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

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. My core approach for 5e (and 3e and 4e before that) is that every character in the setting, PC and NPC alike, are unique. The class rules are simply a gameable model of options that are open to players at the start of the game, and are only a small subset of the limitless options that are actually available within the fiction.

Terms used within the fiction to describe archetypes of characters (like mage, or wizard, or priest) only have a loose connection to the class-building rules at best. As an example, every "wizard" at a wizard academy must have some unifying traits, like using their Intelligence to cast spells that are stored in a written, transmittable form, but the actual progression of a character's powers is unique (or at least not widely common).

I can and do allow for homebrew classes, prestige-type classes, custom feats, class transformations, and template-like boons to reflect each character's unique journey.

I also rarely use the Monster Manual, preferring to build my own encounters, and I've never used the godawful "humanoid templates" found within except as a loose inspirational starting point.

Yeah, the thing is that I fi wanted a world like that, I would not use class-based game for it in the first place (and I often don't.) In such a setup the classes do no seem to serve any real purpose to me, they are just arbitrarily limiting feature packages. If I use a class-based game, then I want the classes to have at least some sort of vague diegetic reality. For example, the wizards and warlocks have different rules because they are metaphysically different, and this is something that is knowable in the setting etc.

I am not of course saying that you're "doing it wrong" or anything like that, but your approach really wouldn't work for me. But it is interesting how differently different people see these things. There are all sort of unstated and often unexamined assumptions people have that they bring into games, and sometimes differing assumptions of participants might cause unexpected conflict. And these of course are the source of the most debated on these forums.

 

[TwoSix]

I am not of course saying that you're "doing it wrong" or anything like that, but your approach really wouldn't work for me. But it is interesting how differently different people see these things. There are all sort of unstated and often unexamined assumptions people have that they bring into games, and sometimes differing assumptions of participants might cause unexpected conflict. And these of course are the source of the most debated on these forums.

Unstated assumptions are the bane of fruitful discussion on these forums. It's totally fine if you don't agree with the approach I listed above, but at least you have a pretty clear understanding of where I'm coming from.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

And that's how you get Ur-Priests.

 

[tetrasodium]

Unstated assumptions are the bane of fruitful discussion on these forums. It's totally fine if you don't agree with the approach I listed above, but at least you have a pretty clear understanding of where I'm coming from.

He's not wrong though. What you have been describing is attempting to cast aside I fight tooth and nail against the d&d rules framework to homebrew the class based 5e into one of the many point buy based systems like dyskami's anime5e.

Point buy based &class based systems have a lot of conflicting design needs and shouldn't try to serve both by calling one of them roleplaying. The fact that you could've even do that and had to obfuscate it under a meaningless undefinable term like "neotrad" earlier even shows that the conflict of needs is too low level to even pretend.

 

[Maxperson]

You can join a table where a Fighter arbritarily levels up according to the DMs whims, You can find a table where levels up are goal/story beat specific, you can join a table where they follow XP suggestions.

Er, none of that changes the progression or abilities. The fighter still progresses from 1st level to 20th level, gaining the exact same abilities/choices as every other fighter, at the exact same levels.

 

[Maxperson]

but at least you have a pretty clear understanding of where I'm coming from.

Jersey?

 

[Maxperson]

What you have been describing is attempting to cast aside I fight tooth and nail against the d&d rules framework to homebrew the class based 5e into one of the many point buy based systems like dyskami's anime5e.

That's his choice, though. If @TwoSix wants to put that sort of work into making D&D fit his vision and that of his group, more power to him. Since D&D came into being, changing it to fit the DM/Group vision has been part and parcel of what the game stands for.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd like to bring up a point- corrupt priests. In a series of fantasy novels I've read, the protagonists belong to one of several knightly orders devoted to a large, organized church. They soon realize they are dealing with a conspiracy involving a corrupt church leader who has their eye on the papacy- the current pope is old and sickly, and the next one is decided by vote.

Using bribes and blackmail, the evil priest has bought many votes, and is using their influence to cause a great deal of problems for the heroes.

Now imagine a scenario like this in a D&D setting. If the instant a priest steps out of line they lose their powers and cease to be a priest, this becomes immediately problematic- unless they are allowed to choose a new master, of course (the local dark power will probably be recruiting, be they Asmodeus or even that schmuck Cyric).

