Cleric of Gruumsh in a party with an Elf

[Eltab]

I think you're taking player empowerment one step further than is really fair to the DM, Eltab. Players ignoring a DM's "setting canon" without meta-conversations about what that means is every bit as disrespectful as a DM overriding PC actions "because your PC wouldn't do that". Players dictating setting background without building inter-player and player-DM trust is a mistake.

But we absolutely agree that the best way to start dealing with the situation is by having a direct conversation about it. Then joint decisions can be made.

I probably should have written my original post upside-down to how I really did: start with 'talk to your players', then 'this is setting up for problems'.

The metaplot I could see being invoked here - and I should have referenced it - is something like Wotan in Wagner's Ring Cycle: for some reason, he needs to create a hero who will work his will BUT he cannot be connected to the desired deed or be held responsible for the consequences, SO he sets the individual up to be cursed by the gods before he is ready to perform the deed. In this case, to get what he really wants, Gruumsh needs an anti-hero who does not behave much like an orc - the PC's origin as described in OP is a person practically best-choice to (unwittingly) volunteer, so Gruumsh takes advantage of the opportunity. Now the hard part: what does Gruumsh fervently want, that he can't get via his usual 'Hulk Smash' MO?

Another thought is drawn from IRL: in 1945, France and Germany had a 300-year history of going after each other hammer-and-tongs once per generation. After 1945, both nations found something more important to do (rebuild after WW2) and a more threatening enemy (USSR) so they were willing to work together. 4e Plane Above: The Astral Sea suggested that the gods have too much on their plate and they really need reinforcements ... and/or to quit frittering away their strength kicking each other in the shins. Gruumsh and Corellon might agree to back off in the face of some other problem, and coincidentally the PCs happen to be their chosen group of problem-solvers. What might that problem be? The group can cogitate on that a bit. Maybe Asmodeus is stealing souls that belong to the other gods; maybe the Far Realm threatens to burst into the universe; maybe a number of Primordials are going to break loose rapid-fire and even the gods cannot be everywhere at once.

 

[Eltab]

the best way to serve Gruumsh is to plant flowers

Mantraps, yellow creepers, tri-fronds, assassin vines (all from Tomb of Annihilation) thickly planted throughout a zone ringing a Temple of Gruumsh where He does not want uninvited visitors.

 

[Maxperson]

I have a situation brewing and wanted to get some feedback.

In a game I am running right now one of my players is playing a Half-Orc Noble Cleric of Gruumsh. Her backstory is that he was adopted by the fantasy version of Bradgelina and is rebelling against them. She is basically going with the idea that her character is double-downing on his Orcish heritage as part of the rebellion (and of course becoming an adventurer). During the concept stage I warned her that Gruumsh is an evil god (her character is not evil) and this may not be a good idea, but she went with it. The other party members right now are x2 Humans, a Halfling, and an Elf.

The Cleric has just hit level 3, so 2nd level spells are available. I want to treat this as his connection with Gruumsh is deepening. I've already started having the "Whispers of Gruumsh" be a thing, specifically having thoughts of having the Elf's ears as a necklace. I am also *considering* having potential spell failures if benefitial spells are targeting the Elf. I also am thinking that a dream sequence of the Cleric being before Gruumsh in his "court" in a nightmarish scene is something that should play out soon.

From a DM standpoint, I don't want to tell a player how to play their character. But at the same time I can't see a Cleric of Gruumsh doing well with an Elf in the party.

What are some of your thoughts on this situation?

Talk to the two players and figure it out together. The elf would probably have as much of an issue with the cleric as the reverse. See how they want to resolve it, and speak to the players about those mechanical issues. They can be quite fun if all involved are in agreement.

 

[Maxperson]

If you don't want an issue between the halfork and elf, don't purposefully do dream sequences and the like that are coaxing the halfork to have issues with the elf.

It's a cleric of Gruumsh and an elf. the issues are already there and have been since character creation. If they didn't want issues, at least one of the two should have played something different.

 

[Riley37]

A half-orc cleric of Gruumsh, in the same party as an elf, trying to assert his orc heritage while living among non-orcs, is as out of place as a Klingon, orphaned and adopted by humans, who grows up to serve as a senior officer on the deck of the Enterprise.

Here's three story seeds, straight from ST:TNG.
(1) Orcs from the Church of Gruumsh try to get him to betray his party
(2) He meets and falls for a half-orc woman who has fully chosen human cultural values
(3) His orc father was a high ranking orc warrior, then was accused of betraying the orc nation to the Drow Empire. For political reasons, a high ranking warrior in the orc nation sends him a challenge to defend his father's honor, expecting that he'll ignore the challenge.

 

[Riley37]

As the OP stated, if you want to say that a cleric of Gruumsh can ignore the alignment of and 2/3s of the basic tenets of the god and decide that the best way to serve Gruumsh is to plant flowers feel free.

If a cleric of Gruumsh planted the flowers from "Black Panther", so that the tribe's warriors could drink magical flower juice which acts as a Potion of Heroism, I think the tribe's war lord and the Church of Gruumsh would be just fine with that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's a cleric of Gruumsh and an elf. the issues are already there and have been since character creation. If they didn't want issues, at least one of the two should have played something different.

No they are not. Unless you believe as a DM you are beholden to every single thing that is written previously by other people and are unable or not allowed to change it.

It is YOUR campaign. YOU get to decide how these gods and their worshippers work. And if YOU want to let your player be a cleric of Gruumsh *and* let there be another elf character in the party, then YOU can work with the players to come to a compromise so that everyone gets what they want.

