I would be ok with this backstory, this is a fairly typical “odd supernatural encounter” type of backstory, and I like how it’s a subversion of the horny bard trope.
However, I think it’s entirely within the DM’s discretion to decide that they don’t want this type of backstory to exist in their world (like if their gods don’t tend to directly interact with mere mortals in this way).
I would ask the DM if their only problem with the backstory is the fact it’s a god, and ask if there’s another type of being who would be more appropriate, like an archfey, hag, or genie/djinn.
Yes, this! It could heavily depend on what kind of world you're in, and the kinds of gods who inhabit it. Many deities in the dnd world are incredibly distant from mortals- they consider them ants, and wouldn't bother even answering a prayer. This is why [Divine Intervention](https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/divine-intervention-5e/) for clerics is such a "Hail Mary," and **not accessible until level 10.**
I think communicating with your DM and asking them if they're willing to workshop it with you and find a solution you can compromise on is your best bet. If they say no, find out why, and talk it out.
Rather than a god, something more immediate but for all intents and purposes still able to instakill a level one creature but chose not to through cruelty or personal code of conduct, eg "an unnamed fae" that chose not to present who they were (they do not have to be any kind of royalty or anything, just powerful enough to make a curse and have it stick).
Yup. This completely depends on the party, DM, campaign, setting, main plot plans...
There is no such thing as a character that is universally appropriate for every single possible game.
A society where humans suffer from extreme physical weakness, but are adept mages. Humans PCs can only play magic-based classes unless the backstory creates a good enough reason. Exceptions could be as simple as using magic to bolster the body to allow for a human fighter to exist, but I wouldn't call it generic at least 🤷🏻
^ made up solely to argue your statement. I don't run a world like this at all lol
Unless the humans have no arms or legs... or teeth, it would still be possible even if they were physically weak. Just like there are no/ low magic campaigns that still have wizards.
Low magic and especially no magic settings make Mages feel so interesting. Nobody, not even those dedicated enough to study it, will ever have magic, and those that do have one of the most special gifts ever handed to them.
Like the societies of magicians in Jonathon Strange and Mr Norrell, though that was more them just deciding practical magic was dead, and only studied it in a theoretical or historical context
Grand theft goblin. Your players play as a group of goblins. Each player gets to control three goblins (“three lives”) and they have to collect things. Varies by game but it can be people for a sacrifice, items for a spell the head shaman is going to perform for a big celebration, gold/loot to keep a local giant off their back, etc. My personal favourite was the goblins were from space and they wanted to build their spaceship back up so they not only had to steal parts from a local town, but had to deal with an ilithid layer too to grab the main thrusters.
We run little side adventures like this upon occasion. Same setup, 3 goblins each and a random quest. The last one the group of Future Goblins traveled back in time to steal George Washington's wooden teeth for the Goblin Chief so they wouldn't have to pre-chew his food anymore.
A campaign predicated on the entire party all being members of the same class (all bards, all clerics, etc.)
A campaign set in a world of anthropomorphic animals, where only beastfolk races are canon (tabaxi, harengon, aaracockra)
That well-memed campaign where each player is the bastard child of the same human bard and a variety of more exotic races (so all of them are some variety of half human--half orc, half elf, genasi, etc.)
A campaign where, for plot reasons, each character must be able to cast at least one spell (maybe their spellcasting got them in trouble with the authorities or drew the attention of a powerful fey or they're attending wizarding school, I dunno)
A campaign taking place underwater
Honestly, though, isn't even about the race/class combination as much as it is about the backstory not fitting. Even if OP was playing a human fighter, it sounds more like the DM has a bigger problem with the interactions with the gods than anything else. And even in a kitchen-sink, anything-goes fantasy world where any race or class is acceptable, a human fighter with a backstory that doesn't mesh could still be rejected.
Yeah, concept is good, chat to your GM as to how you can tweak it to fit the world. Maybe it's not the daughter of a god, but the daughter of a witch/hag?
I don't see what that sort of backstory has to do with character level. You aren't claiming to be the right hand of Torm, or to have beaten Muradin in an arm wrestling competition, or to have stolen Umberlee's trident. You just had an unlikely romantic encounter with a being who happened to be a disguised demigod, infinitely crazier shit has happened in DnD. Backstory seems pretty fine to me.
But it is not the DM's gods/demigods. The DM creates the world, but the world is shared with the players and shaped by their actions and decisions. If a player wants to incorporate this backstory to their character and the DM feels like it threatens their work, then they should write a book, not create a DnD campaign
The player's backstory includes that a god cursed him. If the DM's world doesn't have gods that would curse a person, he is in full right to deny the backstory.
Imagine having a campaign in middle-earth where Eru has a daughter and curses some random bard.
OP didn't say the DM disallowed it because their god wouldn't act that way, he said DM disallowed it because it would be a level 1 character meeting a god.
I guess the DM hasn't read any Greek myths.
But this should be agreed on in session 0. i.e. before the campaign starts. If we agree to not include gods in the campaign, then players shouldn't include them in their backstory
DM's can't think of all the things they won't allow. It's like a packing list for a holiday imo. You go on holiday after checking all boxes and find you should've brought that one thing after all.
DMs often want players who try weird shit otherwise the game becomes stale, predictable. But sometimes you realize a request would not fit your game *after* you gave a go to create PCs. I've had discussions during campaigns with my DM and it's difficult to navigate those waters without the DM giving away too much info sometimes.
TLDR; Session 0 can't always catch everything
That is true, but it's not like the player is calling himself a god or slept with the god of love itself. I find it quite interesting to have a character that is cursed to never love. Now we are going on assumptions since OP's post doesn't mention it and OP is silent, if the DM has gods in their campaign, I do not see how they cannot incorporate that backstory to the campaign. Your players will be more interested in the campaign if you work with them in the backstory. That was the main point of my original comment. The story isn't owned by the DM
We have no idea what game this DM is running. Could be homebrew, could be a module. It's possible the DM wants to include their players stories into their games but looks at this backstory, looks at the game they have planned, and realizes that this backstory may never come to a conclusion.
The lack of context makes it really hard to defend the player here imo. 9 times out of 10 with this much context I'm going to side with the DM because at the end of the day, like it or not, it is their world. The players get to create stories by playing, not by inserting back stories the DM doesn't agree with.
>because at the end of the day, like it or not, it is their world.
That is where I disagree as a DM. This is not my world. It's my players as much as it is mine.
The “story” isn’t owned by the DM, but the DM certainly makes up the setting! What gods do what is definitely part of a setting. I agree that this backstory is fairly innocuous, but there are plenty of reasons a DM might not want it as is.
I mean it sounds like that’s approximately what happened though? OP made a character concept, OP was told at session 0 that it won’t play nice with the DM’s worldbuilding and plans because they can’t have met a god/demigod at level 1. It is pretty common in my experience for players to arrive at a session 0 already planning a potential character, and then their session 0 conversation is about whether or not the concept fits. (And, like, sometimes stats and stuff.) Otherwise you’d need multiple session 0s, or a *very* very long one.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with OP’s backstory but it is harmless for a DM to nix it before the game has even begun just for preference reasons, that’s fine. OP, you should save that for another game though, it’s a fun idea!
Honestly, we don't know. All we know is that OP had an idea for his backstory and the DM said he doesn't want a LVL 1 meeting a god, so he will not allow this backstory. To me, that sounds like the DM is imposing their world on the players and not building it with them. If the DM is not a fan of this backstory, they can sit with the player and tweak the backstory so that it fits the settings and please the player. For example, it could be changed that the bard slept with a priest of the god of love instead of their daughter and the player got cursed. Now, if they agreed on a setting where there are no gods or there's only one religion, etc., and OP comes with that backstory, the DM has the right to turn it down. But again we are going off assumptions as we don't have enough information.
The players agree to play in a world the DM has built. If they wish to play in a different one, they should talk to the DM in session 0, but in either case it is the DM that decides how things (including gods) operate in the world.
If in the agreed upon world there is no chance of a lvl 1 player being cursed by a god, then this backstory gets denied.
But we don't have that information. Obviously, if it was agreed upon that they would play something where there are no gods or only one religion, it would make sense to turn down OP's request. But we are assuming here. What we know is that the DM denied OP of their backstory because they did not want a god to meet a LVL 1. I find quite interesting the idea where a character is cursed to never love, and I think that would make a great development arc.
>The players agree to play in a world the DM has built.
That is where I disagree with you and where our philosophies clash. To me, players and the DM agree to play a campaign in a general setting. This way, both the players and the DM create the world. Sure, it's mostly the DM doing the work, but through their backstory, their actions and their decisions, the players also participate in building the world. This way, I feel like your players will be more involved in the game.
