Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9861867" data-attributes="member: 23751">I think the old concerns from 1e and 2e are coloring viewpoints here and causing misperceptions to occur.  We aren't saying that we are evaluating play, finding it lacking, and then administering a punishment.  What we are doing is the basic play loop.  The DM describes the environment(the patron shows up and would like the warlock to attend the ball at the palace.) The player declares what his PC does(flips off his patron). The DM narrates the results(announces the consequences that emerge from the PC actions).  It's not a punishment when his patron becomes enraged at that sort of behavior.  It's just naturally how things could/would proceed from that interaction. If it were me there would be a bit more to it than that.  I'd look at who the patron is, because some would be more or less forgiving than others.  How reliable the warlock has been in the past.  How much the patron likes or dislikes the warlock at this point. And so on.  Then I'd make some sort of reaction roll based on those things and narrate an appropriate resulting consequence, which might even be nothing at all depending on how things shook out.  On the other hand, if this is the 12th time the warlock has acted this way, the patron hates the warlock, the patron is a demon prince, and I roll low, it's going to go very badly for the PC.Sure. In my experience, though, the overwhelming majority of the time the player isn't going to go so far off the rails like that.  If the vision is constant and they've bought that mini, they are going to uphold that vision and the oaths.  If there is an arc that will involve a complete fall or temporary fall and redemption, the player is going to talk to the DM about it and get the DM on board, so if oathbreaker happens, it is part of that vision.</blockquote>

Verification