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

[Cadence]

The tradition on this forum is to take the most hyperbolic extreme possible if you disagree, but if someone posts their opinion, you call it a strawman.

It is very important to the culture.

At some point the near constant hyperbole and sarcasm from some does become thread crappy. Especially when it isn't even amusing or clever. :-(

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, I know why a warlock would pick a patron to go against - it gives the player some drama built-into their character if they know that eventually they're going to have to turn against the demon lord/archfey/Great Old One/Whatever that they have a pact with.

Sure, but in my experience the player has talked about that with the DM in advance and has another patron lined up to switch to. And is okay with losing abilities for a bit while "finding" the new patron in game. It's not in the same category as what this thread is about.

But where some folks run into problems with these kinds of things are when the DM is using the patron/god/oath/whatever to either create a story that the player doesn't want or to force the player to do what they want and are using an in-game measure to do that.

If you pick a demon or devil as your patron, don't balk when you are asked to do something evil in repayment for gifts offered. If the player doesn't want that story, he bungled it by picking a demon lord or archdevil as his patron. That's not the DM's fault.

The unstated fact in the OP is that the DM is the one that is deciding what the Patron demands. If the character is defying them in an in character bit to further their own story that's one thing. But if the player doesn't want to do what the DM wants and the DM is using their patron to try to force the issue, that's a different thing entire.

Again, the player knew in advance that the patron could put him in that situation when he picked the patron. It's not hard to see that a demon lord or archdevil will ask the player to do bad things. It's not hard to see that a fey patron will have fey interests and ask the PC to do things long those lines.

In my opinion the player balking at doing what the patron asks after choosing that patron is violating the social contract that he agreed to by picking such a patron. This is different than the advance RP set-up in the first paragraph above.

So the question I would have is - why is this situation coming up at all?

Roleplay. The player picked a patron and the RP of the warlock class is such that the patron will ask the PC to do things.

 

[Oofta]

I suspect he's talking about DM's that take a hard line approach and literally beat thier players into submission to proper behavior or death. I don't think he's talking about normal expectable consequences. not often but i've played with DM's who'd just kill you if you didn't take thier advice and go west. Or you slap the barmaid and the entire bar rises up and kills you, or you smart mouth the mage your talking too and he polymorphs you into a fly and squishes you. Some DM's are control freaks who punish anyone who crosses their mysterious broken lines.

We all forget sometimes not everyone DM's the same way. Especially in these forums.

Then it's a fallacy of exaggeration. Can it happen? Sure. Is anyone advocating it? I don't think so. Even if they are, it's up to them and their table based on what they enjoy. But I've seen the same argument time and again: something taken to an extreme to show how wrong something is. Not just on this topic and not specific to this poster.

 

[Oofta]

The tradition on this forum is to take the most hyperbolic extreme possible if you disagree, but if someone posts their opinion, you call it a strawman.

It is very important to the culture.

You are the one saying that a PC that greatly offends their patron is

It all still boils down to doing that and coming up with an excuse for doing so.

It doesn't matter why I punched that dude in the face, his face was still punched. Regardless of whatever justification is used, the result is 'you character is useless now. drive through.'

Because eventually they get trained via the magic of operant conditioning to expect the DM to punch them mechanically whenever they make the 'wrong' choice, so they start agonizing over every choice.

Or they're the 3e Paladin and don't let the party make choices they don't like and also can't make their own choices because the DM is lurking around the corner with a collapsible baton and a pamphlet entitled 'kneecaps and you'.

That a DM enforcing reasonable consequences to PC actions is making those PCs into indentured servitude, just waiting to pounce and kneecap them and force the player to sit on the sidelines with a useless character.

It is hyperbole and exaggeration.

 

[Baron Opal II]

So the question I would have is - why is this situation coming up at all?

For me;

The player didn't realize that the paladin is not an excuse to play Lawful Arrogant*, runs afoul of Rule #1, and we have a conversation.

The warlock decides that making a deal with a devil is not all it's cracked up to be, and looks to get out.

The druid decides that [somebody's] goals are more important than the deal with the spirit of Red Spring, and breaks their deal with it.

The cleric discovers they have to make a choice between what is Right and what is Easy, and then the player knowingly chooses Easy to RP the result.

* Granted, in 5e this an available option. As I mentioned earlier paladins in my game are heroic.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, I know why a warlock would pick a patron to go against - it gives the player some drama built-into their character if they know that eventually they're going to have to turn against the demon lord/archfey/Great Old One/Whatever that they have a pact with.

But where some folks run into problems with these kinds of things are when the DM is using the patron/god/oath/whatever to either create a story that the player doesn't want or to force the player to do what they want and are using an in-game measure to do that.

The unstated fact in the OP is that the DM is the one that is deciding what the Patron demands. If the character is defying them in an in character bit to further their own story that's one thing. But if the player doesn't want to do what the DM wants and the DM is using their patron to try to force the issue, that's a different thing entire.

So the question I would have is - why is this situation coming up at all?

If I have an issue with a player and their PC it will generally only be a few things. For example they're being disruptive, they're antagonizing other players to the point where it is not fun, they're dominating the game to the point where other players don't feel like they can contribute. This is a player problem that has nothing to do with their class.

If someone is not following the edicts of their god or patron, that's a roleplaying thing. I'll have a chat with them offline and we'll figure something out. Either they don't understand something, they have a motivation I don't understand, they want to change something about their character or maybe it's just not the class and character for them. I won't punish them with in-game penalties because I don't think they're playing their PC "right".

The second paragraph is all hypothetical for me, it's never come up. I will occasionally warn people that, for example, I consider torture evil and I don't allow evil PCs. That's happened maybe once in the past decade or so.

I'll never force a story on a player, that's bad DMing. I'll provide opportunities. There will be repercussions for actions taken or not taken, both good and bad. If there's ever anything I'm unsure of I'll either hint at it to get a reaction or just discuss offline.

None of this has anything to do with specific character classes.