Rocks Fall, Everyone's Atheist

How much power does a DM have over what goes on a Character Sheet?

ForeverDM here, running the final levels (currently lvl 18) of a nearly-four-year nautical 3.5 campaign. Heavily based on Savage Tide, the campaign path that was Dungeon Magazine's swan song. The party is now at the point where they're paying planehopping visits to the (homebrewed) pantheon, trying to recruit the gods themselves into an alliance to go punch the goddess of the elves until her alignment changes back to Good.

They have commitments from the triumvirate of not!Aztec gods, one of whom is the local LE bat-faced god of volcanoes, fire, and death (important later). On their way to sign up the CG mermaid goddess, they took a planehopping wrong turn and wound up in the realm of ENTROPA, the Evil goddess of temptation, memory, fate, and time. Here, something happened that is splitting the players IRL.

Party:

-the Swashbuckler: Errol Flynn with a chip on his shoulder. Captain of the party's naval fleet, hunts down and murders pirates.
-the Cable: comes from a dark alt-future where the elf goddess' plans succeeded. Fell from grace, cut a deal with Entropa (the kind of deal that gets worse all the time), and was thereby hurled back into the past so he could try to change the future.
-the Robot: warforged champion of the not!Aztecs, laid dormant for millenia until the party found & activated him.
-the Grouch: Dour & pessimistic nautical type, he converted to worship the not!Aztecs' Good couatl/phoenix goddess after a reincarnation experience.
-the Gnome: carefree, sprightly druid whose will has a core of steel, she follows the hardassed LN god Neptune.

IT HAPPENS: So they accidentally find themselves in the presence of Entropa, the cosmic dfc fey loli who eats the thread of Time to feed her own increasing youth, corrupts the aged by tormenting them with memories, etc. Unruffled, they make their pitch.

>Basically, join our alliance to beat the elf goddess back into sanity.

Entropa: "I won't help you. Get out. Or... waaait. What will you... give me?"

The Cable says,
>"No! It's a trap; this chick is bad news, and she'll take more than you can afford to give! I know this from dark and gritty personal experience!"

The Grouch and the Gnome, both of whom thought they were volunteering to "stand between their loved homes and the war's desolation" as it were, don't listen to the Cable and volunteer themselves for the bargain (sight unseen). Entropa gives each of them a lascivious, lingering, draining kiss, and steps back looking pleased with herself.

After these 2 PCs both made their decision, and (figuratively) signed the contract, I announced: "Both of you lose 4 points of CON each."

>ok, no problem.

"Also, the Deity slot on your character sheet is now blank."

THIS is the moment where it hit the fan.

>WTF? You never said that would happen!

Yeah, that's the point! You made a Faustian bargain, and got ripped off in the fine print!

>You can't unilaterally do that to my character. I worship _so-and-so_ and never offered worship to Entropa.

Dude, you basically bowed the knee to her, willingly giving yourself as a sacrifice, letting the blow fall on you to Save The World. That feels like worship to me.

>In my heart I still follow _so-and-so_; I haven't cut myself off from them!

Do you think _so-and-so_ isn't instantly aware of what you've done, and cut themselves off from *you*?

>This is the job we're supposed to do! We were explicitly tasked with making an alliance of gods to save the world.

And it will leave you permanently changed. You can't just bomb around making deals with gods and not have your life altered in the process!

>Oh? How come you didn't screw us over like this when we made a deal with evil bat-faced volcano god?

That's actually a pretty good argument. Nonetheless, all he ever said was, "Prove your strength: fight my minions, and I'll join your alliance." He didn't ask for your soul or anything.

>[the Cable speaks]: I told you guys beforehand that chick was bad news and you shouldn't trust her!

>So, can't we just spend a day fasting & praying, cast an Atomement spell, and go back to our old ways?

I don't want to create a world where only good things can happen to your characters and there are no long-term negative consequences; that's a handout/Monty Hall world, and it's not interesting.

>It's not; you've killed us like once each, and we didn't complain then.