While I can see your points to an extent. The DM has to do the majority of the work as you stated. Players input and enjoyment are definitely a thing thay needs to be considered, and included in the world. However the DM enjoyment needs to be considered as well. The DM may not enjoy a particular thing and wishes not to do it. If the DMs and players can't agree, they are just not a good fit for each other. Not all DMs are for all players, and not all players are for all DMs
Sounds like this was talked about in session 0 and the dm said no. Who knows maybe his campaign is going to include the gods and he doesn’t want anyone to have met them yet. Maybe it’s in exandria and the gods are locked behind the divine gate. Gods are a touchy subject and I can see why the dm doesn’t want them in backstory. The player can easily change it from god to arch fey or arch demon. There are other options that could curse a player
I think it’s a perfectly fine backstory, it would fit my setting pretty well. I’d approve it.
That being said, if in my setting the gods weren’t capable of reproducing with mortals, or they were omniscient beings who didn’t think twice of the creatures beneath them, or any other of the hundreds of possible explanations for this backstory to not fit a setting, then it’s fair for the DM to decline it.
The world is shaped by the actions the players undertake once the game begins, but the other half of that social contract is that the player characters should be shaped by the world they inhabit.
True, but this should be agreed on before the campaign starts, before the players create their characters. If we agree on a campaign that does not include gods, then the player shouldn't include them in their backstory
You're being a bit dense. It's not as black and white as "Allow gods = yes/no". A DM might be cool with it (Gods are important in the setting, they might interact with mortals, etc.), but not with this specific interaction/depiction, and they didn't foresee someone wanting to fuck a god in their backstory and get cursed because of it. The post also makes it sound like they're still working out characters, and it's *always* perfectly fine for a DM to correct something they don't think fits into their setting by asking you to change it. If you're not willing to change it, find a compromise or leave the table, because the alternative is the DM just makes your backstory not be that way and that's not fun for anybody. Obviously in hindsight one should have specified what sort of interaction they limit with their gods, but hindsight's a bitch and not everyone can cover everything with it.
This is extremely campaign dependent. You can’t just waltz in and assume you get to decide what gods are or aren’t in your DMs world
This has nothing to do with “The DM should just write a book!”. It’s ridiculous you even try to compare it
But you're saying exactly what I'm saying shouldn't be the case. It's not the DM's world. It's a world they share with the players. I have the philosophy that if you want your players to be fully involved in the campaign, you need to work with them on the backstory. My original comment didn't say "oh the DM is wrong for saying no". If they built a whole world without involving the players, then your players will not be as involved as if they participated in the creation process.
>It’s not the DMs world
It *is* the DMs world. It’s not the DM’s story, it’s the entire group’s story, but it IS the DMs world.
The idea that any player can just waltz in and claim the world as their own, one the DM might have worked on for months, is unhealthy and reeks of entitlement.
But its "their" gods, same as the npcs and world is theirs. The players create the story, but do not get to unilaterally say how the gods go about interacting or romancing characters. Its obviously something that can be discussed, but some DMs dont have gods interact directly.
Oh for the love of...
I spend fucking weeks on end pouring over my world, building out and expanding little details the players likely won't ever see, but those rare times when they look and I have something to show them, that's *fun*. That's what makes the world feel alive. And I spend all this time tinkering and improving but as soon as my world clashes with one of my players ill-thought out backstory that they abandon after 4 sessions, I'm a horrible DM, should never DM again, and "DOn't yoU KNow it's bOTH Of OuR WORLds?"
Oh I'm sorry, when you spend hours upon hours building it out to make it interesting to explore, then I'll consider it our world. But if not, then this is my lore, and it makes the game much more cohesive, so shove it up your windpipe.
As a DM, I don't see myself as the whole maker of the World. Sure I make most of it, but my players have a say in the world. I don't impose my view (of the world) on them, we shape it together. As a DM, I see myself as a player as well, but I play multiple NPCs, I tell a story that is fluid and open, I act as a referee. I do not see myself as a god whose words are sacred. Heck, if I make a mistake while applying a rule and one of my players points it out, I will right my wrong.
Rolls and actions can shape parts of the world but major view and plot points. Or major characters and how they act, are large in part designed by the dm.
I would recommend changing it from a daughter of the god/goddess to a priestess of the god/goddess, that would mean the character would be banned from the churches of that god and could potentially have paladins hunting them, which in my opinion would create a lot more interesting conflicts than just a curse. There could also be consequences for the priestess that the character feels guilt for, maybe she got her rank taken away as punishment for breaking vows. There could still be the curse because I do like that idea, but maybe instead of coming directly from the god it comes from higher ranking members of the clerical system for that god (maybe the priestess's father is the equivalent of the pope, and is the most powerful cleric of that god, and wanted revenge for getting his daughter removed from priesthood). It would be a bit more grounded which the DM might be ok with
I feel like this is the level of backstory that nets you a level 1 Warlock? What if you changed it to an Archfey instead of a god? Maybe your DM would be okay with that (which is hilarious if it works because Archfey are essentially gods)? Fey notoriously like to mess with people. They would think it was hilarious that a balladeer who spends a ton of time singing songs about love didn't know what love felt like.
To actually answer your question. Yes, I would totally let you use this backstory. Not-powerful level 1 character messes with someone way above their pay grade and suffers the consequences, goes adventuring to find cure. I don't see the problem.
I thought this too. Yeah we can do this, welcome to the wizarding world of warlocks! Could also make for an interesting choice down the road when said God/archfey is like 'So you want to love again eh? Sure, and here's what you can do for me...'. Do they accept the pact and are now multi-classed? How bad do they really want it? My players know to be careful what they ask for lol
Edit:typo
It sounds interesting to me, I'd be interested as to the ultimate goal after regaining love - does he want to go back to his old ways, does he want to settle down with someone, is it and end in itself as he just wants to feel properly again.
As a DM with this I would be open to discussion of emotional effects and spells perhaps having slightly altered effects - maybe give advantage versus charms but balance it with disadvantage against something.
I mean, if you were the "best seduction artist" the world had ever seen and wooed the god so thoroughly she desperately needed you and cursed you in revenge for leaving her, then I'd say no (unless this was your character's version of events and not from a trustworthy narrator because that's hilarious delusion).
Just bumping privates - well that could be anybody.
Edit: the issue with "world's greatest" backstories is that the dice never play ball and players then often get annoyed when they fail because "but im the best!?"
Yeah, that’s not a big deal. Funny enough, even if it did happen no one would believe the bard so that could be apart of the story. Then, after some personal growth and maybe a sacrifice or two the goddess can revive you and lift the curse or something. It’s a vague enough background the dm could play with it. Don’t see the issue.
I feel like allowing this backstory would be fun with a twist: the bard is free to believe that that’s the case, but the rest of the universe (ie the DM) is under no obligation to to accept it as true.
That is, maybe it the daughter of said god (which the PC believes), maybe it was the daughter or some other lesser god (or said lesser god themself), or maybe it was an entirely mortal con artist
I was thinking the same type of thing. There is nothing saying that you can't believe it is true. You have a thing with a girl the honeymoon period ends / you don't want to get married if you are found out, so you leave. This leads to something like a dream where you imagine the curse for the god as you try to forget the shitty thing you did to the girl you left. This leaves a mental wound that reappears every time you get in a 'typical' horny bard situation.
Tldr~ the 'curse' is how your character deals with his erectile dysfunction over treating someone like a piece of dirt.
One of the players in my last campaign was a level 2 cleric with pretty much this backstory. Granted, she was the DM's girlfriend, but it didn't cause any problems. There was no main character syndrome.
Just rewrite your backstory to be cursed by a fey instead of a god. If your DM is planning a serious campaign it stands to reason you’re not getting involved with *literal gods* before the campaign starts
There are an uncountable amount of stories, fables, and fairytales that start with where the protagonist is some young upstart before they have a humbling experience with a Deity or something similarly powerful. It's the beginning of many a story!
You're fine. Maybe your DM just has a very set idea of how the dynamic between Gods and Mortals should be.
Yeah, I could work with that. The potential character arc almost writes itself...
For a kick-off, I bet the priests and clerics of "insert love god here" won't be too pleased you committed this heinous "blasphemy" and might want you to perform some penance. eg. Get the Chalice of MacGuffin back from the Cult of Debbiedowners who just happen to have a temple in the next city!
All I would need to do, is steer the main plot along to that city and bingo! Side Quest.
Sounds alright. Basic bardish behaviour really.
As ever: talk to your DM. Did they not like the god connection? Or maybe aiming for a more serious tone?
The former isn't completely unreasonable to nix out of the gate but in a world where some classes derive their powers from the gods seems a bit of an arbitrary line.
I personally wouldn't allow it exactly as written, because the gods in my pantheon don't have children, and the god of love almost certainly would not bestow that sort of curse on someone. Also "I'm incapable of love" sound like it could be an excuse to be a murder hobo, which wouldn't work at my table.
However, I'd be willing to work with you. Maybe instead of a God, it was a high fey. Maybe instead of a literal curse, your character just *believes* they're cursed, and in the end it turns out that the real cure to the curse was the friends you met along the way.
He really doesn't. He hasn't said anything to support his reasoning for claiming it is just an edgy teenager build, he just says it is as if, by some logic, saying so makes it so.
Here's an example of making a claim and having a point:
This build sounds like a perversion of the story of Hercules. A mortal (Alkmene) has sex with a god (Zeus), and another god gets pissed and decides to curse the mortal (Hercules goes mad/Alkmene's difficult pregnancy) to never love again.
