So, i have been working on my new setting and i always ask the question of the relationship between mortals and their divine beings. I am just looking for ideas to make it interesting. First: Clerics The questions are:
1- What makes a cleric, cleric , in your settings?
2- After watching some Critical Role, do you support the idea that creatures that are not gods can be the source of powers for them?
3- Should the cleric achieve their power because they BELIEVE in the god or should it come from the god giving the divine power? ( i know i can do whatever i want but i want to see more opinions)
Second: Paladins Here are my questions for those armored crusaders:
1- Same second question for clerics but for paladins
2- Sane third question but for paladins
3- Should paladins really swear oaths to be differentiated from clerics? I want to make a clear distinctions between clerics and paladins and also giving options for those who don't like paladins stuck with being "lawful".
Third and final one: Warlocks This one got me into a lot of arguments with several DMs because of their relationship with patron and their warlock....
1- Should the warlock lose their power after breaking the pact? be it from switching pacts, or killing their patron.
2- This is just an opinion question: Do you support giving warlocks spells like commune so they can speak to their patrons? Would you allow a form of "divine intervention" for warlocks? is any of them even necessary? Sure it may depend on their patron but what do you think?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
The answer to all of these questions is “it depends on the setting,” so take my responses only as what I find to be the most interesting and what I do in my own game.
Clerics:
1) Faith. That’s it.
2) Haven’t watched any Critical Role, but I do not use deities or religions as sources of power for clerics. They’re interfaces with a source of power, but they themselves are not a source of power. Creatures that are not gods can be this for sure though. Doesn’t even need to be a creature. A philosophy, an ideal, whatever. Anything a cleric has real faith in can grant them access to magic.
3) I think my previous answers are pretty clear about how I feel about this one ;)
Paladins:
1) Same answer.
2) Same answer.
3) I don’t think a clear distinction between clerics and paladins is necessary or interesting. The mechanics are different enough, but drawing an in-narrative distinction just because there’s a mechanical one is really gamey and kind of immersion-breaking for me. Paladins are certainly more martial, but narratively they’re the same thing. In the game I run, we have a druid and a ranger, and I make a point of stressing that as far as the story and the game world are concerned, they’re both just druids. Narratively, I’d let clerics pick a paladin oath as their religion and I’d let paladins pick a religion as their oath.
Warlocks:
1) 100% up to the patron. I can imagine some patrons being okay with whatever (especially GOO), but a lot may take issue and rescind the powers. You don’t get to break a contract and keep your stuff that’s the point of having a contract.
2) I don’t think this is necessary. A patron can talk to the warlock whenever they want already. The power they’re granted is represented by all the class features. The fact that a warlock can do all the stuff they can do is their “divine intervention.”
1) What makes a cleric, cleric , in your settings?
Up until now, I've played Gods & Religion pretty traditionally: Clerics are worshipers and servitors of Gods. Gods are anthropomorphic archetypes, complete with a human personality, who have godlike powers in the domains over which they have dominion. Godlike power being defined as being able to directly shape the nature of reality, on a broad or even massive scale, merely by force of will. E.g. A god(dess) of Death would be able merely to extinguish all life in a city, or region, merely by an effort of will. Fortunately, the Gods are arranged in counter-balanced Pantheons, so they largely prevent each other from breaking reality too badly. Clerics maintain a direct and personal connection with their Deity, and their ability to channel their Deity's power is related to their piety, and their willingness and ability to advance the ethos of the deity they worship.
2) After watching some Critical Role, do you support the idea that creatures that are not gods can be the source of powers for them?
Sure. The existence of Warlocks shows that the ability to channel or transfer power to a subordinate creature is not solely a divine ability. It need not be a binary God/Patron choice; It may be a spectrum. However, I think a DM needs to think through how power is transmitted. If gods channel power through their Clerics, and Patrons alter the inherent abilities of their Warlocks ( which would explain how pact breaking Warlocks can retrain their abilities ), then you have to figure out how that works somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. How does a proto-god or demi-god work?
