Edit: it's a bit later, I was able to talk to my DM, with a much more robust story upfront, and it went a looot better, I also talked to some of the players who've already been playing and they said the DM wasn't railroady at all. It seems the DM was a liiiittle to excited to introduce a new character into their world, and ended up initially drowning out my voice. Since my character's rework the process has been smooth sailing and a lot better. Thanks to everyone that offered their advice! Y'all's suggestion of talking to other players and revisiting the backstory helped out a lot!

I am a new player joining an already running campaign, that is supposedly rather lighthearted with serious undertones, and I have some growing worries while I am in the middle of trying to create my character.

My Dm has been deeply involved in the creation of the backstory of my character, which I agree with the concept of, as I am trying to create a character in an already existent world, and we need to make sure that the character fits. However, throughout me trying to describe what I am imagining for my character, the DM regularly suggests their own twists and ideas, usually very stubbornly, down to very minute details, resulting in a character's backstory that I find I don't really enjoy. To summarize very briefly, I had an idea for a bard in a family of former famous singers, whose childhood home was destroyed by a negligent mage, and his recovery from his family's financial ruin and reclaiming his families fame was his main driving force. A lighthearted tragedy. Now my character's back story is that his race is highly discriminated against and hunted (I admit I actually like that part), and he's from a backwater village. He tried to go out into the world as a bard, discovered about the world's prejudices about him, failed, ran back home, bringing bounty hunters to his village, who raze it and try to kill him, his mother tries to escape with him, but is shot in the back right as she activates a teleportation circle. My character comes into the campaign 2 years later

My dm is (seemingly, I am new so I don't know if this is normal) so controlling that when I said that I wanted the character's mother to tackle him into the portal because he was about to be shot by the bounty hunters, taking the arrow in his stead; They insisted that she was actually about to go through the portal with him, and was shot in the back, saying it had to be the character's fault, and the mother choosing to sacrifice herself instead of accidentally getting shot absolves my character of fault over her death.

Now the DM is asking for my character's greater motivations right before meeting the party. I feel as if the back story is setting up a perfect Man V Society conflict, and I very much want his main motivations right now for him to simply be to survive and prove the prejudices against him to be wrong, as that is the main way for him to rebel against the society that hates him so, and maybe kill the bounty hunters that killed his mother. My DM rejected this idea outright, saying: Survive isn't a good choice because once I'm in the party I wouldn't have to worry about that anymore (even though she said I'd constantly be hunted down).

My main worry is that my DM is being over-controlling, and I'm gonna end up with a character that I can't role play, and most importantly, is made more for my DM's fun rather than mine; To the point where I greatly lose much enjoyment in the character and game.

Am I seeing red flags? or am I just being a worrywart? Poll votes and comment replies are both greatly appreciated.

I think the Dungeon Master is being too controlling, I don't see how any of their suggestions are to the benefit of their overarching plot or the group's formation (which we don't know; with these sorts of post the caveat must be made that we only know one side of the story). While compromising with your DM is important, no compromise is worth playing a character you don't enjoy. I think you've got the right idea about them having more fun with the character than you. Is this happening to other players? They might just be trying a little too hard to help out a new player if it's just happening to you.

I would recommend you put your foot down and say "I'm sorry but there are core elements of the character that I'm not willing to budge on. Either they remain or I'll have to roll up a new character." And then see where it goes; if the same thing happens, you may find you and your DM incompatible and need to walk away.

No D&D is better than bad D&D. It's good that you're trying to find compromises and you may find some, but nobody will judge you for not having the energy to play creative writing tug-o'-war.

I agree, the DM is definitely being too controlling.

About the only thing I somewhat agree with is the character motivation. Just surviving is a very "here-and-now" goal, it sounds like the DM is looking for more of a long-term goal. You've hinted at it with "and maybe kill the bounty hunters that killed his mother" but the way you've stated it makes it feel more like a side-note than an actual goal. This should be a reason for being an adventurer. What is your character trying to accomplish? How do you see them getting there?

Just as an example, your character could be looking to travel alongside a group of adventurers looking to make a name for themselves. This way, being a bard, they could accrue a plethora of tales, stories, ballads, or other bardly means of storytelling which could be worked, perfected and then shared in various ways, thus creating a name for your character. From there, that could be leveraged as a means to gaining acceptance in a world where they are frequently discriminated against.

Nothing more than an example, though.

If I were in your shoes I would be looking to talk to the DM and express my concerns. Tell them that you feel like they're trying to dictate your character's backstory to you instead of working with you to craft it in a way that cements them in the world. The overarching plot of that scenario is where joint writing - the two of you working together to create something - shines, but the finer details like when and why your character's mother was shot should be up to you.

