D&D General Holding non-Paladins to their class vows

[MechaTarrasque]

Sure, but does this angry angel keep having to deliver your spells to you every day?

You get one spell for every time he smacks you upside the head. I usually have the cleric make an easy wisdom check to see if he/she gets the message; much like commentators on the Internet, some clerics are purposefully obtuse.

I figure your god invested a lot of effort to make you a cleric, so he/she doesn't want you dead, just corrected and disciplined.

 

[5ekyu]

In the recent discussions about Paladins and their oaths, @Oofta pointed out correctly that there are many other devotional classes. How often do as a DM do you take players of other classes to task for not following their devotions, up to and including taking features or spells from them until they atone?

In my games, there us a cire house rule that applies to paladins, warlocks, clerics, druids (to varying degrees) and even to certain backgrounds for other classes.

It covers that the GM and player just come to agreement about the details and particulars of these bonds and obligations and consequences for the PC to be approved.

So, there will be discussion, tenets, expectations etc all agreed to both in general and in specific.

When a recent charscter was multi-clasding into cleric there was a write-up explaining the roles, tenets etc.

The key is, once you get on the same page at start, I find you get more buy-in as those play out in play.

Of course it cant all be presented as one-sided but there can still be surprises.

As for removing class features- anything is on the table, especially when dealing with divines and other such powers.
.

 

[Seramus]

I see the lowest example is currently Monks. Anyone want to share an actual play issue where they had to discipline a monk for not following their vows or devotion?

Back in the day when monks had to be lawful I had a player who stopped being lawful. When he tried to take another level of Monk I described how his mind kept wandering to other important issues and he couldn't focus. I don't know if that counts as discipline, since he didn't lose his existing powers.

In any case, there is merit to the idea that a God or patron invests their power unwisely, and now the character uses those Powers against the god/patron. So I'm much more inclined to let the character keep their powers, and the NPC has to deal with their poor decision.

 

[Salthorae]

No one at my table ever had stats to do a Monk in the AD&D days and the 3.x monk was relatively weak compared to the other classes so never had any love there.

I think we only had 1 played in the 3.x/PF days of my group and he quickly multiclassed out after he changed alignments. He kept his previous features, but no going back.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t think any of the options are consistent with what I do. I went with “I never discipline character’s for not following their class devotion” because I never take away characters’ class (or subclass, etc.) abilities. But it’s also not entirely accurate, because characters of any class might face story consequences for actions that go against what is expected of people of their station. Basically, I don’t want to punish the players with mechanical consequences for playing their class “wrong.” But if your monastery has a code of conduct, or you swore an oath to your king, or you are part of an organized crime ring, and you break the rules you’ve agreed to, there will naturally be in-character consequences if you’re found out.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Salthorae]

I don’t think any of the options are consistent with what I do. I went with “I never discipline character’s for not following their class devotion” because I never take away characters’ class (or subclass, etc.) abilities. But it’s also not entirely accurate, because characters of any class might face story consequences for actions that go against what is expected of people of their station. Basically, I don’t want to punish the players with mechanical consequences for playing their class “wrong.” But if your monastery has a code of conduct, or you swore an oath to your king, or you are part of an organized crime ring, and you break the rules you’ve agreed to, there will naturally be in-character consequences if you’re found out.

It's curious to me that you're willing to punish players with the natural outflow IC social consequences at the "human" level, but not any natural outflow consequences between a character and their divine patron who gives them the ability to even cast spells.

Maybe we have a different metaphysical starting point on the source of divine powers and spells that explains our divergent view points?

And I'm not talking about playing "wrong", I'm talking about playing in a way that is inconsistent with the tenents of a god/oath/code/whatever that the player agreed to play from the start.

Players chose a certain combination to start a character. I have a discussion with them about what that means at the beginning of the game, what their god expects, etc. Then I let them play their character. Occasionally I will remind them or give them a Wisdom check or something to allow insight into a planned course of action. But if they persist in playing a character in a way that is divergent from the god/code/oath/whatever, then for my games not only are there potential social consequences, but their patron/god/power source is also going to be ticked and pull their power from that player. Or stop teaching them new things (warlock), until they either make it right or abandon that faith and take up a new god.

 

[Krachek]

I prefer to see divine power as a neutral force that cleric and paladin bind according to their faith.
It allow more freewill and thus temptation, inspire by the Jedi style.
In DnD gods can be defeat, castaway, do their clerics become powerless?
I would not make so.
They would have to adjust their faith or work to recall their god back.

 

[Salthorae]

I prefer to see divine power as a neutral force that cleric and paladin bind according to their faith.
It allow more freewill and thus temptation, inspire by the Jedi style.
In DnD gods can be defeat, castaway, do their clerics become powerless?
I would not make so.
They would have to adjust their faith or work to recall their god back.

