D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[TwoSix]

It doesn't matter. If you are a cleric and start going against the wishes of your god, then there have to be consequences. It is the same if a Paladin violates their oath.

It's perfectly simple to create a coherent setting fiction where that is not the case.

This is simply an argument for the preference of one set of fiction over another.

 

[TwoSix]

Because it stigmatises mental illness.

This is the same reason that Shadow of the Mad Wizard changed its title to Shadow of the Weird Wizard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's perfectly simple to create a coherent setting fiction where that is not the case.

This is simply an argument for the preference of one set of fiction over another.

Yes. That's all any of this is, on both sides of the debate. Who here thought otherwise?

 

[Belen]

It's perfectly simple to create a coherent setting fiction where that is not the case.

This is simply an argument for the preference of one set of fiction over another.

What setting fiction provides for a class that is granted divine favor to violate the reasons they were granted that power yet continue to retain it?

The only way I see it happening is a setting where divine power is just another type of magic source without gaining your power from a outside being with built-in morals or wishes.

Sure, you can create that setting but if I am running a more traditional D&D fantasy game and a player plays a cleric of a deity, then they are getting their power sourced, in part, by following the core tenets of the god.

Since it is a role playing game, if a player chooses to take action in game to violate their core ideology, then they will know that consequences exist.

I am not going to mess with a player just for giggles but that player should respect the DM in the same way.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes. That's all any of this is, on both sides of the debate. Who here thought otherwise?

I never did. But it often seems like people assume the fiction around classes, especially classes like cleric and paladin, aren't mutable, or that it would be wrong to change the default assumptions.

If you're really attached to the "cleric as conduit" concept, simply assume that the act of channeling divine energy makes a person a better conduit for all divine magic; since every deity probably has a rival or opposite, a fallen cleric will almost certainly be empowered by their god's rival.

BG3 spoiler:

Spoiler

This is the good Shadowheart arc.

 

[pemerton]

We are not playing a board game.

I realise that.

We are playing a roleplaying game and one dimension of that game is world consequences for your actions in game.

This proposition - which is a statement about the fiction - entails nothing about who is exposed to what risks in the play of the game. That is a matter about the actual rules and procedures of play; not about the fiction.

If a fighter is an agent of the king and that fighter starts violating the laws of the kingdom, then that fighter will be hunted down.

If a cleric of Pelor starts casting curses and causing disease, then Pelor is going to remove their powers of lay down an epic smite.

In terms of game play, can you see the difference between My PC is being pursued - which is a framework for establishing scenes and seeding conflict - and My god as removed my abilities - which means the player can't play their position any more?

 

[Belen]

I never did. But it often seems like people assume the fiction around classes, especially classes like cleric and paladin, aren't mutable, or that it would be wrong to change the default assumptions.

If you're really attached to the "cleric as conduit" concept, simply assume that the act of channeling divine energy makes a person a better conduit for all divine magic; since every deity probably has a rival or opposite, a fallen cleric will almost certainly be empowered by their god's rival.

I am aware of BG3 and I agree with that story decision. It makes sense for the story and was hinted at early in the game.

I have not trouble working with a player to run a story decision; however, I have a big problem with a rule that forbids action if it is not a mutual decision.

 

[TwoSix]

What setting fiction provides for a class that is granted divine favor to violate the reasons they were granted that power yet continue to retain it?

Well, you could....

The only way I see it happening is a setting where divine power is just another type of magic source without gaining your power from a outside being with built-in morals or wishes.

Oh, never mind, you got there.

I am not going to mess with a player just for giggles but that player should respect the DM in the same way.

Ideally, a character should grow and change during the game. A paladin who never courts breaking their Oath is missing out on the paladin experience, IMO. Being a fallen paladin is in no way a fail state.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I never did. But it often seems like people assume the fiction around classes, especially classes like cleric and paladin, aren't mutable, or that it would be wrong to change the default assumptions.

If you're really attached to the "cleric as conduit" concept, simply assume that the act of channeling divine energy makes a person a better conduit for all divine magic; since every deity probably has a rival or opposite, a fallen cleric will almost certainly be empowered by their god's rival.

BG3 spoiler:

Spoiler

This is the good Shadowheart arc.

I don't make assumptions that go against my preferences simply because of some obligation to follow DMG advice with which I disagree. No such obligation exists.

 

[pemerton]

You are arguing from a perspective that is not really relevant to my point. From a game perspective I am aware it is unfair, to the PCs.

I don't know what this means. The PCs don't exist, and so game perspective doesn't apply to them.

And within the fiction, why is it unfair that someone might be punished by their god for breaking a divine commandment?

It is fair to the player in that everyone decides for themselves what class to play.

Thank you for posting a reason.