So why are you complaining now?

>When Epic Exposition Mage NPC told us to go on this quest and ally with gods, he should have told us there'd be potential long-term effects like this!

The players are split. All the players whose PCs did not make the bargain, and I, think it's a perfectly sensible consequence & an interesting wrinkle in the plot. All the players whose PCs did make the bargain think it's a senseless, unprecedented, and ridiculous thing to do to characters they've nurtured since level 1; the equivalent of "Rocks Fall, Everyone's Atheist."

What do, Veeky Forums? And as a related, complicating question, is it a Good act for a paladin to knowingly fall in order to prevent a greater evil from happening (not that either character in this question is a pally)? I will also invite the players into this thread; if they post, I'll ask them to alias themselves in the "name" field.

It's k, your players are pussies.

>The players are split. All the players whose PCs did not make the bargain, and I, think it's a perfectly sensible consequence & an interesting wrinkle in the plot. All the players whose PCs did make the bargain think it's a senseless, unprecedented, and ridiculous thing to do to characters they've nurtured since level 1; the equivalent of "Rocks Fall, Everyone's Atheist."
I think it is reasonable... as long as it isn't permanent. It should be reversible if that's something they want to do. They make the big sacrifice, change fealty to this new chick, do the thing, and then turn it back afterwards. That seems reasonable to me. Permanently divorcing them from their gods for saving the world is some bullshit though, you'd think said gods would be on-board with their noble sacrifices since it will save everyone (or so you've made it sound). Maybe have the old gods slip them something under the table, all "I can't be seen with you right now, but you're alright with me, talk to me after the thing".

This is pretty similar to a "Paladin Falls" moment. If a character's deity is primarily based on who they swear allegiance to rather than who they truly worship (which should always be up to the players) then the DM should probably make that clear. Also, what's stopping the player from just returning to their previous deity and explaining himself? It's just not a well put together twist or challenge for the party. It comes across as railroaded and forced which is why the players are pointing out everything that's wrong with it.

Simple, tell them the truth. Everything happens for a reason, sometimes that reason is that your stupid and should feel bad.
>Blatantly evil goddess who is obviously a fan of trickery
>Guy who ACTUALLY made a deal with and a has first hand experience about why that's a dumb fucking idea
>"Lol, it's okay. We'll totes pledge ourselves to you without even attempting to find out the consequences of doing so are."
>They are screwed over despite the numetous warnings
>Complain
What in the flying fuck did they expect? A pledge of loyalty and a complimentary blowjob free of charge?

>How much power does a DM have over what goes on a Character Sheet?

Limited.

1) The DM has total control over making sure that the numbers correctly add up.

2) He does not have any control over the character's initial starting alignment but the DM is allowed to dictate an alignment change provided the character has been acting in accordance to what the DM considers to be the new alignment (i.e., the DM gets to decide what is Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic at his table, though if it's significantly different from the D&D norm then he should inform the players beforehand).

3) Finally, the DM has total control over whether or not the character has had any interaction with any NPCs; for example, a DM can rule that, no, your character did not "train under Raistlin" or "beat Drizzt in swordfighting".

Other than that, the DM has no control over the character sheet.

They swore their souls away. If they go back on it and their old gods agree they could well start a war between the gods. Now doing shit to recover their souls, that's the shit of ADVENTURE.

Souls are big fucking deals. For now, they are fucked. ENTROPA is a bitch of a goddess, I like her already.

Your players are pussies and need to get over it.

The warning signs were there, and to agree to a bargain sight unseen with an evil goddess seems colossally stupid in the first place. Shove your foot firmly up their collective arses and tell them it's a binding contract.

Does this fundamentally change the characters? I would say not. They can still worship their old deities, and keep all their well-honed values, but they will never watch over them in the same way they did before. Honestly, what does it matter what flavour of telly-tubby you've promised your eternal soul to? As characters, this is an interesting moment of development, are they so weak as to let this shake their morals and faith? Stick to your guns OP, there's a lesson here to be learned about dealing with evil gods.

