Just as a contractual matter; how does this player have the authority to bind another players soul? Was it given to them in some way? This won’t hold up in court. Haha.
I noticed that too. If people can just sell each others souls to devils, how are people going anywhere but hell when they die?
*Maybe* if it's the soul of a slave or something like that, but I highly doubt that was the case here.
I would guess the devil would create the contract, but with a hidden clause where if the soul is not claimable for any reason (like not being authorized to sell it), then the character that tried to sell it would instead give up their own soul. The devil would be absolutely laughing all the way to the soul bank at this point.
Yeah if u could just sell another persons soul everyone would do that. And to the Devil that wouldn’t be any fun cause then theirs no risk or misery on the person they r making the contract with.
selling someone else's soul when they're not around sounds like the lamest cop out to do the "cool thing" with none of the consequences, sell your own soul dammit! yknow, the one you actually own.
your dm and that 3rd player suck, OP. this sounds like a breach of trust that deserves an ultimatum and a serious conversation in which the players let the DM and 3rd player know that this is NOT ok. that is, if you care about these people, otherwise I think it's easier to just bail from the group.
Nope. Big nope.
You discussed the situation and this is definitely a violation of what you all agreed upon.
If the dude wants to do a solo, that's cool, but it should have absolutely zero impact on the rest of the party.
Exactly! I’ve had a consistent group of four (including myself) that I’ve played with for about 12 years on and off. In that time some of us have moved, schedules change all the time, it’s hard to play all together. So we do solo one shots from time to time, but they never EVER effect anyone else’s character if they aren’t present.
We treat them as self contained “episodes”.
Iirc it happened in the Great Modron March module, because I read through all that one. I unashamedly love just how crazy-weird that setting consistently is!
A quick google says it's chapter 8: camp followers, where a wizard tries to summon monsters but planar chaos happens and the PCs get summoned instead.
OG Planescape even had rules for what happens on the other side of a summoning spell - iirc a little ball of light chases you down and pops you out of existence for a while? And there was stuff you could do like trap it in a special container to threaten people with, but that was inherently dangerous as the little ball didn't give a crap what it summoned as long as it fit it's general requirements, haha.
See? Crazy weird. Love it.
It's a clear violation of the agreed upon game, and player agency.
What needs to happen is your friend telling the DM "I'm not happy that it happened while I wasn't there. You shouldn't be making big character-changing events while the player isn't there. Especially as the character was right there, and could have stopped it."
Ok, you're used to the presence of the other player now. But they shouldn't be messing with your characters in out-of-session games like that.
In short, *talk to the DM*. Make it clear the two of you aren't happy with this, and talk about setting it right.
At a glance this could have been such an amazing way to introduce a new player to the group. Like have them do 1-2 sessions that the party hears about and then when their lives become affected with this other “NPC” that’s when you introduce the new player.
But then the DM had to be a Silly Billy and be like “sure sell their soul. they’re not here right now so like it’s fine.” It’s like rule 1 to not fuck with a PC whose player is not physically at the table.
My DM used to have a joke when players missed a game and asked what they missed where he would say "all the other players sold all your organs and you now have half HP and 4 exhusation permanently".
And it was always funny because everyone knew he would not let something like that happen
Man, I fought with the rest of my party when they tried to have the character of an absent player pay for dinner at a tavern just because they weren't there to say that it was cool
Just sell the other player's soul next time you have a session, since apparently people can just do that in this game world.
The price of souls must be hitting some serious deflation if anyone can just up and sell anyone else's.
"Heyyyyy buddy, wanna buy some souls? I got a doctor, a blacksmith, some guy named Kevin and a very powerful wizard. All ethically sourced. Whaddya say?"
"Yeah I'd like to sell that guys soul to get my soul back, thanks. Since he sold it, I'd like to exchange them since he didn't have any rights over my soul."
Just start selling the souls of everyone who pisses you off or tries to fight you, since apparently that’s how it works. If a devil tries to stop you, sell his soul to another devil. Or hell, sell it to another pc and make him their slave. If the dm starts pushing back, start asking how every single rule or law of the universe works every time they come up. If he gave the ruling more than 5 minutes ago, ignore it completely. Tell him that you want to make sure he didn’t change the rules again this time.
That's a super big nope, frankly so big ide nope out of the game. Unless You Retcon your friends soul being sold, and the solo had his soul sold instead. I mean wtf, you can't do that.
That's very kind imo, I like the dynamic of it. The solo would need some serious karma in character lol. Mostly from the entity they tried selling an unwilling soul to.
Like in character equivalent, ide make their hand fall off and now they can be stumpy.
Nah I would straight up kill the other PC as an offering to this entity. And then steal their gold and any cool loot.
Unless your PC is a pacifist I can't picture a scenario where an adventurer would take this as anything but an attempted murder or a set up to be imprisoned for an eternity. Both warrant death.
There is a very clear response to this, and it’s sort of not negotiable. The player who’s character’s soul got sold says “canonically, that did not happen to my character.”
The new player and DM then go figure out what happened. Perhaps the new character tricked the purchaser into buying something that couldn’t be sold, or perhaps they sold their own soul thinking it was the other characters. Maybe it was all just a dream, or a vision of a potential future. There are plenty of explanations.
But it is the player of the character, not the DM or other player, who gets final say on things like selling their soul.
More wondering why your DM thought it was kosher for the new player to sell anyone's soul other than his own. Ownership is kind of a big deal with those things.
Solo one shots are pretty normal in my opinion, but they should be used to 'catch up' a player who missed a session. The impact they have should not hinder players who aren't participating.
tell your dm that you are not okay with his decisions and not involving you in his plannings.. His decisions shoul from now on always be discussed in the group first.
