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

[Scribe]

It's not a gotcha, it's a fair inquiry. Is the God of healing able to keep tabs on every one of their priests all the time? Are they literally omnipotent and know every transgression as soon as it happens?

Of their worshipers? Yeah thats how I would do it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It should be a change, not a consequence, is the point I want to make. A consequence is something you inflict because someone did something wrong. A mechanical consequence for leaving their god is punishing the player for trying to make the character interesting.

Consequence doesn't mean that. It is neutral. It is simply about cause and effect, no one needed to do anything "wrong."

 

[pemerton]

I mean, AD&D was really into punishing characters for changing and growing. These were the editions where you'd lose XP if your character had a redemption arc and changed from LE to LG. Or decided they no longer completely trusted the authorities, and would change from LG to NG.

Well, AD&D wasn't written to be a game of characters who change and grow. It's a game about solving puzzles and overcoming challenges with the limited resources the game gives you. Those limited resources include constraints on permitted behaviour (if you're good and/or lawful) or constraints on how much trust/help you can get from people (if you're evil and/or chaotic).

 

[Greg K]

Question: how does the God of healing know?

It's not a gotcha, it's a fair inquiry. Is the God of healing able to keep tabs on every one of their priests all the time? Are they literally omnipotent and know every transgression as soon as it happens?

And if they do know, how quick are they to send their displeasure to the priest? Days, weeks, months, or maybe only minutes after the event?

I only ask because I tend to find deities are amazingly obtuse when it comes to divination magic, but can summon a hoard of angels instantly if a PC goes off script from his faith...

The above sounds like a campaign specific thing. A deity would not need to be omnipotent to monitor their clerics just omniscient or omnipresent.
Or maybe, spellcasting priests are very rare in a given campaign and the deity only gives spellcasting to a special few "champions" whom embody the tenets and strictures of the deity and in whom the deity has taken a special interest. Out of this special interest, the deity keeps a a watchful eye on those few individuals.

 

[pemerton]

So long as the consequences of turning against their power source are known to the player prior to their choosing the class, there shouldn't be any problem regarding player happiness.

This doesn't seem to follow. I mean, many people have played D&D (various versions) knowing about alignment rules, and their has been disagreement about the application and adjudication of alignment boundaries. Why would fidelity to the divinity be different?

To date in my gaming history, there hasn't been.

To date in my gaming history, there has been a direct correspondence between more verisimilitudinous religious PCs and players deciding what counts as adhering to the dictates of their faith.

So you should have no problems adopting my approach!

 

[pemerton]

I agree. I would never use any plot coupon style power in any game I play. If the game has plot coupons, I don't play it or I hack it.

What do "plot coupons" have to do with a game having regard to a character's degree of self-resolve in resolving actions declared by that character?

 

[pemerton]

It means they can have their characters who belong to classes whose powers derive from an outside source behave however they like with no fear of that source severing that connection and depriving them of said powers. I disagree with this.

Only if you assume the player will never decide that their deity has forsaken them. Why would you assume that?

 

[pemerton]

A deity sanctions their clerics’ actions with the gift of power, and knowledge that the cleric is spreading their message throughout the populace. If the cleric then begins to act counter to that message (particularly strongly and repeatedly), and counter to their deity’s desires, it makes zero sense that the deity would continue to sanction those actions and gift them power. It’s not something that would happen lightly for random events, but if your deity is the god of life and healing, and you torture a person for days before killing them in the slowest method possible? Yeah, I’m thinking the deity would revoke powers and have a stern conversation with their cleric. I’m not saying the DM is having the stern conversation or going on a power trip, but within the setting, yeah. It only makes sense. They wouldn’t continue to grant their power and have people misattribute the cleric’s actions to that deity’s message.

Maybe the divinity works in mysterious ways. What makes you think you as GM know better than the player what is appropriate behaviour for a faithful person?

 

[pemerton]

I would absolutely allow such a PC to begin following another god. Same thing with warlocks (something like this happened in season 2 of Critical Role I believe). It's not really about the punishment. It's about setting logic. Why would a god or patron continue to provide power to someone if they're not doing what they want?

To me it seems clear that these ideas were changed not for any change in fiction, but simply because players don't want their PCs to lose their superpowers, whether they follow the tenets of their faith or not.

If the character changes to another god, the player doesn't lose any "superpowers". So it doesn't seem that that is the issue at all.

It seems that the issue is who gets to decide what faithfulness requires?

And the following reinforces my sense that that is the issue:

The new default clearly gives players the upper hand in this situation.

What is "the situation"? It's a disagreement between the player and the GM over whether what the PC is doing conforms to the dictates of their faith. Why shouldn't the player have the "upper hand" in deciding this about their PC?

But the conflict is heightened when they do it and lose some powers.

Is it? Or does this just mean that the player loses their game piece for N hours of play?

EDIT: Just saw this post:

Realisation:

It's is possible that some DMs see a cleric going against tenets be somewhat disrespectful of their world building? Like if it was the player somehow commenting/disapproving on this particular cosmology element?

100%. It's about control over the setting, and the metaphysical "truths" of the setting.

And saw this:

I believe it is being presented in the new books in an adversarial way, to always fall on the side of giving players (and their PCs) what they want.

This is a bit odd to me. Who do you think the new books are fighting with? You?

 

[pemerton]

That is cool stuff, nothing against it. But it is a big deal for the character, and I want the mechanics to reflect that. If you have a crisis of faith and forsake your god, then I think that can and should be reflected on the mechanics of the character too.
I wan the mechanics to represent the fiction, not to be a disconnected afterthought.

Do we have mechanics for rogues whose hands get severed by traps? For fighters who lose their bravery, and hence can't confront foes in battle any more (modelled as a hit point reduction, let's say)?

I take this to be @TiQuinn's point: this whole lose class abilities could apply across the board, based on the GM's decision that the character should suffer in some fashion. Why is it confined only to religious PCs?