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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Stefan Hill wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
No I am saying you need a backstory and an actual personality, but your class needs to reflect it. Class should not be an arbitrary construct and it should really mean something.
Sherlock Holmes was a Rogue.

Hmmm, in the American series Elementary I would have picked his class as Moron. Each to their own.

You think a Rogue can't be a moron? I'll remind you that the iconic has an 8 Int.


Paizo uses dump stats?! WTF!!

But really, that's good to know. It's probably from the NPC stat array.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Imagine how well the climatic moment would have worked if the GM had checked with Luke's (and Leia's) players to make sure it was OK that Vader was their father. OTOH, being an orphan with mysterious disappeared or dead parents is pretty much an invitation.

"Hey guys, I'm thinking of building on your orphaned background. Anything I should avoid, mother, father, birthplaces?"

I warned the two-handed fighter in my Shackled City game that I had a plot point coming up that could take his character out of play. I asked him if he wanted me to just narrate it and work it so he could keep playing him, or if he wanted to let the dice decide.

Later, when Amras was kidnapped, tortured, lost his arm, and was petrified, before being rescued by the party and restored, everyone had a great time. It might not have gone smoothly without that heads up ahead of it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
No I am saying you need a backstory and an actual personality, but your class needs to reflect it. Class should not be an arbitrary construct and it should really mean something.
Sherlock Holmes was a Rogue.

Hmmm, in the American series Elementary I would have picked his class as Moron. Each to their own.

You think a Rogue can't be a moron? I'll remind you that the iconic has an 8 Int.

I think her int is 10 in Pathfinder. Probing Pathfinder is the smart choice.


John Kretzer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
No I am saying you need a backstory and an actual personality, but your class needs to reflect it. Class should not be an arbitrary construct and it should really mean something.
Sherlock Holmes was a Rogue.

Hmmm, in the American series Elementary I would have picked his class as Moron. Each to their own.

You think a Rogue can't be a moron? I'll remind you that the iconic has an 8 Int.
I think her int is 10 in Pathfinder. Probing Pathfinder is the smart choice.

Only because the stat modifiers for elves changed. She's still as dumb as an elf can get with a standard stat array.


Mikaze wrote:
why do black angel wings have to be evil? :(

Ah Mikaze, always looking for deeper meanings.

Black angel wings are evil because of the erinyes. It was probably one artist or designer's decision at some point, and that was probably informed by the Judeo-Christian cliche that white represents purity and black represents death. Sure, that cliche doesn't hold globally, but we are talking about angels, so I think it is fair game.

I support that you always have your critical eye toward this kind of thing, but it is possible to over-react or over-analyze it.


A DM has as much power in a game as the players allow him.

If you don't like his rules, talk to him, you can often come to something that fits both your agendas. If he's a belligerant DM (we've all had them), just leave his game and find a more agreeable person to play with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Sorry to offend but taking a class like barbarian and not actually playing a Barbarian as the character is actually munchkining.

Classes are a bag of mechanics. As an example I used the "ranger" class to play a ninja because I dont like the "ninja" class. There is nothing wrong with that.

Why?
The book "ninja" does not match the ninja I wanted to play.

edit:That was not a "power" decision, and not using the exact book flavor means I have imagination. It does not mean I am a powergamer.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
why do black angel wings have to be evil? :(

Ah Mikaze, always looking for deeper meanings.

Black angel wings are evil because of the erinyes. It was probably one artist or designer's decision at some point, and that was probably informed by the Judeo-Christian cliche that white represents purity and black represents death. Sure, that cliche doesn't hold globally, but we are talking about angels, so I think it is fair game.

I support that you always have your critical eye toward this kind of thing, but it is possible to over-react or over-analyze it.

Monte Cooke's angels of knowledge have dark wings, as do the Mala'kim of In'Nominee. The former are good bordering on neutral, and the latter are the only Choir of Angels that can not Fall.


LazarX wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
why do black angel wings have to be evil? :(

Ah Mikaze, always looking for deeper meanings.

