First, a bit of context. The group I am playing with just finished Descent into Avernus, and due to the players wanting some downtime between adventure arcs for shenanigans, and campaign fatigue from DoA, it was decided that the players would go off and do their own thing for an unspecified amount of time. However, the DM who ran the DoA campaign also set up a transition into a modified Tomb of Annihilation campaign. To my knowledge, none of the players were very enthused about ToA. Thus, while I (Grungni Blackhammer, Dwarf Order Cleric of Moradin, heavily styled after Judge Dredd) was figuring out what he would do in that time, I got into discussions with the other players. I write and world build on the side, and my Dwarf has no shortage of lore and background information relating to his homeland in Osraun Mountains of Faerun. While reviewing my notes of the campaign, I noticed that several times when my Cleric attempted to get some sort of divine inspiration on what to do next in Avernus, he received no information. Now, I fully understand this was the result of bad rolls, fudged or otherwise. Roleplay wise however, Grungni was stunned by the sudden silence from his deity, and this led to some very out of character moments of mercy towards Fiend NPCs, such as Mad Maggie, Krickendolt the Bearded Devil, the Succubus in Mahadhi's Emporium, and so on. During one of these encounters, the party befriended Krickendolt, and our resident Human Rogue fell in love with the Succubus under the employ of Mahadhi. The idea came up that we could potentially redeem the devils, which was insisted upon by Lulu in game. And my distraught cleric latched onto the idea, thinking he had angered Moradin by slaying instead of trying to redeem.
And here is the important part. My cleric, Grungni, swore oaths upon his soul that he would and I quote, "Drag the devils Krickendolt and (the succubus) to the very Heavens themselves for redemption or destruction." As a player and as a character, I take such a thing seriously, and make every effort to stand by them. However, the campaign has ended, and both Krickendolt (who was evidently healed following the collapse of the Bleeding Citadel and is now Lawful Evil again) and the Succubus are far beyond the reach of the party, who are now in the Astral Plane with Elturel, being slowly put back where it belongs. The party successfully redeemed Zariel, and Grungni was chosen as worthy to wield the Sword of Zariel (admittedly for a very short time, as we retrieved the sword and then immediately went to Elturel.) Now, due to a number of players being interested in the side adventure I originally wrote for Grungni and another player, we are journeying to the Celestial Heavens, in the attempt to 1: Redeem some (absent) devils. 2: Destroy the Shield of the Hidden Lord, which we retained control of through the entirety of the Avernus Campaign, which if my RP timekeeping was correct, lasted approximately 7 days in Avernus, from the moment we stepped onto Elturel,) and 3: retrieve any kind of valuable loot appropriate for a party of 7 Level 9 characters, as the entirety of DoA for us was incredibly bare of any kind of loot or rewards.
Thus, I am the temporary Dungeon Master for a short term campaign that takes the party from the Material Plane to the Fourth Layer of Heaven at least, where the party hopes to destroy the Shield of the Hidden Lord. The DM who ran DoA has agreed to play Grungni for the time being, as he remains the second most knowledgeable about the character and his quirks/flaws. However, he has said he does not plan to push the issue of redeeming devils at all, and seems very disinterested or otherwise passive.
Am I the problem for wanting my own character played appropriately, or how can I approach this? Any and all critiques and ideas are welcome, and I will happily provide further details on lore or campaign notes or worldbuilding, as well as potential spoilers for the upcoming "Heaven Expedition" the party will undertake.
Okay so here is a breakdown on Grungni: Dwarf Cleric of Moradin. Styled heavily off of Judge Dredd (at least originally, his character has developed a bit since the beginning in the campaign.) Understandably, I intended to play this character as extremely confined to Law, much like the Devils of Baator. He was meant to be the no-nonsense lawkeeper, enforcing the laws of any particular land he found himself in. His background has him exiled from his homeland due to a lapse of his duties that saw tombs of wealthy dwarven families plundered, for which the sentence in his homeland would be death. Instead, his mentor, a very high ranking Paladin, was merciful and chose to exile him "until the end of his living days or until all things stolen from the honored dead are returned and this wrong be set right."
The first time he deviated from what I wrote down was session 1 when another player arrived in the tavern as a Goblin Druid. I literally flipped a coin to determine how Grungni/The Cleric would respond. Heads, he would attack the goblin, as it is a hated enemy of all dwarven kind. Tails, he would not. Clearly a goblin would be attacked in any city, but this particular goblin made it inside a major human city, in broad day light, and was not slain by guards. Perhaps then, the laws of this land protect goblins too? I landed on Tails, and did not attack the goblin/fellow player.