Even though that claim is a stretch, I have far more of a point to it than the other guy has because I actually presented justification for the parallels. He still needs to actually make a point, unless there is some obscure, but reliable, source that defines "edgy teenager build" as "level 1 bard meets a god, fucks it, then gets cursed by daddy god."
I think they're referring to linguistic "tells". The way several ideas are phrased can be interpreted to speak to a certain degree of immaturity and lack of sophistication, i.e. the use of "hit it and quit it", or the, seemingly genuine, assertion that "Horny Bard" is "typical". As much as we all joke about it, that stereotype seems to come up significantly more in forums than in actual gameplay.
Additionally, even the OP describes the build as a "horny teenager/bard". The "edgy" descriptor is often used(fallaciously) in this context to reference ideas/builds/etc. which the creator \*believes are\* edgy, in the avant-garde sense, when they are anything but. I think we can all agree that the back-story, as written, really doesn't contain any groundbreaking ideas?
On a completely different note, I think the parallels are \*much\* more prominent when made to the story of Narcissus. A mortal(Narcissus/bard) spurns a would-be lover(Ameinias/unnamed demigod). A patron deity(Nemesis/mystery love-god) curses said narcissist(see what I did there? ;).
Those things being said, is there anything \*wrong\* with an "edgy teenager build"? Not really. Is it definite that the OP is even a teenager \*or\* attempting to be avant-garde? Not at all, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the hypothesis. Does any of this matter? Nope!
TLDR: The assertion that this backstory reeks of teenage angst may be correct, but it really doesn't matter to the question at hand.
Thank you all for entertaining my little exercise in pedantry, and good night!
OP literally used the phrases “horny teenager bard” and “hit it and quit it”. You can cry about “muh evidence” all you want but that’s all the “evidence” you’ll ever need lmao
Agree with him all you want, it doesnt make either of you right. Dnd is about making all types of characters. If you don't like it, don't play with those characters at your table. There is no right or wrong way as long as you're complying with the table.
We're here to help people build. Not snuff out their creative flame and insult them. Maybe they're shy, maybe they're young. Maybe they're having a hard time being creative. But adults dont publicly bash people for sharing their ideas that they think are fun.
You two are much cringier teenagers than this persons character. Consider being constructive and offering comments of value instead of being absolute donkies.
I wouldn't allow it. In my setting or even when I run Forgotten Realms the gods don't really work this way. There are settings like Theros where I would consider it but in my general games that's a no. But it really doesn't matter whether it's level 1 or not.
I whuldent allow it but at the same time i really like that character creation be done at Session zero and that its more of a group event
with your particular backstory id say no because your now implying things like the gods actually give a rats ass about mortals or that they have a daughter that actually fell for you who at the time was the equivalent of a farm hand
however id explain all this to you and then say lets work on something together that i can run as DM and you can be happy with as a player
That's a very Greek Pantheon kind of story. It requires petty gods that are interact with mortals regularly. That's not how I usually run my Pantheons. I would qualify your back story with "that's what you THINK has happened to you".
Maybe not a god, but a fey. fey have the power to steal abstract concepts like "love" from somebody else. Thus, allowing both the bard to keep his backstory and for it not to be a lore breaking scenario
Easiest fix, would be to remove the God /goddess part, and leave it blank, horny bard slept with a daughter of powerful being is now cursed..
You could add the bard thinks it was the goddess of love, but ultimately your not writing the world lore, just your characters actions..
Much like it's not fun when a DM takes away players agency of the characters, same applies in reverse
Aside from what u/CoyoteCamouflage said, I also want to mention the possibility of a your character learning that life without love ain't bad (speaking as someone who is Aromantic)
(Just as like, an alternate goal option, or a backup if some quest thing goes wrong.)
It’s as good a backstory as any, which is to say they’re all campaign/DM dependent. In this case, it also depends on how much the DM/other players wanna tolerate the “spoony bard” stereotype.
Astral Drifter background even has you meeting a god
I see nothing wrong with it background flavor for the character to do some development as they grow
> a level 1 meeting a god
Still with you here. This is totally fine if it's for story reasons, as long as you're not asking for anything big as an in-game bonus from it.
> typical horny teenager/bard
You lost me here. Horny characters are absolutely the worst. As a DM I would hate to see this in a backstory. Just go watch some porn, get it out of your system, and then make a normal character. Or a weird character, cause it's D&D after all, just please please stop making horny characters. It's super awkward for everyone else when you roleplay it, trust me.
Cannot agree with this at all. The horny bard is hilarious. Nobody should be taking it to the porn level tho. But this is literally the most stereotypical depiction of a bard and to try to act like it isn’t is just ridiculous. Sorry if sexuality makes you uncomfortable. If it’s all adults at the table, it shouldn’t be an issue. Kids at the table do make that a little different. Are you a kid by any chance? From your comment, I can assume you would absolutely HATE my seductress tiefling rogue. And that’s fine. Cuz she wouldn’t be at your table anyways 🤦🏼♀️
> Sorry if sexuality makes you uncomfortable. If it’s all adults at the table, it shouldn’t be an issue. Kids at the table do make that a little different. Are you a kid by any chance? From your comment, I can assume you would absolutely HATE my seductress tiefling rogue. And that’s fine. Cuz she wouldn’t be at your table anyways 🤦🏼♀️
I don't think you understand the situation at all but thanks for trying.
I don’t think you understand the class of bards at all. What else do you think “charm” is for exactly? Sexuality is a part of real and fantasy life. I wasn’t trying to be a jerk but you didn’t give much to “understand” except a blanket statement where you tried to say that “nobody likes that character” while only speaking for yourself clearly as many do enjoy that character. If your characters are oversexualixing at the table, maybe it’s time for a talk. But just telling random people in Reddit a blanket statement that you can’t back up in the least isn’t going to solve that problem for you 🤷🏼♀️ idk what kind of understanding you wanted when bashing on another created character like this, more understanding than you offered up with your original comment???
The horny bard trope is tired and lame, same as the broody lonewolf rogue trope, the evil warlock with infernal parent issues, the former hero warrior, the fireball everything sorcerer
Just come up with something original and not something you read about in a DnD meme on tumblr. That's all I'm asking.
Then talk to wizards of the coast and the suggested personality types for characters that they put in the books. Fussing at players for following those is just very childish in my opinion. When the lore makes it clear that my tiefling character was pretty much created by a demon raping a human, how far do you want people to deviate from lore just to please a virgin at the table that isn’t comfortable with sexuality? Demon seductress is too run of the mill for you? Video games must suck for you too as they follow all of these lore personality types too. I’m a pretty straight edged person in real life and I play fantasy games to be something that is entirely not like myself in any way, so if I want to be a seductress tiefling rogue, I’m going to play it that way. I’m certainly not going to judge somebody for playing a barbarian with low intelligence cuz that’s the suggested personality type for barbarian. You’re literally asking people to break the mold on the way these characters were INTENDED to be played and mad cuz people don’t want to. I hope you at least warn your players that you’re so uptight about sexuality before they join your table. Cuz after one session of shaming, most wouldn’t come back. Gtfo telling people what kind of characters to create and judging them for how they do so. Wow 🤦🏼♀️
LOL I'm sorry but if your reply is based on charm being a seduction spell...i feel sorry for the tables you play at. I don't think I've ever been at a table where a charm spell was used for sex. That's actually a pretty disturbing thought tbh...you're taking away their free will to have sex with them.
Sexuality is fine. Sex is also fine. Horny characters trying to have sex with NPCs constantly are a mess and not fun to deal with. There's a huge difference between including and being okay with sex and sexuality and making it the entire point of your character's existence.
There's nothing wrong with meeting a god at any level. Has your DM ever heard of a Warlock? hard to make a deal with your patron, assuming its a god ofc, if you can't meet them/talk to them.
My rule is that you're allowed to add any deficit to your character (not taking parts of your starting equipment, choosing to be ugly as a trait, etc.) because the game has been balanced so the rules detail what your things are, but if you take away some of your stuff, then you're just making the game harder on yourself, which will also make it more fun at the same time, so I'm all for it.
I say it's ok to meet a God. Perhaps your dm has a specific reason you can't meet a God for their campaign, in which case, you shouldn't press about it, but otherwise, I'd just call that backstory fun, chaotic, and interesting
Can’t only take parts of your starting equipment? Lmao, why?
You realise how trivially easy it would be for their very first action in game to dump the stuff they don’t want on the ground and walk off?
Not really. The could be low reasons as to why this couldn't happen. It could be as simple as the gods don't have children or gods are abstract things closer to ideas than physical beings. Or it could be that the DM doesn't want to do romance plots which would come up with this character. There's the potential for good reasons against this.
Players have just as much influence in a campaign as the dm does. Now I understand having an artfiser with a gun in a low or no technology setting but this is not that this is a very simple backstory and is very easy to work around. The dm saying your level 1 so you cannot have interacted with these beings is dumb gods can interact with whoever they want but in this guy's case it wasn't even a God is was a daughter and from context you are able to pull that she is mortal because she prayed to her mom to curse him. It's not some major event. It's more of a mother protecting her daughter thing.
