father acting(situational irony all around). Another member of the guild who was more of a kindly uncle to the son may actively help him or intercede with less favorable members of the guild. This gets the father into the action with out being the bad guy but depending how all parties play it it could end up going anywhere.
I'm starting to really like this concept I might have to borrow it at some point.
I feel the same way Chaos. It is a wonderful concept.
Another way is if the thieves guild deals in information and such. Or acts along the lines of a Churches Code they might even be sanctioned by the church as the churches ally.
This could be good or bad. And could bring the father in as an ally to the PC's enemies or as an ally/quest giver for the PC if they join with a friendly church or even the same church.
Remember, the Vatican during the Crusades was (in)famous for using Assassins and Thieves.