Black angel wings are evil because of the erinyes. It was probably one artist or designer's decision at some point, and that was probably informed by the Judeo-Christian cliche that white represents purity and black represents death. Sure, that cliche doesn't hold globally, but we are talking about angels, so I think it is fair game.

I support that you always have your critical eye toward this kind of thing, but it is possible to over-react or over-analyze it.

Monte Cooke's angels of knowledge have dark wings, as do the Mala'kim of In'Nominee. The former are good bordering on neutral, and the latter are the only Choir of Angels that can not Fall.

But this is Pathfinder and Eyrines have black wings while other winged angels don't.

Silver Crusade

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
why do black angel wings have to be evil? :(

Ah Mikaze, always looking for deeper meanings.

Black angel wings are evil because of the erinyes. It was probably one artist or designer's decision at some point, and that was probably informed by the Judeo-Christian cliche that white represents purity and black represents death. Sure, that cliche doesn't hold globally, but we are talking about angels, so I think it is fair game.

I support that you always have your critical eye toward this kind of thing, but it is possible to over-react or over-analyze it.

That was actually meant half in jest, but I do admit I'm not a fan of the "dark = evil"/"light = good" meme. Besides, it's not played that way in Pathfinder itself!

Atarlost wrote:


But this is Pathfinder and Eyrines have black wings while other winged angels don't.

This isn't really fact though.

We've got multiple deities and Empyreal Lords that are heavily darkness-flavored, all of whom would have angelic servants wrapped in the aesthetics of their patrons. Desna has canonical black-colored celestials in her service for example, and with Tsukiyo(LG god of spirits, the moon, and madness) and Ashava(CG Empyreal shepherd of lonely ghosts) having the Darkness domain, angels with a darker aesthetic would be totally called for. :) And who knows what aesthetic Grandmother Crow is gonna have...

(the black-winged Memtim among the Psychopomps aren't exactly angels, but they fit their theme and are neutral)

Someone PM-ed me in response to that post with suggestions I'd totally back. Wings with putrescent corruption. Something like that would avoid locking out an entire swath of flavor for a third of the alignments. Or too purely white wings. After all, the most effective devils look like the most glorious angels!

played a good-aligned Desnan celestial sorcerer that would pop out black wings, so admittedly biased. ;)

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Sorry to offend but taking a class like barbarian and not actually playing a Barbarian as the character is actually munchkining.

Classes are a bag of mechanics. As an example I used the "ranger" class to play a ninja because I dont like the "ninja" class. There is nothing wrong with that.

Why?
The book "ninja" does not match the ninja I wanted to play.

edit:That was not a "power" decision, and not using the exact book flavor means I have imagination. It does not mean I am a powergamer.

Heck, got a couple of character ideas based on the ninja class itself, and none of them would have a clue what the heck a "ninja" was.

Bluff check: 6

"....if by "ninja" you mean "not a Red Mantis Assassin" then sure, I'm a ninja. From Ninjandia."


I totally want to play a courtier using the ninja class now.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
why do black angel wings have to be evil? :(

Ah Mikaze, always looking for deeper meanings.

Black angel wings are evil because of the erinyes. It was probably one artist or designer's decision at some point, and that was probably informed by the Judeo-Christian cliche that white represents purity and black represents death. Sure, that cliche doesn't hold globally, but we are talking about angels, so I think it is fair game.

I support that you always have your critical eye toward this kind of thing, but it is possible to over-react or over-analyze it.

By some descriptions, the angel of death has black wings, but he's still a "good guy". Although I'm sure the ancient Egyptions might disagree.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Azrael, with four faces, four thousand wings, and countless eyes and tongues.

Also, pals with Batman.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
why do black angel wings have to be evil? :(

Ah Mikaze, always looking for deeper meanings.

