PCs using their abilities - a favor to the party?

[Urbannen]

Incidentally, I think a well-played non-cleric who dislikes the party cleric and/or his religion should try to refuse healing. (But who bothers to play like that?)

When I play a cleric, I'm parsimonious with the healing. During battle, sure, you try to heal people who need it, but after the battle, every character gets a quota of healing per day. You don't just blow everything because other players can't be bothered to worry about defense.

And isn't that what the party cleric really is? The justification for not worrying about defense, and the safety net for a system that does not give characters proper defensive options.

The incessant need for sources of magical healing is one of the things I like least about D&D.

 

[Agamon]

I was roleplaying my cleric cohort, who told one of the PCs that the PC wouldn't kill a surrendering NPC if he wanted healing from her again. It was something of a misunderstanding, and pretty much an empty threat anyway, but there it is.

This is a good reason to create coherant groups. PCs that don't work well together...well, won't work well together. The cleric, or any party members, aren't robots (unless they're played that way, I guess). If you make one mad, they're less likely to help you out in a bind. That said, a cleric that doesn't heal party members is long for that party, mehthinks.

 

[Zurai]

If one of my players played a cleric like that, my reaction as a DM would depend on the other players' reactions. If it was disruptive to the game, I would have a nice private chat with the disruptive player.

If I was a player in the scenario, you bet I'd have an issue with it. Why is the cleric the only one that gets to arbitrarily decide not to help the party? Why can't the fighter decide "You know what, I'd rather not step into the path of that Umber Hulk. Let the rogue deal with it."? Why can't the rogue say, "You know what? I'm feeling lazy today. Find your own traps."? Why can't the wizard say "Nope, sorry, I prepared research and item creation spells today. You'll have to figure out how to kill that swarm without me"?

I only ever see this argument from people playing healers. It's idiotic and counterproductive, IMO.

 

[Voadam]

And isn't that what the party cleric really is? The justification for not worrying about defense, and the safety net for a system that does not give characters proper defensive options.

IME, and as the second part of your quote indicates, people who worry about defense still need healing in many D&D games.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I was roleplaying my cleric cohort, who told one of the PCs that the PC wouldn't kill a surrendering NPC if he wanted healing from her again. It was something of a misunderstanding, and pretty much an empty threat anyway, but there it is.

To me, this threat is basicly the same as saying "if you do this, you are done with this group or I am." Which, imo is a perfectly reasonable in character warning. The idea that the PC would go through with the murder, the cleric would go through with the threat and then they would both keep adventuring together is the wacky part.

 

[roguerouge]

How about role-playing cleric spells not as a power, but as a privilege? If, from the get-go, your cleric spells only work when they advance the religion's agenda and the deity's ethos, then you could legitimately roleplay it. It's not you practicing extortion, it's your God's disapproval of your party member's actions.

"I'm sorry, but that spell just won't work when I target you with it. See, I'm holding the charge! My God was really quite offended by your choice to kill the hostage to get to the bad guy. I'm afraid he will only grant me cure light wounds when it's for you.... I'll see what I can do to persuade my divine advisor, but it would help if...."

Again, it has to be enforced from the beginning of the party and it has to be how cleric spells work generally and it can't be used to get your way on every little thing.

And, no, it's not like the thief feeling lazy example at all. The cleric's devoted his life to upholding a set of values, which he values more than himself. It's literally his afterlife that's at stake if he makes an error. It's quite a bit different than the fighter or the rogue feeling miffed.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't understand either. With holding healing makes no sense if you are on the same team. Even if that PC does not believe in your god you are still working towards common goals.

The only exception I can see is if the PC has done something to really upset the cleric for example we had a prisoner and we had guaranteed him his life if he told us what we want to know. The cleric swore on his god that the NPC would not be harmed. The NPC was honest with us. That night one of the party members snuck the guy out of camp and freed him telling him to go when the guy started to leave the pC attacked him. His plan was to say the guy died while trying to escape. Unkown to the PC this guy who he thought was just a bard was a monk as well so he was able to defend himself. He brought the PC down to -3 and then callled for help.

The cleric stablized the guy but after hearing the truth he refused to heal him further and told him that he would not be healing him again.

In the end the pC left the party because even the player realized he had put the cleric in a bad situation.

I thinking normally refusing healing just leads to bad feelings all around. I also think the opposite is true as well. The cleric should not have to be a walking band aid he should be allowed to do other things in combat and the party should not get pissy if he uses spell slots up on other spells. The solution is simple get healing wands, potions and scrolls to help out.

 

[Zurai]

And, no, it's not like the thief feeling lazy example at all. The cleric's devoted his life to upholding a set of values, which he values more than himself. It's literally his afterlife that's at stake if he makes an error. It's quite a bit different than the fighter or the rogue feeling miffed.

No, it isn't. Clerics are not, by default, "devoted to upholding a set of values which he values more than himself". That's a paladin, not a cleric. Clerics are able - and, I dare say, expected - to be able to adapt and compromise in their dealings with people not of their faith. A cleric who cannot adapt to people not of his faith utterly fails as a cleric.

Look at it this way: There's two clerics competing to win you over to the worship of their deity. One cleric preaches from the pulpit, but takes no actual action beyond mundane home-building and so on. The other cleric casts Remove Disease on your sickly mother and Stone Shape to build you a perfectly suitable house in a single day. Which of those faiths are you going to convert to?

Gods aren't stupid. They don't begrudge their clerics the power needed to potentially bring more worship their way. Refusing healing to people not of their faith is a short train to deific suicide for a good or neutral aligned deity.

 

[Cor Azer]

I've had players joke about this sort of thing ("worship my god or no healing") but it's never been a true issue (but then, our groups often have plenty of wands of cure light wounds and possible wielders).

What I see more often, but not too bad is that the cleric refuses to use healing in combat unless absolutely necessary more so because he wants to cast the other cool spells clerics have access to.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

And, no, it's not like the thief feeling lazy example at all. The cleric's devoted his life to upholding a set of values, which he values more than himself. It's literally his afterlife that's at stake if he makes an error. It's quite a bit different than the fighter or the rogue feeling miffed.

If that were necessarily true, cleric would become an npc only class in my games. Luckily it isn't. The cleric is just another class, with beliefs, ideals, goals and personal preferences. And any player who tries to make the rest of the party hew only to their character's way gets A Little Chat (TM). Whether the "in character" excuse for doing so is religious or philosophical or racial or anything else matters not at all to me.