Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7393069" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I may be biased because I run home campaign in a world that I've built and run in over decades.&nbsp; In some ways that's been a big benefit - I have a ton of back story and lore that I can always dip into whether the players realize it or not.However, it does mean that my world doesn't morph to suit the players (although campaigns certainly do).&nbsp; That may make me an inflexible SOB, but I view it as having a consistent world.&nbsp; As much as I may wish that chocolate ice cream was a health food, I accept that it is not and the consequences of my actions if I eat it.In the same way, Gruumsh is an evil god in my world.&nbsp; A cleric ignoring 2/3 of a god's portfolio and only focusing on the 1/3 that enables the other 2/3 would not fly.&nbsp; There may be differences in implementation of the portfolio of a deity, but not ignoring entire aspects of a god.&nbsp; It would be like a McDonald's server only selling salads and refusing to fill any other order.&nbsp; Technically they are just trying to serve the customers by providing the healthiest alternative.&nbsp; However, they are not doing what their employer wants and will need to find a different job.So maybe this is a one-shot, brand new campaign world.&nbsp; Maybe the DM and the players don't have strong opinions and the portfolio that an individual cleric follows can get away with <s>only serving salad</s> not really being evil. But won't there still be basic conflict?&nbsp; If the party has to confront an orcish raiding party, which side does the cleric support?I learned a long time ago (when a player wanted to be a half-dragon half-vampire 7 foot tall albino elf) that sometimes in order to have a consistent, believable world I have to set limitations.&nbsp; In order to have a cohesive group, I have to occasionally say &quot;no&quot; to a concept.&nbsp; A cleric of Gruumsh is an example of where I would draw the line.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7393069, member: 6801845"] I may be biased because I run home campaign in a world that I've built and run in over decades. In some ways that's been a big benefit - I have a ton of back story and lore that I can always dip into whether the players realize it or not. However, it does mean that my world doesn't morph to suit the players (although campaigns certainly do). That may make me an inflexible SOB, but I view it as having a consistent world. As much as I may wish that chocolate ice cream was a health food, I accept that it is not and the consequences of my actions if I eat it. In the same way, Gruumsh is an evil god in my world. A cleric ignoring 2/3 of a god's portfolio and only focusing on the 1/3 that enables the other 2/3 would not fly. There may be differences in implementation of the portfolio of a deity, but not ignoring entire aspects of a god. It would be like a McDonald's server only selling salads and refusing to fill any other order. [I]Technically[/I] they are just trying to serve the customers by providing the healthiest alternative. However, they are not doing what their employer wants and will need to find a different job. So maybe this is a one-shot, brand new campaign world. Maybe the DM and the players don't have strong opinions and the portfolio that an individual cleric follows can get away with [S]only serving salad[/S] not really being evil. But won't there still be basic conflict? If the party has to confront an orcish raiding party, which side does the cleric support? I learned a long time ago (when a player wanted to be a half-dragon half-vampire 7 foot tall albino elf) that sometimes in order to have a consistent, believable world I have to set limitations. In order to have a cohesive group, I have to occasionally say "no" to a concept. A cleric of Gruumsh is an example of where I would draw the line. [/QUOTE]

Verification