Black angel wings are evil because of the erinyes. It was probably one artist or designer's decision at some point, and that was probably informed by the Judeo-Christian cliche that white represents purity and black represents death. Sure, that cliche doesn't hold globally, but we are talking about angels, so I think it is fair game.

I support that you always have your critical eye toward this kind of thing, but it is possible to over-react or over-analyze it.

Monte Cooke's angels of knowledge have dark wings, as do the Mala'kim of In'Nominee. The former are good bordering on neutral, and the latter are the only Choir of Angels that can not Fall.
But this is Pathfinder and Eyrines have black wings while other winged angels don't.

For one thing, they're not angels, they're devils, no matter what they're origins. There's absolutely no reason you can't fluff a deva, or other angel with something other than lily white wings. Heck, for the chaotic good ones, you can even make the rainbow colored! In fact if I recall, many of the wings of the angelic races aren't even nailed down for color. There's no reason they can't vary even within the same dominion. Forget about RAW.... grow a pair, people!


We're not going to get into a batman alignment debate now are we?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
We're not going to get into a batman alignment debate now are we?

That would be silly. His alignment is clearly: Batman.

Actually I really like the alignment chart that has him as every alignment.

Silver Crusade

Ooh, and Anubis-looking Hound Archons...


Scythia wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
We're not going to get into a batman alignment debate now are we?

That would be silly. His alignment is clearly: Batman.

Actually I really like the alignment chart that has him as every alignment.

As I have nothing to really contribute to the thread, my post goes in a spoiler.

Batman in the game Arkham City:
I really like how he was portrayed - I don't know if you've played it, but he was definitely good (took steps to avoid killing people, even with his back against the wall), but still had that bad-ass feel about him like "This isn't someone I should be f***ing with". He interrogates Riddler's henchmen with fear (smashing walls, threats, hanging them over balconies), for example.

One scene in particular (when he's been doing work in the city for like 4 hours straight, he's beat up, his suit is a little messed up, he's gotten shot, has had to deal with Penguin, Two-Face, Joker, Hugo Strange, Bane) is when he rescues Mr. Freeze from Penguin's museum. Freeze doesn't have his suit and only has one little vial of sub-zero stuff to keep him alive. Batman tries to get information and stuff from him and Freeze refuses. Batman pulls the vial out of his (Freeze's) body, and starts pouring the stuff on the ground, saying "Today is not a good day to mess with me, Viktor". So cool.


thejeff wrote:


The only counter to that is that it can spoil a big reveal and remove some of the drama and tension. You've got to balance that against the chance of breaking the player's concept of his character.

Imagine how well the climatic moment would have worked if the GM had checked with Luke's (and Leia's) players to make sure it was OK that Vader was their father. OTOH, being an orphan with mysterious disappeared or dead parents is pretty much an invitation.

This is true, but easily solved. You could 1) have your players do the "blank spots" in their back stories as someone earlier suggested (and kind of sounds like what happened, if it had been a role playing game) or 2) ask the player if they mind if you throw in something but don't tell them what it is. If the player trusts you, that probably wouldn't be an issue and will give them reason to be paranoid (which is always fun, right :P ). I think the main issue I have w/ this is ruining an experience for a player by suddenly changing something w/out any communication w/ the player. Most people I have played w/ are cool w/ GMs throwing a curve ball, as long as they feel involved in the process.


Ravingdork wrote:

*Hops on the entitlement bandwagon*

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

Now, say a player were to create a celestial bloodline sorcerer. Said character is wholly evil and regularly binds powerful fiends to her service to do her bidding. The character background says something to the effect of "she gained great power through pacts with powerful celestial creatures, whom she then betrayed to their deaths in order to keep the power she tricked them out of."

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

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

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

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

I realize this thread has sorta wound down, but anyway..

How is this that much different from a cursed item - say a helm of opposite alignment?