The second, through sixth times he deviated from what is exactly demanded from his very exact code of conduct and became more "merciful" was in Baldur's Gate docks, where he intimidated the remaining crew of the Uncivil Servant into becoming merchantmen and fishermen, instead of pirates, making it extremely clear he would be required to hang any Pirates he found. In the Dungeon of the Dead Three, where he chose to spar Mortlock Vanathampur, heal his wounds, and demanded the disfigured man abandon his evil ways, and seek a humble life with the now hopefully reformed Uncivil Servant Crew. Then when Thavius Kreeg was discovered to be the traitor of Elturel, he emphatically made it clear that such damning crimes fully merit the most painful of punishments. But still stayed his (at this point in time, unused executioner greatsword). Then, in Elturel, he spared the necromancer at the full request of the party. I will stress this one, as we debated it for some time. Necromancy, as far as I have written it and understand it for dwarves, is absolutely heretical. I made the comment to the party and to the DM, that Grungni would refuse to let such a vile thing remain, especially since there were survivors in Elturel who would be threatened by the gathering horde of undead this Necromancer was building. I made it very clear that Grungni would leave the party and fight the necromancer and the undead to the death, and I would create a new character. I was eventually convinced by the Paladin of our party (who is chaotic good and tries to take a "Long Term" view of what is good), that seeking a bold and heroic death was admirable, but merely slaying the necromancer would not fix the situation. Instead we should focus on destroying Zariel. I yielded to this logic, and we left the city.
The two devils I speak of in the OP was a bearded devil that sustained a head wound and became a pacifisitic chaotic good entity. How a head wound changes a devil's alignment I don't pretend to understand, but I digress. By the time we meet him, Grungni is questioning if such a creature could possibly be redeemed. He even goes onto invite the devil to pray with him, which the devil accepts happily. Lulu's repeated insistence that the party "redeem, not destroy" Zariel is what gave the Cleric the idea that perhaps his scripture might be incorrect. After all, a literal angelic being was professing to him that not everyone who winds up in Hell was irredeemable. Thus, Grungni swore upon his soul to the Bearded Devil that he would drag him to redemption or die trying.
The succubus was another matter. As the party was leaving Mahadhi's Emporium, the Rogue, being a famous womanizer according to Roleplay by this point, found himself smitten with a succubus mechanic under Mahadi's thrall. He was being rather difficult to remove from the premises of the Emporium and delaying the party, so I made an agreement with the player and with the Succubus. (In hindsight, probably a bad choice.) And thus again, Grungni swore upon his soul that he would redeem the Devil, or die trying.
As the campaign progressed, I found that the cleric, who I originally intended to be gruff, dwarf clone of Judge Dredd, was being very merciful. This.... was not what I intended, but it occured in such a way that his mindset changing was reasonable. Further, repeated prayers to Moradin, from which the Cleric draws his power, were met with silence. Every single time. I realize the DM has a great deal of latitude in how he deals with such matters, but a dozen instances of no response left me rather unamused. Throughout the campaign, Grungni has made it clear that oaths and curses and contracts are not only extremely important to him as a character, but to his Temple, and indeed to all dwarves.
And now the old DM is set to play as said cleric, and seems to disregard what was established as extremely important to his character. I will also point out for consideration. While the exact text of the Sword of Zariel indicates that attunement effectively mind-wipes the wielder and replaces him or her with an entirely new personality, It seems that the DM at the time either did not consider this text, did not read it, or chose to ignore it. Thus, the Cleric is now permeneantly lawful good, and at least to me, contractually bound to redeem or destroy at least two known Devils. And the old DM, who is now playing this Cleric, seems to be ignoring what we established are very important rules for a Cleric (essentially) devoted to Oaths, Laws, Good, and now apparently Redemption.
There is a lot of text there and this I think is the problem, you have a story that you want to tell about a character you have created and developed and it seems you DM just has no interest, in fact I would suggest that as he has run one published adventure and now wants to run a second dungeon crawl he probably really does not like or want to run Thai kind of game.
This isn’t a fault issue, it is just the way of table top roleplay games different people like different things. But you also have a lot there that feels like as a player you are trying to decide the narrative of your character.
The fact is you can’t force a player down a particular route, not unless you want a very railroad game, which no one will enjoy. I suggest taking your character off of the player, making it an NPC player ho sets the task to the rest of the party, and see if they follow it or not, have your DM roll their own character starting at the same level as yours, and then just see how the game progresses, this may well be a story that never gets told. By religious g your dwarf from the adventure you can always write out a cool story for what he did, how he redeemed them, or failed to, and give it to your DM to make up the next stage of his adventure.