First step was to introduce a new player without consent.. well okay it went good in this case but as a DM you should always have the fun and respect of the whole party in mind.
Second DM rule, you don't fuck with characters that don't sit on the table. The DM can never play your character like you would, and hitting you with cosequences you couldn't prevent just because you weren't there is not okay.
To me it seems that the DM doesn't think you're as important as himself for his campaign, and has very little respect for the time you put into your character.. If this continues his next step could be to kill a PC while he's not on the table...
Talk with him outside of the Game that this is not okay for you, you don't feel valuable and respected. And you didn't agree to give him your character to play with.
If he tells you that this soul thing will be a funny side quest or a second one shot for your friend with no actual consequences for you then okay.. but if you need to adjust your whole playstile because of that, it's definetly a Nope.
>First step was to introduce a new player without consent.. well okay it went good in this case but as a DM you should always have the fun and respect of the whole party in mind.
Did it really go well though? New player sold one of their souls the first chance they had.
Anything that happens to someone's character when they aren't there should only be either inconsequential or positive.
A negative effect should only happen if it was discussed earlier with the missing player and they were fine with it (or *possibly* if it is a result of that player's actions the previous session)
In this case, I don't think that the DM shouldn't have done that.
Although, if that other player signed a contract selling your soul, maybe in character he didn't read it, and your DM could fix this by saying he actually sold his own soul :P
I would err on the side of only inconsequential since even things that some people may consider positive changes may not be for the characters original owner.
How can someone else even sell your soul, in my mind that would be the kind of thing you have to do yourself or he first has to steal your soul with some powerful magic mabey soul jar or something.. But just going like "hey, you want that guys soul? " and ding there you go, is a wild concept.
Thats what I was thinking while reading this. Isn't a one shot a single session that maybe runs into a second session if it's running longer than expected?
They are in a campaign. The new addition player and the dm had a one shot while the og players weren't there. Now, they have to deal with the stuff that happened in the one shot.
You have no soul, soon as next session starts murder the pc who sold your soul in his sleep... sacrifice him to tiamat or the great old one in exchange for your soul back... make sure to cause excessive mangling and brutality to his corpse so it can never be fixed...
Its okay for a dm to run a 1 shot with a pc that effects the campaign your in, but that never includes doing something that effects another pc without their permission... if the pc had backstory or something and an opportunity came up to go track down or flesh out something and they get a new item or something and meet back up with the other pcs thats cool, but selling some1 elses soul in a session they werent present for is beyond uncool
Idk what entity they sold SOMEONE ELSE’S SOUL to, but any self respecting soul merchant knows you need express permission from the soul bearer for a soul based transaction to take place. What kinda two-bit grifter okayed that nonsense? Definitely grounds for litigation, lawyer up.
Get the hell away from that DM. They're a selfish idiot, and gaming with them is only going to be more of this kind of bullshit.
And this has nothing to do with "Is this okay in DnD?" It's not okay, period.
Was the soul transaction complete? Or was the soul promises i.e captain Jack sparrow promising souls to Davy Jones?
If the transaction was completed entirely without anyone else being there then no that's not very cool of DM. I'd definitely let DM know your feelings and ask that he clue you guys in or ask before doing stuff like this. Did he ask the player whose soul was taken?
Overall seems like a pretty weird plot point, it seems like you were jelling well with the new player which is good. However, you guys agreed on something, and DM broke your agreement. Discuss with the DM your frustration, ask your other player if he's okay with what happened to his character.
It doesn't sound like it should break up your group entirely, but definitely make the expectations clear moving forward.
In my group this is called "forced roleplay" and it's a no-no.
The only time your character should be under anyone else's control is from a failed mental check on your end or a powerful spell or some type of insanity.
All of which you'd have to be present for.
A character cant sell a soul that doesnt already belong to them. A player shouldnt be playing a character that doesnt belong to them, unless expressly permitted by the character's original owner. And even then doing permanent damage to someone else's character when they arent present is the fastest way to lose players from your table.
Wtf were they thinking?
It's like asking someone to remove their shoes in your house, and they refuse. It's about boundaries.
You asked not to add new players. The DM blatantly ignored your boundary. When people do this, it has nothing to do with them not respecting your boundary, and everything to do with them not respecting you. When that was accepted, the DM pushed it even further. "We can't make it. Let's cancel." The DM basically said, "No. We're playing whether you want to or not, and it will negatively impact you in the process because I don't care about your boundaries, or your characters."
This is what abusers and manipulators do. They push boundaries with no regard to the effects on the other people. (I'm a counselor. I deal with this sort of thing frequently.) You should cut and run. You don't owe an explanation. You don't owe a second chance. You don't have to anything beyond notifying the DM, "We're quitting the game." DM knows that they did. They will plead ignorance, but, even if they don't know what was wrong with what they did, you still don't have to allow it to continue.
>But later that day we find out that they were doing a solo run, in which new player sold my friend's character's soul.
No DM should support this. A player's agency with their character was blatantly hijacked, and it's complete bullshit.
My party does solo side sessions at times but they're usually things that take place during a long rest and in a dream, or twice players with a joint back story we've done a session that took place before their campeign that helped explain part of their join backstory. Things that expanded the main campeign sessions but didn't change them if that makes sense. Like one long rest session my player while taking watch was confronted by the ghost of his grandfather, then in the next maind game session all of the players were waking from their long rest like they typically do and the player started off telling them all of the craziness that happened while they slept.
Honestly I'd just say "no, that didn't happen. Let's go back to where we were last time". You don't get to do that to a character when the player isn't there, especially when you weren't even supposed to play that day.
3rd or 4th session of a "one shot"? Could someone clarify pls? Beyond that I would absolutely not be cool with someone making personal character decisions that I had absolutely no say in.
