Let us take, for example, a cleric. The cleric has faith, tenents, and likely a code. The cleric can explore their faith without the deity ever once showing up into play or the DM even dangling that possibility. The idea that a deity must or should show up in order for an adherent or priest to explore their faith strikes me as offensive and non-sensical from any real life sensibilities. In many respects it is the default position of the human perspective. Gods in D&D can be real and embodied (e.g., Forgotten Realms), but this is not always the case (e.g., the Sovereign Host in Eberron). And likewise from within the worldview of many religious adherents, the supernatural elements that constitute their faith (e.g., God, gods, spirits, etc.) likewise are regarded as real. And I believe that players, in my case at least, often do prefer playing from this human perspective over against
one in which the deity exists as an NPC who exists as the DM's sockpuppet and for the sake of the DM's desire to "control all the things." As a frequent cleric player, I am often completely uninterested, if not turned-off, by the
DM using my character's deity as an NPC for micromanaging my character.
Emphasis mine... These are jerk DM issues and have nothing to do with the DM having authority or control over the deity of your cleric. He could do these same things just as easily with a powerful enough NPC or by DM fiat. But this, at least as far as I can tell, has been the default assumption of the side against DM's having control over certain aspects of the setting and world that are tied to PC's. I also suspect the assumption of a jerk DM (or jerk player) from both sides at times is also what is causing many to talk past each other in the thread.
Recently I had been playing a dwarf cleric of the forge in a campaign coming to a close. The DM has been entirely hands off with my deity. I established the fiction of the deity from scratch. I created a dwarf creator deity, loosely based on Moradin, who had male and female aspects: a male aspect of labor, crafting, and commerce (weapon: hammer) and a female aspect of agriculture, family, and brewing (weapon: sickle). I established my character concept as essentially a revolutionary pro-labor, socialist, Communist dwarven priest. Exploring my character's faith is built into the themes of the campaign and how my character with their particular religious ethos engages the adventure setting. My character and his barbarian sister (another PC) immigrated to a frontier "new world" colony across the ocean that also serves as a penal colony. My character has been engaging this setting from the perspective of their faith. How should a pro-labor and anti-slavery priest feel or respond to issues surrounding the penal colony? How might a revolutionary, heretic priest make a fresh start for his cult in this New World? What are objectives that a pro-labor priest might want to achieve to improve the conditions for working class laborers in this colony?
The idea that I am therefore somehow playing "lone theater" or that I am incapable of having other players/the DM see my decision-making process or the influence of my faith is not only downright insulting but also contradicted by actual play experiences. Just because my deity is "absent" or removed-from-play as the DM's plaything does not mean that my character and their faith exists in some sort of vacuum. It engages the world. My character's ethos and faith has been the most well-defined, grounded, and consensually understood among the group. It has made my character a moral beacon and pillar for the group. My faith has vocally informed many important decisions that my character has made. If the DM wants to explore my faith, they do not reach their hand up the deity as a sockpuppet; they establish human situations and scenarios for my character to engage. I am not running amok and abusing power without any responsibilites; those responsibilities are accumulating. And I wanted to engage those responsibilities as part of how I envision the character. I have established contacts, begun reforming prisoners, laid the groundwork for coordinating the guilds, and laying the foundations for a chapel and future temple.
I have no choice but to take you at your word (though admittedly we all have perception biases when it comes to the relating of past events), though honestly I'd love to get the unbiased perspective of the DM and other players in said game and whether they even understood or took notice that said decisions were stemming from your faith.
For me as a DM I don't want to be a spectator, which essentially is what the DM seems to be ok with in your above example. The player should explore the themes and tropes through the lens they want to but, as the DM I too want to engage my own independently formed questions and concerns around the themes my players have brought to the game along with those we may have come up with together. Assuming I'm not a jerk DM what exactly is your objection to that? Because all of your objections seem to be predicated on I as a DM looking to screw you over... which again is a totally different issue. You want to communicate better let's speak to what the concerns are around a DM who actually plays in good faith...
This is similarly what I have in mind in my above paragraph. A player character is more than capable of exploring their religious devotion or arcane patronage without requiring the in-game intercession of the NPC or the DM's control thereof.
Yes and there are solo ttrpg's where the player can do just that and I would say if a player wants to explore their religious devotion/arcane patronage without the in-game intercession of DM controlled NPC's or deity's they are probably a better fit... at least when it comes to my table and what we are looking for in play as a group.
This is an incredibly broad question, and one that has been discussed before numerous times already. Given the broadness of your question, it may be more conducive for discussion for you to consider and answer why you might believe that would be the case. I am asking you to extend yourself out of your own comfort zone and preferences for a second. Scary, I know. Why might others who are not you or your group feel, think, or believe that based upon their own experiences in play? Are there circumstances that you can consider where the DM's play of a backstory-related NPC could encroach, tread, or impair a player's PC concept?
No it was a pretty specific question... you go off adventuring and while you're gone your granddad has becomes a serial killer... how does that affect how you are playing your character in the actual game? How has the concept, actions, thoughts, etc. for your character (not the npc's outside of it) changed because offf in some distant village you grnadfather has killed some people? And since you won't see him until the end of the campaign... what does it even matter at that point?
Now let me address the second part of your post because I believe you have a habit when engaging with me of getting snarky and snide and I can already see it so I'm asking that if you really want to engage with me you dial it back some (if not, just don't reply)... you don't know what's "Scary" for me. I've not once said backgrounding was bad wrong fun or even that allowing the player to control his or her patron/deity made one a bad DM both of which have been leveled against those who think differently... So how about you apply your own advice around accepting and understanding a different viewpoint...
As to the question you asked at the end, yes...yes I can when there are bigger issues than the DM playing a deity or NPC, mainly when he or she is being a jerk which isn't something that is suddenly brought under control because the jerk DM can't play your deity or patron. Of course I stated this twice before when I asked the question and then addressed it later in the thread.
I believe that it can, and often does, apply to other NPCs the PCs have established backstory connections. We have been discussing the issue primarily in terms of the warlock and their patron (and the similar cleric/deity relation), but the issue has also been raised in terms of other backstory-pertinent NPCs that a player may want "backgrounded" for their character (e.g., family, animal companions, etc.) to varying degrees.
Exactly so I guess the DM just shouldn't play an NPC with any type of connection to the PC's kor who happens to gain one through play of the game either because the same thing could happen... see how absurd this line of thinking can get at a certain point? In other words, as I've said before, this is a jerk DM problem and not a problem around DM's controlling deities and patrons.