You’re trying to control a players actions and you don’t seem willing to compromise as regards where you want your characters story to go. That’s textbook railroading.
Edit- After thinking about this a bit I’m editing this to not be so confrontational.
What if that guy doesn’t play the character the way you “think is right” ? If your answer is anything other than “he’s playing the character, I’m not, I have no control over that.” Then you’re kind of in the wrong.
If you’re going to dm, having a dmpc in the campaign can be one of the worst mistakes you’ll ever make. Having your personal character be in the game, especially a character you seem so very personally invested with, seems a huge mistake to me.
If you’re going to run a game or two, do that, but try not to use DnD as a personal story telling device. It doesn’t work well and will frustrate you and your players.
If you want to make a story about this character, just write it out. You seem to already know what you want that story to be.
If I'm understanding this correctly (and do correct me if I'm wrong), this was originally your character, which is now set to be transferred to a new player, your previous DM.
My advice? Take him off the table and tell your DM-turned-player to make his own character. That is your character, and no one else has the right to decide how he is played. Shoehorn in the new PC however you have to, give your old PC a reason to bow out while you DM, and return to that PC once it's time for you to become a player again. If your old DM wants to play the same type of character but with his own flavor of RP, then he can roll up "Brunbi", Grungi's distantly related and previously unknown cousin; okay, I jest with that last bit, but point being he needs to roll up bis own character or else neither one of you are going to have fun (and if your old DM has a problem with that...then frankly, that's a big red flag to me).
Did your previous DM agree to play your character because they actually want to play your character, or did they really only agree to play this character because they low key feel they are being forced/pressured into playing your character because you are the DM and you seem to have made it pretty clear that your character and their story is the most important part of this campaign, especially since this player doesn't have their own character connected to your story and conveniently have the knowledge to play your character?
If it's the former, then you two need to sit down and properly hash out things so you two are on the same page. If it's the later, then yeah....I can't blame them for being difficult even if they aren't going about things the right way. You are basically saying "Play my character exactly like I want them to be played and don't play for your own enjoyment of D&D because being my character's puppet is your only purpose for being here at the table." That might be a bit harsh and not what you are going for, but that's what it is coming across as from what I can gather.
Maybe I'm missing some information here but regardless of the reason, you really need to sit down and talk to them. Tell them about your frustrations and what you are aiming for, and then let them express any frustrations and explain why they are being unreceptive to your vision of the character. Figure out if they really want to commit to picking up your character for this campaign. It's great to see how passionate you are about your character's story, but you are not the only one at the table. Everyone's enjoyment is important.
The more I think on it, the more questions I'm beginning to have.
Why are you switching DM's partway in the campaign? To give the usual DM a break? To give you some DMing experiennce? Is there a rotating-DM agreement at the table? Do you even want to be the DM?
If you're going to DM, why are you taking over this other DM's game and storyline, especially on a temporary basis? Do you want to run this other DM's story, or would you rather run your own thing?
Lastly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're running Tomb of Annihilation. If none of the other players are enthused about this module, why are you are running it? Shouldn't you run something that you and the other players want, not just this DM who isn't even DMing the module he's chosen? If he wants to run ToA, shouldn't he run it himself instead of saddling it on someone else?
Obviously I don't know the dynamic of your table, but the more I look at this scenario, the more I'm starting to see red flags pop up. It may be that I just need to know more information to get an accurate idea of the situation, but I'm starting to think this whole segment of this campaign may be a mistake.
After reading through the comments and discussing the matter with the other players, I have come to agree that moving control of the Cleric to another player/former DM is unwise and unfair. The initial reason I thought transferring the ownership of the character, even it was only temporary, was to avoid the image of favoritism and give the previous DM a character they are familair with a reason to play in the short story arc/mini campaign that is set to occur. I have since approached the old DM about playing a character he himself could make and enjoy, and fully recognize how rude it was of me to ask him to play my character. I definitely had my head up my own rear about that.
I will clarify the following. - By the middle of Descent into Avernus, the party players had agreed in conversation that they were unhappy with several minor points in the campaign. They were unhappy with the lack of loot, seeming railroading from the DM regarding certain actions the players wanted to take that were alternatives to what was specified in the campaign book, two players in particular were on the verge of quitting the campaign because they largely felt useless (Clockwork Sorcerer and a Swashbuckler Rogue being reduced to to Counterspell battery/Psychic damage dealer, and a stealthy sniper who's best hope was scoring critical sneak attacks at a distance.) In addition, there was something of a lack of time set aside for roleplay. The DM would regularly progress the scene without player consensus, (I personally cannot fault him for this but it is jarring that an offhand comment made by one player suddenly moves the entire party along the story without discussion, we sort of just rolled with it.) And while not every player had a lengthy backstory, several did in fact have backstories that were not expanded upon or remarked on.
