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

[pemerton]

What did they do? More crucially, why did they do it? What story beat did the player want to evoke?

I would hope we're not assuming reactionary players who do stuff "just because".

Sounds like a bad case of main character syndrome!

 

[pemerton]

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.

Maybe that player was suffering from main character syndrome?

 

[pemerton]

it seems pretty obvious that the intent of the rules is for druid on druid action.

That kinda evoked an image that maybe you didn't mean to evoke?

 

[TwoSix]

That kinda evoked an image that maybe you didn't mean to evoke?

If the question is “Did Twosix mean to imply something disturbing and tawdry?”, the answer is pretty much always “Yes”.

 

[pemerton]

If the question is “Did Twosix mean to imply something disturbing and tawdry?”, the answer is pretty much always “Yes”.

Druid on druid action, involving two druids who love nature and one another very much, is a beautiful thing. Not tawdry at all!

 

[pemerton]

So much of this game was built on DMs and players engaging in "good natured antagonism" that it really paints the Hickman Revolution as a truly remarkable turning point. The idea that DM and player were supposed to cooperate for the shared goal of creating a narrative is so radically opposed to Gary's "battle of wits" style it's amazing how both could be done with the same rules!

Well, they don't use the same rules.

They use largely the same PC building rules. But the rules for framing, consequence, preparation, etc are different. The action resolution rules overlap quite a bit, but they're not identical either: the Hickman style uses a lot more GM fiat for resolution, including (but by no means limited to) stuff like "obscure deaths".

 

[pemerton]

I'd argue that if the paladin character doesn't get near oathbreaker status at a few points, why did they bother playing a paladin in the first place?

I think it's legitimate to want to play a version of Galahad or Percival or Aragorn, as much as a slightly modernised Lancelot.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it's legitimate to want to play a version of Galahad or Percival or Aragorn, as much as a slightly modernised Lancelot.

Yea, that’s a fair critique. I’m definitely influenced by my play groups’ lack of desire to play classical heroic archetypes.

 

[Autumnal]

Druid on druid action, involving two druids who love nature and one another very much, is a beautiful thing. Not tawdry at all!

No Wild Shapes or companions were injured in the making of this scene.

 

[pemerton]

No Wild Shapes or companions were injured in the making of this scene.

Someone had to go there . . .


{True story: in one of my long-running RM campaigns, one of the high-level mage PCs had a romantic partner who was a Mystic in the RM parlance, which meant that (inter alia) she could shapechange herself and others. When she would turn herself and the PC into griffons, or similar wild and sensual beasts, we would allow the action to drift offscreen . . .


A further true story: the romantic partner was cut in half by a single blow from a rogue Sword Demon that another PC, also a high level mage, had summoned but lost control of. That was a sad moment. It also triggered the use of the Depression Crit and addiction rules, which is relevant to a discussion in another current thread.)