D&D General What Happens if a Cleric/Warlock/etc PC Gravely Offends Their Supernatural Patron?

[Lanefan]

I mean, if after punching her it turns out she was actually a doppelganger, nobody's going to complain overmuch I think. So you have to leave the wiggle room.

OK, that's fair.

 

[Oofta]

A world where actions and decisions have consequences, both good and bad, is always going to appeal to me more as a player and DM than one where I can do anything. If the consequences are arbitrary or punitive we may have a problem. Even then it's okay if it makes sense in world

Because eventually they get trained via the magic of operant conditioning to expect the DM to punch them mechanically whenever they make the 'wrong' choice, so they start agonizing over every choice.

Or they're the 3e Paladin and don't let the party make choices they don't like and also can't make their own choices because the DM is lurking around the corner with a collapsible baton and a pamphlet entitled 'kneecaps and you'.

If attacking people on the street for no reason never has a consequence it's a game that would feel phony and artificial to me. It might be funny to put buckets on people's heads in Skyrim, but one of the reasons I play D&D is because there are consequences to my actions.

There's no one true way, but having the world responding to what the PCs do is not "conditioning". It's having a living world that's not static nor revolves solely around the PCs.

You want to be able to put buckets on the head of every NPC? Cool. I'll find a different game.

 

[Maxperson]

But his post (several back) that led to this had the setup: "What if the player is just a naturally obedient person who would never think to step a single toe out of Daddy Patron's line"

I missed that post, so I don't know the context. Why would he even post that? This thread is about PCs that DO step out of line, and by a lot more than a toe. "what happens if a cleric warlock etc pc gravely offends their supernatural patron?" If the PC is obedient and doesn't step out of line, he doesn't get in trouble.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I missed that post, so I don't know the context. Why would he even post that? This thread is about PCs that DO step out of line, and by a lot more than a toe. "what happens if a cleric warlock etc pc gravely offends their supernatural patron?" If the PC is obedient and doesn't step out of line, he doesn't get in trouble.

The point being argued was: having your powers stripped was part of the game's balance, ergo it's imbalanced if you don't.

Which would imply the a cleric who never comes into conflict with their deity is OP.

 

[Jer]

I missed that post, so I don't know the context. Why would he even post that? This thread is about PCs that DO step out of line, and by a lot more than a toe. "what happens if a cleric warlock etc pc gravely offends their supernatural patron?" If the PC is obedient and doesn't step out of line, he doesn't get in trouble.

It was in a sub-discussion about whether or not the cleric/paladin/warlock are unabalanced as characters if you don't use their obligations to keep them in check. That particular example was to try to find out what would be unbalanced about a character whose did what they were told with no pushback and where the unbalance would come from.

 

[Maxperson]

It was in a sub-discussion about whether or not the cleric/paladin/warlock are unabalanced as characters if you don't use their obligations to keep them in check. That particular example was to try to find out what would be unbalanced about a character whose did what they were told with no pushback and where the unbalance would come from.

No. The obligations are not a part of the class balance. Their abilities are. The obligations are an RP limitation that can have serious impact if you go against it. I don't know why you'd pick a specific god or patron and then go against them, though. If you don't like that god's or patron's limitations, pick a different one.

 

[nevin]

A world where actions and decisions have consequences, both good and bad, is always going to appeal to me more as a player and DM than one where I can do anything. If the consequences are arbitrary or punitive we may have a problem. Even then it's okay if it makes sense in world

If attacking people on the street for no reason never has a consequence it's a game that would feel phony and artificial to me. It might be funny to put buckets on people's heads in Skyrim, but one of the reasons I play D&D is because there are consequences to my actions.

There's no one true way, but having the world responding to what the PCs do is not "conditioning". It's having a living world that's not static nor revolves solely around the PCs.

You want to be able to put buckets on the head of every NPC? Cool. I'll find a different game.

I suspect he's talking about DM's that take a hard line approach and literally beat thier players into submission to proper behavior or death. I don't think he's talking about normal expectable consequences. not often but i've played with DM's who'd just kill you if you didn't take thier advice and go west. Or you slap the barmaid and the entire bar rises up and kills you, or you smart mouth the mage your talking too and he polymorphs you into a fly and squishes you. Some DM's are control freaks who punish anyone who crosses their mysterious broken lines.

We all forget sometimes not everyone DM's the same way. Especially in these forums.

 

[nevin]

No. The obligations are not a part of the class balance. Their abilities are. The obligations are an RP limitation that can have serious impact if you go against it. I don't know why you'd pick a specific god or patron and then go against them, though. If you don't like that god's or patron's limitations, pick a different one.

lol some players will only play obstinate troublemakers. Not my cup of tea but I've had several over the years like that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I suspect he's talking about DM's that take a hard line approach and literally beat thier players into submission to proper behavior or death. I don't think he's talking about normal expectable consequences. not often but i've played with DM's who'd just kill you if you didn't take thier advice and go west. Or you slap the barmaid and the entire bar rises up and kills you, or you smart mouth the mage your talking too and he polymorphs you into a fly and squishes you. Some DM's are control freaks who punish anyone who crosses their mysterious broken lines.

We all forget sometimes not everyone DM's the same way. Especially in these forums.

The tradition on this forum is to take the most hyperbolic extreme possible if you disagree, but if someone posts their opinion, you call it a strawman.

It is very important to the culture.

 

[Jer]

No. The obligations are not a part of the class balance. Their abilities are. The obligations are an RP limitation that can have serious impact if you go against it. I don't know why you'd pick a specific god or patron and then go against them, though. If you don't like that god's or patron's limitations, pick a different one.

I mean, I know why a warlock would pick a patron to go against - it gives the player some drama built-into their character if they know that eventually they're going to have to turn against the demon lord/archfey/Great Old One/Whatever that they have a pact with.

But where some folks run into problems with these kinds of things are when the DM is using the patron/god/oath/whatever to either create a story that the player doesn't want or to force the player to do what they want and are using an in-game measure to do that.

The unstated fact in the OP is that the DM is the one that is deciding what the Patron demands. If the character is defying them in an in character bit to further their own story that's one thing. But if the player doesn't want to do what the DM wants and the DM is using their patron to try to force the issue, that's a different thing entire.

So the question I would have is - why is this situation coming up at all?