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

[pemerton]

I have never seen a cleric or paladin lose their powers in game. I also have never seen a player violate their religion or oath.

In that case, the DMG wording doesn't seem to matter, does it?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I think that advice for new players, that implies that there is nothing useful to be said about reconciling ideas and approaches and hence that the only recourse is to part ways, is bad advice.

There are well-known player-GM flashpoints in D&D play, that have been discussed and debated for decades now. Alignment, and fidelity to the divinities, are two of these.

The book proactively trying to structure things, and channel participants, down pathways that are likely to avoid rather than ignite these issues seems sensible to me.

I don't disagree with what you've said really. You could absolutely include additional advice, or reword what I had, to encourage more discussion. I have been very clear in my position, that I believe, with few exceptions, many of the problems cited in this thread and others are purely social. So more discussion is, in my opinion, always good.

For context, as people's opinions are based on their experiences. I've been pretty open about the fact that I DM, mostly, for randoms off the LFG subreddit, and play in my primary group where I only DM sometimes. I've done this for almost a decade. I have a 3-4 hour session 0 with these "random" players, a long form 1 on 1 discussion just about their character, and a discussion about what they want out of the campaign, all before playing a single session.

I believe my committment to proper communication is why out of what has to be hundreds of players, I've had to have an uncomfortable conversation with two. And out of over a dozen random DMs, I've never had an issue. Everyone else has, without exception, been a joy. I love this community, and implore anyone who is having a toxic or difficult experience with their group to look for better - because it's out there.

So whatever WotC has to do to both encourage communication and empower people to find a group that fits them, so be it. But as to the how best to do that, your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Remathilis]

So then since it's all 5e and we can mix and match freely, I'm sure the next time I'm a player the DM will not object to my using a 2014 race and getting racial stat bonuses, and then picking a 2024 background and getting more stat bonuses.

WotC hasn't given much guidance on using older material with new, but that is ONE of the few places they tell you choose one or the other.

Nice try.

 

[mamba]

Semantics. I've seen people make the same argument for stripping power from warlocks.

Hellboy is not a Warlock either, he is a demon with innate powers. I agree wrt Warlock powers, when you derive / channel your powers from some supernatural being, then they are not innate and can be revoked

 

[TiQuinn]

There! Now that's a better comparison. Ghost Rider got stuck with the spirit of vengeance, so his power comes from the spirit, and if it leaves his body he loses most of his powers (not all)

Ultimately, the point is the concept exists in fantasy where the servant/follower of a god or powerful being continues to have his power after he has turned his back on his god / master.

More to the point, I have yet to hear anyone state that if their Paladin player or Cleric player stopped following their god or ethos, they'd allow them to take another god instead, and continue getting their powers from THAT god. Instead, the punishment appears to be the point. The removal of class abilities. The DM's story must override the fact that the players are playing a game and are having their abilities removed versus other players who have no similar restriction.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay. See below.

That's because mephisto is not the source of power for johnny blaze/Carter Slade/etc, he just bound one to the other.
I may not be the most avid follower of ghost rider, but I've always understood that the ghost rider and whatever human he inhabits (or johnny blaze/Carter Slade/etc are pretty much a gestalt entity where sometimes the rider forces his way out taking control. That power sharing relationship between human and the patron Zarathos is dramatically more extreme than the old style threat of empowering entities for paladin/cleric/warlock being unhappy with the PC's Actions.

Silver Surfer.

Herald of Galactus.

Galactus imbues him with power. Silver Surfer realizes "Hey, eating planets is wrong" and ends up fighting him.

Spoiler: do y'all check these examples*at all*?

However, Galactus punished the Surfer by trapping him on Earth, erecting an energy barrier around the planet that was uniquely attuned to the Surfer.

Silver Surfer Powers, Enemies, & History | Marvel

The official Marvel page for Silver Surfer. Learn all about Silver Surfer both on screen and in comics!

www.marvel.com

This kind of zero effort treadmill of blatantly inapplicable examples that gets thrust onto the gm mid session is exactly why the bizarre bunker is a problem at the table in ways that don't happen the other way around. Worse is the fact that so far ALL of them can only really function as main characters

 

[TiQuinn]

This kind of zero effort treadmill of blatantly inapplicable examples that gets thrust onto the gm mid session is exactly why the bizarre bunker is a problem at the table in ways that don't happen the other way around. Worse is the fact that so far ALL of them can only really function as main characters

If you don't like the zero effort treadmill, why do you only engage the topic at that level?

And what on Earth are you talking about when you say "bizarre bunker"?

 

[mamba]

Ultimately, the point is the concept exists

no one said it doesn’t

More to the point, I have yet to hear anyone state that if their Paladin player or Cleric player stopped following their god or ethos, they'd allow them to take another god instead, and continue getting their powers from THAT god.

sure they can, they even have quite a bit of leeway before there are any actual consequences with their original god. I did not see this as a discussion about how each individual table handles the topic in detail

I am not trying to chain the player / character to a wall, they have a pretty long rope, but if your character does the equivalent of killing the pope and burning down the vatican, don’t expect to keep your powers either

Instead, the punishment appears to be the point.

no, it absolutely is not, never was, never will be, not sure what posts you are reading but that seems to be in your head only

 

[pemerton]

if your character does the equivalent of killing the pope and burning down the vatican, don’t expect to keep your powers either

But what if the (so-called) pope is really an anti-pope, and the Vatican really a den of vice? Maybe the character in question is the one giving effect to the divine will!

 

[TiQuinn]

no one said it doesn’t

no, it absolutely is not, never was, never will be, not sure what posts you are reading but that seems to be in your head only

Okay.