>What in the flying fuck did they expect? A pledge of loyalty and a complimentary blowjob free of charge?

How about a saving throw or a warning?

These are 18th level characters. They would be extremely high on their respective god's radars. If they were seriously about to enter into a bargain that might endanger them, they are at a point where a servant of their deities, if not their deities themselves, might intercede to at least warn them of the potential consequences of their actions.

I'm also not hearing OP mention anything like allowing a Sense Motive check to see if the goddess had potentially catastrophic ulterior motives for them personally.

OP fucked up. Badly.

>I'm also not hearing OP mention anything like allowing a Sense Motive check to see if the goddess had potentially catastrophic ulterior motives for them personally.

Or, for that matter, OP suggesting that perhaps they should read the damn contract before signing it. Some of these characters presumably have pretty high or at least decent Wisdom scores, and would have known better, even if their players didn't.

OP here, this is good debate. I'm hoping the players themselves will log on and add their perspectives.

>Evil goddess of temptation, memory, fate, and time.

That by itself is giant warning of "Be fucking careful."

And signing a contract sight unseen is the fucking height of stupidity, especially when the stakes are the "whole fucking world."

Hell no.
It was obviously telegraphed via the narrative and the other players figured it out.
One even tried to stop them.
Not the DM's problem those players risked their precious characters with no forethought or consideration whatsoever.

It's maddening. DM crafts such a great opportunity for characterization and these two idiots blow right through it then want backsies because they couldn't be bothered to stop and think.

NEVER SIGN A CONTRACT YOU DONT READ. EVER.

ANYONE WHO DOES THIS DESERVES EVERYTHING THEY GET.

People like this are the ones who don't read terms and conditions and then bitch when they're in the hangman's noose

To clarify: there was no physical, printed contract. Entropa just said, "I could help you out in some vague and unspecified way. Want in?" [purse lips, arch eyebrow]

The item you're describing is a Phylactery of Faithfulness. The Robot is the only character who has one, and he wasn't ever interested in the bargain in any way.

>How about a saving throw or a warning?
Try reading. They had warnings from the other guy who made a deal.

>Didn't even get an actual contract from the EVIL GODDESS OF FUCKING TEMPTATION, written or otherwise
>STILL pledged their immortal souls
Holy shit, where did you find these people?

>loli

Fucking dropped. Hope you die in an AIDS fire, user.

Arguably wouldn't the DM have control over afflictions and negative statuses?

>The item you're describing is a Phylactery of Faithfulness.

You don't need an item for this. 18th level is a fucking huge deal. No human who ever historically existed on Earth was higher than 5th level according to 3.5's systems. Most of the great tasks of heroes of mythology, like Merlin or Gilgamesh, can be replicated by 10th level characters. Every single one of Jesus' miracles can be accomplished by a 15th level Cleric (see pic).

18th level is the point where the gods start taking a personal interest in the characters. They're probably still too busy with celestial matters to appear directly most of the time, but they're going to have a designated servant who's going to be keeping an eye on things and make sure that the characters don't do stupid things. PARTICULARLY when another deity is involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm normally someone who's fully in favor of "you rolls your dice, you takes your chances" rules, but in this case, particularly if the players are actually at a point where they're bumping shoulders with deities, then maintaining verisimilitude is more important than cackling gleefully while my players fuck up yet again. And I find it difficult to suspend my disbelief that the other deities wouldn't intervene somehow.

At least one "are you sure" would have been appropriate, as well.

You mean such as poison or disease? That falls under "making sure the numbers add up".

>the gods should have intervened to prevent the PCs doing what they wanted with /their own/ souls
Talk about lacking verisimilitude.

This is the player of the Robot mentioned in the OP.

As stated, I thought the outcome was fair. They made a deal with a CE goddess of LIES and TRICKERY. They made the deal without reading the fine print, and they got screwed.