3 - Should the cleric achieve their power because they BELIEVE in the god or should it come from the god giving the divine power?
As per question #1, I tend to view Clerics as being conduits for the divine power of the deity.
Paladins
1) After watching some Critical Role, do you support the idea that creatures that are not gods can be the source of powers for them?
Yes. Oaths like the Oath of the Ancients seem to indicate that Paladins can be focused on elemental forces, or on powerful ideologies. Extremely powerful yet non-divine beings don't seem to be too large or a stretch, so long as they could reasonably evoke awe and veneration ( think of the Lady of the Lake in the Arthurian legends; I could see her having a Paladin ). To me a Paladin is ideologically focused, and that ideology is rigorouslyadhered to, since it is the strength of that ideological belief that powers a Paladin's abilities. However, that ideology or veneration need not be focused on something of divine nature. Still - I think divine Paladins are most likely vastly more common than Paladins whose ideology is built around a Philosophy or Elemental force
2) Should the Paladin achieve their power because they BELIEVE in the god or should it come from the god giving the divine power?
Since Paladins can build their power around ideologies and beliefs which are not divine, as per question #1, I think that Paladin's abilities come from their faith, not a direct channel from the Deity, elemental force, or ideology in which they believe.
This would be a fundamental difference between Clerics - who channel the divine power of the deity they worship - and Paladins - whose power comes solely internally through their faith.
3) Should paladins really swear oaths?
Yes. As per question #2 above, this the Paladin committing totally to their ideology. That might be an oath to follow the ideology of a Deity, or it may be to a powerful Philosophy or elemental force. But the Oath is important as it the finalization and commitment of the Paladin's faith.
Warlocks
1) Should the warlock lose their power after breaking the pact? be it from switching pacts, or killing their patron.
No. As per question #2 under Clerics, I view Patrons as altering the inherent abilities of their Warlocks. It is a one time grant of an ability. It does not require continual renewal by the Patron.
2) Do you support giving warlocks spells like commune so they can speak to their patrons? Would you allow a form of "divine intervention" for warlocks?
Sure. But nothing comes for free for a Warlock! The Patron/Warlock relationship is commerce. Patrons grant abilities to Warlocks in exchange for ongoing service, or as rewards for services rendered. I would allow a Warlock to commune with their Patron ( in fact I have in the past ), but information or intervention comes at a cost, and a steep one! If you've read The Dresden Files, think of how Mab, or The Leanansidhe dole out power and knowledge. Being in debt to your Patron makes you extremely vulnerable to their magic and power, and everything comes at a cost. Also, the Patron might very well use the need of the Warlock to control and manipulate them further under the control of the Patron.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The rules do not actually support patrons taking power away from a character. I'd handle that very delicately. I'd consider making a patron punish the player, but I'd not consider gimping a character by trying to take their power away. I've seen too many DMs think that they can control warlock players via their patrons to think that it's a good idea for a DM to start to go down that path.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Well, in my worlds, it the three tend to blend together. Gods and patrons tend to be the same. But there are differences between those they grant their power. Clerics are on the loose end of things, while warlocks and paladins are much more bound. Essentially, clerics are the chosen ones of the gods. Gods accumulate the majority of their power from followers, and a cleric's power is given to the god from power gained by that source. Clerics rarely pay for themselves, as it takes thousands of followers to give a cleric its power. But without clerics, gods would have much less followers, as they give people a reason to worship. Everyone hopes to be a cleric. Clerics can also be used to achieve their gods' goals on the material plane, but that's more paladin stuff.
Paladins are the enforcers of the gods. In order to get their powers, they must swear an oath. The moment they break the oath, their powers are lost. But the oaths you see in the phb have no power. Those are mortal creations. The actual oaths are more or less "Whatever X god says, I gotta do." If given an order by their god, they must follow it, or they will lose their powers. But if they have no orders, they're free to do whatever. Most are faithful as hells, so they still go all "ooga booga look at me I'm a lawful good ball of garbage", but plenty just do whatever. Of course, the god can step in at any time and say "wait no don't do that" and the paladin has to follow their orders, but that's really only if it's, like... really bad. Most of the time, they really can't be bothered. Also, chaotic gods rarely give shits.
