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

[Emerikol]

I think given D&D's history we've found that the "losing your powers" doesn't work and leads to negative play experiences. It's why Paladins were such a mocked class through to the end of 3.5 - and deserves to stay on the "things we used to do" list with Descending AC and XP for GP.

"we". Some of you. The problem is the game seems to cater to the crowd who can't stand anything bad happening to them. It's why so many rules have been removed and an entire OSR movement has been born in response.

Personally, I haven't had many problems with people playing clerics. But I will admit my cleric players have really been into playing the class. They become enmeshed in the religious world of my campaign setting. It's a lot of fun when done well.

 

[TwoSix]

Now that's heresy!

Figuratively literal heresy!

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s definitely a part of D&D history, but it’s also one of the sacred cows that I believe needs to go to the slaughterhouse, and replaced with a better idea. Obviously the simplest is just do away with the concept altogether. The next simplest is ask the player what god or oath they feel they best embody and let them switch to that, without penalty.

Even IF that was a good idea(it's not and you've given no credible reason to assume it good) that's not what Crawford and wotc have been doing with classes that get their power from a divine/infernal/etc source. What they have been doing is wording marketing and rules themselves in a way that actively shields the kind of toxic petulant players noted in 907 so those players can claim the DM is overstepping for saying no saying that the line was crossed.

Even in settings like eberron where divine powers don't necessarily come from a god and the existence of God's can't be proven, clerics and paladins still need to hold their beliefs closely enough... Disregarding them and acting in violation of them with severe enough contradiction is certain to cause some problems... That says nothing about the Native fiends and similar who might be the source of a warlock or unusual cleric/paladin's power and very much could just say no while quoting scorpion's famous line or similar to the powers of a freshly disempowered warlock.

 

[Belen]

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.

Really? I did earlier in the thread.

The real issue here is lack of communication between player and DM. If the player communicated to me and let me what they wanted (barring becoming evil). then I am happy to work with them.

If the player just springs it in game and breaks oath or defiles one of their holy sites etc, then no.

I will say it again. The rule looks intended to manage toxic DMs while protecting toxic players.

At the end of the day, I probably would not revoke their powers. I may pull them aside to see if something is wrong, but without a good reason for breaking the social contract, then they can find a new game.

 

[Nefermandias]

It's funny, hardline DMs want players beholden and answering to those almighty figures able to punish both in-narrative and the mechanics and those power figures are all played by...said DM! No ways the player has any say in this, that would be toxic bullying!

Surprise, surprise.

Stop framing things as "punishment and reward" and start seeing things for what they are: Natural consequences that follows from players actions and choices within the narrative.

Here is an interesting article on this subject

Professor Angry’s Office Hours: You Ain’t a Behavioral Engineer

It’s time I have a little bit of an intervention because, frankly, some of y’all are starting to scare me with your approach to this whole True Campaign Managery thing.

theangrygm.com

 

[Neonchameleon]

And petulant players who want to ignore the setting entirely and just do whatever they want without consequence are toxic crybabies and the ruination of many games. Just go.

Petulant DMs who want to ignore the rules and setting and just do whatever they want to characters are toxic bullies and have ruined far more games and the D&D experience for far more people than single players ever have.

As for those who are complaining about the DM screwing with them. If a DM wants to mess with a player, a rule on clerics is not going to save the situation. Just leave that game. But don't misinterpret good DMing that adheres to a world and reflects the game as the DM messing with you.

The core problem is that if the rules tell you you should or can do something then people acting in good faith will do that. Having the "you lose your powers" rules in the game rather than leaving them in the dustbin of history where they belong is the game teaching DMs who are acting in good faith to be bad DMs.

And I don't believe I misinterpret a DM who creates the world to force players to do what they want. I hope I'm not stepping too far outside the bounds of the board by bringing up real world religion when I comment that in the sacramental Roman Catholic Church, certain sacraments including Holy Orders are permanent. Once you have been consecrated as a priest you will be a priest to your dying day, no matter what else you do. You might be removed from the Catholic Church or sent to jail - but the sacrament is still permanent.

Three of the sacraments may not be repeated: Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders: their effect is permanent. This teaching has been expressed by the images of, in the West, an indelible character or mark and of, in the East, a seal (CCC 698). However, if there is doubt about the validity of the administration of one or more of these sacraments, a conditional form of conferral may be used, such as: "If you are not already baptized, I baptize you …"​

Sacraments of the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Although the Roman Catholic model is far from the only model (and indeed not the one I grew up in) I find that the idea that the clerical or paladinly investment can and will be readily removed despite this not being the case in one of the real world's most significant regions to be an offence against verisimilitude as well as one against both storytelling and roleplaying.

And this does not mean that there are no consequences. Especially if the individual is part of an organised religion. The servants of the God may take offence and the God may through their servants - none of which means that the power is just withdrawn.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Stop framing things as "punishment and reward" and start seeing things for what they are: Natural consequences that follows from players actions and choices within the narrative.

Stop pretending that "taking away your powers" is anything other than a punishment inflicted by the DM through literal divine intervention.

Natural consequences are things like picking up a reputation. Anything that takes divine intervention to change the current situation isn't natural. Now if someone were to have a hit squad from their church trying to arrest them that would be a natural consequence.

Here is an interesting article on this subject

Professor Angry’s Office Hours: You Ain’t a Behavioral Engineer

It’s time I have a little bit of an intervention because, frankly, some of y’all are starting to scare me with your approach to this whole True Campaign Managery thing.

theangrygm.com

Ah yes "The Angry GM" who appears in that to never ever consider that the DM might not be right.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Stop framing things as "punishment and reward" and start seeing things for what they are: Natural consequences that follows from players actions and choices within the narrative.

Here is an interesting article on this subject

Professor Angry’s Office Hours: You Ain’t a Behavioral Engineer

It’s time I have a little bit of an intervention because, frankly, some of y’all are starting to scare me with your approach to this whole True Campaign Managery thing.

theangrygm.com

Sure. Those consequences are natural because they fit the narrative created by the DM.

Say in my game the powers are given to the cleric through secret prayers and rite. Once they know and understand the "rites of casting 2nd level spells", you can't remove it (unless you destroy their memory, let's say). So a god removing spellcasting from a cleric would not be a natural consequence in that narrative premise.

It's only natural if you make it natural; we're are talking about the inner working of fictional magic.

 

[Belen]

It's funny, hardline DMs want players beholden and answering to those almighty figures able to punish both in-narrative and the mechanics and those power figures are all played by...said DM! No ways the player has any say in this, that would be toxic bullying!

Surprise, surprise.

Not what any one is saying. I find it funny that the narrative is always bad DMs and never toxic players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yup.

It's just an mechanical justification to their power trip.

"Plays YOUR character in a manners that fits MY preferences".

Whist I agree with you that the DM should not be removing cleric (or any class) abilities based on how a player chooses to play their character, I don’t think your hysterical accusations of bad faith DMing do your arguments any favours.