Part of the problem, I think, is a split between the personalities of the players behind the characters. The players who took the deal are, IRL, more the Disney type of person, and not nearly as cynical as the rest of the group (including myself and the DM).

My personal feeling on the matter is that things should stand as they are, but to give them a way to get back in the good graces of their chosen deities. The obvious choice being an Atonement spell.

This thread is far too fucking awesome. Requesting responses from OP's players

Not prevent, just warn them so as to make sure that the characters and their players can give INFORMED consent. Free will doesn't disappear just because Uriel pops in and says "hey, guys? The Big Guy Upstairs wants you to know that you should probably read the damn contract before you sign it."

Or, y'know, as a DM, say "are you sure?" and give the players a chance to reconsider their decision to sign away their souls sight-unseen. The DM's job is to be able to predict and realize when his players are about to do something that they probably will regret immediately, signing away their souls and having their gods abandon them is certainly something the DM should have been able to predict as something they would find problematic. Especially after 18 levels worth of campaigning and with a climax that is specifically about getting the gods together in a grand alliance AND with the characters having already previously made a deal with another evil deity that didn't result anything nearly so permanent.

The players fucked up, yes, but so did the DM.

Please tell me Mr not!Aztech Robot that you wield a macuahuitl because despite being a primitive chucklehead weapon are badass.

The deal went down in ENTROPA goddess of lies and treachery's living room. The Doorman, tells Uriel to fuck off, he has no power here, and at the very least buys enough time for his mistress to complete the fuckening.

He had a flaming burst macuahtil until they tripped across an artifact-tier Brilliant Energy sword.

The other evil deity gave specific terms.
This one gave no terms and two PCs, after 18 levels of campaigning, agreed blindly.
It's decidedly a failure on the players part, but only because they're now bitching and moaning about their actions having consequences.

Which brings us back to: the DM should have known better.

Sounds like a perfect Fall.
They think they're justified, in pride and anger and pain refuse to admit their misdeeds, and are cast out by their Lords/Ladies.

Applaud their roleplaying.

>Which brings us back to: the DM should have known better.
Should known better than to what? Let his players fall into a trap that could have been avoided by using even the most observational skills possessed by a blind and deaf bat?

>The players who took the deal are, IRL, more the Disney type of person, and not nearly as cynical as the rest of the group (including myself and the DM)
I think this is a hilarious characterization of us as people, especially since one of the "Disney" players who bit the bait is your sister, my wife of 11 years.
OHHHHHH! THE PLOT THICKENS!
And actually, one of the things she said to me last night was, "I fully expected that, going in to any deal like this, I could have been struck down dead, instantly, no save." Which doesn't sound Disney to me...

>as a DM, say "are you sure?" and give the players a chance to reconsider their decision to sign away their souls sight-unseen
This may be the area I didn't emphasize enough, but again, I sure feel like the roleplay and the warnings of the Cable would have raised flags. And in the debrief both players mentioned that they were prepared for Serious Negative Consequences (viz. losing 4 points of CON)...

>And in the debrief both players mentioned that they were prepared for Serious Negative Consequences (viz. losing 4 points of CON)...

I think the fundamental issue is that there's a marked difference between the characters suffering some kind of mechanical consequence - loss of stats, negative levels, loss of actual levels, et cetera - and what you did, which is fundamentally alter something that is solely within the domain of a player, i.e., choice of deity.

It's one thing to make a conscious choice of doing something that will make your deity become displeased with you, it's another to tell your players, in the midst of trying to save the universe, that they've accidentally obliterated their character's chances at a decent afterlife.

Put into a real-world religious perspective, it'd be kind of like a Catholic, who has been sent to the Devil by the Pope himself on orders from the Metatron, to get help in some manner from the Devil, only to learn when they do so that God has damned them. For doing what all information indicated was something that God wanted them to do in the first place.

What was the correct choice here? Not getting the entropy goddess' help and just skipping her? Why? Had you in any way indicated that they didn't need the help of all the gods they could possibly get?

