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

[Paul Farquhar]

Better to look at what other people have done, and examples from myth and literature than rely on the PHB text.

It has been mentioned before that 5e is a superhero game in a fantasy skin. In a superhero rpg it’s up to the player to create an origin story that explains how their character got their powers, and you can do 5e the same way. Of course there is a big difference between a good origin story with plenty of meaty plot hooks, and “my character was bitten by a radioactive celestial”, but them’s the breaks. Not everyone is equally experienced or creative.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Better to look at what other people have done, and examples from myth and literature than rely on the PHB text.

It has been mentioned before that 5e is a superhero game in a fantasy skin. In a superhero rpg it’s up to the player to create an origin story that explains how their character got their powers, and you can do 5e the same way. Of course there is a big difference between a good origin story with plenty of meaty plot hooks, and “my character was bitten by a radioactive celestial”, but them’s the breaks. Not everyone is equally experienced or creative.

And not every piece of guidance is equally good. One of my common critiques of D&D in general and both sandbox and adventure path play in specific is that the characters might as well have been Isikai'd in, all from different universes because, with the DM having absolute control of the setting and it being written before the characters ever show up it doesn't matter how skilled the writing, the plot hooks are fundamentally disconnected from anything pre-written.

The only thing worse is having the players terrified to put one toe out of line as the DM will almost arbitrarily yoink all their superheroic powers permanently for "a single evil act" and therefore the hook should not be engaged with.

Meanwhile if you want to see it done well look at e.g. Daggerheart where the players literally draw where they come from on the map and have connections questions so they have a shared background that itself creates RP hooks

 

[Remathilis]

That’s pretty much the opposite of what actually happened. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that pretty much everyone becomes a jerk when given power over others.

Which is a good reason to limit viking hat GMs IMHO...

 

[Necropolitan]

Which is a good reason to limit viking hat GMs IMHO...

No, because it's an obviously bad idea to write the rules assuming that jerk DMs are the norm.

Also the Standford Prison Experiment wasn't a valid experiment. The guards were TOLD what to do, their behavior wasn't the natural end result of being given power over others.

Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment - PubMed

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is one of psychology's most famous studies. It has been criticized on many grounds, and yet a majority of textbook authors have ignored these criticisms in their discussions of the SPE, thereby misleading both students and the general public about the study's...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A player not wanting to interact with the basic premise of their class should be a carefully-managed exception, not the norm.

 

[Bae'zel]

I'm getting a weird feeling of déja vu here. Like this thread combines a few recently epic debate threads into one.

Is this another thread where we get boiled down to 2 extreme sides? "worldbuilding belongs to the players" vs. "worldbuilding belongs to the dm" and bad faith arguments all the way.

As with anything, talking with players before the campaign begins to work something out about DM and player expectations. If there's incompatibility between playstyles, then politely step away from the gaming contract with that individual.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, because it's an obviously bad idea to write the rules assuming that jerk DMs are the norm.

Also the Standford Prison Experiment wasn't a valid experiment. The guards were TOLD what to do, their behavior wasn't the natural end result of being given power over others.

And the Stanford Prison Experiment is extremely relevant with respect to older versions of D&D because BT being TOLD to strip the class abilities the game TOLD the DMs to be jerks. And yes not every viking hat DM is a jerk - but only about a third of the Stanford guards were abusive.

It's not about assuming that jerk DMs are the norm. It's about not setting up systems to encourage people to become jerks.

And as a personal observation not every viking hat DM I've played with was a jerk and not every jerk GM had a viking hat - but the odds are extremely lopsided. And there is not one single good thing I've seen done by a viking hat DM that required the viking hat.

A player not wanting to interact with the basic premise of their class should be a carefully-managed exception, not the norm.

"The basic premise of their class" according to who? According to E Gary Gygax killing surrendered prisoners is entirely in line with the behaviour of a lawful good paladin; I reject that notion and with it his authority.

And if I reject the authority of E Gary Gygax himself to tell me what the basic premise of either Lawful Good or the paladin class is when he is the one who wrote it into AD&D why should I accept yours or you accept mine? The only person with the authority to say what the basic premise of a character is is the player of that character. The DM gets a veto but not a line-item veto.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm getting a weird feeling of déja vu here. Like this thread combines a few recently epic debate threads into one.

Is this another thread where we get boiled down to 2 extreme sides? "worldbuilding belongs to the players" vs. "worldbuilding belongs to the dm" and bad faith arguments all the way.

I'm curious who says that worldbuilding belongs exclusively to the players? Because I have literally never seen anyone say that the GM is not allowed to worldbuild or introduce NPCs with backgrounds they have created.

I'd therefore be very curious to read any of these threads you cite. I can think of plenty of people, myself included, who say that worldbuilding is better when shared but that is nowhere near as extreme as what you claim one side says.

 

[Remathilis]

No, because it's an obviously bad idea to write the rules assuming that jerk DMs are the norm.

Strangely, the rules were instead written to assume the players will be jerks who min-max and meta-game every last possible advantage if allowed to do so.

I am again reminded that Gary's relationship to his players was that of wise father and his petulant children.

 

[Maxperson]

1st level is a game construct, not part of the world. There is no reason to suppose a 3rd level character was ever 1st.

It doesn't. Because it's a suggestion, and one specifically aimed at new players who have no experience in writing character backstories.

1st level is the rules. Sure, the DM can house rule that 3rd level is really 1st level and 1st and 2nd level don't exist, but that's not the default state of the game. The game as written has every warlock being a fool.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1st level is the rules

The rules isn’t the world. They are just an abstraction to deal with how the PCs interact with it. It’s nonsense that a fighter with the soldier background is so much weaker than a n NPC with the veteran stat block, so it makes perfect sense that they have never been level 1.