So I put this on hold for a couple of days until I could write a proper response.
I think it is important that there is a variety of experiences at different tables; what works for my table, now, is not what worked in the past, and is not what works when I DM for kids, and is not how I played a decade, or two decades (or more) ago. Variety is what keeps things interesting.
Which is why I referred you back to the previous post; my purpose in writing this post isn't to get people to agree with my position- I honestly could care less. If every single person on this forum disagreed with me about something, but it worked for my table, well that's good enough for me. I have a genuine curiosity as to how others are playing; partly because I am curious, partly because I DM/play in a pretty isolated area, and I like to keep up with stuff "for the kids," and partly because I like to hear myself talk. Okay, mostly for the last reason, but still. Heck, according to this poll, I would be in the minority position ... and I AM NOT A NUMBER, I AM A FREE MAN!
So when someone asked me about my position (which I had not indicated), and whether it was supported in the "fluff," I wrote back that it was. But even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter (Rule 0 and all that). And if you had read my followup posts, you would see that the way we play it doesn't make the difference that it does for others that might play differently (because we have stronger class identities at our table, but we also have a higher tolerance for homebrew and just swapping out and reskinning class abilities, so class is both more narrow yet more customizable).
If what you are doing works for you, and your table, that is a great and wonderful thing. Truly. But what works for you doesn't necessarily work for my table. We take deities and pacts very seriously- that doesn't mean you don't, but the way we do it prevents your scenarios from happening.* So when you ascribe to me an "argument" and you keep saying "Whatabout X," you are missing my point entirely; I am happy that you play the game in a way that is working for you, and I am saying that your way does not work for me, and stating that your way (or examples) are illustrative for my table doesn't work, in the same way that if I demanded that you play the way my table play, I would be disrespecting the choices you make.
Clear?
*To be clear, the arguments that people keep coming back to about how a patron/warlock or cleric/deity should or shouldn't act is entirely colored by their own views. Moreover, not just their views of what is appropriate, but also their views as to the limits or breadth of the rules. Which is a much longer topic, but, briefly, some people prefer the rules as the only limits (they are the rules to the game), other prefer the rules as starting points (inherently limited given the subject matter of the game).
I hear you. But let me attempt to summarize you to ensure we are on the same page but also to explain that may argument is actually more of a question. Maybe I think I understand you and I really don't get it (I am weird, this is not unusual and I mean no disrespect) and/or maybe you don't under stand me.
1. First 3 paragraphs, you are your own man doing your own thing. (Sure, does really help me understand but I get the sentiment)
2. Paragraph 4 gets into where I am trying to discus. You are comparing "our" table say you do things more one way or less another to other tables and your replies seem to be directed at me vs my table style but I can't really reference that since I don't really know your play style and you don't really know mine (I also play at multiple tables and so do you, we also very at the different tables). I get this is your point but for me .. this is off topic to mine. I high lighted your points that I am trying to talk about. I get that your saying they don't REALLY matter and I don't mean disrespect by asking about them. My intent it is to understand it. You mentioned that you did have a multiclass of a rogue to cleric due to story in another post. (I may have missed a few of your posts, I tried to read a lot of the posts but when the thread discussion picked up I stopped reading everyone and started looking at replies because it just becomes too much for me. If it missed something key, I don't mean it as disrespect, you just sparked my interest so I want to debate/question your reasoning not to say your way is wrong but because I don't get the point of view based off of your statement of "my position (which I had not indicated), and whether it was supported in the "fluff," I wrote back that it was." Sure its fluff and it doesn't REALLY matter but your saying you have a view based on fluff and I don't see it, so I am saying why and curious to see your response (under the understanding that is the conversation we are having based on the title and pole you created, and I came to talk about). Having "stronger class identities" as compared to what? you don't know how strong those identities are at my table, but lets place that to the side since its not really the point, I think your aiming for. I think you mean, you don't normally multi-class because you can't be two ideas that contrast at once, once one identity is SOO strong that it does not allow for another. I disagree because I believe you can be a villain legally taking control of a town because you want to be good and end crime by ridding the corruption of the guards as a result of your family dying in random violent crimes. That makes for