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

[tetrasodium]

I think it's kinda funny that people get worked up about clerics, paladins and warlocks breaking their oaths.

Where is the desire for druids to fight other druids to gain levels? For monks to remain poor and donate all but a fraction of their treasure to worthy causes? For rangers to be good aligned and only own what they can carry? For barbarians to be illiterate and not be able to rage if they become lawful? (Or better, attack magic users on sight!) For bards to follow druidic teachings and be partially neutral?

Oh right, there isn't one. Because those are silly restrictions that add nothing to the game. Further, they limit roleplaying and force all characters into very specific boxes (like all druids everywhere belonging to one huge world-spannning organization).

I ran ad&d2e (or whatever) when that was still a thing for druids & such. It's also a misstatement of the rules involved

Spoiler

Druid Organization
Druids have a worldwide structure. At their upper levels
(12th and above), only a few druids can hold each level.
Druids, Archdruids, and the Great Druid
At 12th level, the druid character acquires the official title of
“druid” (all druid characters below 12th level are officially known
as “initiates”). There can be only nine 12th-level druids in any
geographic region (as defined by oceans, seas, and mountain
ranges; a continent may consist of three or four such regions). A
character cannot reach 12th level unless he takes his place as
one of the nine druids. This is possible only if there are currently
fewer than nine druids in the region, or if the character defeats
one of the nine druids in magical or hand-to-hand combat,
thereby assuming the defeated druid’s position. If such combat
is not mortal, the loser drops experience points so that he has
exactly 200,000 remaining—just enough to be 11th level.
The precise details of each combat are worked out
between the two combatants in advance. The combat can be
magical, nonmagical, or a mixture of both. It can be fought to
the death, until only one character is conscious, until a prede-
termined number of hit points is lost, or even until the first
blow is landed, although in this case both players would have
to be supremely confident of their abilities. Whatever can be
agreed upon between the characters is legitimate, so long as
there is some element of skill and risk.
When a character becomes a 12th-level druid, he gains
three underlings. Their level depends on the character’s posi-
tion among the nine druids. The druid with the most experi-
ence points is served by three initiates of 9th level; the
second-most experienced druid is served by three initiates of
8th level; and so on, until the least experienced druid is
...

I'm sure there were tables where it was some kinda Dark Souls style deathmatch but generally they were more likethe druid being responsible for a grove somewhere with fewer than the cap or a XianXia/cultivation style "tribulations" where NPCs might die but MCs*/PCs have the option came about when the character was deemed ready for & had decent odds of surviving. That was also the edition where its DMG had this to say about healing potion availability

Spoiler: readily available should be cheap

In addition, a potion requires a number of mundane ingre-
dients. The basic cost of these ingredients ranges from 200
to 1,000 gp. The DM should decide this based on how com-
mon the potion is, its power, and the nature of the ingredients
he has specified. A potion of dragon control is a rare item of
great power and so should cost the full 1,000 gp. A potion of
healing is a fairly necessary item, something the DM may
want to be readily available to the characters. Therefore, it
should be cheap, costing no more than 200 gp.
-ad&d2e DMG PG119/120

*Main Character

 

[TwoSix]

I ran ad&d2e (or whatever) when that was still a thing for druids & such. It's also a misstatement of the rules involved

Spoiler

Druid Organization
Druids have a worldwide structure. At their upper levels
(12th and above), only a few druids can hold each level.
Druids, Archdruids, and the Great Druid
At 12th level, the druid character acquires the official title of
“druid” (all druid characters below 12th level are officially known
as “initiates”). There can be only nine 12th-level druids in any
geographic region (as defined by oceans, seas, and mountain
ranges; a continent may consist of three or four such regions). A
character cannot reach 12th level unless he takes his place as
one of the nine druids. This is possible only if there are currently
fewer than nine druids in the region, or if the character defeats
one of the nine druids in magical or hand-to-hand combat,
thereby assuming the defeated druid’s position. If such combat
is not mortal, the loser drops experience points so that he has
exactly 200,000 remaining—just enough to be 11th level.
The precise details of each combat are worked out
between the two combatants in advance. The combat can be
magical, nonmagical, or a mixture of both. It can be fought to
the death, until only one character is conscious, until a prede-
termined number of hit points is lost, or even until the first
blow is landed, although in this case both players would have
to be supremely confident of their abilities. Whatever can be
agreed upon between the characters is legitimate, so long as
there is some element of skill and risk.
When a character becomes a 12th-level druid, he gains
three underlings. Their level depends on the character’s posi-
tion among the nine druids. The druid with the most experi-
ence points is served by three initiates of 9th level; the
second-most experienced druid is served by three initiates of
8th level; and so on, until the least experienced druid is
...

It's a misstatement of the rules? The rules you posted literally say this:

"This is possible only if there are currently fewer than nine druids in the region, or if the character defeats one of the nine druids in magical or hand-to-hand combat, thereby assuming the defeated druid’s position."

Over half the rules text you quoted is about the specifics of Mortal Druid Kombat. That's not a misstatement, that's just the rules!

You can argue that druids didn't actually fight, and just looked for vacancies, but it seems pretty obvious that the intent of the rules is for druid on druid action.

 

[tetrasodium]

Are you not complaining about the player and his actions? Pretty clear you are from that post.


The player was not in the wrong for invoking that rule. The player was in the wrong for not pursuing a story-relevant hook without offering a narration as to why.

A good player elevates the table by pursuing story.