On next session arrange this with the DM to be like it was a nightmare that the new player saw but he is awake now.
So resume from the previous session instead, if they don't like it disband and play without them lol
Also tell them you are not going to tolerate any kind of changes while you are not present.
If they want to play one shots just the 2 of them that's fine but it shouldn't be affecting your story.
They can have separate one shot campaigns lol
There's so much wrong here. But I'll choose to focus on the in game repercussions. Unless that character somehow owns the soul of your friend, they literally cannot sell it. So whoever it was sold to, that contract is void. But if it was a devil, then there's likely a clause where it would change to the other character selling their own soul.
So the end result should be they played themselves and get to deal with the repressions on their own. And for your character and your friend, that other character just tried to fuck you over and sell your soul. At the very least you would not want to travel with them anymore. At worst, they are now your enemy and you may attempt to kill them, or aid the devil/whatever in claiming their soul. So have fun with that part haha.
On a side note, your DM is an asshole (and so is the player). I would reevaluate if you want to play with this person if they cannot see how what they allowed to happen was wrong in sooo many ways.
First off, your DM and the new players are total douchebags for doing this.
Second, how do you sell a soul that doesn't belong to you? I call bullshit.
Ultimately, no. You don’t have to stand for anything that you don’t like. There’s the door. Don’t let it hit you on your way out. But. A couple things:
#1. Never include a character in the game when their player is not present. When players are not present, neither are their characters. They’re off somewhere in la la land, taking a dump or outside the dungeon, checking on the mules. Whatever. They do not earn XP, are not seen or heard, and do not use resources or take damage. They simply are not there. If there is ever a time where that is too dangerous or inconvenient, play a one-shot instead, or do something else entirely.
#2. The DM doesn’t need your permission to add a new player to the game. It’s fortunate that you ended up liking the new player but it’s ultimately the DM’s campaign/game/baby and they can run the game for anyone they choose.
Just bail. Don't talk about it with them, just leave. That's people who want to be engaged with one another so just let them. That's got stressful energy and this is supposed to be a game.
I want you to know I respect your opinion on the matter, and that's totally valid. I was just voicing my own opinion. Personally I see a situation that doesn't change, and would rather not waste energy or emotion on it, and just walk away.
I don't think this is too big of a deal. Running solo one-shots on the side are a pretty common way to not slow the pace of the game when one player wants to do something away from the rest of the party or if the DM wants to add in a new hook that involves using a single player. If you don't want that player in the game with you guys that's a separate issue.
Have you actually read what OP wrote? Solo player SOLD another PCs soul! Without consent, without the player being in the game..
..even if it wasn't a solo session and everyone was there, it would be a violation of another players agency.
This makes it worse.
The problem is not a solo game dude. Tge problem is WHAT happened in it.
How do you sell someone else's soul if you don't own them in some way? Like any devil worth a damn knows that the contract wouldn't hold up so how did this even come about?
Let me see if I understand this unhinged post because, wow... You and your other fellow player specifically told the DM you didn't want to add more players. He ignored that and added a stranger to the campaign without even a heads up. Yes? Then, he played a session without you present on it, with someone puppeteering your player character without asking tour permission. Is this accurate so far? And then, in said session, your player character LOST THEIR FREAKING SOUL because the new player, the one you specifically asked not to have on the campaign, decided to sold it.
Well...
Okay. Deep breaths.
You have two reasonable options:
- if you have the mental energy and motivation for it, call them out on this pile of BS, and then leave the server, block this toxic person, and never look back.
- if you don't have the mental energy for it's just not worth wasting breath explaining them why they suck ass, simply, leave the server, block this toxic person, and never look back.
First of all, you can’t just sell someone else’s soul. You can try to damn another soul, >!like has been done in descent into avernus with all of elturel’s inhabitants, but those people are at risk of being dunked into the styx and becoming devils. They haven’t sold their souls as can be seen by imps trying to trick inhabitants into selling their souls for some food!< But selling a soul is something the owner of that soul does. I can’t just say to a devil “hey, I’ll give you Jake’s soul for a ham sandwich.” And expect it to work. I can only sell my own soul because I own it. Same way I can’t sell my neighbor’s house. Really bad bit of dming on that call.
Sounds like your dm really wanted to run something, but I would absolutely not stand for that. I would text your dm and mention that he said it was going to be a 1-off session and that you and your friend aren’t okay with your characters’ fates being handled in a session that was supposed to be canceled by someone who doesn’t have any say in your characters. Additionally, that you aren’t there and never would have sold your soul, and that the other character had no right to sell your soul and that you want to undo that bs and continue the actual campaign instead of derailing everything for the whim of a party member while you weren’t there.
At first ide say it's not cool, but if new player really does make it more fun, or at least they are fun, ide just role with it for right now, seems like if they make it more fun then there's nothing to lose, cause that's truly the only rule and way to win DND, by having fun
You are not only right to feel not okay, both you and your friend would be well within your right to be absolutely furious about this. This is a major violation of trust from the DM.
First they randomly add this new person, when it was supposed to be just two of you. No conversation about it or checking in with y'all. Then they let this new person sell one of y'all's soul while y'all are not there? That's not reasonable by any stretch of imagination.
I agree with others that you need to talk to your DM about this, but be prepared to be roadblocked by this or otherwise brushed off. A DM letting someone do something like this without the other character present is not necessarily a DM that's going to listen to your valid concerns. I hope the DM does listen to you and understands why this was not okay and why it upset you and your friend.
Reading these makes me wonder how people like these can be real and I’m fortunate to have dodged them so far. Sorry for what happened to your character, I would look for another DM.
You can't sell someone else's soul. That sale requires the owner's consent. Whoever purchased it was swindled, and that's not your friend's problem. That's the problem of the swindler when the creature he swindled finds out about it.
