Ugh. I don't know if "gem" is the word to apply to it, but...
First of all, separate the paragraphs. It makes it easier to read, and makes it seem longer, and thus, more impressive (I know, I know, that's cheating. Shut up.).
The backstory seems a little... I don't know. Vague is not the word... I couldn't tell you what it is, but it's missing something. It's not compelling. It doesn't present anything terribly unique.
However, like Shadow said, the nickname bit was good thinking.
It's not terrible, though. I see no glaring grammatical and spelling errors. It is not that cliched. It doesn't seem bad, but once again, I can't put my finger on exactly why. *Shrug*
even if the past is supposed to be hidden, or if nobody knows of the past, you should still fill in the background, because DMs should have a right to know what they are dealing with. Plus if people who know this character don't know the past, they won't be able to roleplay him properly, based on his life. :)
Either way, think on your posts and keep up the good work ;) Go to Comment
I agree with the others above. A good start and it definitely seems to have potential but yes - something is missing that would make it truly compelling (not sure exactly what).
Another possibility of making it less "vague" (to continue the usage of that word, for lack of a better) would be to mention how he got his flaming sword and fireproof cloak, or why he favours such a fiery way of combat. Overall though 3/5: it's good. Go to Comment
Yeah, his story is a little vague, but that's because he tends to be among the last standing, isn't too many left around to fill in the facts.
Of course he lost his fingers when he was caught as a thief; the wizard didn't think the attempt should go entirely unpunished.
He favors a fiery way of combat, because, being a little on the short side, he likes to be noticed.
He'll be rounded out more later Go to Comment
The fundamental idea is there (and as far as the bg goes, it's okay, but the way it's written makes things seem abrupt) but I can't give it a 3 because the amount of details given doesn't support such a score.