-This led to the players fantasizing about what they would do *after* the end of the campaign, regardless of the ending they got. The party Paladin wanted to go to his home and report to the Temple of Tyr and check on his family. The party Sorcerer wanted to return to Waterdeep so she can study and enchant under the Blackstaff Archmage. The Druid wished to journey across Faerun. The cleric, my character, was in the middle of his own backstory quest to retrieve stolen ancestral goods so that he too could return home. At the most basic, the party wanted downtime activities. By the end of Baldur's Gate, when everyone was at least level four, they felt like they earned it. But then we went to Candlekeep, and the story moved on from there, often irritating the players. I will stress I cannot fault them for wanting downtime, since we were in the middle of everyone's lesser story, but the DM had a campaign book he wanted to run. After speaking with other players, they felt like much of what occured in Avernus was a railroad, and they wanted to explore the world and not be attached to a story. I don't blame them.
-By the time we had reached the Bleeding Citadel, the Shield was becoming more and more of a RP issue. Trying to corrupt and turn the party against each other, whispering lies between sleeping ears. It was great stuff. However, the party was getting tired of it. So, I suggested we figure out a way to get rid of it, either by sealing it away or destroying it permanently. After some rolls and discussion, it was decided we could try to dump it in a demiplane and throw away the key, or take it to the one place the Cleric knew it could be destroyed, at the Anvil of Moradin, which according to Forgotten Realms Lore, can in fact destroy Artifacts. This was the first time it was suggested. Other players liked the idea of a permanent end to the shield, as it corrupted people and cities easily. This eventually became the idea to go to the Heavens and destroy the shield, an idea the party latched onto and were actually enthusiastic about. What I initially thought was going to be a paragraph or two of downtime activity at the End of Descent into Avernus, instead became something that the party was looking forward to. It was at that point I suggested to the DM that we could turn that into a mini-campaign. However, the party was under the impression that I would run it. A vote was had, and I apparently won it to DM that after the end of DoA. It was emphasized that when the heaven campaign ended, we would return to the Material Plane and continue with what the old DM had set up. Frankly, I feel bad about it. I think I stole the thunder or enthusiasm and all I initially wanted to do was tie up one plot hook and unhelpful story item.
-I will stress that I did not intend to turn this into a campaign or take control or glorify my character in any way. It was even because i wanted to avoid that very image that I felt like it was wise to at least offer another player the chance to take over the Cleric. My goal initially was simply to write in something to explain away a plot hook. However, as the idea took hold and I explained it in character, the players liked the idea enough that they wanted to join, and what was once a downtime activity had to become at least a handful of adventures, purely because they wanted to join and I did not think they would enjoy me monologuing about this for an hour. They wanted a story that made them feel heroic and I felt obligated to give it to them.
-My goal for this story is to provide the party with the chance for the following. Let them roleplay. This felt rushed and irregular, and the game moved quickly. At least until combat started. Give them the chance for loot. Throughout the entire of Avernus I can count on one hand the number of times the party received any rewards for their fighting and effort. Attempts to loot and explore and investigate were made and it was only four times did anything ever come up that qualified as loot, be they bearded devil halberds or soul coins or what have you. They felt like they were not being sufficiently rewarded in treasure Give them a chance for character growth if they want it. The paladin is haunted by the death of a partner from his temple. I plan to give him the chance to say a last goodbye to a fallen friend. The Druid has never felt at home in their world, always moving, never staying long enough to make friends. Their player told me they wanted to change that, and I plan to give them the chance, through the story, to show that. The Rogue wants to prove he is more than just a family name, and legitimately fell in love with a succubus, and wants to settle down with her. I plan to give him the chance for that. The Sorcerer badly wanted to just feel useful. I very much plan to give them that. All the cleric wants to do is simply see an evil destroyed and see if his own god sees him as worthy anymore. I don't want this to be the Cleric's moment to shine. Forgive me if that is how it came across. I want the party to shine and feel like heroes, and I've prepared dozens of pages of situations, encounters, scenarios, and so on for that purpose. And if all they want to do is spend a session relaxing in some sort of heavenly sauna and make jokes, I will be happy to help provide that.
I would like to thank everyone who commented and replied to this thread, You have helped me greatly.
I will also say for anyone concerned, I am not intending to meddle or otherwise interfere with what the DM has created. I plan only on a level 9 to level 10 adventure, with no relevance or bearing on the larger plot. Entirely self contained.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First, a bit of context.