Another point to consider is that most fantasy deities aren't very well mapped out. We mostly only know general things about them. There is no printed Bible of Tyr, Pholtus, or Dumathoin laying around, after all. Expecting a player to devote themselves fanatically and faithfully to a made-up imaginary deity who has, at best, a wiki article somewhere and nothing like actual commandments, holy days, ceremonies, tales of saints, and the like seems a bit much. Now if you, as a DM, can offer all of this to a player, that's one thing. But if someone says "Man, I want to be a Death Domain Cleric" and all they have is a list of deities to choose from who have that Domain, well, there's probably a big difference between serving Kelemvor, Wee Jas, The Raven Queen, or Nerull!

It's up to the DM to describe, when the player makes their character, what they expect from the Cleric, I'd think, and if the player seems like they are chafing under the mandates of their God, you should suggest a different path.

-

A classic plot point in the Hellraiser series is that John Constantine (a successful Warlock if there ever was one) has made deals with multiple powerful demons, which leads to his masterstroke when he finally dies, and it causes a civil war in Hell as each demon tries to collect what they are due! A Warlock absolutely can work against the best interests of their Patron- wriggling out of a deal with the Devil is a classic literary trope, after all. And why couldn't a Warlock make more than one Pact anyways?

-

The Paladin breaking their oath, and therefore losing their exalted status is trickier- the myths and legends that inspired the D&D Paladin are rife with cautionary tales about falling due to pride, temptation, or hubris. Going on epic quests to atone for such transgressions is part and parcel of the fantasy of a holy knight. This need not be very strict- minor transgressions can be easily forgiven, so long as the Paladin continues to strive towards their chosen ideal- mortals are fallible, and no one should be demanding perfection from them.

That having been said, it occurs to me that any Paladin who is likely to commit major transgressions of their Oath should never have gotten powers in the first place, because obviously they don't believe in it very much! It seems to me that if you want the player to hew closely to their Oath, this all should have started when they joined the campaign- you should ask them to consider their Oath carefully, and explain what it means to them. What circumstances would lead them to betray their Oath?

If they are incompatible with the Oath, you can simply tell them that, no matter how cool the powers are, this might not be the best thing for them to roleplay.

-

Being advised not to strip player characters of their abilities, and/or having little guidance for what happens if they do things that seem out of character is not some great sin against the DM- if you want the actions of the PC's to make sense in your game world, then you are free to set expectations. But there's more than one possible outcome here, it need not be "ah! You didn't accept that goblin's surrender, you're not a Paladin anymore!". There are other ways to handle this that aren't so grossly punitive. You shouldn't even need to wave such a blunt instrument around, to be honest- if someone is a player worth having in your game, you should be able to have a conversation with them about expectations and consequences.

If they're not, then stealing away their powers or striking them down with Gygaxian "bolts from the blue" will likely fail to make them a better player, and you'd be better off just asking them to leave the game.

 

[TwoSix]

That's his choice, though. If @TwoSix wants to put that sort of work into making D&D fit his vision and that of his group, more power to him. Since D&D came into being, changing it to fit the DM/Group vision has been part and parcel of what the game stands for.

I like doing the work. Just in the last few years, I've run a completely classless game of 5e (characters got feats every level, and the players and I would negotiate for novel feats based on events in the game). And I've run a game where characters started as a level 1 sidekick, and then unlocked new classes via attuning items in dungeons.

I consider them 5e because I'm still using the core resolution system and the spell system, with the same expected character outputs. But the character creation portion is very different.

 

[TwoSix]

Point buy based &class based systems have a lot of conflicting design needs and shouldn't try to serve both by calling one of them roleplaying. The fact that you could've even do that and had to obfuscate it under a meaningless undefinable term like "neotrad" earlier even shows that the conflict of needs is too low level to even pretend.

"Neotrad" is a perfectly acceptable term. You've read the 6 Cultures article, right?

Not to mention I clarified the meaning I was using in context. Neotrad games are games in which expression of character concept, generally through dramatic roleplay and combat encounters, is the highest priority. Challenge-based play, or demonstration of verisimilitude through setting display, are secondary concerns.