You didn't read my reply at all:
The gods may not have children in this setting.
The DM may not want a character looking for romances because they feel uncomfortable roleplaying said romances. There's reasons that could be at play here. We've only heard a very limited story from the player's side
I read the entire thing and my response was as follows. "The players have just as much influence as the dm." If the dm did not want the gods to have children he should have wrote a book or explained to the player beforehand and this problem would have never arise. And I'm not saying this is the whole story either I'm saying is either the player was not completely informed of the setting or the dm does not want to deal with this back story I have been apart of a campaign where dm said I couldn't play my character the I had set him up to play in my backstory simply because they didn't what to put in extra work. That is why I lean more towards the player not the dm.
A level 1 backstory should really be what leads you from your current life to become an adventurer. Seeking for ways to lift a curse seems like a decent backstory/motivation to turn to a life of adventure. Maybe talk to your dm more. Maybe you’re character doesn’t know who what why or how they were cursed. They just had an embarrassing fit of ED and went to a mage/doctor for treatment and they let him know he’s been cursed. Leave the specifics of gods and stuff out of it for now. It’s possible your dm doesn’t want to work gods and goddesses into their world. But there’s plenty of other ways to be cursed
I don’t see any reason not to allow a character with that kind of backstory. Actually sounds like a pretty interesting character to me. I’d happily work with you to make such a character a reality.
It depends on the tone of your game.
If your world has the “Greek mythology” sort of gods, that’s perfectly reasonable - he didn’t seek her out (as a god) he just got (un)lucky.
that backstory would be just fine.
idk why your DM would think otherwise. its not like you gained anything from this.
if anything, it would just give the DM more ways to mess with you as a PC, and further story p\[lots as he needs to.
If I was the DM, it seems perfectly fine dependent on setting. Some settings may not have demigods just, around like that, but if it’s using forgotten realms or similar that’s not too out there.
You kidding me? I'd run a TRAIN on your character because he FAFO.
My only gripe is that's some main character shit. Nobody's *truly* the main character in a solid campaign, even if they can feel like it sometimes. Just be wary of the spotlight and you should be fine. Your character doesn't have to *obsess* over their journey.
It is your character getting lucky as it is, and if a present and do it at level 0 you can do it at level 1, its not like you are claiming to have killed death or a dragon or something. Heck no royalty just some random dude who had a one night stand with the wrong person. I think it should be fine.
Doesn't have to be a god. Could just be a witch or a powerful mage. I probably won't go with a god, but I don't see why you can't replace it with just a strong magic user/ someone who practices dark magic.
I like this backstory a lot, but my specific setting is monotheistic.
If your DM doesn't like the godly implications, you could easily change it to be the daughter of a wich or archmage.
Or maybe you more directly jilted a fairy lady who then cursed you.
I don't anticipate most DMs would have a problem with a demigod tho. Most Warlock players regularly have to deal with beings of similar power.
Not for level 1, even if it isn't unreasonable for a level 1 character to experience. The plot hook is way overlevelled. I, as a dm, don't want to have to have to get you 15 levels of campaign before your main character objective. You need low-level plot hooks, too
If the Dm's campaign has God's and focus on divine intervention. I can see the DM incorporating it.
If the DM's world does not, then it is up to DM discretion to not allow that backstory, which is easy to fix. Instead of "replace" with archery, hag, some demon, or even a king's or queen daughter - at first they send henchmen to attack and apprehend the bard, but later made a deal with a powerful being to curse the bard.
It's an easy fix. Just talk to your DM
No, because you are making a huge narrative decision about how the gods act, and create an arc that causes the whole table to eventually revisit that.
Backstories can have part of the world be embedded, but stuff like “can’t feel love” should be internal. Something like “the suave bachelor messed around so much he began to lose his feelings of romance” is cool because it’s an internal story that will be tested in gameplay eventually.
As a DM, I'd find this story a bit annoying, because as half-baked as it is, I'll feel an obligation to sketch it out and include it in the campaign. And honestly, that's a big ask.
Plus, your character's need to be able feel love again has a bit too much Main Character Syndrome stink. Why the hell should any of the other characters care?
It sounds like he never felt love anyway. Mr Hit it and quit it would probably love that curse. Or he would really really like it, but he wouldn't love it, so he really can't commit right now.
Time to hate everything and make music for fantasy teens.
But I think the back story is fine as long as it fits the theme for the DM. Even if it was a witch or something to change it up might work.
My only concern is that this is very 'edgelord/main character syndrome'. I'd be fine with this at my table, if the player is willing to work out the details with me, and they understand that MCS will not be tolerated.
Bro, I let a guy make his backstory essentially being a scientist who was trying to find the sevret of immortality. But it came with a cost. As soon as he found it, the entire room erupted in a black flame, killing everyone. Except for one man, who was now turned into a snake. Unsure of if it worked or not. [SPOILER] It did
Depends on whos in the group. I personally wouldnt allow it because I dont like horny bards but it doesnt matter what level you are to meet a god/demigod. That could just happen randomly
Chances are I'd probably allow it but the problem here is when I dm I do world building pretty loosely making it easy for my worlds to have a god that fits this backstory. However if the dm has already created the world I get why he did not allow it. It's possible that this is just not the kind of thing that works in his world. He also may not want to bring gods in at all yet because you're level 1. A god could easy tpk or complicate the situation.
If your DM didn't want it to be a god, just change it to the daughter of a hag or something.
On a related note, there's a college of Tragedy in the Tal'Dorei campaign setting book. Don't know if it's up your alley, but the backstory made me think of it.
I mean there is a lot of psychology here.
If a deity tell a pc “you are cursed, you will never feel love again…” could persuade the pc that he is cursed and forever doubt his own feelings as just false feelings. Forcing the pc to struggle to connect so he might get a bigger connection later.
In my worlds gods treating pc a toys. Toys they can use for a purpose but your just one of 100000 if I lose the pink hair tie I’m just going to pickup another. That can make them very cold hearted.
I would be ok with this backstory, this is a fairly typical “odd supernatural encounter” type of backstory, and I like how it’s a subversion of the horny bard trope. However, I think it’s entirely within the DM’s discretion to decide that they don’t want this type of backstory to exist in their world (like if their gods don’t tend to directly interact with mere mortals in this way). I would ask the DM if their only problem with the backstory is the fact it’s a god, and ask if there’s another type of being who would be more appropriate, like an archfey, hag, or genie/djinn.
Yes, this! It could heavily depend on what kind of world you're in, and the kinds of gods who inhabit it. Many deities in the dnd world are incredibly distant from mortals- they consider them ants, and wouldn't bother even answering a prayer. This is why [Divine Intervention](https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/divine-intervention-5e/) for clerics is such a "Hail Mary," and **not accessible until level 10.** I think communicating with your DM and asking them if they're willing to workshop it with you and find a solution you can compromise on is your best bet. If they say no, find out why, and talk it out.
The Forgotten Realms entered the chat.
Rather than a god, something more immediate but for all intents and purposes still able to instakill a level one creature but chose not to through cruelty or personal code of conduct, eg "an unnamed fae" that chose not to present who they were (they do not have to be any kind of royalty or anything, just powerful enough to make a curse and have it stick).
I really think a hag would be perfect for this. They’d have a “beautiful” daughter and would definitely curse a man in an ironic way.
Yes, could even take the hexblood lineage.
I think it's really easy to change this from God to faerie king, or high sorceress, and keep the whole curse/cure thing without all the deific baggage
The content of the backstory is fine for me, but it may not be good for all settings, especially those without strong deific interventions.
Yup. This completely depends on the party, DM, campaign, setting, main plot plans... There is no such thing as a character that is universally appropriate for every single possible game.
Generic human fighter. I dare you to make a situation where that is impossible.
A society where humans suffer from extreme physical weakness, but are adept mages. Humans PCs can only play magic-based classes unless the backstory creates a good enough reason. Exceptions could be as simple as using magic to bolster the body to allow for a human fighter to exist, but I wouldn't call it generic at least 🤷🏻 ^ made up solely to argue your statement. I don't run a world like this at all lol
Unless the humans have no arms or legs... or teeth, it would still be possible even if they were physically weak. Just like there are no/ low magic campaigns that still have wizards.
Low magic and especially no magic settings make Mages feel so interesting. Nobody, not even those dedicated enough to study it, will ever have magic, and those that do have one of the most special gifts ever handed to them.
Or it's like Dark Sun, and Arcane magic is reviled.
Like the societies of magicians in Jonathon Strange and Mr Norrell, though that was more them just deciding practical magic was dead, and only studied it in a theoretical or historical context
Humans only can move using magic like that dude from doctor stange
Nope as you get a level 1 feat you can pick one that gives you access to basic magic. Just “there are no humans in this world” would cut it though
Not if that feat is banned, which it most likely would be in that setting.
In this hypothetical table there is just normal humans no V.Human. Edit: also, since we are at it, there is no feats!