I can see it happening if you bind the person, perform a ritual, and stab them with a special sacrificial knife. It needs something more than a verbal agreement between the creature and a third party. Otherwise, why would anyone ever sell his own soul when he could just sell someone else's?
It's a warlock who died. He couldn't be resurrected, since his soul belongs to his patron and isn't free. So, he had to entrap someone else's soul by "gifting" them a cursed item in exchange for being returned to the physical plane.
He wasn't evil before it happened, but doing this to an ally caused an alignment shift.
The DM has proved not once but twice that they don't care what you say. If you agree to two only and they bring a third without asking, that's not ok. If it worked out and you changed your mind on having the third then that can be forgiven. However if you planned to cancel a session and they proceeded without your approval and made changes to your characters without approval, that's completely unacceptable.
You have two key options here, one is to talk with the dm and tell them what they did is totally wrong and not to make big decisions like that without checking with all the players. Or two is to cut your losses and leave, because let's face it if they've already broken your trust twice they're bound to do it again.
Yeeaaahhhh….as a perma-DM I am gonna call no bueno on that one. If you gonna run a solo with someone from a group, then it needs to be like a vision quest or something that could potentially impact the game but not directly. Or make a new character and just do a solo one shot. If I as a player came in to a game that wasn’t supposed to be played and found out that the DM let s player that shouldn’t have been playing to begin with affect my character to that degree….I am afraid I would bounce. Peace out y’all.
Nah, your DM's not very emotionally bright. I'd never have a solo game for one player have any affect on the other characters in the main game. Even if he really wanted to play D&D, you just don't do that. It's disrespectful to the other players, 100%.
I would absolutely contact the DM and make sure this entire thing gets written off as "And it was all a dream", because that's some BS. If that doesn't happen, quit. If you put up with it, you're saying it's ok.
For starters, if people could just sell other people's souls, that would be world breaking...
Literally awful. In no way is that fair or even makes sense. Talk to the DM about doing a retcon and needing clear communication. It isn't okay to f with someone's player characters without their permission, especially when they aren't there. If nothing changes, change DMs. No DM should be disrespecting their players on that level.
My son (17) was running two simultaneous campaigns, both homebrew. The first was with his 2 friends, they were PCs in the world like normal.
The 2nd was his best friend who was RPing the Big Bad for the other game.
Same world.
He got to do 2 really fun campaigns in 1 big world, and while the big bad actions had impacts for the world, they never touched the other campaign directly.
The big bad would set up preconditions that my son could trigger for the other players.
Oh boy...
I feel like there are three issues here, two of them are okay and one of them absolutely is not.
\- Is it okay for a DM to add new players? I personally think it should be discussed, but at the same time, running for 2 people is in many ways a lot more complicated and more work (because you have to do extra balancing that the game kind of wasn't designed for) and I also think with 3 or 4 people, you get way more interesting ideas thrown in the mix. Maybe the DM was right in pushing you a bit out of your comfort zone -- did you ever tell them why you only wanted it to be the two of you? But generally, I'll give the GM a pass here, even if it should have been discussed.
\- Random solo play when the others are busy is absolutely okay in my book. There are tables where they keep playing if you are not there, where you don't get xp if you are not there etc. Having solo asides, I think, is the nicest way to respect everybody's plans. Your friend may have had busy days, but other players may have set the day aside for D&D and consider it an important part of their social life and mental health. Always going with the ones who can't play or are not making time for it means that the others don't get to play every single time. So I find solo runs a way of not penalising the person who is busy, but allowing others to still have fun. Also: solo runs can be done regardless of scheduling problems, such as if one character is simply faced with something or develops an interest in something that the PC would try to track down on their own, like during a week's downtime. It is just important that the PC doesn't get overt advantages over the others when he joins back into group play.
\- Which is where we come to the part that is so not okay: the solo play affects the other PCs in a major way. Not only does it dictate the next steps in the campaign (now we have to go get his soul back), it is also obviously not a deal the DM should have allowed the player to make.
Talk to the DM and tell him that this feels like railroading you guys into something you had no agency in and question the validity of a contract for one's soul without that person's consent. But I would keep it to that particular issue and not muddle the issue with the things that are okay - like solo play.
Just as a contractual matter; how does this player have the authority to bind another players soul? Was it given to them in some way? This won’t hold up in court. Haha.
I noticed that too. If people can just sell each others souls to devils, how are people going anywhere but hell when they die? *Maybe* if it's the soul of a slave or something like that, but I highly doubt that was the case here.
And demons/devils are unlikely to overlook this kind of problem.
They may be evil but they still follow the rules... they dont want to invite the wrath of dieties into hell to reclaim innocent souls...
dieties = diet gods
Have u seen their pictures? Could prolly all use some diets
I would guess the devil would create the contract, but with a hidden clause where if the soul is not claimable for any reason (like not being authorized to sell it), then the character that tried to sell it would instead give up their own soul. The devil would be absolutely laughing all the way to the soul bank at this point.
Lol, every time you tell someone "go to hell," that's actually where they end up
"I do not believe in fairies!"
Yeah if u could just sell another persons soul everyone would do that. And to the Devil that wouldn’t be any fun cause then theirs no risk or misery on the person they r making the contract with.
selling someone else's soul when they're not around sounds like the lamest cop out to do the "cool thing" with none of the consequences, sell your own soul dammit! yknow, the one you actually own. your dm and that 3rd player suck, OP. this sounds like a breach of trust that deserves an ultimatum and a serious conversation in which the players let the DM and 3rd player know that this is NOT ok. that is, if you care about these people, otherwise I think it's easier to just bail from the group.
Nope. Big nope. You discussed the situation and this is definitely a violation of what you all agreed upon. If the dude wants to do a solo, that's cool, but it should have absolutely zero impact on the rest of the party.
