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

[Numion]

I'd agree in general, but do you really think his suggestion about handling the goddess of secrets, darkness, and the night like the followers of the ruinous powers is that far out into left field?

Surely it's Shar's and her followers aim to keep the cult secret from it's enemies, not from willing servants? And who better to device safe and secure line of communication to willing participants than .. Shar, the goddess of friggin secrets?

I mean, sounds like a piss poor management to keep a religion so secret that even its would be followers can't find out how to join.

 

[Nifft]

Surely it's Shar's and her followers aim to keep the cult secret from it's enemies, not from willing servants? And who better to device safe and secure line of communication to willing participants than .. Shar, the goddess of friggin secrets?

I mean, sounds like a piss poor management to keep a religion so secret that even its would be followers can't find out how to join.

This is actually why Evil doesn't win all that often.

"Hey, the boss is in trouble! Quick, stab him in the back!"

Cheers, -- N

 

[Gothmog]

The Warhmammer setting operates under a vastly different set of assumptions than the Forgotten Realms.

Not entirely- what happens when a cult devoted to an evil god is found in most D&D worlds? Yes folks, thats right- you slaughter them just for worshipping that god. You don't think cults of evil gods would be secretive and try to protect their own butts?

Seriously, Shar is a goddes of darkness, entropy, and SECRETS. Don't you think it might be a sort of initiation or test for a worshipper to find a new cult branch to prove his spiritual worth and faith by using his talents? The cult has to be careful- they certainly have enemies in society who would love to kill them or infiltrate them, so they have to be sure that someone who finds them is one of the faithful. Heck, even other cults of Shar might be enemies, so it can't hurt to be too careful. So most cults of Shar likely wouldn't have temples or churches, but instead small groups meeting in out of the way places holy to Shar, almost like operatives of a terrorist cell. Seems more lilkly the cult wouldn't trust its deepest secrets and locations of cells to initiates, and would make contact with the seeker after he had been observed and scouted for a while.

I'd say give the player the opportunity to find the cult and prove his worth to them, but his demand to simply know about them and reap the benefits for being a follower of Shar by getting freebies is metagaming in a bad way at the least, and munchkinny at worst.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Surely it's Shar's and her followers aim to keep the cult secret from it's enemies, not from willing servants? And who better to device safe and secure line of communication to willing participants than .. Shar, the goddess of friggin secrets?

I mean, sounds like a piss poor management to keep a religion so secret that even its would be followers can't find out how to join.

However, I can easily see a religion that doesn't just hand out its location to any potential aspirant. Perhaps the Cult of Shar makes contact with you, not the other way around. Perhaps in order to do so, you must attract Shar's notice somehow, such as by uncovering secret things and telling no one what you've learned.

This is certainly something the DM should have communicated clearly to the player....and the player then has the choice of accepting that, adjusting his character, or doing something else. Easy.

As for the monsters, all the DM need say is "Consider what you read in the Monster Manuals to be folklore; some of it may be true, much of it is not. I reserve the right to modify monsters, add new monsters, add spells, add prestige classes, add feats, add magic items, in fact, add anything I think will make a better game, and I do not have to tell you about it ahead of time."

Make it part of the social contract of the game, and you should find that you don't have the kinds of problems that this thread describes. (Though you would still be able to see that halflings were the size of mountains, probably well before the halflings saw you, and any starting PC racial/class choice should still be made explicit.)

IMHO. YMMV. YDMB.


RC

 

[Flynn]

I think there are two failings here in the OP:

1) It's reasonable to assume that a priest of Shar would know how to find a temple to Shar, so if the DM wasn't ready to have someone play a priest of Shar, they should have not allowed that character concept into the game in the first place.

2) Once the character concept was allowed, the DM should have made allowances for the character. While the character has no right to expect that Shar will play a major role in the campaign, the DM should at least provide the player with enough information to portray his character effectively, and that should have included knowledge of the location of at least one secret temple dedicated to Shar that the character has regular contact with.

I think the failing here lies on the DM's part, in the first place, for not appropriately limiting his game or providing for the initial needs of the character. If that had been done, the fault then transfers to the player, for expecting that the world would change to suit his perceptions of the gaming material, instead of working with the DM to achieve an appropriate view of the campaign setting.