Silver Crusade

I wish I had as much control of my real life that this particular Player expects to get with his game characters. That's called having your cake and eating it too. No one gets to decide how their life goes 100% of the time. But for game's sake, the player and DM should always communicate such changes together before taking drastic actions like this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Sir Matt, I don't get to decide how my life goes 100%, but I do get to decide how my characters life goes. My character certainly doesn't, but I am not my character.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sir Matt, I don't get to decide how my life goes 100%, but I do get to decide how my characters life goes. My character certainly doesn't, but I am not my character.

So answer me this, Tri (and I realize you and I are 180 degrees apart on this)

What happens when your PC gets robbed and loses his most valued possessions? Or loses a limb? Or has a loved one killed? Or dons the aforementioned helm of opposite alignment?

Do you tear up your character sheet and fly across the table to attack the GM? Where exactly does your 'control' of the characters life begin/end, relative to the GM's ability to tell a story? (or relative to the fickleness of the dice)


Blake Duffey wrote:
How is this that much different from a cursed item - say a helm of opposite alignment?

There is one important difference. When you're character finds a helm of opposite alignment, you make a check to ID it, you fail that check or decide not to make one, it's your fault.

In the OP's example the player was given the OK to play a character and then the GM totally changed it instead of just saying "No".

It would be like allowing a player to make a character that starts with a family heirloom helmet, but the first time the character put it on you're character changed gender. Then the GM tells you your mom was really your dad and your dad was really your mom. You just didn't know. Surprise!

It's OK for players to have bad things happen to their characters. It's not OK to give them misinformation during the character creation process and then punish them for doing something you told them they could do.

That's the difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strannik wrote:
It's OK for players to have bad things happen to their characters. It's not OK to give them misinformation during the character creation process and then punish them for doing something you told them they could do.

I guess I don't understand the conclusion that the OP is 'punishing' the player (or the character).


Blake Duffey wrote:
Strannik wrote:
It's OK for players to have bad things happen to their characters. It's not OK to give them misinformation during the character creation process and then punish them for doing something you told them they could do.
I guess I don't understand the conclusion that the OP is 'punishing' the player (or the character).

Well, the OP wasn't punishing anybody, he just gave a hypothetical situation. Now, the GM in this hypothetical game was punishing the player. Here is how.

The player wanted to play a certain character w/ certain abilities. The character's background includes:

OP wrote:
"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."

The GM says that is fine, no problem. The player is super excited about playing this character. The game begins.

Then, at some point, we get:

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

This leaves the player feeling like the character they wanted to play isn't even there anymore. They fell like they are playing someone else's character, one w/ completely different abilities and powers.

In situations such as this, the GM should inform the player that the back story they wrote is going to cause problems, problems that could radically change the way the character will be played. If the player is interested in the role playing experience, then they won't care and will roll with it (that's probably what I would do), if the player is more interested in the mechanical aspect (ie, playing a character that is capable of X, Y, & Z) then the player can choose to alter the back story or create a new character.

My point is, during the character creation process, it is very simple to inform players of the situations they are (possibly unknowingly) creating for themselves so that they get the gaming experience that they expect. If all the players are fine w/ having their characters class, spells, abilities, etc radically changed by the decision of the GM, that's fine, but the GM needs to tell the players up front. Not doing so will cause strife between the players and the GM, creating an us vs them attitude, hurt feelings, and possibly the end of the game.

I'm not sure why it's a problem to tell your players what to expect before the game begins so they don't feel cheated of the experience they thought they signed up for.

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:
On a related note, I've played in groups where the GM "gifts" the PCs with unique magical items, such as an intelligent magical greataxe that grows in power alongside the PC, but can never be traded, sold, or destroyed. Much like a cursed item, it can't be easily removed.

I once did something similar to this, with a helmet. An artifact of death the PCs stole from a dragon's lair.

As an artifact, it was beyond the power of remove curse.

While It did not directly increase in power over time, the fighter who put in on did gradually figure how to use its power. He never figured out everything it was capable of before discovering it greatest power. Unfortunately, that involved dying while wearing the helm. When I took his character sheet away and announced his character standing back up, the party wizard disintegrated the fighter, ignoring the dragon that killed him. (The same dragon they stole the helm from months prior.)