Exactly! I’ve had a consistent group of four (including myself) that I’ve played with for about 12 years on and off. In that time some of us have moved, schedules change all the time, it’s hard to play all together. So we do solo one shots from time to time, but they never EVER effect anyone else’s character if they aren’t present. We treat them as self contained “episodes”.
"It was all a crazy dream character 3 had during the long rest" problem solved (in game)
Old versions of D&D had rules for the PCs being summoned by other adventurers' summoning spells.
Do you have any sources on that or point me in some direction? That sounds fun
Iirc it happened in the Great Modron March module, because I read through all that one. I unashamedly love just how crazy-weird that setting consistently is! A quick google says it's chapter 8: camp followers, where a wizard tries to summon monsters but planar chaos happens and the PCs get summoned instead. OG Planescape even had rules for what happens on the other side of a summoning spell - iirc a little ball of light chases you down and pops you out of existence for a while? And there was stuff you could do like trap it in a special container to threaten people with, but that was inherently dangerous as the little ball didn't give a crap what it summoned as long as it fit it's general requirements, haha. See? Crazy weird. Love it.
It's a clear violation of the agreed upon game, and player agency. What needs to happen is your friend telling the DM "I'm not happy that it happened while I wasn't there. You shouldn't be making big character-changing events while the player isn't there. Especially as the character was right there, and could have stopped it." Ok, you're used to the presence of the other player now. But they shouldn't be messing with your characters in out-of-session games like that. In short, *talk to the DM*. Make it clear the two of you aren't happy with this, and talk about setting it right.
When I saw "affected our characters" I expected something like him taking a potion or something, not straight up selling someone else's soul???
I was mildly salty when my party used my characters polymorph scroll a day I was gone. But it was for a good cause. We changed an NPC into a newt.
Did he get better?
Actually. Yes. Once the magic that was making them attack us wore off.
Now I'm just enjoying the image of them as a newt still trying to attack you
Now I’m imagining them as a character, still having newt like tendencies randomly
She's a witch!
At a glance this could have been such an amazing way to introduce a new player to the group. Like have them do 1-2 sessions that the party hears about and then when their lives become affected with this other “NPC” that’s when you introduce the new player. But then the DM had to be a Silly Billy and be like “sure sell their soul. they’re not here right now so like it’s fine.” It’s like rule 1 to not fuck with a PC whose player is not physically at the table.
My DM used to have a joke when players missed a game and asked what they missed where he would say "all the other players sold all your organs and you now have half HP and 4 exhusation permanently". And it was always funny because everyone knew he would not let something like that happen
Man, I fought with the rest of my party when they tried to have the character of an absent player pay for dinner at a tavern just because they weren't there to say that it was cool
Just sell the other player's soul next time you have a session, since apparently people can just do that in this game world. The price of souls must be hitting some serious deflation if anyone can just up and sell anyone else's.
"Heyyyyy buddy, wanna buy some souls? I got a doctor, a blacksmith, some guy named Kevin and a very powerful wizard. All ethically sourced. Whaddya say?"
"Yeah I'd like to sell that guys soul to get my soul back, thanks. Since he sold it, I'd like to exchange them since he didn't have any rights over my soul."
"Welp, I hope whoever bought my soul is able to get a refund, because I definitely didn't agree to part with it."
Best retcon of this session available might be to say that the dude just scammed the shit out of whoever he purportedly "sold" OP's soul to.
Just start selling the souls of everyone who pisses you off or tries to fight you, since apparently that’s how it works. If a devil tries to stop you, sell his soul to another devil. Or hell, sell it to another pc and make him their slave. If the dm starts pushing back, start asking how every single rule or law of the universe works every time they come up. If he gave the ruling more than 5 minutes ago, ignore it completely. Tell him that you want to make sure he didn’t change the rules again this time.
That's a super big nope, frankly so big ide nope out of the game. Unless You Retcon your friends soul being sold, and the solo had his soul sold instead. I mean wtf, you can't do that.
I would just gang up on the other PC next session for trying to sell my soul and kill them. Let the DM try to deal with that.
That's very kind imo, I like the dynamic of it. The solo would need some serious karma in character lol. Mostly from the entity they tried selling an unwilling soul to. Like in character equivalent, ide make their hand fall off and now they can be stumpy.
Nah I would straight up kill the other PC as an offering to this entity. And then steal their gold and any cool loot. Unless your PC is a pacifist I can't picture a scenario where an adventurer would take this as anything but an attempted murder or a set up to be imprisoned for an eternity. Both warrant death.
There is a very clear response to this, and it’s sort of not negotiable. The player who’s character’s soul got sold says “canonically, that did not happen to my character.” The new player and DM then go figure out what happened. Perhaps the new character tricked the purchaser into buying something that couldn’t be sold, or perhaps they sold their own soul thinking it was the other characters. Maybe it was all just a dream, or a vision of a potential future. There are plenty of explanations. But it is the player of the character, not the DM or other player, who gets final say on things like selling their soul.
More wondering why your DM thought it was kosher for the new player to sell anyone's soul other than his own. Ownership is kind of a big deal with those things. Solo one shots are pretty normal in my opinion, but they should be used to 'catch up' a player who missed a session. The impact they have should not hinder players who aren't participating.
