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

[Scribe]

Are you referring to the background questions and connections? I didn't know DH had a warlock so I looked it up.View attachment 429843

But regarding actual teeth, let me know what you come up with. I did link the Patron Demands Knights in the North link somewhere earlier in this thread... sec.... here we go. It does have some cool stuff in there; KitN tables have been great and they're quite adaptable to Shadowdark.

Like I said, do let me know what you come up with (if anything)!

No, look at the rest mechanic...unless they deleted it, I'll check.

Yeah the Favor section. The very loose question answer stuff, I can do without.

 

[Necropolitan]

The demanded rule change would allow a Cleric of the God of pacifism to go on a murder spree where they butcher noncombatants and their God's not allowed to depower them.

Or an Oath of Devotion Paladin could promise to help refugees and then sell them to cannibals.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The demanded rule change would allow a Cleric of the God of pacifism to go on a murder spree where they butcher noncombatants and their God's not allowed to depower them.

Or an Oath of Devotion Paladin could promise to help refugees and then sell them to cannibals.

Honest question: who is demanding that? Like, actually want the game to have no consequences at all for player actions?

 

[tetrasodium]

The demanded rule change would allow a Cleric of the God of pacifism to go on a murder spree where they butcher noncombatants and their God's not allowed to depower them.

Or an Oath of Devotion Paladin could promise to help refugees and then sell them to cannibals.

It sounds like you are talking about some of the stuff aimed at GM's to use on NPCs who tend to hire PCs from the book of exalted deeds. "Demanded" by whom? Which post? What change are you talking about?

 

[Necropolitan]

Honest question: who is demanding that? Like, actually want the game to have no consequences at all for player actions?

Anyone demanding the rules make it so nothing can result in a PC losing their powers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Anyone demanding the rules make it so nothing can result in a PC losing their powers.

I have already gone in this comment into how there are still consequences. So I'd like to ask you why you think being hunted by an order of paladins isn't a consequence.

 

[TwoSix]

The demanded rule change would allow a Cleric of the God of pacifism to go on a murder spree where they butcher noncombatants and their God's not allowed to depower them.

Or an Oath of Devotion Paladin could promise to help refugees and then sell them to cannibals.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

 

[Necropolitan]

I have already gone in this comment into how there are still consequences. So I'd like to ask you why you think being hunted by an order of paladins isn't a consequence.

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

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

There being consequences from other mortals is irrelevant to that.

 

[TwoSix]

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

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

There being consequences from other mortals is irrelevant to that.

Because clerics don’t get their powers from gods, of course.

Asked and answered.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because clerics don’t get their powers from gods, of course.

Asked and answered.

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.