Heck, I've been guilty of both before, myself.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Honestly, this whole thing sounds like a player/DM problem, not a problem of the game itself.

Yes. I've never encountered anything remotely similar to the OP's issue, myself.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1) It's reasonable to assume that a priest of Shar would know how to find a temple to Shar, so if the DM wasn't ready to have someone play a priest of Shar, they should have not allowed that character concept into the game in the first place.

Is the character a priest of Shar?

In my own campaign world, you might be a priest of the evil spider god Mellythese; that doesn't mean that you know any other worshippers of Mellythese (let alone the location of a secret temple). Your goal might be to try to find them, and they may be trying to find you, but loose lips sink webs, and it isn't something you start with.

Of course, IMC characters can become priests because they are dedicated to their god, and their god selects them. In a world where you can only become a priest of a secretive god with hidden cults by being trained by such a priest, I'd just take that option off the roster.

2) Once the character concept was allowed, the DM should have made allowances for the character.

Assuming, of course, that "knowledge of the location of at least one secret temple dedicated to Shar that the character has regular contact with" is needed to portray the character effectively. I don't make that assumption.

YMMV. YDMB.

RC

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For what it's worth, I have a player whose character is toying with becoming a worshiper of Kran, the Praemal goddess of secrets. One of the first things her faith will teach are the secret symbols and codewords needed to find other followers, even if those basic ones aren't sufficient for access (because enemies could find their "unsecured" secrets relatively easily).

I'll probably make them, say, a Knowledge: Religion 5 check for worshipers and 25 or higher for everyone else.

 

[Celebrim]

I think there are two failings here in the OP:

1) It's reasonable to assume that a priest of Shar would know how to find a temple to Shar, so if the DM wasn't ready to have someone play a priest of Shar, they should have not allowed that character concept into the game in the first place.

Although the OP hasn't made this clear, I don't think its reasonable to assume that a follower of Shar must necessarily be a priest of Shar. For a follower of Shar to know the things that you may assume a priest of Shar knows, I would think that follower would have to demonstrate suitable ranks in the appropriate knowledge. We don't know what sort of knowledge that the character in question possessed, but that's less important than the fact that the player was demanding of the DM that temples of Shar be both common and open. Neither fact need necessarily be true regardless of what the character's knowledge should be. We may assume that even if the character had the appropriate knowledge to know how to find a temple of Shar, that this knowledge might have properly revealed to them that none are to be found. What's important and correct about the OP's complaint, is that if the DM says that a temple to Shar is not to be found, the player has no right to demand out of game that one be made available. The DM has made a ruling, and that's that.

2) Once the character concept was allowed, the DM should have made allowances for the character. While the character has no right to expect that Shar will play a major role in the campaign, the DM should at least provide the player with enough information to portray his character effectively...

On that we are in perfect agreement...

...and that should have included knowledge of the location of at least one secret temple dedicated to Shar that the character has regular contact with.

And on that we are not. Enough information to portray a character effectively does not necessarily include any particular game secrets - much less, for example the nature of the church of Shar the diety of secret information. A DM is perfectly within his rights to rule that no neophytes of Shar - even if priests - know how the church is structured or where it meets. The DM is perfectly within his rights to say that such information constitutes a game secret and can only be revealed through play. What the DM should do as his part of the social contract is reveal this to a would be follower of Shar before play begins, so that the player can decide if he is interested in playing under such constraints (I would, that sounds like alot of fun. My religion as a secret conspiracy? I'm all in.)

 

[Mallus]

I'd agree in general, but do you really think his suggestion about handling the goddess of secrets, darkness, and the night like the followers of the ruinous powers is that far out into left field?

It's not out of left field, no, but I think it's the wrong way to approach the situation.

A DM should assist the players in playing the characters they want. Particularly after they've agreed to the initial concept. I think this takes precedence over setting fidelity or in-game logic.

Put another way, I'm more interested in entertaining my players than running a realistic simulation of a totally fictional cult of imaginary nihilists. I don't care how the Temple of Shar is run, or should be run, or logically would be run. If I was DM'ing an FR campaign and 1) a player wanted to play a worshiper of Shar, and 2) I said they could, then I'd 3) find a way to that character a reasonable level of challenge without making them pixel-bitch the countryside looking for one of their own temples...