The group I am playing with just finished Descent into Avernus, and due to the players wanting some downtime between adventure arcs for shenanigans, and campaign fatigue from DoA, it was decided that the players would go off and do their own thing for an unspecified amount of time. However, the DM who ran the DoA campaign also set up a transition into a modified Tomb of Annihilation campaign. To my knowledge, none of the players were very enthused about ToA. Thus, while I (Grungni Blackhammer, Dwarf Order Cleric of Moradin, heavily styled after Judge Dredd) was figuring out what he would do in that time, I got into discussions with the other players. I write and world build on the side, and my Dwarf has no shortage of lore and background information relating to his homeland in Osraun Mountains of Faerun. While reviewing my notes of the campaign, I noticed that several times when my Cleric attempted to get some sort of divine inspiration on what to do next in Avernus, he received no information. Now, I fully understand this was the result of bad rolls, fudged or otherwise. Roleplay wise however, Grungni was stunned by the sudden silence from his deity, and this led to some very out of character moments of mercy towards Fiend NPCs, such as Mad Maggie, Krickendolt the Bearded Devil, the Succubus in Mahadhi's Emporium, and so on. During one of these encounters, the party befriended Krickendolt, and our resident Human Rogue fell in love with the Succubus under the employ of Mahadhi. The idea came up that we could potentially redeem the devils, which was insisted upon by Lulu in game. And my distraught cleric latched onto the idea, thinking he had angered Moradin by slaying instead of trying to redeem.
And here is the important part. My cleric, Grungni, swore oaths upon his soul that he would and I quote, "Drag the devils Krickendolt and (the succubus) to the very Heavens themselves for redemption or destruction." As a player and as a character, I take such a thing seriously, and make every effort to stand by them. However, the campaign has ended, and both Krickendolt (who was evidently healed following the collapse of the Bleeding Citadel and is now Lawful Evil again) and the Succubus are far beyond the reach of the party, who are now in the Astral Plane with Elturel, being slowly put back where it belongs. The party successfully redeemed Zariel, and Grungni was chosen as worthy to wield the Sword of Zariel (admittedly for a very short time, as we retrieved the sword and then immediately went to Elturel.) Now, due to a number of players being interested in the side adventure I originally wrote for Grungni and another player, we are journeying to the Celestial Heavens, in the attempt to 1: Redeem some (absent) devils. 2: Destroy the Shield of the Hidden Lord, which we retained control of through the entirety of the Avernus Campaign, which if my RP timekeeping was correct, lasted approximately 7 days in Avernus, from the moment we stepped onto Elturel,) and 3: retrieve any kind of valuable loot appropriate for a party of 7 Level 9 characters, as the entirety of DoA for us was incredibly bare of any kind of loot or rewards.
Thus, I am the temporary Dungeon Master for a short term campaign that takes the party from the Material Plane to the Fourth Layer of Heaven at least, where the party hopes to destroy the Shield of the Hidden Lord. The DM who ran DoA has agreed to play Grungni for the time being, as he remains the second most knowledgeable about the character and his quirks/flaws. However, he has said he does not plan to push the issue of redeeming devils at all, and seems very disinterested or otherwise passive.
Am I the problem for wanting my own character played appropriately, or how can I approach this? Any and all critiques and ideas are welcome, and I will happily provide further details on lore or campaign notes or worldbuilding, as well as potential spoilers for the upcoming "Heaven Expedition" the party will undertake.
Okay so here is a breakdown on Grungni: Dwarf Cleric of Moradin. Styled heavily off of Judge Dredd (at least originally, his character has developed a bit since the beginning in the campaign.) Understandably, I intended to play this character as extremely confined to Law, much like the Devils of Baator. He was meant to be the no-nonsense lawkeeper, enforcing the laws of any particular land he found himself in. His background has him exiled from his homeland due to a lapse of his duties that saw tombs of wealthy dwarven families plundered, for which the sentence in his homeland would be death. Instead, his mentor, a very high ranking Paladin, was merciful and chose to exile him "until the end of his living days or until all things stolen from the honored dead are returned and this wrong be set right."
The first time he deviated from what I wrote down was session 1 when another player arrived in the tavern as a Goblin Druid. I literally flipped a coin to determine how Grungni/The Cleric would respond. Heads, he would attack the goblin, as it is a hated enemy of all dwarven kind. Tails, he would not. Clearly a goblin would be attacked in any city, but this particular goblin made it inside a major human city, in broad day light, and was not slain by guards. Perhaps then, the laws of this land protect goblins too? I landed on Tails, and did not attack the goblin/fellow player.