We all had fun with it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Blake Duffey wrote:

So answer me this, Tri (and I realize you and I are 180 degrees apart on this)

What happens when your PC gets robbed and loses his most valued possessions? Or loses a limb? Or has a loved one killed? Or dons the aforementioned helm of opposite alignment?

1. He goes out and finds the thieves.

2. He adapts or gets a replacement through magic.
3. He gets revenge on the killer and/or seeks resurrection magic.
4. He plays out his new alignment until something restores him to his original self.


I look at it this way: the DM has complete control over every single NPC's name, description, and back-story. That's 99.99999999999999% of the world's population, and the entire population of the rest of the multiverse. If he starts writing parts of the PCs' back-stories as well -- going for a 100% clean sweep, I guess -- then he's not running a game, he's trying to write a novel, and has 4 people (who thought they were players) sitting there as a captive audience.

Same of a DM who railroads the adventures unmercifully and fudges the dice and/or ignores them until everything goes according to his "plan."

There's a point where every GM has to pick one: pretend you're Tolkien, or play Pathfinder.


Blake Duffey wrote:

I realize this thread has sorta wound down, but anyway..

How is this that much different from a cursed item - say a helm of opposite alignment?

For one thing, the helm of opposite alignment allows a save, where the above situation doesn't. For another thing, it's initiated by the player putting on an unidentified helmet, rather than initiated by the gods just up and zapping them.

So the helmet isn't nearly an apt analogy. An apt analogy would be the GM starting a session with "Oh, hey, George, by the way, you've angered the evil gods by your conduct, so they just hit you with alignment change magic. No save. Your character is no longer LG, he's CE, and I'll expect you to play them as such."

Note, incidentally, that my differentiating it from the effects of a helm of opposite alignment doesn't mean I actually like the helm of opposite alignment, or would ever use it in a game I'm GMing. While some people might be completely okay with the roleplaying aspect, other people can have a very visceral reaction to having to roleplay out behavior they themselves are opposed to, and skewering a player's fun to such an extent (for, potentially, a great many entire sessions) isn't something I would want to do to anyone. Even no-save death isn't nearly so bad as that.

So, in fact, I do think a helm of opposite alignment sucks, but it still sucks in different ways than the situation described in the OP.

Silver Crusade

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I look at it this way: the DM has complete control over every single NPC's name, description, and back-story. That's 99.99999999999999% of the world's population, and the entire population of the rest of the multiverse. If he starts writing parts of the PCs' back-stories as well -- going for a 100% clean sweep, I guess -- then he's not running a game, he's trying to write a novel, and has 4 people (who thought they were players) sitting there as a captive audience.

Same of a DM who railroads the adventures unmercifully and fudges the dice and/or ignores them until everything goes according to his "plan."

There's a point where every GM has to pick one: pretend you're Tolkien, or play Pathfinder.

Like the GM from DM of the Rings vs the GM from Darths and Droids.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Same of a DM who railroads the adventures unmercifully and fudges the dice and/or ignores them until everything goes according to his "plan."

There's a point where every GM has to pick one: pretend you're Tolkien, or play Pathfinder.

Are you trying to win or are you trying to tell a collective story.

If your trying to tell a story, part of the GM's job is to supply plot twists. Some of those plot twists may occasionally have a profound impact on a character. How the character reacts is the next part of the story.


Artanthos wrote:
If your trying to tell a story, part of the GM's job is to supply plot twists. Some of those plot twists may occasionally have a profound impact on a character. How the character reacts is the next part of the story.

Some stories are actually very casual and not life or death or end of the world. Most don't involve god shooting a death ray at you or a close member of the party with no save. Thats a twist no one saw coming! That said, players are different and take things differently. Just be sure its a story they're okay with being a part of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I look at it this way: the DM has complete control over every single NPC's name, description, and back-story. That's 99.99999999999999% of the world's population, and the entire population of the rest of the multiverse. If he starts writing parts of the PCs' back-stories as well -- going for a 100% clean sweep, I guess -- then he's not running a game, he's trying to write a novel, and has 4 people (who thought they were players) sitting there as a captive audience.