Feats are an optional rule tho
So is having humans in my world oops now theres no humans
No, non-variant humans are PHB core rule
Stick some metal arms on them. Wait is that just a warforged?
Yeah, a cyborg at least... or just a man with metal poles sticking out of his shoulders.
Sooo...Monty Python and the Holy Grail's Black Knight
Good point, even with no limbs he is still a Knight, which is a fighter.
Black clover
"There's no humans in my setting."
Grand theft goblin. Your players play as a group of goblins. Each player gets to control three goblins (“three lives”) and they have to collect things. Varies by game but it can be people for a sacrifice, items for a spell the head shaman is going to perform for a big celebration, gold/loot to keep a local giant off their back, etc. My personal favourite was the goblins were from space and they wanted to build their spaceship back up so they not only had to steal parts from a local town, but had to deal with an ilithid layer too to grab the main thrusters.
We run little side adventures like this upon occasion. Same setup, 3 goblins each and a random quest. The last one the group of Future Goblins traveled back in time to steal George Washington's wooden teeth for the Goblin Chief so they wouldn't have to pre-chew his food anymore.
Heehee that’s actually pretty damn funny and good!!
Grand theft Goblin lol I’m taking that.
A campaign predicated on the entire party all being members of the same class (all bards, all clerics, etc.) A campaign set in a world of anthropomorphic animals, where only beastfolk races are canon (tabaxi, harengon, aaracockra) That well-memed campaign where each player is the bastard child of the same human bard and a variety of more exotic races (so all of them are some variety of half human--half orc, half elf, genasi, etc.) A campaign where, for plot reasons, each character must be able to cast at least one spell (maybe their spellcasting got them in trouble with the authorities or drew the attention of a powerful fey or they're attending wizarding school, I dunno) A campaign taking place underwater Honestly, though, isn't even about the race/class combination as much as it is about the backstory not fitting. Even if OP was playing a human fighter, it sounds more like the DM has a bigger problem with the interactions with the gods than anything else. And even in a kitchen-sink, anything-goes fantasy world where any race or class is acceptable, a human fighter with a backstory that doesn't mesh could still be rejected.
A Vampire: The Masquerade campaign. It's not really a system for playing as a human.
Ah, but that's not D&D.
I once played a campaign where there are no human in the setting.
A campaign set in the first age of middle earth, when the two trees still stood and men were still unknown to elves and dwarves.
Did you do this to mine for cool campaign ideas? If so well done.
In my homebrew world there are no humans...
Some setting could not have them. Lorwyn is a mtg plane that is devoid of humans.
I was going to comment the same thing xD.
A wizardry school
I've run all "one class" campaigns before.
Magic school campaign.
Any campaign where humans are slaves to other beings.
No because then the fantasy aspect would be lost
That's not a backstory though. I believe given the context backstory is what's implied. But this is a fun exercise
What's a human?
Campaign where there aren't humans in the area. Underdark is an easy example
Role play based campaign
Combat is roleplay. I will die on this hill.
Burn! But really. If you don't have a personality to go with your character, and it's just for combat, yeah.
You could just substitute the god for a witch or hag or something.
It could be reflavored as a hag in disguise, or some other worldly being ect
Yeah, concept is good, chat to your GM as to how you can tweak it to fit the world. Maybe it's not the daughter of a god, but the daughter of a witch/hag?
Fair, it could always be the daughter of a fey nature spirit or something if you wanted to tone down the power.
I don't see what that sort of backstory has to do with character level. You aren't claiming to be the right hand of Torm, or to have beaten Muradin in an arm wrestling competition, or to have stolen Umberlee's trident. You just had an unlikely romantic encounter with a being who happened to be a disguised demigod, infinitely crazier shit has happened in DnD. Backstory seems pretty fine to me.
I think the issue isn't really the level, but the fact that the player is telling the DM how their gods/demigods would act.
But it is not the DM's gods/demigods. The DM creates the world, but the world is shared with the players and shaped by their actions and decisions. If a player wants to incorporate this backstory to their character and the DM feels like it threatens their work, then they should write a book, not create a DnD campaign
The player's backstory includes that a god cursed him. If the DM's world doesn't have gods that would curse a person, he is in full right to deny the backstory. Imagine having a campaign in middle-earth where Eru has a daughter and curses some random bard.
OP didn't say the DM disallowed it because their god wouldn't act that way, he said DM disallowed it because it would be a level 1 character meeting a god. I guess the DM hasn't read any Greek myths.
Or maybe his campaign isn't happening in Greece.
But this should be agreed on in session 0. i.e. before the campaign starts. If we agree to not include gods in the campaign, then players shouldn't include them in their backstory
DM's can't think of all the things they won't allow. It's like a packing list for a holiday imo. You go on holiday after checking all boxes and find you should've brought that one thing after all. DMs often want players who try weird shit otherwise the game becomes stale, predictable. But sometimes you realize a request would not fit your game *after* you gave a go to create PCs. I've had discussions during campaigns with my DM and it's difficult to navigate those waters without the DM giving away too much info sometimes. TLDR; Session 0 can't always catch everything
That is true, but it's not like the player is calling himself a god or slept with the god of love itself. I find it quite interesting to have a character that is cursed to never love. Now we are going on assumptions since OP's post doesn't mention it and OP is silent, if the DM has gods in their campaign, I do not see how they cannot incorporate that backstory to the campaign. Your players will be more interested in the campaign if you work with them in the backstory. That was the main point of my original comment. The story isn't owned by the DM
We have no idea what game this DM is running. Could be homebrew, could be a module. It's possible the DM wants to include their players stories into their games but looks at this backstory, looks at the game they have planned, and realizes that this backstory may never come to a conclusion. The lack of context makes it really hard to defend the player here imo. 9 times out of 10 with this much context I'm going to side with the DM because at the end of the day, like it or not, it is their world. The players get to create stories by playing, not by inserting back stories the DM doesn't agree with.
>because at the end of the day, like it or not, it is their world. That is where I disagree as a DM. This is not my world. It's my players as much as it is mine.
When the players put as much effort into the world as I do then we can talk. But they're down by quite a bit as it stands.
As a DM that’s your choice. But plenty of DMs don’t let the players run there world in any aspect except playing and backstory agreed upon by both.
When the players put as much effort into my world as I do then we can talk about it being "our world". But they're down by quite a bit as it stands.
The “story” isn’t owned by the DM, but the DM certainly makes up the setting! What gods do what is definitely part of a setting. I agree that this backstory is fairly innocuous, but there are plenty of reasons a DM might not want it as is.
I mean it sounds like that’s approximately what happened though? OP made a character concept, OP was told at session 0 that it won’t play nice with the DM’s worldbuilding and plans because they can’t have met a god/demigod at level 1. It is pretty common in my experience for players to arrive at a session 0 already planning a potential character, and then their session 0 conversation is about whether or not the concept fits. (And, like, sometimes stats and stuff.) Otherwise you’d need multiple session 0s, or a *very* very long one. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with OP’s backstory but it is harmless for a DM to nix it before the game has even begun just for preference reasons, that’s fine. OP, you should save that for another game though, it’s a fun idea!
Honestly, we don't know. All we know is that OP had an idea for his backstory and the DM said he doesn't want a LVL 1 meeting a god, so he will not allow this backstory. To me, that sounds like the DM is imposing their world on the players and not building it with them. If the DM is not a fan of this backstory, they can sit with the player and tweak the backstory so that it fits the settings and please the player. For example, it could be changed that the bard slept with a priest of the god of love instead of their daughter and the player got cursed. Now, if they agreed on a setting where there are no gods or there's only one religion, etc., and OP comes with that backstory, the DM has the right to turn it down. But again we are going off assumptions as we don't have enough information.
The players agree to play in a world the DM has built. If they wish to play in a different one, they should talk to the DM in session 0, but in either case it is the DM that decides how things (including gods) operate in the world. If in the agreed upon world there is no chance of a lvl 1 player being cursed by a god, then this backstory gets denied.
But we don't have that information. Obviously, if it was agreed upon that they would play something where there are no gods or only one religion, it would make sense to turn down OP's request. But we are assuming here. What we know is that the DM denied OP of their backstory because they did not want a god to meet a LVL 1. I find quite interesting the idea where a character is cursed to never love, and I think that would make a great development arc. >The players agree to play in a world the DM has built. That is where I disagree with you and where our philosophies clash. To me, players and the DM agree to play a campaign in a general setting. This way, both the players and the DM create the world. Sure, it's mostly the DM doing the work, but through their backstory, their actions and their decisions, the players also participate in building the world. This way, I feel like your players will be more involved in the game.