The second, through sixth times he deviated from what is exactly demanded from his very exact code of conduct and became more "merciful" was in Baldur's Gate docks, where he intimidated the remaining crew of the Uncivil Servant into becoming merchantmen and fishermen, instead of pirates, making it extremely clear he would be required to hang any Pirates he found. In the Dungeon of the Dead Three, where he chose to spar Mortlock Vanathampur, heal his wounds, and demanded the disfigured man abandon his evil ways, and seek a humble life with the now hopefully reformed Uncivil Servant Crew. Then when Thavius Kreeg was discovered to be the traitor of Elturel, he emphatically made it clear that such damning crimes fully merit the most painful of punishments. But still stayed his (at this point in time, unused executioner greatsword). Then, in Elturel, he spared the necromancer at the full request of the party. I will stress this one, as we debated it for some time. Necromancy, as far as I have written it and understand it for dwarves, is absolutely heretical. I made the comment to the party and to the DM, that Grungni would refuse to let such a vile thing remain, especially since there were survivors in Elturel who would be threatened by the gathering horde of undead this Necromancer was building. I made it very clear that Grungni would leave the party and fight the necromancer and the undead to the death, and I would create a new character. I was eventually convinced by the Paladin of our party (who is chaotic good and tries to take a "Long Term" view of what is good), that seeking a bold and heroic death was admirable, but merely slaying the necromancer would not fix the situation. Instead we should focus on destroying Zariel. I yielded to this logic, and we left the city.
The two devils I speak of in the OP was a bearded devil that sustained a head wound and became a pacifisitic chaotic good entity. How a head wound changes a devil's alignment I don't pretend to understand, but I digress. By the time we meet him, Grungni is questioning if such a creature could possibly be redeemed. He even goes onto invite the devil to pray with him, which the devil accepts happily. Lulu's repeated insistence that the party "redeem, not destroy" Zariel is what gave the Cleric the idea that perhaps his scripture might be incorrect. After all, a literal angelic being was professing to him that not everyone who winds up in Hell was irredeemable. Thus, Grungni swore upon his soul to the Bearded Devil that he would drag him to redemption or die trying.
The succubus was another matter. As the party was leaving Mahadhi's Emporium, the Rogue, being a famous womanizer according to Roleplay by this point, found himself smitten with a succubus mechanic under Mahadi's thrall. He was being rather difficult to remove from the premises of the Emporium and delaying the party, so I made an agreement with the player and with the Succubus. (In hindsight, probably a bad choice.) And thus again, Grungni swore upon his soul that he would redeem the Devil, or die trying.
As the campaign progressed, I found that the cleric, who I originally intended to be gruff, dwarf clone of Judge Dredd, was being very merciful. This.... was not what I intended, but it occured in such a way that his mindset changing was reasonable. Further, repeated prayers to Moradin, from which the Cleric draws his power, were met with silence. Every single time. I realize the DM has a great deal of latitude in how he deals with such matters, but a dozen instances of no response left me rather unamused. Throughout the campaign, Grungni has made it clear that oaths and curses and contracts are not only extremely important to him as a character, but to his Temple, and indeed to all dwarves.
And now the old DM is set to play as said cleric, and seems to disregard what was established as extremely important to his character. I will also point out for consideration. While the exact text of the Sword of Zariel indicates that attunement effectively mind-wipes the wielder and replaces him or her with an entirely new personality, It seems that the DM at the time either did not consider this text, did not read it, or chose to ignore it. Thus, the Cleric is now permeneantly lawful good, and at least to me, contractually bound to redeem or destroy at least two known Devils. And the old DM, who is now playing this Cleric, seems to be ignoring what we established are very important rules for a Cleric (essentially) devoted to Oaths, Laws, Good, and now apparently Redemption.
There is a lot of text there and this I think is the problem, you have a story that you want to tell about a character you have created and developed and it seems you DM just has no interest, in fact I would suggest that as he has run one published adventure and now wants to run a second dungeon crawl he probably really does not like or want to run Thai kind of game.
This isn’t a fault issue, it is just the way of table top roleplay games different people like different things. But you also have a lot there that feels like as a player you are trying to decide the narrative of your character.
The fact is you can’t force a player down a particular route, not unless you want a very railroad game, which no one will enjoy. I suggest taking your character off of the player, making it an NPC player ho sets the task to the rest of the party, and see if they follow it or not, have your DM roll their own character starting at the same level as yours, and then just see how the game progresses, this may well be a story that never gets told. By religious g your dwarf from the adventure you can always write out a cool story for what he did, how he redeemed them, or failed to, and give it to your DM to make up the next stage of his adventure.
Choo-Choo!