In historic lore? At least for the FR, Yes they do become powerless.

I'm not up on other settings nearly as much for this, but given that FR is now the default setting I think the older lore applies to the setting in general.

When Bane died in the Avatar Crisis, his priests lost their spells until they switched to worshiping another god. Most jumped to Cyric or Iyachtu Xvim. Same with Leira when she died, though being priests of illusion and deception, they pretended. Some started to get their spells from Cyric as well.

From 3e's Faiths and Pantheons, page 5:

"The constant clash of deities also ensures a steady supply of dead deities whose temples now lie in ruin about Toril. Moreover, death doesn't necessarily end the career of a deity of Toril. The possibility of resurrection always exists, as evidenced by the recent return of Bane. Small cults dedicated to the resurrection of one lost deity or another appear everywhere in Faerun. Sometimes the deity is beyond the reach of such cultists or never existed except in myth, and its adherents receive no divine backing in their endeavors. Other times, a dead deity retains enough power to provide divine backing to a handful of worshipers. Occasionally, another deity masquerades in the guise of a dead deity, in hopes of expanding its portfolio."

 

[MechaTarrasque]

To expand a little more seriously on my previous answer, I think the gods/patrons/nature spirits/whatnot invested a certain amount of power in the classholder. That is why even war gods don't field armies of 10,000 paladins. It is a pretty big deal to "defrock" one, and a lot of Powers find it easier to headhunt or poach someone else's minion than create their own. And the PC might not even have a choice in the matter: your lips can say "Bahamut" all you want, but your actions direct your prayers to Tiamat (and if Tiamat has to pretend to be an awfully accommodating Bahamut for a while, that's a small price).

Also (and this is one of the reasons I rarely explain what the gods are thinking), it might be Vainglorious the Solar who is more in the wrong than the PC, and this is the god's subtle way of fixing one or both of them. Of course, even the DM might not know that until we see how the dice roll......

 

[Krachek]

In historic lore? At least for the FR, Yes they do become powerless.

I'm not up on other settings nearly as much for this, but given that FR is now the default setting I think the older lore applies to the setting in general.

When Bane died in the Avatar Crisis, his priests lost their spells until they switched to worshiping another god. Most jumped to Cyric or Iyachtu Xvim. Same with Leira when she died, though being priests of illusion and deception, they pretended. Some started to get their spells from Cyric as well.

Thank for the historical lore, but setting is a DM matter. So he may do some tweak.
So I would see no problem for a good fiendish warlock, explaining he made contact with fiendish energy by some ritual, bloodline, possession,...
I prefer letting freedom to players than babysit them,

 

[Salthorae]

Sure ok. You can always just say “it’s up to each DM”.

Baseline lore for the default setting of D&D runs counter to what you posted and asked, which is what I was responding to.

Not sure if you thought the question was rhetorical or not, but it’s not because default D&D does work how I described it.

Of course any DM can change whatever they want.

 

[Leatherhead]

Disciplining and taking away powers are two separate things, even if sometimes the discipline is to take away powers.

Clerics don't actually get a say in being a Cleric. Some divine emissary shows up one day and issues a mandate: "You are a Cleric now!" Too bad if the person wanted to be something else. Their god might stop giving them spells (in which case, some other deity might pluck them up) but you can't stop them from being a Cleric. It used to be that you stripped away all of their powers, but I find the idea of a non-consenting or reluctant Cleric to be an interesting character arc, and it's an idea which often reflected in myth or religious stories.

Druids have taboos, which traditionally that have been enforced with removing powers. Which are similar Paladin Oaths of a granola flavor, but they are "easier" to deal with because they aren't based on nebulous ideals.

There are already a bunch of threads talking about Paladin oaths.

Monks don't lose their powers. They can stop being a Monk at any time, but they don't automagically forget their training. It's a reflection of those eastern philosophies where people spend some time as a monk then move on to something else. They can be kicked out of or even hunted down by the monastery that trained them, but there isn't anything that actually stops them from learning how to be a better Monk by themselves.

Warlocks are encouraged to rebel against and test their patron. They need to do something for a patron to get more power, but they keep anything they already have. Changing patrons is possible, but bound to cause issues.

 

[Salthorae]

So I would see no problem for a good fiendish warlock, explaining he made contact with fiendish energy by some ritual, bloodline, possession,...

Sure, I have no problem with a character who starts the game good but has made a pact with a fiendish power. The fiend is going to string them along and try to tempt them at every turn. But if they continue to resist the Fiend and use its power against itself willfully, eventually that Fiend is going to stop giving them more power.

 

[S'mon]

In the recent discussions about Paladins and their oaths, @Oofta pointed out correctly that there are many other devotional classes. How often do as a DM do you take players of other classes to task for not following their devotions, up to and including taking features or spells from them until they atone?