Warlocks are similar to paladins, but they really only have one interaction with their patron, rather than being constantly watched over, like paladins. Their power isn't actively supplied by a god, like a paladin or a cleric. Instead, it's unconsciously supplied according to the terms of a contract. The warlock has to either perform a great feat for their patron, and is granted more power as it gets closer to achieving the objective, or it gives over its soul, which is equivalent to many, many, many worshipers. I also sometimes flavor it as the warlock gaining more and more power as it finds loopholes in the contract that allow it to gain more power.
So, to sum it up...
Clerics - 1) A worshiper granted power to go out and perform miracles or do whatever the hell it wants. 2) To be an official cleric, no. Since clerics are defined by being granted power gained from worshipers, and any being that has worshipers is basically the definition of a god in my world, it doesn't really work. I'd allow mechanical equivalents flavored as something else, though. 3) It's from the god giving power, but the person who gets it is typically a worshiper. Though I'd love to see an unrequited love sort of situation, that'd be fun.
Paladins - 1) Same deal as clerics. 2) Them being believers makes them easier to control, but as long as they'll do anything to keep their powers, it's fine. 3) Yes, but the only oath that should be binding is "if the god says it, do it". Otherwise, they should be largely free.
Warlocks - 1) No. If it's an objective pact, it should stop gaining more power, since it's stopped trying to achieve its goal, but it never loses its power. 2) No. Once the pact is made, no more contact is needed. Actually no more contact is largely what defines warlocks for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
Warlocks - 1) No. If it's an objective pact, it should stop gaining more power, since it's stopped trying to achieve its goal, but it never loses its power. 2) No. Once the pact is made, no more contact is needed. Actually no more contact is largely what defines warlocks for me.
Completely agree with this. Better MC into sorc or bard if you want to get levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, i have been working on my new setting and i always ask the question of the relationship between mortals and their divine beings. I am just looking for ideas to make it interesting.
First: Clerics
The questions are:
1- What makes a cleric, cleric , in your settings?
2- After watching some Critical Role, do you support the idea that creatures that are not gods can be the source of powers for them?
3- Should the cleric achieve their power because they BELIEVE in the god or should it come from the god giving the divine power? ( i know i can do whatever i want but i want to see more opinions)
Second: Paladins
Here are my questions for those armored crusaders:
1- Same second question for clerics but for paladins
2- Sane third question but for paladins
3- Should paladins really swear oaths to be differentiated from clerics? I want to make a clear distinctions between clerics and paladins and also giving options for those who don't like paladins stuck with being "lawful".
Third and final one: Warlocks
This one got me into a lot of arguments with several DMs because of their relationship with patron and their warlock....
1- Should the warlock lose their power after breaking the pact? be it from switching pacts, or killing their patron.
2- This is just an opinion question: Do you support giving warlocks spells like commune so they can speak to their patrons? Would you allow a form of "divine intervention" for warlocks? is any of them even necessary? Sure it may depend on their patron but what do you think?
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
The answer to all of these questions is “it depends on the setting,” so take my responses only as what I find to be the most interesting and what I do in my own game.
Clerics:
1) Faith. That’s it.
2) Haven’t watched any Critical Role, but I do not use deities or religions as sources of power for clerics. They’re interfaces with a source of power, but they themselves are not a source of power. Creatures that are not gods can be this for sure though. Doesn’t even need to be a creature. A philosophy, an ideal, whatever. Anything a cleric has real faith in can grant them access to magic.
3) I think my previous answers are pretty clear about how I feel about this one ;)
Paladins:
1) Same answer.
2) Same answer.
