Rant: Why must thing always be obvious in D&D?

[gizmo33]

Why does being able to shop at a temple to your god represent some enormous boon? Most D&D characters take that completely for granted.

If most players take for granted that a Neutral Evil goddess has street corner temples in every major city IMC then most players don't belong in my game.

Whether or not a neutral evil deity has a "poorly conceived" religion backing them is a question somewhat out of our league considering there are no self-identified "Neutral Evil" religions in history, or any logical basis on which to have an opinion. But I imagine you fantasy world sociologists will keep at it anyway.

In any case, I find rephrasing this as "shop at a temple to your god" severly misses the point - perhaps that was the player's problem in the OP as well. The main point is that the goddess is evil and a secretive cult.

"My character wants a Holy Avenger longsword at first level. Why does being able to have a longsword represent some enormous boon?" - See how the rephrasing thing works? Players that debate things using this technique in my game are instantly converted to Chaotic Evil.

 

[Mallus]

It would destroy my suspension of disbelief. Why hasn't every paladin in the world come calling?

Why would they?

 

[Storminator]

Why would they?

To kill everyone in the evil temple to the evil god that wants to destroy the world? After all, it's not hidden or secret in any way...

PS

 

[Mallus]

The main point is that the goddess is evil and a secretive cult.

I think the main point here is that the DM allowed a PC to play a member of secretive and evil cult. To then insist that the PC not have connections to that cult is baffling. Especially since there are more interesting adventure hooks to be had once the PC is more intimately involved with the cultists.

"My character wants a Holy Avenger longsword at first level. Why does being able to have a longsword represent some enormous boon?" - See how the rephrasing thing works?

Yes, you took my comparison of like things and substituted unlike things. And?

 

[Mallus]

After all, it's not hidden or secret in any way...

Can you tell me how "member of an evil cult knows the location of the cult temple" == "everyone under the sun knows the location of the cult temple"?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Stop running huge published campaign settings where the players know more 'lore' than you do. Also use their assumptions about what 'orcs', 'trolls', 'centaurs', and other creatures to make them scream and bleed.

"A band of centaur approaches cautiously, weapons at the ready."
"Hey don't worry guys, the Monster Manual says they are chaotic good and love elves and I'm an elf. What do you mean they're charging? Charging at what? What did I do - OW MY HIT POINTS!"

This is exactly my view and how I advocate handling "seperation of character and player knowledge." I expect experienced players to use their experience to their advantage. Pretending not to know things is really a futile exercise in some kind of double-think. It is up to the referee to exploit any assumptions players have to add challenge in the game.

 

[Storminator]

Can you tell me how "member of an evil cult knows the location of the cult temple" == "everyone under the sun knows the location of the cult temple"?

Yes.

"random member of evil cult knows location of cult temple without looking at all, or even thinking about it, or even contemplating that maybe secrecy is required" == "anyone that actually puts forth effort will find it too"

Did this really not occur to you as a possible interpretation?

PS

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That still doesn't tell me what's so game-breaking about buying a healing potion at the Temple of Shar. And if the religion is so problematic, why isn't declared NPC-only?

Because nothing in D&D is now declared NPC-only.

 

[Black_Swan]

Communication broke down and the fun went from 60 to 0 in a few seconds. Much like the communication has broken down in this thread.

This is one reason why I've taken a break from gaming. Terms are not defined ahead of time. For example...I played in a game that was "low magic" I thought that meant no magic items, magic monsters, and low level magic for players and npc's alike. To the DM it meant no magic items. That's a huge difference that lead to many discussions on the topic, caused tension, and slowed down game play.

This issue goes back to character creation and the style of game that the group agreed to play in. The player believes that finding other members of Shar is important and should be easy because of his understanding of "Major Deity" and the game world, the DM thinks the opposite.

They should attempt to get on the same page and compromise.

OR...have ninjas attack. Either way the fun will increase dramatically. In the case of the ninjas it will probably get everyone involved pumped up and perhaps involve a wicked guitar solo.

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

I think part of what seems to be muddying the discussion in here is the term 'cult'.

Shar's worship is not like the Thuggee cult in Temple of Doom. Shar is a major goddess, the twin sister of the Moon. In the FR, a god or goddess' power is directly linked to the number of followers they have.

FR has some very wonky things in it, I admit. Now, the discussion of 'why every paladin doesn't come a-callin'' to smack around a major goddess' temple/shrine? Because the Realms gods all try to mind their own business. In such a situation, it'd be very easy to see how a religious war would break out again in the world, and possibly not even down the good/evil axis, but also along the Law/Chaos axis.

Case in point: look at the Dawn Cataclysm. Because of that, the god of sun and light is really carefully watched, even by the GOOD GODS, because he set into motion a plan to completely rewrite the entire world and universe, and remove evil from the equation completely. In the little bits they've talked about, he blames the 'failure' of this plan to remove evil from the universe on Shar's spies, and is taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again while he re-kickstarts his plans to remake the world and pantheon he's in.

Back on point though, the problem should have been taken care of before the game. Even if it were a case of: "Shar's followers are going to be the main campaign villains; follow a different god." And I also agree, if the player's only concern is that they can't go buy things at the temple or get healing, that's something different.

Heck, the FR books even discuss the issue of nonbelievers getting healing at a 'mark-up' from churches. They'll offer services - no doubt limited - 1) as long as helping you doesn't directly interfere with their god (such as a follower of Lathander healing a Shar follower; they're direct opposites), and 2) the money adds to the coffers, allowing the church to fund more adventurers, etc.

Nuff rambling.