Cleric of Gruumsh in a party with an Elf

[Riley37]

Gruumsh has a particular hatred of Corellon, god of the elves.

I agree with your description of Gruumsh. I don't have Volo's Guide, but there was a similar description in "Deities and Demigods". I would run Gruumsh as described. Gruumsh hates elves even more than Churchill hated Stalin.

clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities.

True, but PHB also says that specific overrides general.

If the OP DM has ruled that Gruumsh accepts the worship and service of this half-orc who's rejecting human culture, then the OP DM has made a specific ruling. The DM has said that as the cleric reaches 3rd level, the connection with Gruumsh deepens; that connection is *only now* reaching the level of conflict you describe.

There's a huge difference between the distrust between Legolas and Gimli and someone joining your group who says "Oh, by the way I'm the acolyte of a murderous sociopath. I'm a firm believer in killing you, your loved ones and your children when we get the chance."

If thirteen yrch and their hobbit burglar had entered Fangorn, then the woods elves would have responded by killing all of them, immediately. The elves responded to the dwarves by imprisoning them indefinitely, and then later on, preparing to kill all of Thorin's dwarf allies in a big battle. So yes, there is a difference.

 

[Oofta]

The quote from Volo's Guide says that Gruumsh seeks revenge, by laying waste to the civilsed world. The slaughter seems to be a means to the end of laying waste, not an end in itself. There is no mention of a particular animus against elves - humans and dwarves seem to be equally hated, presumably because, together with elves, they constitute the bulk of the "civilsed world".

Thinking about various ways of making sense of Gruumshian theology (if that's not oxymoronic) seems like it could be part of a heavy RP game!

There's very little written in 5E books about deities and their history in FR, which was kind of surprise. Corellon's entry is basically "god of elves". So the genocide thing comes from previous editions (and my old books are in storage at the moment) as does most lore about the gods.

But not mentioning a particular animus against elves despite the fact that it was Corellon who took Gruumsh's eye, doesn't make it any better. Just that the cleric should also support murder of humans and dwarves in equal measure, and seek the downfall of civilization. That doesn't improve the situation.

You may find it "interesting" to have someone play a PC who's the devout follower of a sociopathic anarchist who aggressively promotes killing members of the races of the rest of the party. I think unless the PC changes who they worship, it would inevitably lead to PVP or a PC leaving the group.

Assuming of course that this is a heavy RP game. It sounds like it's not, and the OP is going to just let it slide for now which is fine.

People play for different reasons, and have different expectations of the game. When I DM one of my expectations is that players don't play a jerk and don't play evil characters. That may not be your expectation, which is perfectly OK. Beyond that I can't think of anything else to add.

 

[Oofta]

If thirteen yrch and their hobbit burglar had entered Fangorn, then the woods elves would have responded by killing all of them, immediately. The elves responded to the dwarves by imprisoning them indefinitely, and then later on, preparing to kill all of Thorin's dwarf allies in a big battle. So yes, there is a difference.

Yes there is a big difference between punishing trespassers and actively raiding and seeking the destruction of hobbit civilization. It's a false equivalency.

Wars happen, sometimes for illegitimate reasons. The elves were not seeking the destruction of dwarven civilization, they wanted payment they thought due to them from Smaug's treasure horde. It was a specific grievance, not a fundamental directive. Once again, yes it is a big difference.

Besides, while Tolkien influenced D&D, D&D is not The Hobbit.

 

[Aldarc]

Although I am not the biggest fan of having Gruumsh cleric in this context, there is nevertheless some undoubtable roleplaying opportunities present that are worth exploring.

The elf player, for example, can push back against the Gruumsh cleric. "You do realize that your god wants to kill us (elves, humans, dwarves) right?" Or here are all the pleasant things that your deity would advocate for what we are currently "protecting."

Play provides an opportunity to show and not tell what being a servant of Gruumsh is about. Then it creates opportunities for the player to decide where their true values lie. The GM could have the cleric discover ancient texts that depict Gruumsh in a less than flattering way or the GM could have scenarios of elves and orcs fighting and the party wanting to save the elves rather than the orcs. Or what do you do as a cleric of Gruumsh when the party is meant to save an elf held prisoner and tortured by orcs? Or what happens when the cleric walks into town arrayed in the holy symbols of Gruumsh?

Perhaps they may find that Gruumsh loathes their half-human side. Or that Gruumsh does not represent their values as a cleric of war, but, rather Tempus or even the Red Knight. Or maybe this cleric discovers a (homebrew) heresy that the Red Knight was actually originally an orc or half-orc as a mortal, but this history was re-written because mortal racism.

 

[Riley37]

When I DM one of my expectations is that players don't play a jerk and don't play evil characters. That may not be your expectation, which is perfectly OK. Beyond that I can't think of anything else to add.

Those are generally useful expectations.

I am interested in a half-orc who turns to Gruumsh, in anger at their foster parents, and because of their anger has not yet realized and faced *everything that means*, and does okay at Cleric 1 and Cleric 2, then faces a conflict at Cleric 3.