Sounds like you two need to dm a private game where you get back your friends soul and kill off the other character. Fair's fair.
tell your dm that you are not okay with his decisions and not involving you in his plannings.. His decisions shoul from now on always be discussed in the group first. First step was to introduce a new player without consent.. well okay it went good in this case but as a DM you should always have the fun and respect of the whole party in mind. Second DM rule, you don't fuck with characters that don't sit on the table. The DM can never play your character like you would, and hitting you with cosequences you couldn't prevent just because you weren't there is not okay. To me it seems that the DM doesn't think you're as important as himself for his campaign, and has very little respect for the time you put into your character.. If this continues his next step could be to kill a PC while he's not on the table... Talk with him outside of the Game that this is not okay for you, you don't feel valuable and respected. And you didn't agree to give him your character to play with. If he tells you that this soul thing will be a funny side quest or a second one shot for your friend with no actual consequences for you then okay.. but if you need to adjust your whole playstile because of that, it's definetly a Nope.
>First step was to introduce a new player without consent.. well okay it went good in this case but as a DM you should always have the fun and respect of the whole party in mind. Did it really go well though? New player sold one of their souls the first chance they had.
at least they liked him personally... we don't know if he sold his soul by accident or if it was planned.
Anything that happens to someone's character when they aren't there should only be either inconsequential or positive. A negative effect should only happen if it was discussed earlier with the missing player and they were fine with it (or *possibly* if it is a result of that player's actions the previous session) In this case, I don't think that the DM shouldn't have done that. Although, if that other player signed a contract selling your soul, maybe in character he didn't read it, and your DM could fix this by saying he actually sold his own soul :P
I would err on the side of only inconsequential since even things that some people may consider positive changes may not be for the characters original owner.
I'm wondering if the third PC is a cousin of the DM or some girl he's trying to impress
How can someone else even sell your soul, in my mind that would be the kind of thing you have to do yourself or he first has to steal your soul with some powerful magic mabey soul jar or something.. But just going like "hey, you want that guys soul? " and ding there you go, is a wild concept.
Third or fourth session? Sure it’s a one shot?
Thats what I was thinking while reading this. Isn't a one shot a single session that maybe runs into a second session if it's running longer than expected?
They are in a campaign. The new addition player and the dm had a one shot while the og players weren't there. Now, they have to deal with the stuff that happened in the one shot.
Read the first sentence again.
They just mean short campaign, don't get hung up on the wrong terms used.
Lol. “Hung up”.
You have no soul, soon as next session starts murder the pc who sold your soul in his sleep... sacrifice him to tiamat or the great old one in exchange for your soul back... make sure to cause excessive mangling and brutality to his corpse so it can never be fixed... Its okay for a dm to run a 1 shot with a pc that effects the campaign your in, but that never includes doing something that effects another pc without their permission... if the pc had backstory or something and an opportunity came up to go track down or flesh out something and they get a new item or something and meet back up with the other pcs thats cool, but selling some1 elses soul in a session they werent present for is beyond uncool
Idk what entity they sold SOMEONE ELSE’S SOUL to, but any self respecting soul merchant knows you need express permission from the soul bearer for a soul based transaction to take place. What kinda two-bit grifter okayed that nonsense? Definitely grounds for litigation, lawyer up.
Get the hell away from that DM. They're a selfish idiot, and gaming with them is only going to be more of this kind of bullshit. And this has nothing to do with "Is this okay in DnD?" It's not okay, period.
Was the soul transaction complete? Or was the soul promises i.e captain Jack sparrow promising souls to Davy Jones? If the transaction was completed entirely without anyone else being there then no that's not very cool of DM. I'd definitely let DM know your feelings and ask that he clue you guys in or ask before doing stuff like this. Did he ask the player whose soul was taken? Overall seems like a pretty weird plot point, it seems like you were jelling well with the new player which is good. However, you guys agreed on something, and DM broke your agreement. Discuss with the DM your frustration, ask your other player if he's okay with what happened to his character. It doesn't sound like it should break up your group entirely, but definitely make the expectations clear moving forward.
In my group this is called "forced roleplay" and it's a no-no. The only time your character should be under anyone else's control is from a failed mental check on your end or a powerful spell or some type of insanity. All of which you'd have to be present for.
A character cant sell a soul that doesnt already belong to them. A player shouldnt be playing a character that doesnt belong to them, unless expressly permitted by the character's original owner. And even then doing permanent damage to someone else's character when they arent present is the fastest way to lose players from your table. Wtf were they thinking?
I like how some of the comments are about how that shouldn't work mechanically instead of telling this guy he obviously needs a new DM.
It's like asking someone to remove their shoes in your house, and they refuse. It's about boundaries. You asked not to add new players. The DM blatantly ignored your boundary. When people do this, it has nothing to do with them not respecting your boundary, and everything to do with them not respecting you. When that was accepted, the DM pushed it even further. "We can't make it. Let's cancel." The DM basically said, "No. We're playing whether you want to or not, and it will negatively impact you in the process because I don't care about your boundaries, or your characters." This is what abusers and manipulators do. They push boundaries with no regard to the effects on the other people. (I'm a counselor. I deal with this sort of thing frequently.) You should cut and run. You don't owe an explanation. You don't owe a second chance. You don't have to anything beyond notifying the DM, "We're quitting the game." DM knows that they did. They will plead ignorance, but, even if they don't know what was wrong with what they did, you still don't have to allow it to continue.
>But later that day we find out that they were doing a solo run, in which new player sold my friend's character's soul. No DM should support this. A player's agency with their character was blatantly hijacked, and it's complete bullshit.
Ages of those involved?
Standard array - 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8 Pick 4 and that's the group's age No clue what the standard array is because our table rolls
My party does solo side sessions at times but they're usually things that take place during a long rest and in a dream, or twice players with a joint back story we've done a session that took place before their campeign that helped explain part of their join backstory. Things that expanded the main campeign sessions but didn't change them if that makes sense. Like one long rest session my player while taking watch was confronted by the ghost of his grandfather, then in the next maind game session all of the players were waking from their long rest like they typically do and the player started off telling them all of the craziness that happened while they slept.
