D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Neonchameleon]

Why should a God be forced to continue to empower a Cleric who's violating their religion?

The God isn't forced "to continue to empower". The God has already empowered. It's already done. You give a car to someone and they then sleep with your wife and you can't take the car back because it's now their car.

This is how religion works in the real world in some very big cases. If someone is ordained a priest of the Catholic church then it is literally impossible to take back or remove the sacrament as it creates "an indelible mark" on the soul. (You can kick someone out of the Church or take them away from priestly authority but the metaphysical part is permanent).

Why do you want to basically eliminate the possibility of good stories (like a corrupt priest) and make D&D religion even less like real world religion? What does cutting off avenues for storytelling and straightjacketing roleplaying do to improve the game? I have listed and gone into detail a number of ways it harms the game.

Why should a Paladin be able to draw power from an Oath they've broken?

Because the power of the Oath actually comes from within.

There being consequences from other mortals is irrelevant to that.

But they are consequences. You just don't like them.

 

[TwoSix]

Even eberron style faith in a concept or whatever the wording was starts breaking down into rules for thee but not for me in ways that undermine the credibility of that pc having the faith it's player claims as they violate the concept blatantly enough to start questioning and eventually laughing at the obvious lie.

And if that happens, all the better.

“Disillusioned cleric tries to find the origin of faith driven magic” sounds like a story hook to me.

 

[Necropolitan]

The God isn't forced "to continue to empower". The God has already empowered. It's already done. You give a car to someone and they then sleep with your wife and you can't take the car back because it's now their car.

You're showing why it's an absurd rule and has no place in D&D.

Because the power of the Oath actually comes from within.

An Oath they've knowingly broken.

So again, you're arguing for there to be no consequences for things that should obviously have consequences.

But they are consequences. You just don't like them.

If you want power without responsibility then don't play a class that has responsibilities.

And if that happens, all the better.

“Disillusioned cleric tries to find the origin of faith driven magic” sounds like a story hook to me.

The Planescape Faction the Athar have that belief.

And they're specifically noted as an exception/being completely wrong and that divine power does in fact flow from the gods and that if you lose your faith or your god is displeased you can lose your Cleric powers.

 

[TwoSix]

The Planescape Faction the Athar have that belief.

And they're specifically noted as an exception/being completely wrong and that divine power does in fact flow from the gods and that if you lose your faith or your god is displeased you can lose your Cleric powers.

What part of my posts gives any indication I care about things like RAW or previous lore?

I couldn’t care less about what’s correct. I care about what makes for the best gameplay and most interesting stories.

 

[Necropolitan]

What part of my posts gives any indication I care about things like RAW or previous lore?

I couldn’t care less about what’s correct. I care about what makes for the best gameplay and most interesting stories.

In one D&D book one of the characters gets her magic from her divine connection to nature.

There's a scene after the big reveal where she realizes she has to choose between her family's fortune and doing what's right (and protecting nature).

She agonizes over it, but eventually chooses wealth, losing her powers as she does so.

Then she finds out her daughter's in terrible danger and she's now powerless to protect her.

According to you it's better storytelling if she never had to make that choice or if she did it should have no consequences?

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're showing why it's an absurd rule and has no place in D&D.

Indeed. Losing your powers for crossing the line is an absurd rule that was only put into D&D by someone who thought that it was a Lawful Good act to murder surrendered prisoners. And I am showing why it is absurd in that it is poor storytelling, a poor reflection of real world mythology and leads to poor roleplaying.

You have so far not come up with one single relevant objection to my claim other than "because I say so because in my invented fantasy that does not work the way real world religion does where I get to take the role of a God the God gets to strip powers". That's normally known as a self-insert fanfic. Oh, and your misunderstandings of responsibility.

An Oath they've knowingly broken.

Which doesn't mean they should just abandon the oath. It means they should repent and try to do better next time - as literally every real world religion has some sort of method for and as is the bedrock for many good stories.

So again, you're arguing for there to be no consequences for things that should obviously have consequences.

Please stop lying. I am not and have never argued for there to be no consequences. All I have argued is that your power trip consequences are bad ones.

If you want power without responsibility then don't play a class that has responsibilities.

Please stop creating strawmen. Ordinary humans with responsibility do not succeed at fulfilling those responsibilities 100% of the time. And in the real world we then pick ourselves back up off the ground and try again. If we're talking the iconic person who has the quote about power and responsibility in the comics Spider-Man literally snapped Gwen Stacey's neck. Did he then say "Woe is me. I messed up. Therefore I am going to give up all responsibility and give up being Spider-Man for good?" or did his powers drain away. No. Because that is not how responsibility works.

If you want to effectively carry out responsibility you must be able to pick yourself back up after failure, both your own and those of other peoples. Otherwise you might as well give up before you start.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In one D&D book one of the characters gets her magic from her divine connection to nature.

There's a scene after the big reveal where she realizes she has to choose between her family's fortune and doing what's right (and protecting nature).

She agonizes over it, but eventually chooses wealth, losing her powers as she does so.

Then she finds out her daughter's in terrible danger and she's now powerless to protect her.

According to you it's better storytelling if she never had to make that choice or if she did it should have no consequences?

What you describe is possible for books but it makes for terrible D&D. What happens in the book is that the character turns themself into an NPC. And given the way wealth and loot works in D&D it was an utterly stupid choice. And it breaks the character as a D&D adventurer.

So your first example is a clear and obvious bad idea for a D&D game. You are continuing to develop that losing your powers is an absurd rule and has no place in D&D even from your cherry-picked example.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What part of my posts gives any indication I care about things like RAW or previous lore?

I couldn’t care less about what’s correct. I care about what makes for the best gameplay and most interesting stories.

Sure, same here, but I’d argue that there is pretty strong case for the warlock’s patron having real leverage making a better story. Like this thread literally exists because the OP’s player felt so.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure, same here, but I’d argue that there is pretty strong case for the warlock’s patron having real leverage making a better story. Like this thread literally exists because the OP’s player felt so.

This thread literally exists because a DM feels that they don't have enough leverage.

I do think that there should be e.g. offered bennies for doing what the patron wants.

 

[SkidAce]

What you describe is possible for books but it makes for terrible D&D. What happens in the book is that the character turns themself into an NPC. And given the way wealth and loot works in D&D it was an utterly stupid choice. And it breaks the character as a D&D adventurer.

So your first example is a clear and obvious bad idea for a D&D game. You are continuing to develop that losing your powers is an absurd rule and has no place in D&D even from your cherry-picked example.

There's a wide spectrum. I agree and see your point about Spiderman (of course now that i think about it, he didnt get his powers from ideals or an oath).

There are a lot of stories where "monk/wu jen" types have ideals and taboos and they loose their power if they break them.

I think you are correct for a spectrum of stories, but I also feel there are stories where following the idea brings you in tune with the power, therefore if you break the ideals, you get "out of tune" and lose abilities, or effectiveness.

/shrugs