I would reserve the right to have a deity, patron etc punish a PC, st least in settings where the gods are 'real', but it has never come up for any PC of any class, including Paladins, Warlocks, Clerics et al. IME players tend to worry about their gods'/patrons' opinions more than I do.

 

[ccs]

I see the lowest example is currently Monks. Anyone want to share an actual play issue where they had to discipline a monk for not following their vows or devotion?

There haven't ever been enough Monks in any of the games I've run (any edition) for it to be a thing.
But I would absolutely discipline/remove abilities if it came to that point.

I guess the closest would be a kid at the shop about 10 years ago. He was definitely playing a Chaotic monk. But the character died (largely because of his chaotic actions) before it needed to be addressed & he rolled something different.

 

[ccs]

I would reserve the right to have a deity, patron etc punish a PC, st least in settings where the gods are 'real', but it has never come up for any PC of any class, including Paladins, Warlocks, Clerics et al. IME players tend to worry about their gods'/patrons' opinions more than I do.

That's the real key.
The players need to know your stance on the issue & they need to believe that you'll actually apply consequences.
After that it's often a self-policing process.

Though in the case of Warlock patrons I do like to play them a bit more actively.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's curious to me that you're willing to punish players with the natural outflow IC social consequences at the "human" level, but not any natural outflow consequences between a character and their divine patron who gives them the ability to even cast spells.

A fair question! Frankly, the main reason is a meta one. I don’t want to take class features away from the players. For a more Watsonian answer though, the gods are more distant in my games than I think is the typical assumption for D&D. A cleric certainly believes their powers are granted to them
by the gods, and with good reason. But there is also good reason to believe they are mistaken.

Maybe we have a different metaphysical starting point on the source of divine powers and spells that explains our divergent view points?

I think we do, yes. Or, rather, the metaphysics of my games intentionally diverge from the metaphysics of typical D&D. Like I said, the gods are more distant. Clerics entreat the gods through ritual and prayer, and can produce miraculous effects through them, but there is room for doubt whether the magic is truly the result of divine intervention, or of the ritual itself. After all, Warlocks summon powerful planar entities and bind or negotiate with them to convince or force them to do magic on their behalf, who’s to say Clerics aren’t unknowingly doing the same thing?

 

[Salthorae]

A fair question! Frankly, the main reason is a meta one. I don’t want to take class features away from the players. For a more Watsonian answer though, the gods are more distant in my games than I think is the typical assumption for D&D. A cleric certainly believes their powers are granted to them
by the gods, and with good reason. But there is also good reason to believe they are mistaken.


I think we do, yes. Or, rather, the metaphysics of my games intentionally diverge from the metaphysics of typical D&D. Like I said, the gods are more distant. Clerics entreat the gods through ritual and prayer, and can produce miraculous effects through them, but there is room for doubt whether the magic is truly the result of divine intervention, or of the ritual itself. After all, Warlocks summon powerful planar entities and bind or negotiate with them to convince or force them to do magic on their behalf, who’s to say Clerics aren’t unknowingly doing the same thing?

A very Eberron POV on "gods" and spell power, which is totally valid!

I grew up being exposed to the D&D novels first and then FR as my original setting I played in, so the gods are very much "real" and very much "interactive" with the world to me. There is no doubt that they are powering the faiths of the Realms.

Now... there is always room for shenanigans with that (e.g. Leira & Cyric or Ibrandul and Shar) or Grazzt & Waukeen from the ToT. But regardless, they are very much real and very much investing/invested in the people to whom they actually grant powers.

That is the other thing for me and my games and in line with Eberron and other thoughts. PC classes are exceptional not just the PC's themselves. In that, most priests to the gods, even in FR aren't Clerics, though certainly the upper echelons of the hierarchies are and would be naturally. Similarly, most members of a paladin order would be some NPC warrior with an acolyte feel to them. Paladins are exceptional.

So not only are the gods/patrons/etc super observant of those they've chosen to empower but aren't that many of them relatively to keep track of in the first place.

 

[Blue]

Clerics don't actually get a say in being a Cleric. Some divine emissary shows up one day and issues a mandate: "You are a Cleric now!" Too bad if the person wanted to be something else. Their god might stop giving them spells (in which case, some other deity might pluck them up) but you can't stop them from being a Cleric. It used to be that you stripped away all of their powers, but I find the idea of a non-consenting or reluctant Cleric to be an interesting character arc, and it's an idea which often reflected in myth or religious stories.

This may be a setting, but I don't see this as any sort of universal. It's not supported in the class fluff nor in the default setting. As a matter of fact, the opposite is supported in the default setting with clerics historic cases of clerics changing their god.

EDIT: Leatherhead proved me wrong in that it is an option in the class fluff. My mistake, didn't want to leave it standing.