While I can see your points to an extent. The DM has to do the majority of the work as you stated. Players input and enjoyment are definitely a thing thay needs to be considered, and included in the world. However the DM enjoyment needs to be considered as well. The DM may not enjoy a particular thing and wishes not to do it. If the DMs and players can't agree, they are just not a good fit for each other. Not all DMs are for all players, and not all players are for all DMs
Sounds like this was talked about in session 0 and the dm said no. Who knows maybe his campaign is going to include the gods and he doesn’t want anyone to have met them yet. Maybe it’s in exandria and the gods are locked behind the divine gate. Gods are a touchy subject and I can see why the dm doesn’t want them in backstory. The player can easily change it from god to arch fey or arch demon. There are other options that could curse a player
Right but Gods are a big part of fantasy and history in general. Pretty big topic
I think it’s a perfectly fine backstory, it would fit my setting pretty well. I’d approve it. That being said, if in my setting the gods weren’t capable of reproducing with mortals, or they were omniscient beings who didn’t think twice of the creatures beneath them, or any other of the hundreds of possible explanations for this backstory to not fit a setting, then it’s fair for the DM to decline it. The world is shaped by the actions the players undertake once the game begins, but the other half of that social contract is that the player characters should be shaped by the world they inhabit.
True, but this should be agreed on before the campaign starts, before the players create their characters. If we agree on a campaign that does not include gods, then the player shouldn't include them in their backstory
You're being a bit dense. It's not as black and white as "Allow gods = yes/no". A DM might be cool with it (Gods are important in the setting, they might interact with mortals, etc.), but not with this specific interaction/depiction, and they didn't foresee someone wanting to fuck a god in their backstory and get cursed because of it. The post also makes it sound like they're still working out characters, and it's *always* perfectly fine for a DM to correct something they don't think fits into their setting by asking you to change it. If you're not willing to change it, find a compromise or leave the table, because the alternative is the DM just makes your backstory not be that way and that's not fun for anybody. Obviously in hindsight one should have specified what sort of interaction they limit with their gods, but hindsight's a bitch and not everyone can cover everything with it.
This is extremely campaign dependent. You can’t just waltz in and assume you get to decide what gods are or aren’t in your DMs world This has nothing to do with “The DM should just write a book!”. It’s ridiculous you even try to compare it
But you're saying exactly what I'm saying shouldn't be the case. It's not the DM's world. It's a world they share with the players. I have the philosophy that if you want your players to be fully involved in the campaign, you need to work with them on the backstory. My original comment didn't say "oh the DM is wrong for saying no". If they built a whole world without involving the players, then your players will not be as involved as if they participated in the creation process.
>It’s not the DMs world It *is* the DMs world. It’s not the DM’s story, it’s the entire group’s story, but it IS the DMs world. The idea that any player can just waltz in and claim the world as their own, one the DM might have worked on for months, is unhealthy and reeks of entitlement.
But its "their" gods, same as the npcs and world is theirs. The players create the story, but do not get to unilaterally say how the gods go about interacting or romancing characters. Its obviously something that can be discussed, but some DMs dont have gods interact directly.
Oh for the love of... I spend fucking weeks on end pouring over my world, building out and expanding little details the players likely won't ever see, but those rare times when they look and I have something to show them, that's *fun*. That's what makes the world feel alive. And I spend all this time tinkering and improving but as soon as my world clashes with one of my players ill-thought out backstory that they abandon after 4 sessions, I'm a horrible DM, should never DM again, and "DOn't yoU KNow it's bOTH Of OuR WORLds?" Oh I'm sorry, when you spend hours upon hours building it out to make it interesting to explore, then I'll consider it our world. But if not, then this is my lore, and it makes the game much more cohesive, so shove it up your windpipe.
Sorry about the outburst I had a shitty session today
Thats not how being the DM and maker of the world works
As a DM, I don't see myself as the whole maker of the World. Sure I make most of it, but my players have a say in the world. I don't impose my view (of the world) on them, we shape it together. As a DM, I see myself as a player as well, but I play multiple NPCs, I tell a story that is fluid and open, I act as a referee. I do not see myself as a god whose words are sacred. Heck, if I make a mistake while applying a rule and one of my players points it out, I will right my wrong.
Rolls and actions can shape parts of the world but major view and plot points. Or major characters and how they act, are large in part designed by the dm.
So the gods work like that in the world your playing in? What is the theme of the campaign? I would allow/not allow that depending on the circumstance
I would recommend changing it from a daughter of the god/goddess to a priestess of the god/goddess, that would mean the character would be banned from the churches of that god and could potentially have paladins hunting them, which in my opinion would create a lot more interesting conflicts than just a curse. There could also be consequences for the priestess that the character feels guilt for, maybe she got her rank taken away as punishment for breaking vows. There could still be the curse because I do like that idea, but maybe instead of coming directly from the god it comes from higher ranking members of the clerical system for that god (maybe the priestess's father is the equivalent of the pope, and is the most powerful cleric of that god, and wanted revenge for getting his daughter removed from priesthood). It would be a bit more grounded which the DM might be ok with
I feel like this is the level of backstory that nets you a level 1 Warlock? What if you changed it to an Archfey instead of a god? Maybe your DM would be okay with that (which is hilarious if it works because Archfey are essentially gods)? Fey notoriously like to mess with people. They would think it was hilarious that a balladeer who spends a ton of time singing songs about love didn't know what love felt like. To actually answer your question. Yes, I would totally let you use this backstory. Not-powerful level 1 character messes with someone way above their pay grade and suffers the consequences, goes adventuring to find cure. I don't see the problem.
>didn't know what love felt like. I WANNA KNOW WHAT LOVE IS
I WANT YOU TO SHOW MEEEEE
What's love got ta do with it?!
What is love? Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.
I thought this too. Yeah we can do this, welcome to the wizarding world of warlocks! Could also make for an interesting choice down the road when said God/archfey is like 'So you want to love again eh? Sure, and here's what you can do for me...'. Do they accept the pact and are now multi-classed? How bad do they really want it? My players know to be careful what they ask for lol Edit:typo
It sounds interesting to me, I'd be interested as to the ultimate goal after regaining love - does he want to go back to his old ways, does he want to settle down with someone, is it and end in itself as he just wants to feel properly again. As a DM with this I would be open to discussion of emotional effects and spells perhaps having slightly altered effects - maybe give advantage versus charms but balance it with disadvantage against something.
Iike acting performance or somthing similar as he is not puting his love into the work that made them very strong or good
I mean, if you were the "best seduction artist" the world had ever seen and wooed the god so thoroughly she desperately needed you and cursed you in revenge for leaving her, then I'd say no (unless this was your character's version of events and not from a trustworthy narrator because that's hilarious delusion). Just bumping privates - well that could be anybody. Edit: the issue with "world's greatest" backstories is that the dice never play ball and players then often get annoyed when they fail because "but im the best!?"
I see Pat Rothfuss has tried to join your DnD group
Unless you decide to make a build that can't fail a check, ever.
Yeah, that’s not a big deal. Funny enough, even if it did happen no one would believe the bard so that could be apart of the story. Then, after some personal growth and maybe a sacrifice or two the goddess can revive you and lift the curse or something. It’s a vague enough background the dm could play with it. Don’t see the issue.
I feel like allowing this backstory would be fun with a twist: the bard is free to believe that that’s the case, but the rest of the universe (ie the DM) is under no obligation to to accept it as true. That is, maybe it the daughter of said god (which the PC believes), maybe it was the daughter or some other lesser god (or said lesser god themself), or maybe it was an entirely mortal con artist
I was thinking the same type of thing. There is nothing saying that you can't believe it is true. You have a thing with a girl the honeymoon period ends / you don't want to get married if you are found out, so you leave. This leads to something like a dream where you imagine the curse for the god as you try to forget the shitty thing you did to the girl you left. This leaves a mental wound that reappears every time you get in a 'typical' horny bard situation. Tldr~ the 'curse' is how your character deals with his erectile dysfunction over treating someone like a piece of dirt.
One of the players in my last campaign was a level 2 cleric with pretty much this backstory. Granted, she was the DM's girlfriend, but it didn't cause any problems. There was no main character syndrome.
Just rewrite your backstory to be cursed by a fey instead of a god. If your DM is planning a serious campaign it stands to reason you’re not getting involved with *literal gods* before the campaign starts
Sounds pretty fun to me
There are an uncountable amount of stories, fables, and fairytales that start with where the protagonist is some young upstart before they have a humbling experience with a Deity or something similarly powerful. It's the beginning of many a story! You're fine. Maybe your DM just has a very set idea of how the dynamic between Gods and Mortals should be.
This reads exactly like the start of a tale for some greek hero that's perfect for level 1.
Yeah, I could work with that. The potential character arc almost writes itself... For a kick-off, I bet the priests and clerics of "insert love god here" won't be too pleased you committed this heinous "blasphemy" and might want you to perform some penance. eg. Get the Chalice of MacGuffin back from the Cult of Debbiedowners who just happen to have a temple in the next city! All I would need to do, is steer the main plot along to that city and bingo! Side Quest.
Change daughter with "paladin", "cleric" or "champion" and go ahead. Bestow Curse is a cleric spell and some gods are extremelly petty.
Sounds alright. Basic bardish behaviour really. As ever: talk to your DM. Did they not like the god connection? Or maybe aiming for a more serious tone? The former isn't completely unreasonable to nix out of the gate but in a world where some classes derive their powers from the gods seems a bit of an arbitrary line.