Was there a correct choice at all, or was this all just a Kobayashi Maru?

>What was the correct choice here? Not getting the entropy goddess' help and just skipping her?
They wound up in her yard because of, to put it simply, a "mishap" while navigating the planar realms of the deities, which I rolled randomly after they failed a navigation check.

>Had you in any way indicated that they didn't need the help of all the gods they could possibly get?
That is the most on-point accusation I've heard so far. Very good question. I don't think I made that clear.

>How about a saving throw or a warning?
They waived any saving throw.
>At least one "are you sure" would have been appropriate, as well.
>Or, y'know, as a DM, say "are you sure?"
This is true.
This was definitely an "Are you sure you want to do this?" moment.

>This may be the area I didn't emphasize enough, but again, I sure feel like the roleplay and the warnings of the Cable would have raised flags.
However, OP did make it sound like Cable did a better job than he could have to make it clear that it was a bad idea.

>I think it is reasonable... as long as it isn't permanent.
This whole post.

There is a line I love that couldn't be more appropriate:
You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

As I see it:

1. They've made the deal. They willingly waived any rights to their soul or to pledge their soul to another deity. They immediately lose any benefits from those deities, including direct communication.

2. The effects are like a divine curse, not a true change in their nature. While they live, their will is still their own. Their faith can remain with their chosen gods.
They can still worship, pray, and devote themselves to their old deity, it just won't net them anything but possible respect from the deity.
I wouldn't blank the spot on the Character Sheet, but add an asterisk.

3. Their old deities won't act to get their souls back. They can't take them without breaking serious rules. And they are far too smart to make a deal for them.

4. The PCs are Big Damn Heroes and can find a way to get their souls back.
Depending on the DM's ruling, I would say the Atonement spell cast by a suitably epic caster, after a brief quest, could certainly work.
I might even undo the CON effects if they haven't already worked around that.

5. Final Points: Not for the Prying Eyes of the Players.
No way will this Goddess of Trickery just let their intrusion be unpunished and this delightful subversion be undone easily.
But at the same time, this whole deal was unintentional, unplanned, and you don't really want to punish the players too much.
I suggest that the Goddess actually provide a real, tangible help which will be immediately withdrawn as soon as they reverse the effects with the Atonement.
My recommendations are:
First, she would teleport them wherever they want to be. At atonement, they get transported immediately back for mocking and a wristslapping.
Second, perhaps she sends a minion of considerable power with them to aid them. At atonement, it no longer serves them and will actively, secretly pursue Her desires despite having faithfully, friendly, and loyally serving them before. Before atonement, sense motive would reveal that the minion honestly wants to serve their cause (because that was it's mission). After atonement, the minion remains acting like the friendly and loyal companion, even speaking for them and defending them to Entropa when teleported back, earning them a lashing and "banishment" along with the PCs.
Third, I would grant them some particularly amazing artifact that would aid them in recruiting other Gods. Perhaps a safer transport, or a charm to aid divine diplomacy, or simply perfect invisibility cloak. At atonement, the artifact explodes, doing nonlethal damage.

Cable is a player. His warnings inherently don't carry as much weight as anything the DM says.

I don't get it. You have a chaotic god of trickery and lies, offering to make a deal with you, and a trusted party member who has dealt with her before telling you about how she can't be trusted. What more is the DM supposed to do, without just telling you exactly what will happen ahead of time?

>Savage Tide
Strike one
>Loli elf god
Strike two
>All the signs were there, even though she was enigmatic as fuck
Strike three.
Even if your players are shit players, GM is shit GM.

You're missing the most important part, which is veto power. The GM doesn't get to dictate what goes on the player's sheet, but he does get to say "No, your chaotic evil assassin won't work in a party with a LG Paladin and a neutral good cleric of life. Roll something else instead."

>How much power does a DM have over what goes on a Character Sheet?
DM has as much power as the players are willing to give them. Piss off your players and there's no game. The converse is also true: if your players piss you off, there's no game either.