3) I don’t think a clear distinction between clerics and paladins is necessary or interesting. The mechanics are different enough, but drawing an in-narrative distinction just because there’s a mechanical one is really gamey and kind of immersion-breaking for me. Paladins are certainly more martial, but narratively they’re the same thing. In the game I run, we have a druid and a ranger, and I make a point of stressing that as far as the story and the game world are concerned, they’re both just druids. Narratively, I’d let clerics pick a paladin oath as their religion and I’d let paladins pick a religion as their oath.
Warlocks:
1) 100% up to the patron. I can imagine some patrons being okay with whatever (especially GOO), but a lot may take issue and rescind the powers. You don’t get to break a contract and keep your stuff that’s the point of having a contract.
2) I don’t think this is necessary. A patron can talk to the warlock whenever they want already. The power they’re granted is represented by all the class features. The fact that a warlock can do all the stuff they can do is their “divine intervention.”
All this is just my interpretation.
Your mileage may vary
Clerics
1) What makes a cleric, cleric , in your settings?
Up until now, I've played Gods & Religion pretty traditionally: Clerics are worshipers and servitors of Gods. Gods are anthropomorphic archetypes, complete with a human personality, who have godlike powers in the domains over which they have dominion. Godlike power being defined as being able to directly shape the nature of reality, on a broad or even massive scale, merely by force of will. E.g. A god(dess) of Death would be able merely to extinguish all life in a city, or region, merely by an effort of will. Fortunately, the Gods are arranged in counter-balanced Pantheons, so they largely prevent each other from breaking reality too badly. Clerics maintain a direct and personal connection with their Deity, and their ability to channel their Deity's power is related to their piety, and their willingness and ability to advance the ethos of the deity they worship.
2) After watching some Critical Role, do you support the idea that creatures that are not gods can be the source of powers for them?
Sure. The existence of Warlocks shows that the ability to channel or transfer power to a subordinate creature is not solely a divine ability. It need not be a binary God/Patron choice; It may be a spectrum. However, I think a DM needs to think through how power is transmitted. If gods channel power through their Clerics, and Patrons alter the inherent abilities of their Warlocks ( which would explain how pact breaking Warlocks can retrain their abilities ), then you have to figure out how that works somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. How does a proto-god or demi-god work?
3 - Should the cleric achieve their power because they BELIEVE in the god or should it come from the god giving the divine power?
As per question #1, I tend to view Clerics as being conduits for the divine power of the deity.
Paladins
1) After watching some Critical Role, do you support the idea that creatures that are not gods can be the source of powers for them?
Yes. Oaths like the Oath of the Ancients seem to indicate that Paladins can be focused on elemental forces, or on powerful ideologies. Extremely powerful yet non-divine beings don't seem to be too large or a stretch, so long as they could reasonably evoke awe and veneration ( think of the Lady of the Lake in the Arthurian legends; I could see her having a Paladin ). To me a Paladin is ideologically focused, and that ideology is rigorously adhered to, since it is the strength of that ideological belief that powers a Paladin's abilities. However, that ideology or veneration need not be focused on something of divine nature. Still - I think divine Paladins are most likely vastly more common than Paladins whose ideology is built around a Philosophy or Elemental force
2) Should the Paladin achieve their power because they BELIEVE in the god or should it come from the god giving the divine power?
Since Paladins can build their power around ideologies and beliefs which are not divine, as per question #1, I think that Paladin's abilities come from their faith, not a direct channel from the Deity, elemental force, or ideology in which they believe.
This would be a fundamental difference between Clerics - who channel the divine power of the deity they worship - and Paladins - whose power comes solely internally through their faith.
3) Should paladins really swear oaths?
Yes. As per question #2 above, this the Paladin committing totally to their ideology. That might be an oath to follow the ideology of a Deity, or it may be to a powerful Philosophy or elemental force. But the Oath is important as it the finalization and commitment of the Paladin's faith.
Warlocks
1) Should the warlock lose their power after breaking the pact? be it from switching pacts, or killing their patron.