interesting character progression through personal conflict (In my opinion). Now you can say "you just don't play that way" but that's not really clarifying what you mean to be because as you pointed out I don't really know how you play. So I provided a point in fluff with an example of my character and why I don't see it against fluff with interest in why by you believe it would not be allowed by fluff. If your excluding the possibility by not allowing multi-classing that's fine but not what I am asking since its not strictly relevant to a warlock/cleric or cleric/warlock multiclass but just a GM decision. I get that you can confine characters to there class and require that they behave within its boundaries we have had that discussion multiple times at our table, if you play a cleric and expect power from a Deity you, me as a GM and the GM I play under both agree it should not just be a dip for abilities you should act like a cleric and attempt to represent your Deity. I see warlock a little differently. To me a warlock is someone who makes a deal for power but after that there are two directions. You can play as someone who realizes they made a mistake or a loyal agent fulfilling your deal. I see being made a warlock as permanent granting of power which can not be revoked and does not require continually supplied however breaking deals can have consequences and that can make for an interesting story too. The optional story path TO ME, is where the customizable exceptions for class or homebrew are fed from. So if you don't support character story paths that deviate from the narrow path you layout for them where do the customization options originate? I just want to know how this correlates to fluff if it does. I am I no way saying your wrong. I just don't see you point of view, so I am asking you to try to explain it to me. You might change my mind, you might not, but right now your just saying you do it different but not really saying what that means from my point of view.
3. In Paragraph 5, you say I am missing your point, sure. I think your also missing mine. All you say is "the way we do it prevents your scenarios from happening" but I am not looking for a "no that doesn't work in my game", I am looking for the why it doesn't work in your game. Your answer is vague to me so I provided and example for you to pick apart as to why that would not work in your game. An example, that I don't see as an issue. I am not saying your way is wrong or trying to change the way you play. Right now I don't really understand how you play so what would I be trying to change anyway? You said you have allowed a multiclass before, so what made that ok and this not? Play the way you play. I just want to talk about what it is about for example "The Old One" patron warlock being played as only a source of power or a the Fiend patron getting buyer remorse and trying to get out of following the will of the Fiend. Right now I simple don't understand your point of view. So I am not really arguing it, I am trying to figure out where you line is and why because that is what I take the topic as and what I came here to talk about. Its interesting to me that you see a conflict there with them turning to Deity for help because that is a common them in old stories even out side of D&D. So what about this made you create this thread? What is it that you see that I don't? ...That is why I am here and why I clicked the thread instead of another. I figure you as the creator of the thread have something to say about. I just don't really understand what you came to say from the posts I have read so far. So can you address my questions? (written in statements as conversation points which is my fault and thinking about likely part of the perceived "disrespect")
4. Last paragraph, Sure, your basically saying this is an opinion thread tied to various styles of play. I also get that some people are saying other people are wrong and few might actually mean it. I think most of it is for dramatic effect and most people get this is an subject of rules interpretation, fluff interpretation and personal play style. So if you post your opinion, its pretty much expected that you will be questioned on your knowledge of the rules and fluff, and challenged on your style of play. It can be a criticism or it can be question seeking understanding (possible written in a counter point statement, sorry if that was me causing confusion).
The summery FOR ME is I want to pose a situation and character design that to me could be a justifiable path and reason for a character starting as a Warlock to become a Cleric and get an understanding of why you think that is inherently not a good thing based on fluff? If it is not for fluff reasons for example, you simply don't like character planning of any kind that's fine, but would you except it as a path if like me it was a product of story driven play and not a character design I intended just a natural progression based on character inner conflict with evolving information developed during the campaign? As a side example, if a warlock player wanted to become more sneaky after almost dying multiple times and being taunted by his party about being squishy, would you let him train with the party rogue (and eventually multiclass via roleplay) in an effort to not draw attention (gain stealth and maybe cunning action to disengage and avoid being punched in the face)? If so, why or if not, why not, and how does that compare to the Warlock/Cleric cross class and why you don't like/allow it?