Your post is tl;dr so I'll just leave the sage advice of "communication is key."

In my opinion, this is a delicate issue that I think has been answered by you here and by another user here So, they didn't seem to know that they didn't need every god/goddess' help to complete the goal, so I'd say give them a way to redeem their souls like said in 4. Let them cast atonment and then give them some kind of quest to do. If you really have to, even keep the -4 Con to show that actions have consequences, but not all consequences are irredeemable.

In settings with multiple gods, aren't you allowed to be polytheistic?

If not, you could do the whole "Well you cheated on your god so can you really expect them to trust you after that?" Though really that should only apply to clerics/paladins/what have you.

You shouldn't be trying to trick your players, it isn't you vs them.

The GM wasn't trying to trick the players.
The evil goddess of temptation, known for trickery and lies, was trying to trick them but before she got a chance to, they tricked themselves.

Seriously.
>"If I help you, what will you... give me? I-"
>"Take us."
>"Really? Just like that? Not gonna ask any-"
>"Shut up and take us already."
>"The subtle consequen-"
>"Yeah, yeah. Whatever. We agree. Take us."

I think there's a difference between worshipping several gods and making a deal like this with a god who is (I'm making assumptions) of an opposing alignment to your gods.

No offense OP, but the gods in your world sound like a bunch of retards. An 18th level character in service to a deity is a pretty big deal. Would they really just say "You made friends with that evil skank. I'm not talking to you anymore."?

>actually reads the terms and conditions whenever a new windows macintosh update comes by

...

Well, it seems to me that you made the game unfun for half your players. I would advise you to give them the chance to get their souls back and defeat a champion of the evil goddess in order to do so.

Usually, I'm leery of shit GMs complaining about players making 'bad decisions' by obtusely tricking them into making said action.

This is not one of them, the players explicitly were told this was a shitty god and took the faustian bargain.

>triumvirate of not!Aztec
>not!
>notnot
I don't recall the exactly the aztec gods being a triumvirate.

>Not enjoying the evil dfc loli goddess of temptation
Are you some kind of sexual deviant or something?

>What do, Veeky Forums? And as a related, complicating question, is it a Good act for a paladin to knowingly fall in order to prevent a greater evil from happening (not that either character in this question is a pally)?
I'd say it is, if the player plays it right.

That being said, I'm biased because I'm also a forever DM and am running a game with an actual Paladin in it, that is slowly spiralling to the apocalypse as someone has pissed off the gods on a cosmic scale and they're (including some lawful and good ones) about to unleash the 10 plagues of Egypt turned up to 11; so the Paladin will have to decide if it's more important to serve his Godly Liege (The especially vengeful Heironeous.) or to protect the innocents who lay in his liege's warpath.


Basically, for a Paladin, I have two "fall" circumstances.
>1) He does something he believes to be evil.
If the does that, it's bye-bye Paladin status, maybe he can become a Gray Knight, or something along those lines. He won't be a Paladin anymore or ever again. Even with Attonement, I have a homebrewed alternative class that takes away a few bells and whistles.
>2) He goes against his god's will.
Generally speaking, I treat Paladins kind of like Favoured Souls. They have their god on speed dial and vice versa. If they're about to do something evil, or something their god doesn't want, they don't have to ponder out of character about it, I have a safety net of "You feel your lord's overwhelming presence. He would not want you to kill this defenceless combatant.".
If they still go through with it, and it pisses the god off sufficiently, but from their point of view it's the right thing to do, then they temporarily lose their Paladin powers, until either they atone (Spell or mini-quest given by deity), or they can just decide that the god they served is wrong, and seek another member of the same pantheon to become their patron, someone who agrees with them. (Which, generally isn't that outlandish or hard.)

Ask "are you sure you want to do that."

I've said it like four times now. Particularly since, as the DM confirmed here, , he was not clear on the idea that the players shouldn't be getting the help of all the gods they can get their hands on.