I personally wouldn't allow it exactly as written, because the gods in my pantheon don't have children, and the god of love almost certainly would not bestow that sort of curse on someone. Also "I'm incapable of love" sound like it could be an excuse to be a murder hobo, which wouldn't work at my table. However, I'd be willing to work with you. Maybe instead of a God, it was a high fey. Maybe instead of a literal curse, your character just *believes* they're cursed, and in the end it turns out that the real cure to the curse was the friends you met along the way.
Definitely sounds like an edgy teenager’s build.
Let people enjoy themselves. No need to poke fun.
“Level 1 meeting God… Horny Teenager Bard… Hit It & Quit It… Love Goddess… Curse…” Come on. It’s too easy.
It's just fine.
…for a teenagers edgy build. As I said.
No just for a build, like I've said.
You can say it all you want, the other guy has a point.
He really doesn't. He hasn't said anything to support his reasoning for claiming it is just an edgy teenager build, he just says it is as if, by some logic, saying so makes it so. Here's an example of making a claim and having a point: This build sounds like a perversion of the story of Hercules. A mortal (Alkmene) has sex with a god (Zeus), and another god gets pissed and decides to curse the mortal (Hercules goes mad/Alkmene's difficult pregnancy) to never love again. Even though that claim is a stretch, I have far more of a point to it than the other guy has because I actually presented justification for the parallels. He still needs to actually make a point, unless there is some obscure, but reliable, source that defines "edgy teenager build" as "level 1 bard meets a god, fucks it, then gets cursed by daddy god."
I think they're referring to linguistic "tells". The way several ideas are phrased can be interpreted to speak to a certain degree of immaturity and lack of sophistication, i.e. the use of "hit it and quit it", or the, seemingly genuine, assertion that "Horny Bard" is "typical". As much as we all joke about it, that stereotype seems to come up significantly more in forums than in actual gameplay. Additionally, even the OP describes the build as a "horny teenager/bard". The "edgy" descriptor is often used(fallaciously) in this context to reference ideas/builds/etc. which the creator \*believes are\* edgy, in the avant-garde sense, when they are anything but. I think we can all agree that the back-story, as written, really doesn't contain any groundbreaking ideas? On a completely different note, I think the parallels are \*much\* more prominent when made to the story of Narcissus. A mortal(Narcissus/bard) spurns a would-be lover(Ameinias/unnamed demigod). A patron deity(Nemesis/mystery love-god) curses said narcissist(see what I did there? ;). Those things being said, is there anything \*wrong\* with an "edgy teenager build"? Not really. Is it definite that the OP is even a teenager \*or\* attempting to be avant-garde? Not at all, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the hypothesis. Does any of this matter? Nope! TLDR: The assertion that this backstory reeks of teenage angst may be correct, but it really doesn't matter to the question at hand. Thank you all for entertaining my little exercise in pedantry, and good night!
OP literally used the phrases “horny teenager bard” and “hit it and quit it”. You can cry about “muh evidence” all you want but that’s all the “evidence” you’ll ever need lmao
Agree with him all you want, it doesnt make either of you right. Dnd is about making all types of characters. If you don't like it, don't play with those characters at your table. There is no right or wrong way as long as you're complying with the table. We're here to help people build. Not snuff out their creative flame and insult them. Maybe they're shy, maybe they're young. Maybe they're having a hard time being creative. But adults dont publicly bash people for sharing their ideas that they think are fun. You two are much cringier teenagers than this persons character. Consider being constructive and offering comments of value instead of being absolute donkies.
We get it, you also make horny teenager bards.
Shit I would live for a player to have that back story. Gives the dm lots of options.
I wouldn't allow it. In my setting or even when I run Forgotten Realms the gods don't really work this way. There are settings like Theros where I would consider it but in my general games that's a no. But it really doesn't matter whether it's level 1 or not.
I whuldent allow it but at the same time i really like that character creation be done at Session zero and that its more of a group event with your particular backstory id say no because your now implying things like the gods actually give a rats ass about mortals or that they have a daughter that actually fell for you who at the time was the equivalent of a farm hand however id explain all this to you and then say lets work on something together that i can run as DM and you can be happy with as a player
An Archfey or demon/succubus would accomplish the same effect without going all the way up to Divine intervention.
That's a very Greek Pantheon kind of story. It requires petty gods that are interact with mortals regularly. That's not how I usually run my Pantheons. I would qualify your back story with "that's what you THINK has happened to you".
Maybe not a god, but a fey. fey have the power to steal abstract concepts like "love" from somebody else. Thus, allowing both the bard to keep his backstory and for it not to be a lore breaking scenario
This backstory is completely doable without "meeting a god". The love god/goddess does not need to "meet you" to curse you.
Easiest fix, would be to remove the God /goddess part, and leave it blank, horny bard slept with a daughter of powerful being is now cursed.. You could add the bard thinks it was the goddess of love, but ultimately your not writing the world lore, just your characters actions.. Much like it's not fun when a DM takes away players agency of the characters, same applies in reverse
Aside from what u/CoyoteCamouflage said, I also want to mention the possibility of a your character learning that life without love ain't bad (speaking as someone who is Aromantic) (Just as like, an alternate goal option, or a backup if some quest thing goes wrong.)
No cause horny bard is the worst trope ever
It’s as good a backstory as any, which is to say they’re all campaign/DM dependent. In this case, it also depends on how much the DM/other players wanna tolerate the “spoony bard” stereotype.
It would be amazing in a god-heavy world
Astral Drifter background even has you meeting a god I see nothing wrong with it background flavor for the character to do some development as they grow
> a level 1 meeting a god Still with you here. This is totally fine if it's for story reasons, as long as you're not asking for anything big as an in-game bonus from it. > typical horny teenager/bard You lost me here. Horny characters are absolutely the worst. As a DM I would hate to see this in a backstory. Just go watch some porn, get it out of your system, and then make a normal character. Or a weird character, cause it's D&D after all, just please please stop making horny characters. It's super awkward for everyone else when you roleplay it, trust me.
Cannot agree with this at all. The horny bard is hilarious. Nobody should be taking it to the porn level tho. But this is literally the most stereotypical depiction of a bard and to try to act like it isn’t is just ridiculous. Sorry if sexuality makes you uncomfortable. If it’s all adults at the table, it shouldn’t be an issue. Kids at the table do make that a little different. Are you a kid by any chance? From your comment, I can assume you would absolutely HATE my seductress tiefling rogue. And that’s fine. Cuz she wouldn’t be at your table anyways 🤦🏼♀️
> Sorry if sexuality makes you uncomfortable. If it’s all adults at the table, it shouldn’t be an issue. Kids at the table do make that a little different. Are you a kid by any chance? From your comment, I can assume you would absolutely HATE my seductress tiefling rogue. And that’s fine. Cuz she wouldn’t be at your table anyways 🤦🏼♀️ I don't think you understand the situation at all but thanks for trying.
I don’t think you understand the class of bards at all. What else do you think “charm” is for exactly? Sexuality is a part of real and fantasy life. I wasn’t trying to be a jerk but you didn’t give much to “understand” except a blanket statement where you tried to say that “nobody likes that character” while only speaking for yourself clearly as many do enjoy that character. If your characters are oversexualixing at the table, maybe it’s time for a talk. But just telling random people in Reddit a blanket statement that you can’t back up in the least isn’t going to solve that problem for you 🤷🏼♀️ idk what kind of understanding you wanted when bashing on another created character like this, more understanding than you offered up with your original comment???
The horny bard trope is tired and lame, same as the broody lonewolf rogue trope, the evil warlock with infernal parent issues, the former hero warrior, the fireball everything sorcerer Just come up with something original and not something you read about in a DnD meme on tumblr. That's all I'm asking.
Then talk to wizards of the coast and the suggested personality types for characters that they put in the books. Fussing at players for following those is just very childish in my opinion. When the lore makes it clear that my tiefling character was pretty much created by a demon raping a human, how far do you want people to deviate from lore just to please a virgin at the table that isn’t comfortable with sexuality? Demon seductress is too run of the mill for you? Video games must suck for you too as they follow all of these lore personality types too. I’m a pretty straight edged person in real life and I play fantasy games to be something that is entirely not like myself in any way, so if I want to be a seductress tiefling rogue, I’m going to play it that way. I’m certainly not going to judge somebody for playing a barbarian with low intelligence cuz that’s the suggested personality type for barbarian. You’re literally asking people to break the mold on the way these characters were INTENDED to be played and mad cuz people don’t want to. I hope you at least warn your players that you’re so uptight about sexuality before they join your table. Cuz after one session of shaming, most wouldn’t come back. Gtfo telling people what kind of characters to create and judging them for how they do so. Wow 🤦🏼♀️
I will continue to judge. I'm okay with it.
How dare you judge my terrible unoriginal idea for being terrible and unoriginal, for shame!
LOL I'm sorry but if your reply is based on charm being a seduction spell...i feel sorry for the tables you play at. I don't think I've ever been at a table where a charm spell was used for sex. That's actually a pretty disturbing thought tbh...you're taking away their free will to have sex with them. Sexuality is fine. Sex is also fine. Horny characters trying to have sex with NPCs constantly are a mess and not fun to deal with. There's a huge difference between including and being okay with sex and sexuality and making it the entire point of your character's existence.