Same of a DM who railroads the adventures unmercifully and fudges the dice and/or ignores them until everything goes according to his "plan."

There's a point where every GM has to pick one: pretend you're Tolkien, or play Pathfinder.

Then there is the middle ground, where the GM tells the player; "that no he can't write his background as he is the unknown son of Iomede."

There is plenty of control that the GM has to have over the PCs. The GM sets up what classes, races, alignments, characteristics, etc. that the PCs start with. What sort of backgrounds the PCs can have, where they can come from, etc. If the GM doesn't have this control, then the players may as well not have the GM there, and do whatever they want.


I didn't read all of the posts because some of there were just repeats and some were just boring to me, but the DM has no control over your character or changing your class features. He can change the world, NPCs and give you things, but he can NEVER CHANGE YOUR CHARACTER. No where in the sorcerer is a code of conduct to keep your powers you aren't a paladin a bloodline doesn't mean the forces of good are watching you it just means you have some celestial blood and that's how you got your powers.

Although if the DM did decide to change my bloodline of my sorcerer I would tell him no, and if that didn't work I'd either stop playing that game or make a new character at that moment. Although I would probably stop playing that game.


Artanthos wrote:
Are you trying to win or are you trying to tell a collective story.

I dunno about everybody else here on the Pathfinder Role Playing Game forums, but I'm trying to play a game.

Artanthos wrote:
If your trying to tell a story, part of the GM's job is to supply plot twists. Some of those plot twists may occasionally have a profound impact on a character. How the character reacts is the next part of the story.

"Supply plot twists" is a good way of saying "My story has stagnated because I planned it poorly and won't let the PCs supply their own, therefore Diabolos Ex Machina".

Plot twists can be good.

"Oh by the way your character is not anything like what he used to be because" is not a good plot twist.


the changing of the sorcerer's bloodline is a dick move on the DM's part as far as i am concerned.

if you didn't want an evil celestial sorcerer, you shouldn't have allowed it.

yet Nualia, a Freaking Aasimaar and an NPC in Rise of the Runelords, a creature of celestial heritage, moreso than the sorcerer, is allowed to stay an aasimaar while being chaotic evil, and can get away with being an unholy champion of Lamashtu.

if Nualia, a PC from an adventure path, is allowed to retain the boons of her celestial heritage and be a chaotic evil psychopath. than why can't a celestial sorcerer, whose celestial blood, is far lesser in volume than a Freaking Aasimaar's, be a chaotic evil psychopath as well and still retain her celestial bloodline?

and the intelligent greataxe given to the greatsword specialized PC with no way to remove it. discuss it with the PC in detail beforehand first and allow them to veto it. don't invalidate the countless feats the PC invested by giving them the wrong weapon. if the PC specialized so highly in greatswords, give them a darned greatsword if they truly want it.

the reskinned barbarian; i have no problem, it still has all the mechanics of a barbarian. just with a monastic background. whose to say rage cannot be reskinned as a form of "Zen Serenity" that has all the same mechanics and restrictions?


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

I'd be pretty pissed myself.

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

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

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

It is indeed fluff. However, fluff explains how a certain ability works.

If the fluff was as unimportant as you claim, then most feats would be described in one or two lines. Listing only the mechanical benefit and when it does/doesn't apply. However, in feat descriptions, there is normally at least a line or two of the general description. As previously stated by others, actions have consequences. Especially so when an ability states that that the "lords of the upper planes are watching." This is similar to the situation where a cleric of pharsma is dabbling in necromancy to multiclass in order to gain some kickass mechanical advantage/ability. It states that pharasma is strongly against undead. Would you be pissed off if the dm ruled that the deity strips you of your powers after you animate corpses and create all manner of undead? When your powers are provided by someone or something else and you choose to spit in their face through your actions, don't complain when you get caught out on it.