Based on all the information the players had available to them, it was a Kobayashi Maru, a no-win scenario - either they don't get the goddesses help and so are missing a critical piece in their grand alliance and thus might fail; or they do and as a result lose their religion and possibly their souls.

I mean, sort of? But just as often I'm interested to see if it can happen. Keep in mind that I'm the sort of person who holds up Jayne from Firefly as an excellent example of Chaotic Evil that is nevertheless capable of working with a party if it suits his goals.

Then again I'm pretty much fully converted to 5th Edition now, where Paladins no longer have alignment restrictions with who they can and can't hang out with. Were this 3rd Edition, yes, I'd be likely to say something to the assassin...but I'd also be just as likely to say something to the paladin, and request they work together to find something mutually suitable.

Or just houserule away the alignment restriction on who paladins can and can't hang out with.

Your players excepted to change the world and not be changed in return. obviously, they have never heard of Newton's First Law.

>it was a Kobayashi Maru, a no-win scenario
Not that user, but as they ended up there by accident, it wasn't much of a Kobayashi Maru.
It was just an unfortunate event that was highly unlikely to immediately go their way.
But I see your point and they were justified in thinking there was a solution.
But immediately offering themselves up with zero details was never a good idea.

>Keep in mind that I'm the sort of person who holds up Jayne from Firefly as an excellent example of Chaotic Evil that is nevertheless capable of working with a party if it suits his goals.
On this point, we definitely agree, my brother.

>it was a Kobayashi Maru, a no-win scenario - either they don't get the goddesses help and so are missing a critical piece in their grand alliance

No it wasn't. Remember they were trying to get to a different plane entirely and ended up in her realm by accident. Recruiting this bitch was never even part of the plan.

>Ask "are you sure you want to do that."

Why in the fuck would this still be necessary when you have characters in game giving you concrete reasons not to do something? Why break the narrative to give out-of-character warnings when in-character warnings are already smacking them across the face?

>he was not clear on the idea that the players shouldn't be getting the help of all the gods they can get their hands on.

If they were never planning to go to this particular god's realm, and only ended up there by accident I think the implication is already there.

I refuse to believe that you can play with the same players for 4 years and be unable to fix the situation without resorting to Veeky Forums

Well he married one of his players, who's another players sister, so he knows nothing of Dm/player social conventions, and the fact that he's playing 3.5 is just disgusting anyway.

You can tell here by OP's tone, use of caps, and apparent personal stake in people not thinking his wife is 'Disney' that he's not a particularly well adjusted individual.

This is perfectly reasonable, can't expect actions not have consequences especially when dealing with gods/devils/demons.

Key point here. The DM is moderation to ensure everyone has fun and tells the games story. This obviously is a story half the group doesn't want told. They don't want to see the heros become bound to an evil godess because of their irl fuckup. (Which is also why we have stats that can reflect things we may not be good at rping out as a fallback.)

Don't punish the player, tell the story, and not just your story DM. If this is a no go, then its a no go.

from a certain perspective, the whiny players who can't accept repercussions to a decision that were very visibly telegraphed in advance are keeping everyone from having fun

Is your wife hot? I mean you did marry one of your players (something that is extremely different from a simple GF).

How do you know he didn't marry her before she became one of his players?

I don't, but if he did, he can tell us that himself.

Thing is whats been said they aren't against punishment, just THIS one.

Sounds like a real easy fix honestly to keep the fun moving along. Think the DM should ask them for ideas what they would consider reasonable after such a deal.

Sometimes Disney can get pretty dark, and the players might suprise them with what they are willing to play.

If that were the case, than this man is living the dream. Has a consistent game with fellow adults, AS well as a wife who shares his hobby and passion.

If it was >Player>Wife then it would be a bit weird but acceptable.

However if it was >Wife>Player than yeah, good fortune for that guy.

But honestly this isn't answering the important question of, is his wife hot?

>tfw know 2 different guys whose wives play tabletop with them
>tfw neither of them is me

>Sometimes Disney can get pretty dark

Like that time where they opened up a movie with thousands or even millions of people either drowning or being crushed by water, for example.