If the DM continues to insist then I'd excuse myself from the game. I want to play my character, not the DM's character, and I'd worry that the DM would start trying to tell me how to play the character at some point.

I think there's definitely some element of the DM taking over too much of the narrative here. In particular the aspect around the mother's death. 

In terms of the wider goal, I can kinda see where the DM is coming from in that surviving is quite a simplistic goal in a way (I actually liked your original backstory much better in that context! and it would have opened up for those wider goals). It also depends a bit on your level - e.g. a level 1 character is probably entirely motivated by survival, but as characters progress, I tend to revisit motivations - e.g. now that you have greater powers/abilities - what is your aim/motivation - I think it's good to see them grow and change during a campaign.

So There is a mixture of some concerning things and some I can sympathise with. I would say a lot of it potentially also comes down to how you communicate together. I think it is beneficial to have a one-to-one live conversation with players from time to time - especially if onboarding, or something major has happened to the character. Written messages doesn't always relay the same feelings or a are read in the way they were intended. 

So my advice would be to try and reach out to the DM and explain your concerns - but if you still can't get the space to play your character how you want, it might be best to bow out before getting in deeper. It can be hard to shake damage done to a relationship (dm - player or player-player even) if people only meet for sessions, so if you feel that sensation is still lingering, then it's not a great start to a campaign. 

Firstly, we don't know the tone or intent of these discussions that you're having. Different people have different definitions of "insists", for example; it could range from "didn't instantly back off when I disagreed" to "told me to accept it or leave", or anywhere between. To be honest, it's also kind of irrelevant - either you and your DM can find a workable compromise, or you can't. Who is being unreasonable, if anyone, is rather beside the point.

D&D is a collaborative game. You are supposed to be working together to create a story. You are meant to create you're own character, but there is definitely some give or take with the DM. The DM has to put your character into their world, and that means that some characters just won't work when they're first created. If, in my world, Goblins were feral, wild animals who happen to be humanoid in form (as in, head, two arms, two legs), then a Goblin Artificer isn't going to work. I might suggest a Kobold or Gnome, or perhaps a Barbarian Goblin instead. Obviously, most instances are more subtle, but the point is that the DM has to intervene somewhat. Additionally, it sounds like he wants to integrate your back story into the campaign. That is great, but that also takes compromise on your part - it has to work with what he has. Merely suriving as a personal goal is a very hard motivation to incorporate. All he can really do is have some random attacks, and that's not going to be very interesting for the character. Personally, if you were insistent, I'd allow it, but while everyone else gets intrigue, nemeses and cool spotlights, you're going to get the occasional drunkard picking a fight. I'll be concerned that that will be a regret and possibly a point of resentment later.

Which isn't to say the DM is entirely justified. There's at least one point that raises my eyebrows. But without knowing his tone, his thought processes and plans for the campaign, it's very hard to say what the actual situation is.

All that said, you do need to feel a connection connection your character. It needs to be yours, even after compromise. If it's not going to work for you, you need to speak up. The point of D&D, ultimately, is to have fun. If you're notngoing to have fun, there is no point. You just need to find out how to resolve the problem.

Resolving the problem could come in different ways. My wife wasn't connecting to her first character and found her boring. After several levels I sat down with her, and explained what a Bard was, how they do things, and the general gist of how to play her. When she realised that the entirety of her character wasn't "runs up to the nearest enemy and whacks them with her longsword until dead", she found it a lot more fun. Or maybe you just need to change your character up a bit. If you can't live with a character that is acceptable to both you and your DM, then it's best to move on and play with someone else.

It sounds to me like the DM wants to write a book rather than be part of a cooperative story telling adventure.  That said, it's up to you to talk with him and see if he will compromise.  Let him know your concerns.  If he's unwilling to listen or respect your own creativity then simply thank him for his time and politely bow out of the campaign.  

My guess is -- and I'm basing this on experience -- you'll find if the DM railroads the character backstory that much, they'll be doing the same during game play as well

I can only state that I was in a campaign where the party was subjugated by "killboxes" if anyone deviated from the DM's story, even unintentionally. Nobody made it to the end of the campaign because the four, who were left, left. So, I'm overly wary of such signs.

(On the inverse, I witnessed a campaign where the DM apologized for being railroad-y in a situation where they actually gave everyone the chance to do something about their impending predicament and the players all together rode that rail right into a wall all by themselves. The players wasted every opportunity they had while they were being subdued. The same DM let the players get on a boat out to sea when the players were supposed to go into town to start interrogating people. I guess the DM felt they must have railroaded the players when things happened to go as planned for once.)

