D&D General What Happens if a Cleric/Warlock/etc PC Gravely Offends Their Supernatural Patron?

[Vaalingrade]

Hen no they'll never upset daddy all the way to end when the price of power comes due.

So obedient people are broken when playing servitor classes. They're not suffering or having their fun impeded by what they have to RP in order to keep their powers, which is the entirety of where the 'balance' lies.

 

[nevin]

I think you're making a completely different argument. Questions of balance are about mechanics, not story. The cost of power is a story element in D&D not a mechanical one for the most part. (Notably the spell system being a slot-based system rather than an energy or health based attrition system means that except on Athas there's really no mechanic in D&D for power coming with a cost - it's all about narrative.)

The entire narrative that justifies warlocks. Pacts are contracts no consequence means they are meaningless

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don’t think this has much to do with balancing. It’s a matter of the world feeling real and responsive and the characters being connected to it.

 

[Jer]

The entire narrative that justifies warlocks. Pacts are contracts no consequence means they are meaningless

Yes but what I'm saying is that there's no mechanic to back up that narrative - it's just narrative. There's nothing unbalanced playing, say, a Warlock with an Archfey patron who is a flighty hedonist who doesn't care what the Warlock does with the power they're given they just want to see what happens. They never show up during the course of the campaign, never ask the warlock to do anything, and maybe only show up at the end to laugh at the choices the warlock has made and then disappear again like an evil fairy from a fairy tale.

The game won't break, what you miss is narrative potential. The narrative isn't used to balance overpowered warlock abilities, it's there to give interesting story hooks for the character type.

 

[Yaarel]

I've been making fun of those weak, insecure dorks like all thread.

You and Socrates, both.

It was hard to be rational and take those gods seriously at the same time.

 

[Cruentus]

I think you're making a completely different argument. Questions of balance are about mechanics, not story. The cost of power is a story element in D&D not a mechanical one for the most part. (Notably the spell system being a slot-based system rather than an energy or health based attrition system means that except on Athas there's really no mechanic in D&D for power coming with a cost - it's all about narrative.)

Except when you look at Clerics and Warlocks, their powers are specifically (mechanically) tied to story elements (domains, gods, and patrons). So its okay to give out additional mechanical benefits because they're mechanical, but not have them tied to story? Why even bother with domains and gods and patrons then? Just have a bunch of options to pick from as a character. (Which, as I type this, I realize is exactly how a lot of people play DnD).

It always is interesting to me (and I'm not speaking about you Jer) when people play DnD from a strictly "mechanics" perspective. And I have a long standing friend/player who does exactly that. Of course, this all varies from table to table and player to player, but speaking for myself, if the world isn't immersive, if the relationships don't exist (gods, patrons, mentors, trainers), and its all a "table top wargame on hexes conga-line to gain advantage", then it (to me) really misses the actual fun and interest in an RPG.

 

[Yaarel]

Socrates argued philosophically, that it is impossible to please the gods, because pleasing one god will necessarily anger a rival god.

So to live a godly life is impossible.

The truth of that logic is why they made Socrates drink poison.

 

[TwoSix]

The game won't break, what you miss is narrative potential. The narrative isn't used to balance overpowered warlock abilities, it's there to give interesting story hooks for the character type.

This. Engaging with the warlock patron or the needs of a deity should be fun for the player who wants to embrace that narrative. If the player isn't interested in engaging with the hook, you simply ignore it. There's no balance intent behind the narrative (that was thankfully left behind in AD&D.)

 

[Wolfram stout]

The whole idea of pact magic is a deals a deal. You break the deal it sucks to be you.

So what is the "deal"? Who is writing it up? As a player I am going to make sure I don't agree to do anything I don't want to do in game. As a DM, what are you going to insist on in the contract that will make the Warlock not overpowered.

 

[Jer]

This. Engaging with the warlock patron or the needs of a deity should be fun for the player who wants to embrace that narrative. If the player isn't interested in engaging with the hook, you simply ignore it. There's no balance intent behind the narrative (that was thankfully left behind in AD&D.)

This is what led to my original response - there's a difference between me as DM asking the player to do something they don't want to do via their Patron, and me as the Patron asking the character to do something they don't want to do. In the latter case this would be discussed with the player early on to find out if they're interested in the story of them defying their Patron or not and then I'd set up circumstances to eventually give them the opportunity to do that if that's what they want.