Celestial heritage is not the same thing as powers granted to a cleric. The bloodlines represent an inborn power while clerics are granted powers from an outside source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Struggling through this entire thread made me so happy I never allow evil characters when I'm GMing so that I don't have to deal with this kind of crap. Presented with that character concept I would have laughed uproariously and said try again.

Seriously, sounds like the GM doesn't like the entire character concept. He clearly should have rejected it first before play started, if that is indeed the case. Trying to change it later is far from optimal.

As for the larger question of backstory, for me that has always been a creative process between the GM and the player, and may require some back and forth negotiating before play starts. I ask all my players to provide a backstory including key people from their past, and a basic answer to the question of why they are an adventurer. Some of them give me really detailed stuff pages long that gives me a ton to work with for future plot threads, roleplaying flavor and character motivation. Others give me the bare basics, and I have to go back to them for a bit more. I do tell them flat out that the more they give me the more central their character is likely to be to the plot and the more facetime they will likely get during roleplaying sections.

The goal, though, is to enhance the game experience for all of us by making it a more immersive world that the characters actually feel they are a part of rather than a hastily developed set of stats with no context. I try not use this to hurt the characters in any way, although I may use their backgrounds to create challenges (like one character's wife and children being taken hostage by a recurring baddie during a recent Kingmaker campaign - he became a seriously motivated paladin when he found out).

The only way I would make involuntary changes to a character that have a mechanical impact would be if someone is seriously not roleplaying their alignment correctly or if someone is blatantly trying to break the game by exploiting loopholes in the rules. Even then, it would only be after warnings had been issued and discussions about why what they were doing wasn't cool took place.


Vod Canockers wrote:

Then there is the middle ground, where the GM tells the player; "that no he can't write his background as he is the unknown son of Iomede."

There is plenty of control that the GM has to have over the PCs. The GM sets up what classes, races, alignments, characteristics, etc. that the PCs start with. What sort of backgrounds the PCs can have, where they can come from, etc. If the GM doesn't have this control, then the players may as well not have the GM there, and do whatever they want.

That's not a "middle ground." That's "I'm the GM and it's my story and you four other people are incidental and might as well not even be here."

If at one end we have "all players are equal and there's no DM," and at the other we have "DM decides all story stuff, including the PCs' classes, races, backgrounds and motivations" (and, yes, that's a very extreme position), then the middle ground is "the DM comes up with a broad story outline and the NPCs, and the PCs are up to the players." That middle ground is generally considered the default.

If the story isn't collaborative to any extent, then why have players at all? Just sit down and write your story the way you so clearly want it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LowRoller wrote:
Celestial heritage is not the same thing as powers granted to a cleric. The bloodlines represent an inborn power while clerics are granted powers from an outside source.

For the other bloodlines, I absolutely agree after reading their bloodline descriptions. However, the celestial bloodline is different from the default assumption of "power stemming from the bloodline." I interpret it as the sorcerer drawing power from their bloodline but the power from the bloodline comes from a celestial source.

According to the prd, it states:"Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention..."
That implies a celestial source which the bloodline is linked to. The increasing levels of sorcerer reflect how much of that link the sorcerer can draw on.

As previously quoted, the prd also states that "Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely."

If the sorcerer in the OP could do whatever they desired without repercussions from the higher planes, then whats the price such individuals supposedly pay. Or is the celestial bloodline supposed to mean:

"Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely. Regardless of what you do, they never interfere with your existence."

I assume that isn't the case because that doesn't make sense at all. The problem seems to be that the dm didn't communicate the consequences of such actions to the player. Or, the player chose to ignore it and blew a gasket when they were finally hit with the repercussions of their actions.


The equalizer wrote:

If the sorcerer in the OP could do whatever they desired without repercussions from the higher planes, then whats the price such individuals supposedly pay. Or is the celestial bloodline supposed to mean:

"Your celestial heritage grants you a great many powers, but they come at a price. The lords of the higher planes are watching you and your actions closely. Regardless of what you do, they never interfere with your existence."