Disney's body count is immense.

>Is your wife hot?
You tell me, here's a pic

Truth

Willing deals don't get saves.

In character warnings from another player. I get why they wouldn't take that as seriously.

Yeah, I guess some people need a convenient plot device deva to descend from the heavens to tell them that it isn't a good idea to just blindly accept a proposal from an evil goddess.

You only take warnings seriously if the DM pauses the game, demolishes the 4th wall, and instructs the party on exactly what to expect?

How about giving them a Geas or something along that way? While your players should REALLY have seen it coming, i think they should get one last chance at redemption before their gods. That, and the fact i don't see a god letting them go a lvl18 char so easily, make em fall from grace and loose their benefits (whichever they got from their gods, that is) temporarily and make em work HARD to get those back.

Friendly advice from the user who wrote this post: If you rewrite your post, make sure you writeproof it.

How much power does a DM hav-
Complete power. What a pointless thread.

It helps if you actually read more than one sentence of the thread before posting there, chuckles.

But you're not wrong in the sheet issue.
As GM, I will take and change a cs as I see fit.

>get sheet back
>my character name is changed to Princess Cumslut
fuck

Grats on finding a group that puts up with the old sadistic, it's my game and your all pawns style.
Not many people willing to these days.

It's your fault for getting mind controlled by the whizzard.

you like it don't you?

Not OP DM
My bad forgot to drop the fake name from earlier.

Wasn't OP btw.

The idea is:
If your authority is unquestioned, you don't have to do petty displays of power, and if you don't do petty displays of power, then your authority won't be questioned.

"Not being a dick" is a form of symbiosis.

Lewd.

I'm just saying that another PC warning you doesn't seem like it's worth much.

it is if you can RP worth a damn, it's not "oh he's just another player, what does he know?" it's "Hey, this guy that we know, and have been traveling with for gods know how long, has dealt with this bitch before and knows just how many types of screwed we can get, perhaps we should listen for the 5 minutes it will take for him to tell us the who-what-where-when-why's of the things going to be shoved into our poopers"

Even if you metagame it, you should realize that sometimes other players figure out things you don't or have paid attention to details that you've missed.

Maybe if you weren't such a goddamn cumslut it wouldn't have happened

This is freaking hilarious. Yes, I wifed her before she came to share my Veeky Forums and /k/ hobbies. Am I well adjusted? Meh. Our group is one of the blessed few with very diverse religious and political views that can put all that junk aside at the table and just play the game. Is my wife hot? I think so, and that's the only opinion that counts. Pic is from Glendalough, County Wicklow, ca. 2006.
----------
So the party have a few Good deities left on their shopping list. Many of them have domains like Liberation, Succor, and Redemption. One of them even used to be evil himself (my Bahamut was originally created by Tiamat before he went straight). Thematically, that sounds like a great chance to have them learn a lesson about Repenting (Turning Away From), have an Atomement, and then take that lesson with them when they go confront the elf goddess about her Apocalypse-level misdeeds.

If they can redeem /her/ based on the lessons they learn, and not just bash her with pointy magical bits until she cries Uncle, it will have been a successful screw-up and I will buy them all a pizza.

Let them go back with a consequence. They fucked up bad, and it shouldn't be easy to get back what they lost.

Maybe have them able to break the contract at the cost of a few levels or something.

What you're dealing with is not a logical response but a knee jerk emotional reaction. What you have to do is assure your players that you AREN'T seizing control of their characters and that they AREN'T doomed for all time. Essentially, explain to them what the evil goddess did: she ate their fates or something. Their gods haven't abandoned them, but they are CUT OFF from the cosmic whatever.

I dealt with this kind of drama for years. Your first step is to calm them down and let them know it's OK. People tend to get attached to their characters and the thought of existential nothingness/all their good deeds coming to naught and them suffering for eternity tends to rub people the wrong way.

Pose this as just another challenge to overcome, a side goal.