D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Neonchameleon]

There's a wide spectrum. I agree and see your point about Spiderman (of course now that i think about it, he didnt get his powers from ideals or an oath).

There are a lot of stories where "monk/wu jen" types have ideals and taboos and they loose their power if they break them.

I think you are correct for a spectrum of stories, but I also feel there are stories where following the idea brings you in tune with the power, therefore if you break the ideals, you get "out of tune" and lose abilities, or effectiveness.

/shrugs

Fair. You can do most things in stories where the author has control over everything and there is a single main character. All the examples I can think of where it works that way are stories with a single main character and it's about that character.

Why it's a miserable failure even as a concept in D&D isn't that D&D is a team game. And either the person who lost their powers when no one else did needs to be carried by the party or they need to become the main character while their issues are resolved, and neither is good for table balance. Oh and that it encourages DMs to be jerks.

 

[Maxperson]

The 2014!DMG does allow adding class levels for customizing non-PCs. But that technique is not actually used in a single published adventure or a single monster book.

I think that's more because those books don't use NPCs that join the party as an equal. The 5e DMG suggested PC class levels for NPCs who were going to be party members.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, that's exactly my problem with the more common viewpoints around classes. It's the idea that thousands of NPCs are all going to receive the same training and the same growth in abilities in exactly the same order.

Yet for some reason it's not an issue for the thousands of PCs that receive the same training and same growth in abilities in exactly the same order. Why are NPCs different?

 

[Maxperson]

Because clerics don’t get their powers from gods, of course.

Asked and answered.

"Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effect. The gods don't grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling."

You really think a god can't stop power flowing from him to his cleric? Power they explicitly grant to the clerics. I'm betting 5.5e changed that, too, but a whole lot of people haven't made the switch.

I just checked and nope, they didn't change it. Color me surprised.

"Because their power is a divine gift, Clerics typically associate themselves with temples dedicated to the deity or other immortal force that unlocked their magic."

It is nice to see that they backtracked on 5e's gods only thing. Now clerics can worship philosophies again.

 

[GobHag]

The demanded rule change would allow a Cleric of the God of pacifism to go on a murder spree where they butcher noncombatants and their God's not allowed to depower them.

Or an Oath of Devotion Paladin could promise to help refugees and then sell them to cannibals.

Yes. This is good.

 

[GobHag]

Yet for some reason it's not an issue for the thousands of PCs that receive the same training and same growth in abilities in exactly the same order. Why are NPCs different?

Because they're not player characters; They're not meant to be used by a human that controls only one being(maybe 2-3 if they have pets), they're there either as a game piece among a handful by the GM or a specific challenge that the party faces--There's no need to restrict NPCs to a PCs mechanic.

 

[Maxperson]

Because they're not player characters.

That doesn't really explain it. If thousands of people advancing in exactly the same manner is an issue, NPC or PC doesn't change that. It's not a problem that is specific to either category.

 

[GobHag]

That doesn't really explain it. If thousands of people advancing in exactly the same manner is an issue, NPC or PC doesn't change that. It's not a problem that is specific to either category.

Yes it does; It's like arguing that a pencil is good enough for book manufacturing because a writer uses it to write a book.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes it does; It's like arguing that a pencil is good enough for book manufacturing because a writer uses it to write a book.

No it's not. There is literally no difference in the fiction between an NPC and a PC, so treating them differently makes no sense. If it's bad for one to be treated like they are all the same by the thousands, it's also wrong for the other.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, same here, but I’d argue that there is pretty strong case for the warlock’s patron having real leverage making a better story. Like this thread literally exists because the OP’s player felt so.

I also think that the patron should have a lot of leverage in the narrative. Where we probably disagree is that I don’t think that a GM’s judgment call is necessary to implement that leverage.

Now, for the OP, since it was the player’s specific request to implement such a relationship, of course the GM should implement it.