Once again, as people have already said before in the thread, "not changing your player's chosen bloodline by no-save plot fiat" is not in any way the same thing as "never interfere with your existence".

There's plenty of ways that the "lords" could interfere, like sending celestial hit squads. That's the sort of thing a player should well expect, and fits in as a fun challenge that doesn't just go "lol" and flatly invalidate a player's concept with a snap of the GM's fingers.

And the best part is, throwing those kind of problems at the player actually makes sense. Because if we're saying these "lords" are taking the time to reach down and poke you themselves with their plot-fiat-level powers, then why on earth are they warping reality to grant you a new sorcerer ancestry at all? Why aren't they just stripping you of your sorcerer powers entirely, just like they would a cleric or paladin? If you really do think the quote about the "lords" watching you means they can muck with your class features like that, then, following precedent, that is what they should logically do.

Well, either that or just no-save kill you as long as they're going to the trouble of poking their fingers directly in themselves anyway.


Why do you assume a player is supposed to "pay the price" for one of their class features anyway?


If you play an AP or write a concrete storyline, then it helps immersion and enhances the experience if the players are at least seemingly logical protagonists.

If I wrote a campaign that is set in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, where the objective is to stop an ancient evil fey from making the linnorms go on a rampage, I prefer that the PCs are citizens of the lands, or at least surrounding lands, with classes that have a place there. If the party consists of a genie binder from Katapesh, a halfnaked mwangi druid riding a dinosaur, a dark elf assassin and a planehopping githzerai cleric of some obscure philosophy, I would go "... wat?"

So, I would say the GM should act like an advisor during character creation, with veto power if it gets TOO weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kamelguru wrote:
So, I would say the GM should act like an advisor during character creation, with veto power if it gets TOO weird.

Veto power=good. Informed players can make informed decisions.

Punishing player after game begins w/ no warning=bad.


I do not think there is a single right answer, as a GM you have to read your players well before you change things around, some might not appreciate it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claymade wrote:

Now, to be fair, I know how awesome that sort of thing can feel as the GM to throw a curve ball at the players. And personally? I've tried to facilitate that with my own characters at times. There was one character I built where I specifically told the GM that there were multiple blank spots I had left in my backstory that he could feel free to just go wild with if he wanted to. And he did; the father that my character had thought was dead actually turned out to be one of the Big Bads. It was good times.

But see, that's the thing. We established beforehand that I was cool with him throwing some curveballs in there, that yes, I had deliberately written the backstory to allow for that freedom. So when it happened, it wasn't the GM dictating what my character's backstory actually was to me, it was the two of us collaborating in a way we'd worked out the groundwork for previously, and already knew we were both on the same page with. Especially since those deliberately-blank spaces obviously weren't left in places that I felt would damage the fundamental things I liked about my character either way.

I like this approach. A player should be able to tell a GM "here are the bits of my backstory you can play with if you want," and if the player doesn't do that the GM should be able to ask "do you mind if I play with the blank spots in your backstory?" and maybe follow that up with "which blank spots can I play with?" Ideally, a GM will know their players well enough to know how much control a player likes over their background and thus how much warning/collaboration that player prefers with these changes.

A GM should not change significant aspects of a character by fiat without giving a player input or warning, unless they know for sure that a specific player would enjoy such a twist. That includes mechanical changes like swapping sorcerer bloodlines, and also background stuff like saying that the character only thought that they saw their parents beheaded by orcs but that in fact their parents faked their own deaths.

There are plenty of ways to make a character's backstory relevant (celestial agents hunt down the sorcerer who betrayed heaven) or create character growth or change (introduce an NPC who sees the PC as the child/parent they never had) in ways that don't suddenly turn a character inside-out without player input.

251 to 300 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How much control does / should a GM have over a PC? All Messageboards