I am also a fan of the story of Derek Black. Was he evil, a year before he turned? How about one day before he turned?

 

[pemerton]

TYou may find it "interesting" to have someone play a PC who's the devout follower of a sociopathic anarchist who aggressively promotes killing members of the races of the rest of the party. I think unless the PC changes who they worship, it would inevitably lead to PVP or a PC leaving the group.

Assuming of course that this is a heavy RP game. It sounds like it's not, and the OP is going to just let it slide for now which is fine.

People play for different reasons, and have different expectations of the game. When I DM one of my expectations is that players don't play a jerk and don't play evil characters. That may not be your expectation

Whatever my view about evil PCs in games that use the D&D alignment system, the OP tells us that the cleric PC is not evil. And there's no evidence in the OP that anyone is being a jerk. (I guess it's possible the elf player is being a jerk - "Hey, Gruumsh-y, suck this up!" - but there's no indication of that.)

Suppose the PC ends up leaving the group - OK, that happens. How is the game made better by making the PC leave the group now?

But in any event, I think you are making assumptions about the "inevitable" direction of play which are unwarranted. There are all sorts of ways of playing a cleric of a vicious god; they don't all involve being vicious unself.

If you let your players dictate the nature of the setting's gods to you, then that's your DM style, at your table. Have fun with that.

I don't know any DMs who do that. I haven't seen anyone in this thread tell you that your players decide how Gruumsh reacts in your setting. I haven't seen anyone in this thread tell the OP that the OP's players decide how Gruumsh reacts in the OP's setting. Every post I've read, has assumed that the DM makes any and all decisions about how Gruumsh reacts (if Gruumsh reacts at all).

I generally regard a PC cleric's god as shared property. I would expect the player to take the lead on a day-to-day basis in articulating the demands the god imposes (on the PC, on worshippers generally, on the world generally). But as with any other relationship to a NPC, as GM I may present situations involving the god which generate pressure on the player. (For instance, in my current 4e game, I am the one who has presented the Raven Queen as aspiring to divine rulesrship of the whole cosmos.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

This is great! Don't deter her! Here we have a character with a dramatic need, to establish a connection with her orcish identity and be independent. This is put directly in tension with a need/desire to get along with an elf. There will be costs! That's the nature of it, but imagine the character championing this relationship, casting it in terms of the positive values of orcishness, etc.

I think I would put pressure first in terms of peers. Let the PC meet orcs and find out how much they dislike this choice! Let other clerics of Gruumsh weigh in and really test the PC's belief! There should be rewards too, maybe certain orcs secretly are tired of warring on elves, and maybe some elves (one in particular) will come to see at least some orcs as not so horrible.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes they are, unless the DM explicitly changes things. The DM in question here didn't say how he changed Gruumsh to be the god of happy fuzzy bunnies, and that elves don't hate Gruumsh, so they do. You have to change the state of affairs for these issues to go away, not go out of your way to "add in" what is already the lore.

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.

Nobody said that the DM can't change things. If the players didn't want to butt heads, though, they should have approached the DM for such a change BEFORE the game began.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with your description of Gruumsh. I don't have Volo's Guide, but there was a similar description in "Deities and Demigods". I would run Gruumsh as described. Gruumsh hates elves even more than Churchill hated Stalin.

Churchill ALLIED with Stalin. Some things transcend hatred. Survival tends to be that thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's very little written in 5E books about deities and their history in FR, which was kind of surprise. Corellon's entry is basically "god of elves". So the genocide thing comes from previous editions (and my old books are in storage at the moment) as does most lore about the gods.

But not mentioning a particular animus against elves despite the fact that it was Corellon who took Gruumsh's eye, doesn't make it any better. Just that the cleric should also support murder of humans and dwarves in equal measure, and seek the downfall of civilization. That doesn't improve the situation.

You may find it "interesting" to have someone play a PC who's the devout follower of a sociopathic anarchist who aggressively promotes killing members of the races of the rest of the party. I think unless the PC changes who they worship, it would inevitably lead to PVP or a PC leaving the group.

Assuming of course that this is a heavy RP game. It sounds like it's not, and the OP is going to just let it slide for now which is fine.

People play for different reasons, and have different expectations of the game. When I DM one of my expectations is that players don't play a jerk and don't play evil characters. That may not be your expectation, which is perfectly OK. Beyond that I can't think of anything else to add.

There's a lot of ways to spin that. First of all, Gruumsh's rep basically comes from what was writ' about him BY THE ELVES (at least in most campaigns, and usually what humans know came via that route). Could be that the orcs have a different story. Now, they're typically depicted as a modestly depraved bunch of CE 'barbarians', but that too may just be PR, orcs aren't known to be good at that.

My point is, the GM, assuming he's not locked into some specific lore, is free to interpret Gruumsh and the orcs and the elves in various ways. It might be quite interesting to get the orcish point of view on things!