No. As per question #2 under Clerics, I view Patrons as altering the inherent abilities of their Warlocks. It is a one time grant of an ability. It does not require continual renewal by the Patron.
2) Do you support giving warlocks spells like commune so they can speak to their patrons? Would you allow a form of "divine intervention" for warlocks?
Sure. But nothing comes for free for a Warlock! The Patron/Warlock relationship is commerce. Patrons grant abilities to Warlocks in exchange for ongoing service, or as rewards for services rendered. I would allow a Warlock to commune with their Patron ( in fact I have in the past ), but information or intervention comes at a cost, and a steep one! If you've read The Dresden Files, think of how Mab, or The Leanansidhe dole out power and knowledge. Being in debt to your Patron makes you extremely vulnerable to their magic and power, and everything comes at a cost. Also, the Patron might very well use the need of the Warlock to control and manipulate them further under the control of the Patron.
Hope that helps :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The rules do not actually support patrons taking power away from a character. I'd handle that very delicately. I'd consider making a patron punish the player, but I'd not consider gimping a character by trying to take their power away. I've seen too many DMs think that they can control warlock players via their patrons to think that it's a good idea for a DM to start to go down that path.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Well, in my worlds, it the three tend to blend together. Gods and patrons tend to be the same. But there are differences between those they grant their power. Clerics are on the loose end of things, while warlocks and paladins are much more bound. Essentially, clerics are the chosen ones of the gods. Gods accumulate the majority of their power from followers, and a cleric's power is given to the god from power gained by that source. Clerics rarely pay for themselves, as it takes thousands of followers to give a cleric its power. But without clerics, gods would have much less followers, as they give people a reason to worship. Everyone hopes to be a cleric. Clerics can also be used to achieve their gods' goals on the material plane, but that's more paladin stuff.
Paladins are the enforcers of the gods. In order to get their powers, they must swear an oath. The moment they break the oath, their powers are lost. But the oaths you see in the phb have no power. Those are mortal creations. The actual oaths are more or less "Whatever X god says, I gotta do." If given an order by their god, they must follow it, or they will lose their powers. But if they have no orders, they're free to do whatever. Most are faithful as hells, so they still go all "ooga booga look at me I'm a lawful good ball of garbage", but plenty just do whatever. Of course, the god can step in at any time and say "wait no don't do that" and the paladin has to follow their orders, but that's really only if it's, like... really bad. Most of the time, they really can't be bothered. Also, chaotic gods rarely give shits.
Warlocks are similar to paladins, but they really only have one interaction with their patron, rather than being constantly watched over, like paladins. Their power isn't actively supplied by a god, like a paladin or a cleric. Instead, it's unconsciously supplied according to the terms of a contract. The warlock has to either perform a great feat for their patron, and is granted more power as it gets closer to achieving the objective, or it gives over its soul, which is equivalent to many, many, many worshipers. I also sometimes flavor it as the warlock gaining more and more power as it finds loopholes in the contract that allow it to gain more power.
So, to sum it up...
Clerics - 1) A worshiper granted power to go out and perform miracles or do whatever the hell it wants. 2) To be an official cleric, no. Since clerics are defined by being granted power gained from worshipers, and any being that has worshipers is basically the definition of a god in my world, it doesn't really work. I'd allow mechanical equivalents flavored as something else, though. 3) It's from the god giving power, but the person who gets it is typically a worshiper. Though I'd love to see an unrequited love sort of situation, that'd be fun.
Paladins - 1) Same deal as clerics. 2) Them being believers makes them easier to control, but as long as they'll do anything to keep their powers, it's fine. 3) Yes, but the only oath that should be binding is "if the god says it, do it". Otherwise, they should be largely free.
Warlocks - 1) No. If it's an objective pact, it should stop gaining more power, since it's stopped trying to achieve its goal, but it never loses its power. 2) No. Once the pact is made, no more contact is needed. Actually no more contact is largely what defines warlocks for me.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
Completely agree with this. Better MC into sorc or bard if you want to get levels.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha