Would you allow this?

[Eltab]

Just a question - if it were a spell in a book, that for some reason they'd vowed not to use, and then chose to break that vow, would you have a problem? Or some other character ability they chose to not use?

Persuade me; 'the situation is dire' is assumed, and the player can say "therefore X happens because -insert reason here-". Come up with a cool story moment!

Paladins can go on a quest and Atone, should they sin; I'm willing to give the non-flying-except-this-time aasimar a similar opportunity.

And of course I offered an alternative crunch mechanism a few posts above yours.

 

[Les Moore]

I really just don't get the "muh v-tude" crowd. Why even play a game of imagination if you just sit with your arms folded and say "I dare you to make me buy in!" I swear some people look for any excuse to say "no" and shoot down something fun and cinematic...

They're magic wings anyways. It isn't like they could physically support the aasimar without being like 30' wide... The player isn't trying to game the system, they got nothing in return for not using a special ability for however many sessions. They wanted to activate the ability in a dramatic way. Why the hell wouldn't you allow it?!

Most DMs I have played under would be reluctant to accept such a radical suggestion or development from a player, without more foundation. It's
easy for everyone here to say, "Yeah, I'd go along with it.", but a little different, when it's in your game. That said, given the choice of this, or a TPK,
I'd be more inclined to go along with the sudden sprouting of Divine Wings .

 

[Umbran]

So then, what would you say if a character was an aarakocra whose player had decided that his wings were amputated? Would you allow them to magically regenerate in a moment of crisis?

"...playing an aarakocra requires special consideration by your DM."

Flight is mechanically central to the design of the race. It would be like allowing a dragonborn to play without having their breath weapon, or an orc without their relentless endurance. While I don't mind if players make some sub-optimal choices for their characters, I would not usually allow a flightless aarakocra without adding in some mechanical benefit to offset that loss, just so the character is on a mostly level playing field with the rest of the party.

If the player insisted, and lasted long enough for this situation to arise, and then asked for the ability to be restored, I'd probably find a way to make it happen, yes.

 

[jaelis]

So basically, you and Hawk Diesel would simply not let the situation come up in the first place, because you would nix the player's idea for such a crippled character. That seems like a fine answer to me.

I would probably allow such a character, but if the player changed their mind I'd make them use ordinary in-game logic to reverse it. Like do a quest for a high level cleric in return for a regeneration spell.

 

[Umbran]

Persuade me; 'the situation is dire' is assumed, and the player can say "therefore X happens because -insert reason here-". Come up with a cool story moment!

Exactly. The Celestial bloodline makes it easy.

"Celestial beings are immortal. Perhaps through our blood connection, whatever celestial brought my bloodline to being ages ago can sense my dire need, and righteousness of my path, and they reach through the vastness to regrow my wings. I wonder if this means they have some plan for me, or if this expenditure of power will mean some price must be paid later..."

This gives a plausible magical rationale, and allows the DM to have a story hook for a celestial to expect a favor later. And, of course, now you're stuck with wings. May end up with some 'splainin' to do when you get back to the Inn of the Gossiping Goodwife where you have rooms.

It isn't like there isn't magic involved in the flight of all these large D&D creatures with relatively small wings anyway.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

So basically, you and Hawk Diesel would simply not let the situation come up in the first place, because you would nix the player's idea for such a crippled character. That seems like a fine answer to me.

I would probably allow such a character, but if the player changed their mind I'd make them use ordinary in-game logic to reverse it. Like do a quest for a high level cleric in return for a regeneration spell.

Kinda. Without something to offset the self-imposed penalty, I would really question what the player is trying to do. From my perspective, either they think D&D is too easy or doesn't otherwise take the game seriously, or they are seeking to monopolize attention through their self-imposed disability. Either way, without a very strong reason and a long conversation, I am unlikely to see any reason to allow it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wow. You must've had some bad xps with creative players.

Not at all. I'm just aware of why I play role-playing games in the first place, and what I expect to get out of it.

 

[Greg K]

So then, what would you say if a character was an aarakocra whose player had decided that his wings were amputated? Would you allow them to magically regenerate in a moment of crisis?

Unlike with the Aasamir, probably not. However, there is always the chance depending upon the specific campaign. the character, and his or her background and prior events (and/or the given in=game events at the moment).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Never in a million years. In fact, I'd carefully consider whether that player is a right fit for the table.

In a role-playing game, a player makes decisions from the perspective of their character. They have absolutely zero control over anything else that happens in the world, outside of the decisions that their character makes. A player who doesn't understand that, and assumes narrative control over things their character cannot influence, would be better served in some other game.

I think you mean (at least I hope you mean) in your roleplaying games. Because apparently a lot of people here do allow players to contribute to the narrative beyond their own character. Do you think they/we are all playing wrong?

I love it when players contribute to the narrative. It works especially well for roll-then-narrate. Example (a real one, by the way):

Player: "I'll try to start a conversation with the woman you mentioned, and see if I can get any information from her about the Elf..."
DM: "Make a Persuasion check."
Player: "Oh, man, I rolled a 1! So I guess I tried to be a little bit flirtatious, and didn't realize until it was too late that in some cultures that kind of scarf is a sign of a recent widow still in formal mourning, so, uh, yeah....that didn't go over very well. Does somebody else with more tact want to try?"

Would you be ok with that? Or is the player overstepping by just making up all of that...the scarf, it's meaning, etc.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think you mean (at least I hope you mean) in your roleplaying games. Because apparently a lot of people here do allow players to contribute to the narrative beyond their own character. Do you think they/we are all playing wrong?

This thread is asking for opinions - Would I allow it? No, I would never allow such a thing. Why not? Because it's not role-playing, and I play role-playing games for the purpose of role-playing.

A lot of people would allow it. That's fine, for them. To me, it says that role-playing is not their priority in a role-playing game, and they'd rather tell a story about their characters than make decisions as their characters. I probably wouldn't have fun at those tables, because (as previously mentioned) I'm there to role-play. I'm willing to commit five hours per week to pretending to be a magical elf, but I'm not willing to spend five hours per week on collectively improvise a story about a magical elf and their friends.

(It's debatable whether a game even qualifies as an RPG if you're just telling stories rather than actually playing roles, but this isn't the place for that debate.)

Would you be ok with that? Or is the player overstepping by just making up all of that...the scarf, it's meaning, etc.

It's over-stepping, because the player is inventing details about the scarf and so on, which are not things that the character has any control over. The inherent meaning of that scarf was already set in stone before the character started talking, and nothing that they say would be able to change that meaning.

It's also under-stepping, though, because the player isn't making the decisions that their character would have control over. The character would have absolute control over their approach to the situation, and what they want to say, but the player seems to have relegated that decision to the die roll.