The one thing I can think of is, maybe the DM didn’t want your mother so close to you at the portal is because she’s still alive. 
Anyway, I agree with the others that this seems a bit much. If it were me, I might stick it out for a session or two and see how things go. Could be that in play, it actually works out for the best, and you have fun. And if you don’t like it, and aren’t having fun, quitting is pretty easy.

There isn't a way to objectively or fairly judge the facts around your representation of the DM and the concerns you feel.  I would say if your experience with the DM is frustrating you and you are unable to address that frustration with the DM directly, you may want to take your game playing elsewhere.  It's entirely possible the DM is completely different at the table and they may be overdoing it in the pre-game work being done and when you actually sit down and play it'll be great.  It's up to you whether actually playing with the group is worth your few hours to assess whether it's worth your while continuing.  I will say that some established campaigns can be pretty baroque with almost their own in game language and references and jokes etc, and the DM wants a character that will integrate rather than disrupt the established dynamic.  But if that effort is frustrating you, you may find joining this group akin to starting an epic trilogy on the third book.  

Since D&D is neither a vocation or duty, but a pastime that is supposed to be fun, it's best to go with how you feel.  If you think the pregame experience has tested your patience limits, you have no obligation to continue.  On the other hand the DM is just one component of the game, there are other players and who knows? Maybe they run roughshod over the DM's "intricate world" and they see your character as a way to finally bring the party in line with the game world.  In the end, whatever the DM says about your character, you do ultimately get to determine what is one the sheet within the parameters of the game allowed.  If you don't like the parameters of the game offered, you're under no obligation to continue playing,

You and DM aren't communicating. I can't say if this because you or the DM because we only hear from you. That is not to say you are in the wrong, just that we can't be certain. What is clear is you are not happy with what is set. Approach the DM, saying after a a week, month, or whatever amount of time has past, you not been able to get comfortable with the character's background. Tell him you want to try reworking it. The DM has a good point that being active is more engaging for players and more compelling as characters, but a DM needs to listen to the players' desires. Since you emphasize your newness the DM maybe trying to help you build a background they think will keep you engaged longer. It is also possible that the DM is going force the plot down everyone's throat or it could be the DM wants to do something with the mother surviving, or (this being fantasy) being undead or resurrected, and thinks this will be more compelling. If so, he'd be right; you want to be active in character choice, but ironically you the player have been passive so it wont have the desired effect. Where your past interacts with the world the player should give deference to the DM, but where the background is independent of the world the DM is better off giving deference. So if humans are a slave race, you can ask to not be a part of that but if the DM is insisting, then likely you should adapt. If you want to come from a big family the DM can ask but should adapt. Backgrounds are a little fuzzier; eg being from a human noble family in a political intrigue camp set in the underdark, you may need a good excuse to be a weird human house among the drow, and in that compromise your father can't lead the house your mother has to, the drow being matriarchal.  One oddity is interesting and needs creativity to justify, but two is getting to strain credulity.  

A GM trying to tell me what my character's backstory and motivations are is a hard NO for me.

Author-DM alert. Run. Your backstory is YOURS. The DM can ask if you'd like to think about small detail alterations to make it fit into certain spots in their world, and ask if that still fits what you want. but they do not get to tell you your backstory.

If they're trying to control your backstory, you can be sure they will also try to control your actions during the game. This game is about you creating a character and stories, not playing someone else's.

I recently dealt with a DM like this. I told him repeatedly that I would not put up with him trying to write my backstory for me and he continued to cross that boundary throughout character creation, so I left the group. Life is too short to be in a game you won't enjoy.

It's kind of shocking just how much they changed your backstory based on what you originally presented them. I think the backstory they created for you also, to me, doesn't fit the advertised "lighthearted story with dark undertones", since it sounds like a very traditional grimdark backstory. I think that  a DM who offers tweaks to the backstory to help integrate you into the story more or create interesting conflict is good... I think having you play as an oppressed race is a really interesting concept and something that I've also leaned into in campaigns in the past... I had a lot of fun playing as a Goblin Bard in one campaign and directly opposing the way he was viewed as a monster by many NPCs.

I think a good DM would have tried to use your idea of a negligent spellcaster, then maybe reveal later in the campaign that what happened to you wasn't really an accident and now you have an opponent to seek out and get revenge. Maybe even add in the detail that your Mother died in the process, just to increase the tragedy. But what they've done here sounds like they basically just assigned you a character, which isn't inherently a bad thing, but the fact that they asked you to come up with a backstory on your own and then just fully rejected seemingly every aspect of it, to me, is a sign not simply of a controlling DM, but a controlling DM who's in denial of how controlling they are.

If you're even having to ask the question - RED FLAG.