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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9744869" data-attributes="member: 18">Yes, I do, to be honest. I'm not sure that's what [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] actually believes, but, it's the sentiment being expressed imho - see below:I would argue that for most Clerics played in D&D, they might mention their god, but it's very rare, in recent editions (but even back in 2E) for the god to actually interact with the story in any meaningful way, or even to significantly influence the Cleric PC's actions away from "The Path Of What I Was Going To Do Anyway", because modern D&D settings tend to have such a vast variety of religious options (especially the FR) that people can usually just select a god that is perfectly aligned with how they were going to play that PC.You can say well he rephrased it to:But I don't think that's really a change, because the discussion re: Warlocks hasn't been about patrons literally never ever mattering at all, it's about whether they're a big deal who need to be "fleshed out" or not. And I don't think it's reasonable to suggest they are, or that Warlocks are a "pointless class" if they're not. Also this change in phrasing to me brings it down to specific PCs - because a lot of Clerics will go through a campaign without their god really mattering, especially if the god is well-aligned to the goals of the PCs in that campaign.I think the real issue is we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Warlock patrons were default-fleshed-out the way god are. Like, if each of the Warlock patrons had a specific default Forgotten Realms named entity associated with them, even if then 80% of Warlocks proceeded to just totally ignore that being in the campaign (like most Clerics do), I don't think we'd be here, even though in both cases the entity/god is pretty irrelevant.</blockquote>

Verification