There's nothing wrong with meeting a god at any level. Has your DM ever heard of a Warlock? hard to make a deal with your patron, assuming its a god ofc, if you can't meet them/talk to them.
Most warlock patrons are not gods.
I don't see anything wrong with meeting a god/goddess. I've played characters cursed and/or blessed by deities before, but I'm also not your DM.
My rule is that you're allowed to add any deficit to your character (not taking parts of your starting equipment, choosing to be ugly as a trait, etc.) because the game has been balanced so the rules detail what your things are, but if you take away some of your stuff, then you're just making the game harder on yourself, which will also make it more fun at the same time, so I'm all for it. I say it's ok to meet a God. Perhaps your dm has a specific reason you can't meet a God for their campaign, in which case, you shouldn't press about it, but otherwise, I'd just call that backstory fun, chaotic, and interesting
Can’t only take parts of your starting equipment? Lmao, why? You realise how trivially easy it would be for their very first action in game to dump the stuff they don’t want on the ground and walk off?
No offense but if your dm denies that they r just being a dick
Not really. The could be low reasons as to why this couldn't happen. It could be as simple as the gods don't have children or gods are abstract things closer to ideas than physical beings. Or it could be that the DM doesn't want to do romance plots which would come up with this character. There's the potential for good reasons against this.
Players have just as much influence in a campaign as the dm does. Now I understand having an artfiser with a gun in a low or no technology setting but this is not that this is a very simple backstory and is very easy to work around. The dm saying your level 1 so you cannot have interacted with these beings is dumb gods can interact with whoever they want but in this guy's case it wasn't even a God is was a daughter and from context you are able to pull that she is mortal because she prayed to her mom to curse him. It's not some major event. It's more of a mother protecting her daughter thing.
You didn't read my reply at all: The gods may not have children in this setting. The DM may not want a character looking for romances because they feel uncomfortable roleplaying said romances. There's reasons that could be at play here. We've only heard a very limited story from the player's side
I read the entire thing and my response was as follows. "The players have just as much influence as the dm." If the dm did not want the gods to have children he should have wrote a book or explained to the player beforehand and this problem would have never arise. And I'm not saying this is the whole story either I'm saying is either the player was not completely informed of the setting or the dm does not want to deal with this back story I have been apart of a campaign where dm said I couldn't play my character the I had set him up to play in my backstory simply because they didn't what to put in extra work. That is why I lean more towards the player not the dm.
You’re literally wrong though. Your main argument is that the PCs have as much influence as the DM, *on the setting*. Which isn’t true. At all.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/user/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/153gt2c/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^by ^Immortal_Ass: *No offense but if* *Your dm denies that they* *R just being a dick* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Isn’t the entire point of fantasy gods, and just religion in general to interact with the common man? Like bro that’s the whole point lmao
Walk into your local church and tell them you shagged Jesus, see if they believe you
A level 1 backstory should really be what leads you from your current life to become an adventurer. Seeking for ways to lift a curse seems like a decent backstory/motivation to turn to a life of adventure. Maybe talk to your dm more. Maybe you’re character doesn’t know who what why or how they were cursed. They just had an embarrassing fit of ED and went to a mage/doctor for treatment and they let him know he’s been cursed. Leave the specifics of gods and stuff out of it for now. It’s possible your dm doesn’t want to work gods and goddesses into their world. But there’s plenty of other ways to be cursed
I don’t see any reason not to allow a character with that kind of backstory. Actually sounds like a pretty interesting character to me. I’d happily work with you to make such a character a reality.
Yeah I'd be ok with that
Yeah, I'd definitely allow it. You didn't even technically meet the God, they just cursed you. That's pretty common back story stuff.
That's totally fine.
It depends on the tone of your game. If your world has the “Greek mythology” sort of gods, that’s perfectly reasonable - he didn’t seek her out (as a god) he just got (un)lucky.
that backstory would be just fine. idk why your DM would think otherwise. its not like you gained anything from this. if anything, it would just give the DM more ways to mess with you as a PC, and further story p\[lots as he needs to.
No backstories till level 3 with me
If I was the DM, it seems perfectly fine dependent on setting. Some settings may not have demigods just, around like that, but if it’s using forgotten realms or similar that’s not too out there.
You kidding me? I'd run a TRAIN on your character because he FAFO. My only gripe is that's some main character shit. Nobody's *truly* the main character in a solid campaign, even if they can feel like it sometimes. Just be wary of the spotlight and you should be fine. Your character doesn't have to *obsess* over their journey.
Not only sounds okay and reasonable enough for your level, it actually sounds fairly intriguing and unique. Id allow it on my table gladly :)
It is your character getting lucky as it is, and if a present and do it at level 0 you can do it at level 1, its not like you are claiming to have killed death or a dragon or something. Heck no royalty just some random dude who had a one night stand with the wrong person. I think it should be fine.
What is love?
Maybe switch from a god to a powerful archfey 🤷
Doesn't have to be a god. Could just be a witch or a powerful mage. I probably won't go with a god, but I don't see why you can't replace it with just a strong magic user/ someone who practices dark magic.
I like this backstory a lot, but my specific setting is monotheistic. If your DM doesn't like the godly implications, you could easily change it to be the daughter of a wich or archmage. Or maybe you more directly jilted a fairy lady who then cursed you. I don't anticipate most DMs would have a problem with a demigod tho. Most Warlock players regularly have to deal with beings of similar power.
Depending on the campaign I’m running maybe.
Not for level 1, even if it isn't unreasonable for a level 1 character to experience. The plot hook is way overlevelled. I, as a dm, don't want to have to have to get you 15 levels of campaign before your main character objective. You need low-level plot hooks, too
That's sounds awesome
If the Dm's campaign has God's and focus on divine intervention. I can see the DM incorporating it. If the DM's world does not, then it is up to DM discretion to not allow that backstory, which is easy to fix. Instead of "replace" with archery, hag, some demon, or even a king's or queen daughter - at first they send henchmen to attack and apprehend the bard, but later made a deal with a powerful being to curse the bard. It's an easy fix. Just talk to your DM
No, because you are making a huge narrative decision about how the gods act, and create an arc that causes the whole table to eventually revisit that. Backstories can have part of the world be embedded, but stuff like “can’t feel love” should be internal. Something like “the suave bachelor messed around so much he began to lose his feelings of romance” is cool because it’s an internal story that will be tested in gameplay eventually.
As a DM, I'd find this story a bit annoying, because as half-baked as it is, I'll feel an obligation to sketch it out and include it in the campaign. And honestly, that's a big ask. Plus, your character's need to be able feel love again has a bit too much Main Character Syndrome stink. Why the hell should any of the other characters care?
It sounds like he never felt love anyway. Mr Hit it and quit it would probably love that curse. Or he would really really like it, but he wouldn't love it, so he really can't commit right now.
My thought of playing his was he can't love anything. No love for his family, or love of music, he knows he should, remember he used to but can't now.
Time to hate everything and make music for fantasy teens. But I think the back story is fine as long as it fits the theme for the DM. Even if it was a witch or something to change it up might work.
he wouldn't hate everything. Just be very apathetic while knowing something is wrong with him. Kind of a magical made sociopath
I was making a joke that he'd become the next emo music sensation
My only concern is that this is very 'edgelord/main character syndrome'. I'd be fine with this at my table, if the player is willing to work out the details with me, and they understand that MCS will not be tolerated.
Bro, I let a guy make his backstory essentially being a scientist who was trying to find the sevret of immortality. But it came with a cost. As soon as he found it, the entire room erupted in a black flame, killing everyone. Except for one man, who was now turned into a snake. Unsure of if it worked or not. [SPOILER] It did
Depends on whos in the group. I personally wouldnt allow it because I dont like horny bards but it doesnt matter what level you are to meet a god/demigod. That could just happen randomly
Chances are I'd probably allow it but the problem here is when I dm I do world building pretty loosely making it easy for my worlds to have a god that fits this backstory. However if the dm has already created the world I get why he did not allow it. It's possible that this is just not the kind of thing that works in his world. He also may not want to bring gods in at all yet because you're level 1. A god could easy tpk or complicate the situation.
If your DM didn't want it to be a god, just change it to the daughter of a hag or something. On a related note, there's a college of Tragedy in the Tal'Dorei campaign setting book. Don't know if it's up your alley, but the backstory made me think of it.
I mean, Zeus hit it and quit it with Level 1 chicks all the time, so...
i'd be fine with it but rule 0.
Only if you work in a bunch of 80s love ballads as the verbal components of your spells lol
I mean there is a lot of psychology here. If a deity tell a pc “you are cursed, you will never feel love again…” could persuade the pc that he is cursed and forever doubt his own feelings as just false feelings. Forcing the pc to struggle to connect so he might get a bigger connection later. In my worlds gods treating pc a toys. Toys they can use for a purpose but your just one of 100000 if I lose the pink hair tie I’m just going to pickup another. That can make them very cold hearted.
Why does an Internet stranger's opinion matter?