You’re trying to control a players actions and you don’t seem willing to compromise as regards where you want your characters story to go. That’s textbook railroading.
Edit- After thinking about this a bit I’m editing this to not be so confrontational.
What if that guy doesn’t play the character the way you “think is right” ? If your answer is anything other than “he’s playing the character, I’m not, I have no control over that.” Then you’re kind of in the wrong.
If you’re going to dm, having a dmpc in the campaign can be one of the worst mistakes you’ll ever make. Having your personal character be in the game, especially a character you seem so very personally invested with, seems a huge mistake to me.
If you’re going to run a game or two, do that, but try not to use DnD as a personal story telling device. It doesn’t work well and will frustrate you and your players.
If you want to make a story about this character, just write it out. You seem to already know what you want that story to be.
good luck!
If I'm understanding this correctly (and do correct me if I'm wrong), this was originally your character, which is now set to be transferred to a new player, your previous DM.
My advice? Take him off the table and tell your DM-turned-player to make his own character. That is your character, and no one else has the right to decide how he is played. Shoehorn in the new PC however you have to, give your old PC a reason to bow out while you DM, and return to that PC once it's time for you to become a player again. If your old DM wants to play the same type of character but with his own flavor of RP, then he can roll up "Brunbi", Grungi's distantly related and previously unknown cousin; okay, I jest with that last bit, but point being he needs to roll up bis own character or else neither one of you are going to have fun (and if your old DM has a problem with that...then frankly, that's a big red flag to me).
Did your previous DM agree to play your character because they actually want to play your character, or did they really only agree to play this character because they low key feel they are being forced/pressured into playing your character because you are the DM and you seem to have made it pretty clear that your character and their story is the most important part of this campaign, especially since this player doesn't have their own character connected to your story and conveniently have the knowledge to play your character?
If it's the former, then you two need to sit down and properly hash out things so you two are on the same page. If it's the later, then yeah....I can't blame them for being difficult even if they aren't going about things the right way. You are basically saying "Play my character exactly like I want them to be played and don't play for your own enjoyment of D&D because being my character's puppet is your only purpose for being here at the table." That might be a bit harsh and not what you are going for, but that's what it is coming across as from what I can gather.
Maybe I'm missing some information here but regardless of the reason, you really need to sit down and talk to them. Tell them about your frustrations and what you are aiming for, and then let them express any frustrations and explain why they are being unreceptive to your vision of the character. Figure out if they really want to commit to picking up your character for this campaign. It's great to see how passionate you are about your character's story, but you are not the only one at the table. Everyone's enjoyment is important.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
The more I think on it, the more questions I'm beginning to have.
Why are you switching DM's partway in the campaign? To give the usual DM a break? To give you some DMing experiennce? Is there a rotating-DM agreement at the table? Do you even want to be the DM?
If you're going to DM, why are you taking over this other DM's game and storyline, especially on a temporary basis? Do you want to run this other DM's story, or would you rather run your own thing?
Lastly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're running Tomb of Annihilation. If none of the other players are enthused about this module, why are you are running it? Shouldn't you run something that you and the other players want, not just this DM who isn't even DMing the module he's chosen? If he wants to run ToA, shouldn't he run it himself instead of saddling it on someone else?
Obviously I don't know the dynamic of your table, but the more I look at this scenario, the more I'm starting to see red flags pop up. It may be that I just need to know more information to get an accurate idea of the situation, but I'm starting to think this whole segment of this campaign may be a mistake.
After reading through the comments and discussing the matter with the other players, I have come to agree that moving control of the Cleric to another player/former DM is unwise and unfair. The initial reason I thought transferring the ownership of the character, even it was only temporary, was to avoid the image of favoritism and give the previous DM a character they are familair with a reason to play in the short story arc/mini campaign that is set to occur. I have since approached the old DM about playing a character he himself could make and enjoy, and fully recognize how rude it was of me to ask him to play my character. I definitely had my head up my own rear about that.
I will clarify the following.
- By the middle of Descent into Avernus, the party players had agreed in conversation that they were unhappy with several minor points in the campaign. They were unhappy with the lack of loot, seeming railroading from the DM regarding certain actions the players wanted to take that were alternatives to what was specified in the campaign book, two players in particular were on the verge of quitting the campaign because they largely felt useless (Clockwork Sorcerer and a Swashbuckler Rogue being reduced to to Counterspell battery/Psychic damage dealer, and a stealthy sniper who's best hope was scoring critical sneak attacks at a distance.) In addition, there was something of a lack of time set aside for roleplay. The DM would regularly progress the scene without player consensus, (I personally cannot fault him for this but it is jarring that an offhand comment made by one player suddenly moves the entire party along the story without discussion, we sort of just rolled with it.) And while not every player had a lengthy backstory, several did in fact have backstories that were not expanded upon or remarked on.
