Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6539037" data-attributes="member: 6786252">Fire is thematically associated with the sun, light, and goodness as much as it is with hellfire in 5e.  Meanwhile, in 5e, disease is flat out associated with the Death Domain, which is associated with evil high priests.    That's right in the DMG.   On the PHB side, the Life domain talks about how its associated with non-evil gods, and works at curing the sick.   The implications are pretty strong. Except that, in real life, your examples would be embodied by the Fiend pact.   Not a celestial one.   Fiends are the dark angels that spread plagues.   Except that its inconsistent with what has been established.   You are rewriting the entire character, twisting things in a way that doesn't make in-universe sense.   That's just bad writing, bad game design.   Internal consistency is critical for immersion and suspension of disbelief.  Oaths untied to gods are immaterial - the majority of paladins worship gods irregardless, and often swear the oaths at gods' altars.  D&D as a whole likely would never make such a character because its not internally consistent.   And, as I've said before, that's kinda important to maintain.   If you have a being that goes around killing people to prop up their rule, that would be a Lawful Neutral at the best.   Its inconsistent with how Good is portrayed in books. Celestial patrons would include angels, by nature of how the Patron system works.   We're talking about Celestial patrons, so therefore we must be talking about celestial creatures.   In 5e, that's angels, couatl, empyreans, unicorn, and pegasi.   These will serve as the bulk of teachers.  However, its inconsistent with their portrayal in the DMG to teach spells that warlocks typically use.If your supposedly Good deity employs undead and fiends to teach, I submit that 1) he's not really Good in the D&D sense, and 2) that's still a fiend (or fey, or GOO, or Vestige) Patron there.   Certainly, its vastly out of character for Pelor to do so.Technically, we shouldn't be talking gods at all, but that was an example another poster brought up, and the Patron list does include two gods (Asmodeus and Tharizdun, the Chained God) as examples, so that's that.  You are making a proposal to make major alterations to the setting of Greyhawk to fit a character.   If that's fun, go ahead at your table.   However, if it doesn't make sense for a story that the DM has in mind for the game, then should you expect such changes to be adopted, just because?    All that is immaterial anyways.   I'm talking about Pelor as he is written, as the vast majority of people play him.   I don't care what individual tables do.   That was never what this was about.  This was a discussion if it made sense for Pelor, as presented in a way we all know, to sponsor a warlock.And, frankly, I'm annoyed with how your characterizing my take on house rules.   Yes, changing a setting in such a major way is home brew content, a house rule.  Its not dirty or something you shouldn't do.  However, individualized settings have zero place in a discussion on published material at a meta-level.    I'm calling you being internally inconsistent that doesn't make sense as a story.   Classes come with built in themes.  They're not just a collection of mechanics.  When you are effectively rewriting things to make it work, then yes, its incompatible. The cosmology section in 5e suggests otherwise.  The positive energy plane (which is life energy) wraps around the higher planes, the negative energy plane (which is the source of necrotic energy that destroys the living) wraps around the lower planes.   Casting someone out of your domain isnt' the same thing as championing the outcasts.  This is purely homebrew content that changes who and what Pelor is and stands for.  This isn't atypical.  This is flat out changing the default.    Which, at your table, is fine.   Its not something that the vast majority of players use.That's like saying "Well, my table lets Rangers use Hunter Marks and an off hand attack all with the same bonus action!  So, the RAW is wrong!"     You changed things to work at your table.  Alright, that's fine.  It doesn't help as part of the discussion.  Everyone needs to come from the same baseline, or as close as you can get to it.</blockquote>

Verification