Now if you don't WANT that compromise to happen and want to run all Gruumsh worshippers as a single unilateral group with an single unbending belief system, that's your call. And as a result to WANT to sow seeds of discord between your players... either by forcing them into blatant situations where they have to be on opposite sides and/or come to blows, or by telling one of the players "No, sorry, you can't play X"... hey, more power to you. You are more than within your right to do that as a DM.

But in my personal opinion, if you do that you are putting your own needs above your players and quite frankly that's a great way to LOSE those players when they realize you are unbending and unable to compromise and thus probably won't be a fun DM to play with because of some lame "My way or the highway" attitude.

 

[Oofta]

No they are not. Unless you believe as a DM you are beholden to every single thing that is written previously by other people and are unable or not allowed to change it.

It is YOUR campaign. YOU get to decide how these gods and their worshippers work. And if YOU want to let your player be a cleric of Gruumsh *and* let there be another elf character in the party, then YOU can work with the players to come to a compromise so that everyone gets what they want.

Now if you don't WANT that compromise to happen and want to run all Gruumsh worshippers as a single unilateral group with an single unbending belief system, that's your call. And as a result to WANT to sow seeds of discord between your players... either by forcing them into blatant situations where they have to be on opposite sides and/or come to blows, or by telling one of the players "No, sorry, you can't play X"... hey, more power to you. You are more than within your right to do that as a DM.

But in my personal opinion, if you do that you are putting your own needs above your players and quite frankly that's a great way to LOSE those players when they realize you are unbending and unable to compromise and thus probably won't be a fun DM to play with because of some lame "My way or the highway" attitude.

And in my opinion, there's a limit to how much the players should mold the world. I've never run a "you can do literally whatever you want" campaign because my world has to be logical and consistent. If an old friend from 15 years ago looked me up and joined my campaign, they would notice a difference in the timeline. Some things may have changed, some NPCs may have different attitudes (the few that are still alive, a lot of time has elapsed).

But even with change of editions, it should still feel like the same campaign world. Events change people, cities, even nations. Gods? Nope. At least not without something truly universe shattering.

It's called having a living, breathing, detailed world that doesn't always bend to the will of the players. This is not about dictating what players do. It's about enforcing realistic constraints based on the cosmology of the world. It's about building on the lore that I, and my players, have built over the years and not tossing it aside because one person wants to ignore the reality we've created.

 

[Riley37]

Events change people, cities, even nations. Gods? Nope. At least not without something truly universe shattering.

We each bring our conceptions on that topic to D&D. Yours are fine, for your table. Others may have very different starting points. Ed Greenwood, for example, wrote some stories in which gods change, and a mortal may well remember the days back before Kelemvor seized the portfolio of death from Cyric in the Year of the Banner (1368 DR).

 

[hawkeyefan]

This need not be a problem. I think there has been a lot of good advice in this thread. I actually like the idea expressed in the OP of this cleric who’s chosen a dark god for pretty much superficial reasons slowly being exposed to what that decision really means. I think that would make for a great story.

But we also have to consider that there’s a game in question, and folks tend to want a game to be fun, and having players in opposition can potentially ruin that fun.

I think the only thing in this thread that’s been said that i think is wrong is that there’s only one way to handle this. There are a few ways to proceed. Ultimately, I think any of them can work depending on what suits the players and the DM.

The first is to leave things be. The plauers have no issue, and it seems the characters have no issue. So then no need to make an issue. Perhaps the half-orc sees himself as a new kind of cleric, where orcs need not be savage but can coexist even with those thouhht to be their nemesis. Perhaps he thinks he can sway others to this line of thinking. Perhaps if he grows strong enough, he can sway even Gruumsh himself. The Kingdom of Many Arrows in the Forgotten Realms could support such an idea.

Another idea is that the cleric sees Gruumsh as a means to personal strength and glory in battle. Gruumsh rewards the strong, so he blesses this cleric with his favor. Gruumsh doesn’t care about the presence of one mortal elf amongst the cleric’s allies. Pretty simple. I played a Cheliaxan follower of Asmodeus in one campaign. It put the other players on guard, but I didn’t play the character all that differently than a paladin. He was Lawful Evil and basically followed the tenet of “Might Makes Right”. The party was never in opposition with other followers of Asmodeus or Cheliax, so there was never an issue.

Another way is to proceed in a way similar to that described in the OP. Introduce the idea that this decision the cleric has made has consequences. Gruumsh or an intermediary of some sort begins to try and influence the cleric into more evil behavior. There’s some strong story possibilities in this. But also some potential for disharmonious play. So I’d include another element in this...that if an “out” in the form of another power. Perhaps Tempus if the character truly values war, or perhaps some other deity...have them or an intermediary approach the cleric and offer another choice, a path that does not include evil. This gives the PC the ability to proceed as is from a game point of view, but gives a hefty fictional choice that can potentially drastically alter how he views the world and interacts with it.

Another option is to play things out, and if the player chooses Gruumsh, then have him become an evil NPC, and the plauer can make a new character. Nothing says that PCs must be expected to last an entire campaign. Obviously, this needs a good deal of player buy in, but I’ve done this before and the player really liked the idea. His former PC is still a villain in our campaign to this day.

Good and evil characters are simply not as opposed to cooperation as many here seem to think. Look at how many examples we can find in fiction of the two working together...from Raistlin and the Companions in Dragonlance, to Magneto and the X-Men, to Loki and Thor, and so on. Find a mutual cause or enemy and they can work together. Doesn’t mean they have to be happy about it, but that can be some good material for role play.