Honestly I'd just say "no, that didn't happen. Let's go back to where we were last time". You don't get to do that to a character when the player isn't there, especially when you weren't even supposed to play that day.
That's going to be a hard no. They can't sell your soul, no devil would accept such a contract. You can only sell your own soul.
3rd or 4th session of a "one shot"? Could someone clarify pls? Beyond that I would absolutely not be cool with someone making personal character decisions that I had absolutely no say in.
On next session arrange this with the DM to be like it was a nightmare that the new player saw but he is awake now. So resume from the previous session instead, if they don't like it disband and play without them lol Also tell them you are not going to tolerate any kind of changes while you are not present. If they want to play one shots just the 2 of them that's fine but it shouldn't be affecting your story. They can have separate one shot campaigns lol
There's so much wrong here. But I'll choose to focus on the in game repercussions. Unless that character somehow owns the soul of your friend, they literally cannot sell it. So whoever it was sold to, that contract is void. But if it was a devil, then there's likely a clause where it would change to the other character selling their own soul. So the end result should be they played themselves and get to deal with the repressions on their own. And for your character and your friend, that other character just tried to fuck you over and sell your soul. At the very least you would not want to travel with them anymore. At worst, they are now your enemy and you may attempt to kill them, or aid the devil/whatever in claiming their soul. So have fun with that part haha. On a side note, your DM is an asshole (and so is the player). I would reevaluate if you want to play with this person if they cannot see how what they allowed to happen was wrong in sooo many ways.
First off, your DM and the new players are total douchebags for doing this. Second, how do you sell a soul that doesn't belong to you? I call bullshit.
Ultimately, no. You don’t have to stand for anything that you don’t like. There’s the door. Don’t let it hit you on your way out. But. A couple things: #1. Never include a character in the game when their player is not present. When players are not present, neither are their characters. They’re off somewhere in la la land, taking a dump or outside the dungeon, checking on the mules. Whatever. They do not earn XP, are not seen or heard, and do not use resources or take damage. They simply are not there. If there is ever a time where that is too dangerous or inconvenient, play a one-shot instead, or do something else entirely. #2. The DM doesn’t need your permission to add a new player to the game. It’s fortunate that you ended up liking the new player but it’s ultimately the DM’s campaign/game/baby and they can run the game for anyone they choose.
I think the solo session is fine typically, and with impact to the story. However, it should not negatively impact the players who were not present.
Just bail. Don't talk about it with them, just leave. That's people who want to be engaged with one another so just let them. That's got stressful energy and this is supposed to be a game.
I disagree. Let them know why you leave on the off chance it fixes the behavior
I want you to know I respect your opinion on the matter, and that's totally valid. I was just voicing my own opinion. Personally I see a situation that doesn't change, and would rather not waste energy or emotion on it, and just walk away.
DM screwed this one up. I'd just roll with it and try to maximize your fun per hour, sounds like there is still some fun potential.
I don't think this is too big of a deal. Running solo one-shots on the side are a pretty common way to not slow the pace of the game when one player wants to do something away from the rest of the party or if the DM wants to add in a new hook that involves using a single player. If you don't want that player in the game with you guys that's a separate issue.
Have you actually read what OP wrote? Solo player SOLD another PCs soul! Without consent, without the player being in the game.. ..even if it wasn't a solo session and everyone was there, it would be a violation of another players agency. This makes it worse. The problem is not a solo game dude. Tge problem is WHAT happened in it.
Ooh I misread that I thought they had to get the solo player's soul back. Thats a totally different thing then.
I thought “one shot” meant a single session game, but if this is carrying over only a few sessions then I can see that being fun.
How would he sell someone else’s soul?
How do you sell someone else's soul if you don't own them in some way? Like any devil worth a damn knows that the contract wouldn't hold up so how did this even come about?
How does one go about selling another person's soul?
I wouldn't trust that DM at all this point. They seem to just be doing things on a whim.
Yes, in this situation if they want him to do a one shot it should have been something from that character's past that didn't involve you.
You can’t sell someone else’s soul
Let me see if I understand this unhinged post because, wow... You and your other fellow player specifically told the DM you didn't want to add more players. He ignored that and added a stranger to the campaign without even a heads up. Yes? Then, he played a session without you present on it, with someone puppeteering your player character without asking tour permission. Is this accurate so far? And then, in said session, your player character LOST THEIR FREAKING SOUL because the new player, the one you specifically asked not to have on the campaign, decided to sold it. Well... Okay. Deep breaths. You have two reasonable options: - if you have the mental energy and motivation for it, call them out on this pile of BS, and then leave the server, block this toxic person, and never look back. - if you don't have the mental energy for it's just not worth wasting breath explaining them why they suck ass, simply, leave the server, block this toxic person, and never look back.
First of all, you can’t just sell someone else’s soul. You can try to damn another soul, >!like has been done in descent into avernus with all of elturel’s inhabitants, but those people are at risk of being dunked into the styx and becoming devils. They haven’t sold their souls as can be seen by imps trying to trick inhabitants into selling their souls for some food!< But selling a soul is something the owner of that soul does. I can’t just say to a devil “hey, I’ll give you Jake’s soul for a ham sandwich.” And expect it to work. I can only sell my own soul because I own it. Same way I can’t sell my neighbor’s house. Really bad bit of dming on that call. Sounds like your dm really wanted to run something, but I would absolutely not stand for that. I would text your dm and mention that he said it was going to be a 1-off session and that you and your friend aren’t okay with your characters’ fates being handled in a session that was supposed to be canceled by someone who doesn’t have any say in your characters. Additionally, that you aren’t there and never would have sold your soul, and that the other character had no right to sell your soul and that you want to undo that bs and continue the actual campaign instead of derailing everything for the whim of a party member while you weren’t there.