-This led to the players fantasizing about what they would do *after* the end of the campaign, regardless of the ending they got. The party Paladin wanted to go to his home and report to the Temple of Tyr and check on his family. The party Sorcerer wanted to return to Waterdeep so she can study and enchant under the Blackstaff Archmage. The Druid wished to journey across Faerun. The cleric, my character, was in the middle of his own backstory quest to retrieve stolen ancestral goods so that he too could return home. At the most basic, the party wanted downtime activities. By the end of Baldur's Gate, when everyone was at least level four, they felt like they earned it. But then we went to Candlekeep, and the story moved on from there, often irritating the players. I will stress I cannot fault them for wanting downtime, since we were in the middle of everyone's lesser story, but the DM had a campaign book he wanted to run. After speaking with other players, they felt like much of what occured in Avernus was a railroad, and they wanted to explore the world and not be attached to a story. I don't blame them.
-By the time we had reached the Bleeding Citadel, the Shield was becoming more and more of a RP issue. Trying to corrupt and turn the party against each other, whispering lies between sleeping ears. It was great stuff. However, the party was getting tired of it. So, I suggested we figure out a way to get rid of it, either by sealing it away or destroying it permanently. After some rolls and discussion, it was decided we could try to dump it in a demiplane and throw away the key, or take it to the one place the Cleric knew it could be destroyed, at the Anvil of Moradin, which according to Forgotten Realms Lore, can in fact destroy Artifacts. This was the first time it was suggested. Other players liked the idea of a permanent end to the shield, as it corrupted people and cities easily. This eventually became the idea to go to the Heavens and destroy the shield, an idea the party latched onto and were actually enthusiastic about. What I initially thought was going to be a paragraph or two of downtime activity at the End of Descent into Avernus, instead became something that the party was looking forward to. It was at that point I suggested to the DM that we could turn that into a mini-campaign. However, the party was under the impression that I would run it. A vote was had, and I apparently won it to DM that after the end of DoA. It was emphasized that when the heaven campaign ended, we would return to the Material Plane and continue with what the old DM had set up. Frankly, I feel bad about it. I think I stole the thunder or enthusiasm and all I initially wanted to do was tie up one plot hook and unhelpful story item.
-I will stress that I did not intend to turn this into a campaign or take control or glorify my character in any way. It was even because i wanted to avoid that very image that I felt like it was wise to at least offer another player the chance to take over the Cleric. My goal initially was simply to write in something to explain away a plot hook. However, as the idea took hold and I explained it in character, the players liked the idea enough that they wanted to join, and what was once a downtime activity had to become at least a handful of adventures, purely because they wanted to join and I did not think they would enjoy me monologuing about this for an hour. They wanted a story that made them feel heroic and I felt obligated to give it to them.
-My goal for this story is to provide the party with the chance for the following.
Let them roleplay. This felt rushed and irregular, and the game moved quickly. At least until combat started.
Give them the chance for loot. Throughout the entire of Avernus I can count on one hand the number of times the party received any rewards for their fighting and effort. Attempts to loot and explore and investigate were made and it was only four times did anything ever come up that qualified as loot, be they bearded devil halberds or soul coins or what have you. They felt like they were not being sufficiently rewarded in treasure
Give them a chance for character growth if they want it. The paladin is haunted by the death of a partner from his temple. I plan to give him the chance to say a last goodbye to a fallen friend. The Druid has never felt at home in their world, always moving, never staying long enough to make friends. Their player told me they wanted to change that, and I plan to give them the chance, through the story, to show that. The Rogue wants to prove he is more than just a family name, and legitimately fell in love with a succubus, and wants to settle down with her. I plan to give him the chance for that. The Sorcerer badly wanted to just feel useful. I very much plan to give them that. All the cleric wants to do is simply see an evil destroyed and see if his own god sees him as worthy anymore.
I don't want this to be the Cleric's moment to shine. Forgive me if that is how it came across. I want the party to shine and feel like heroes, and I've prepared dozens of pages of situations, encounters, scenarios, and so on for that purpose. And if all they want to do is spend a session relaxing in some sort of heavenly sauna and make jokes, I will be happy to help provide that.
I would like to thank everyone who commented and replied to this thread, You have helped me greatly.
I will also say for anyone concerned, I am not intending to meddle or otherwise interfere with what the DM has created. I plan only on a level 9 to level 10 adventure, with no relevance or bearing on the larger plot. Entirely self contained.