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

[tetrasodium]

"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.

I read it yes. The trouble with it is that the article is a mess and presents rather system specific things as if they are broadly applicable to any game system and as a result a poorly defined term gets used to serve as some kind of enlightened I'll know it when I see it purity test

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

That might be his choice, but there is no reason that the system should try to do both

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I remember you saying this in another thread a while back. It sounds like a blast.

 

[Maxperson]

That might be his choice, but there is no reason that the system should try to do both

It doesn't. The system is the system. 5e isn't going to change just because @TwoSix is making changes to how he runs things and enjoys it that way.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Sure. The thing I'm personally opposed is the "vague diegetic reality", where classes are kind of a "vocation guide", and characters of a class all end up with the same sort of abilities despite their being no in-fiction reinforcement as to why everyone ended up learning the same abilities in the same order. And some classes (like a druid or paladin) have a much more strict diegetic expression than a fighter or rogue.

My preferences are either to have a strict, encompassing, and uniform diegetic expression for classes (Fighter, Wizard, and Paladin all have the same diegetic weight), or just not have it and use class as a purely game mechanical expression.

 

[TwoSix]

I remember you saying this in another thread a while back. It sounds like a blast.

Always happy to give more details of my mad science experiments, although I'd prefer to take it to another thread, as this one is cluttered.

 

[TwoSix]

That might be his choice, but there is no reason that the system should try to do both

I don't remember arguing for the system to change.

I'm arguing for specific interpretations of the system, in ways I've found to increase flexibility and enjoyment for the players, in accordance to my clearly stated play priorities.

I don't know your players, of course, so what's fun for my group might not be fun for another. But I don't think my players (I have about 20 different players overall) are such wide outliers that my observations won't be interesting or applicable to anyone.

And even if you hate my interpretations and think they should DIAF, at least I'm giving you clarity for your hatred.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

I've long done this, but Acolyte has cemented it as an official option in 5e.......in my games the vast majority of priests aren't clerics. Clerics have that special level of faith/blessing/favor/whatever that allows them spellcasting. Priests have a lot of faith and devotion(for the most part), but don't get spells.

Most temples in my game have anywhere from 0-3 clerics, with only the most major temples having a cleric with the equivalent of double digit levels. Spellcasting doesn't put you in charge, either. Most spellcasting clerics are the ones that go out into the universe doing their god's bidding, because they are the most capable. That means that the high priest of a temple or even the entire faith will often be a non-caster.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And regarding patrons/deities/etc shutting down the character's powers, you can easily have a setup where it is metaphysically possible, but still highly unlikely to actually happen in the game. Like In my world Artra the gods do power the clerics directly and in theory could withhold that power, but in practice this would require the character to quite actively renounce the god and/or take actions that very obviously go against the basic tenets of the deity, and that is not going to happen unless the player very intentionally decides to do this, probably as justification for switching domains or something.

Similarly with warlock, even with metaphysics where the patron can withhold power, we never need to reach the point where it actually happens. But the character knows that in theory they could, thus the character is roleplayed as the patron having leverage over them.

 

[GobHag]

I read it yes. The trouble with it is that the article is a mess and presents rather system specific things as if they are broadly applicable to any game system and as a result a poorly defined term gets used to serve as some kind of enlightened I'll know it when I see it purity test

No more a mess then most other opiniated blogpost about categorizing players/groups. And as someone that is a self-avowed Neotrad player, why should I consider losing my class powers be ever an appropriate consequence to someone that has no care about verisimilitude?