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

[Maxperson]

Under archefey patron:

Under celestial patron:

Then that comes into play with Specific Beats general and they choose those options. Until then, they've stupidly made a pact with some unknown entity and don't find out about who or what it is until later. That's the fiction.

 

[Scribe]

In my games, the Cleric is not actively channeling a God's power. The cleric is tapping into the Divine power source. A god acts as mentor to the cleric if they swear oaths to them, but has no power to turn off the connection. Gods and mortal religious entities certainly don't advertise that fact, but clerics who turn away from their patron discover that truth soon enough.

I adopted that logic a long time ago (thanks to Eberron) specifically to not deal with annoying game assumptions of gods turning off the "spigot".

Sure, so you run your games counter to how the game made sense for decades.

No harm no foul.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, so you run your games counter to how the game made sense for decades.

No harm no foul.

Well yes, because my way makes more sense.

The old way kinda sucks, quite frankly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a player, if I was playing a Paladin (often enough) Cleric (rare) Warlock (very little because of this threads exact issue) and I acted against my oath/god/patron and there was no actual consequence? The game is less for it in my view.

But, I'm old and apparently out of touch with what good gaming looks like.

Error. Fallacy of the excluded middle.

No one has said that there are no consequences - just that your god or patron can't yoink your powers. As in the real world priestly consecration is irrevocable - and your god isn't Santa; they don't automatically know whether you've been naughty or nice the second you do it. Which means that corrupt priests of a god and evil paladins or even ones just with different ideals are possible, leading to more interesting plots and a more nuanced and realistic world.

Does this mean there are no consequences? Of course not. If you drop your trousers and take a dump on the high altar of the church you're likely to have a whole lot of pissed off priests on your hands, some with magic to find out who did it and to capture you. And if it was something your god saw and the priests didn't? That's when you and other members of the holy order start getting dreams.

And if you think having an entire order of paladins upset at you for betraying your vows or your church's internal affairs after you isn't a consequence that's on you.

 

[Scribe]

Well yes, because my way makes more sense.

If it makes sense to you, thats all that matters.

As in the real world priestly consecration is irrevocable

We are talking Fantasy, where real Powers grant real Power, and yes, it can be taken away.

Either way, there is no middle ground here between us, we clearly see it from completely different perspectives, so enjoy, while I continue to see the Warlock as a really weak implementation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In 5e there are NPCs that do have them. I believe they took it out for 5.5e, but there's no reason a DM can't or shouldn't make NPCs with class levels.

Laws of the world apply to everyone.

 

[Maxperson]

Laws of the world apply to everyone.

They clearly don't in 5.5e, because an archmage wizard NPC has different hit points, abilities, etc. than a PC wizard. Both are wizards. The laws of the world are different for them.

The laws SHOULD be the same, though.

 

[TwoSix]

They clearly don't in 5.5e, because an archmage wizard NPC has different hit points, abilities, etc. than a PC wizard. Both are wizards. The laws of the world are different for them.

The laws SHOULD be the same, though.

Yes, but that's because the metagame constructs of class and level aren't actually laws binding the fiction. They're tools to provide a game element to character creation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We are talking Fantasy, where real Powers grant real Power, and yes, it can be taken away.

We are talking Fantasy where how real Powers grant real power and whether it can be taken away is an arbitrary decision that is entirely up to the author/designer.

However one of the two ways:

• Works entirely unlike the closest real world analogue
• Forecloses on interesting plots by making corrupt priests and fallen paladins basically impossible to remain undetected
• Forces Paladins to act as self-righteous prigs and fun police because they are aware that one single mistake judged by an arbitrary external force can cripple them

I therefore consider it a good thing that, of the two entirely arbitrary ways, that way was consigned to the dustbin of history long enough ago that people who weren't even born when it happened now have driving licenses.

Either way, there is no middle ground here between us, we clearly see it from completely different perspectives, so enjoy, while I continue to see the Warlock as a really weak implementation.

There might not be a middle ground - but there is no excuse for claimung that the side you aren't on doesn't believe in consequences

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but that's because the metagame constructs of class and level aren't actually laws binding the fiction. They're tools to provide a game element to character creation.

I'm of the opinion that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If NPCs can do it, PCs should be able to do it as well. If PCs can do it, NPCs should be able to do it as well.

To really engage with what you are describing, you'd need a classless system, and D&D isn't that kind of system.