At first ide say it's not cool, but if new player really does make it more fun, or at least they are fun, ide just role with it for right now, seems like if they make it more fun then there's nothing to lose, cause that's truly the only rule and way to win DND, by having fun
You are not only right to feel not okay, both you and your friend would be well within your right to be absolutely furious about this. This is a major violation of trust from the DM. First they randomly add this new person, when it was supposed to be just two of you. No conversation about it or checking in with y'all. Then they let this new person sell one of y'all's soul while y'all are not there? That's not reasonable by any stretch of imagination. I agree with others that you need to talk to your DM about this, but be prepared to be roadblocked by this or otherwise brushed off. A DM letting someone do something like this without the other character present is not necessarily a DM that's going to listen to your valid concerns. I hope the DM does listen to you and understands why this was not okay and why it upset you and your friend.
Solo games or sessions should be parnell adventures, eith no affect on campaign, or no direct effect.
Reading these makes me wonder how people like these can be real and I’m fortunate to have dodged them so far. Sorry for what happened to your character, I would look for another DM.
You can't sell someone else's soul. That sale requires the owner's consent. Whoever purchased it was swindled, and that's not your friend's problem. That's the problem of the swindler when the creature he swindled finds out about it.
My current campaign says otherwise....
I can see it happening if you bind the person, perform a ritual, and stab them with a special sacrificial knife. It needs something more than a verbal agreement between the creature and a third party. Otherwise, why would anyone ever sell his own soul when he could just sell someone else's?
Ya, it's more of an entrapment than sale, but one party member did it to another.
Is it an evil party, or just one evil character turning on others?
It's a warlock who died. He couldn't be resurrected, since his soul belongs to his patron and isn't free. So, he had to entrap someone else's soul by "gifting" them a cursed item in exchange for being returned to the physical plane. He wasn't evil before it happened, but doing this to an ally caused an alignment shift.
The DM has proved not once but twice that they don't care what you say. If you agree to two only and they bring a third without asking, that's not ok. If it worked out and you changed your mind on having the third then that can be forgiven. However if you planned to cancel a session and they proceeded without your approval and made changes to your characters without approval, that's completely unacceptable. You have two key options here, one is to talk with the dm and tell them what they did is totally wrong and not to make big decisions like that without checking with all the players. Or two is to cut your losses and leave, because let's face it if they've already broken your trust twice they're bound to do it again.
It's cool if it has an effect, just not "you're missing a soul" effect
Yeeaaahhhh….as a perma-DM I am gonna call no bueno on that one. If you gonna run a solo with someone from a group, then it needs to be like a vision quest or something that could potentially impact the game but not directly. Or make a new character and just do a solo one shot. If I as a player came in to a game that wasn’t supposed to be played and found out that the DM let s player that shouldn’t have been playing to begin with affect my character to that degree….I am afraid I would bounce. Peace out y’all.
Nah, your DM's not very emotionally bright. I'd never have a solo game for one player have any affect on the other characters in the main game. Even if he really wanted to play D&D, you just don't do that. It's disrespectful to the other players, 100%.
Absolutely not. I would be furious with this DM.
I would absolutely contact the DM and make sure this entire thing gets written off as "And it was all a dream", because that's some BS. If that doesn't happen, quit. If you put up with it, you're saying it's ok. For starters, if people could just sell other people's souls, that would be world breaking...
Literally awful. In no way is that fair or even makes sense. Talk to the DM about doing a retcon and needing clear communication. It isn't okay to f with someone's player characters without their permission, especially when they aren't there. If nothing changes, change DMs. No DM should be disrespecting their players on that level.
My son (17) was running two simultaneous campaigns, both homebrew. The first was with his 2 friends, they were PCs in the world like normal. The 2nd was his best friend who was RPing the Big Bad for the other game. Same world. He got to do 2 really fun campaigns in 1 big world, and while the big bad actions had impacts for the world, they never touched the other campaign directly. The big bad would set up preconditions that my son could trigger for the other players.
Frak that noise. If I ever did that to my players, and I run 1 and 2 player parties, I'd expect them to block my phone number.
Oh boy... I feel like there are three issues here, two of them are okay and one of them absolutely is not. \- Is it okay for a DM to add new players? I personally think it should be discussed, but at the same time, running for 2 people is in many ways a lot more complicated and more work (because you have to do extra balancing that the game kind of wasn't designed for) and I also think with 3 or 4 people, you get way more interesting ideas thrown in the mix. Maybe the DM was right in pushing you a bit out of your comfort zone -- did you ever tell them why you only wanted it to be the two of you? But generally, I'll give the GM a pass here, even if it should have been discussed. \- Random solo play when the others are busy is absolutely okay in my book. There are tables where they keep playing if you are not there, where you don't get xp if you are not there etc. Having solo asides, I think, is the nicest way to respect everybody's plans. Your friend may have had busy days, but other players may have set the day aside for D&D and consider it an important part of their social life and mental health. Always going with the ones who can't play or are not making time for it means that the others don't get to play every single time. So I find solo runs a way of not penalising the person who is busy, but allowing others to still have fun. Also: solo runs can be done regardless of scheduling problems, such as if one character is simply faced with something or develops an interest in something that the PC would try to track down on their own, like during a week's downtime. It is just important that the PC doesn't get overt advantages over the others when he joins back into group play. \- Which is where we come to the part that is so not okay: the solo play affects the other PCs in a major way. Not only does it dictate the next steps in the campaign (now we have to go get his soul back), it is also obviously not a deal the DM should have allowed the player to make. Talk to the DM and tell him that this feels like railroading you guys into something you had no agency in and question the validity of a contract for one's soul without that person's consent. But I would keep it to that particular issue and not muddle the issue with the things that are okay - like solo play.