I don't believe that describing an actual example of play relevant to the discussion is a complaint about the player. The relevant example of play with a player who chose to engage with the game world as 5e is designed to encourage & multiple wotc folks have stated as something that is intended to a degree that it shouldn't have a loss of power shows the design problem.

If it was showing a player problem it would be a situation where the play runs afoul of one or more sections in the rules like some of the many ☆ instances of "proactive" in the fate core rules where PCs & players are sold on the importance of being proactively engaged in the context of various aspects of play/rules..... can you cite any such PHB sections?

☆ Honestly I thought about grabbing one but there were so many great examples that choosing one seemed like it would undersell that sort of "good player" advice.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's a misstatement of the rules? The rules you posted literally say this:

"This is possible only if there are currently fewer than nine druids in the region, or if the character defeats one of the nine druids in magical or hand-to-hand combat, thereby assuming the defeated druid’s position."

Over half the rules text you quoted is about the specifics of Mortal Druid Kombat. That's not a misstatement, that's just the rules!

You can argue that druids didn't actually fight, and just looked for vacancies, but it seems pretty obvious that the intent of the rules is for druid on druid action.

"region" is usually smaller in scale than the entire world. If one of the 9 dies or retires & delevels ☆ it frees up room for the PC to advance. The rest is assuming that those limits on druid monk(?) & so on were Dark Souls-like meatgrinder coinflips

☆ That was a thing back then but I don't recall the mechanics

 

[TwoSix]

I don't believe that describing an actual example of play relevant to the discussion is a complaint about the player. The relevant example of play with a player who chose to engage with the game world as 5e is designed to encourage & multiple wotc folks have stated as something that is intended to a degree that it shouldn't have a loss of power shows the design problem.

I don't see a design problem. These issues only seemed to get raised around classes like cleric, paladin, and (now) warlock. I don't see any examples like:

GM: "There's a precious musical instrument trapped in that burning inn over there!"
Player: "So?"
GM: "But you're a bard!"
Player: "The PHB doesn't make me care about musical instruments."

The only reason people seem to care more about those three classes is because those classes engage more with the cosmological world-building of default D&D, and a lot of players seem attached to that cosmology, despite the fact it's just as (if not more) fungible than anything else in the core rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't see a design problem. These issues only seemed to get raised around classes like cleric, paladin, and (now) warlock. I don't see any examples like:

GM: "There's a precious musical instrument trapped in that burning inn over there!"
Player: "So?"
GM: "But you're a bard!"
Player: "The PHB doesn't make me care about musical instruments."

The only reason people seem to care more about those three classes is because those classes engage more with the cosmological world-building of default D&D, and a lot of players seem attached to that cosmology, despite the fact it's just as (if not more) fungible than anything else in the core rules.

I don't recall the bard class to have anything encouraging that sort of arson like the warlock class & various wotc names/faces does with being antagonistic towards a patron the warlock works against. That is what makes it a design problem magnified by the explicit removal of possible consequence in the form of power withheld.

 

[Remathilis]

"region" is usually smaller in scale than the entire world. If one of the 9 dies or retires & delevels ☆ it frees up room for the PC to advance. The rest is assuming that those limits on druid monk(?) & so on were Dark Souls-like meatgrinder coinflips

And it was still a stupid and arbitrary rule that no other class (well except Monk and assassin in a way) did. If there was no openings, you had to either fight or politic your way though the teen levels. It was utter bollocks.

☆ That was a thing back then but I don't recall the mechanics

I guess they could fight a wraith or vampire and then lose their political position. See how dumb tying levels to organizational influence is?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree with all of this.

The point where we may differ, I believe, is that I don't feel like removing a character's power (like is often advocated for clerics, paladins, and warlocks) is ever an appropriate consequence within the game, and I actively shape my settings' cosmological underpinnings to make that true.

I also believe that the text within the 5e PHB gives me more than enough latitude to make that determination without falling into a category of "house rule" that I need to explain to my players prior to the game. (Not that I won't explain it if asked, it just isn't a high enough priority to spell out, like I do with house rules that are often encountered.)

I have actually been known to change players' subclasses on them as a consequence. But I have two hard rules:

• Not without the consent of the player
• You don't nerf a character enough that the other PCs have to carry them.

I also consider Oathbreaker extremely ham-handed compared to Vengeance, Redemption, Glory's nihilism, or Conquest.

I agree with that as well. As I mentioned before, I wouldn't want to play a paladin who isn't tempted to Oathbreak, but I'd want to work with the GM as to how all that goes down.

Indeed. The thing that interests me about a paladin (but I'd need to discuss with the GM in advance) is playing a Paladin and openly starting with the wrong oath (probably Oath of the Crown when the monarch is a @$£# and they've been propagandised) and seeing where they end up.

 

[Blue]

Multiclassing does not. In 5e an ex-paladin retains all their abilities. And a subclass respec replaces on set of powers with a different set.

Cherry picking that half, when removing your subclass to make you an Oathbreaker will absolutely remove the PC's existing powers. You keep partially quoting me while leaving out the part I already wrote that disproves what you are saying.

And it's not even a valid reading of the half you quoted, since it doesn't mention anything about "if you are using the multiclassing optional rule" like the Variant Human does. ("If your campaign uses the optional feat rules from chapter 5, your Dungeon Master might allow these variant traits,..."). Which means that the declaration to abandon the class isn't to keep it but just not to advance in it any more because multiclassing isn't an option, it's to do exactly what it says: "forced to abandon this class and adopt another" -- give up all your paladin levels and replace with another class.