So Petry Dragonsbane, a PC cleric who worships Corellon Larethian, consistantly makes jokes about not really caring about his faith. As the DM I am constantly offering him temples to his god where he could at least pay a visit to keep the character going, but he always refuses. I have just reasoned that he is just kind of a guy who thinks he does enough vaugely good things to keep his god happy, but it's getting to the point where I don't think Corellon would continue to bless him with healing spells.
How do I punish him? Should I take away his casting ability? Is that even enough?
Honestly? I would just go with it. Whats the point in trying to force Petry into doing something that they obviously aren’t very interested in?. Perhaps Corellon has granted Petry clerical powers not as blessing, but for more selfish reasons? Maybe he believes Petry will play a critical part in the preservation of some Elven society or homeland, but without his blessing he believes Petry will fail?
If its hurting your enjoyment of the game, or if you feel its somehow hurting the other players fun, I could see having a talk with the player. But spontaneous "you lost your cleric powers asshat, mwhahaha" is just begging for a player who feels like they got screwed
Unless he's done something to oppose Corellon's ideals, no need for punishment. The Generic Cleric is not expected to spend much time in church, he's been invested with divine power to leave the safety of the cloister and do his god's will in the wider world.
Also, I imagine Corellon having a pretty good sense of humor, and can't see him taking a flippant cleric's words to heart.
If he were to ignore a church's summons, outright disparage his god, or otherwise sully the church's reputation, a higher ranking priest is more likely to address the situation than Corellon himself. If you feel that one of the most powerful gods in the multiverse has such a great interest in one lowly cleric's offhand remarks, that's up to you.
Well, since we talk about a chaotic good god, he might not need the need to chain his clerics to some ritual or so, but maybe he (depending how much influence he takes on his worshippers) should sent a messenger to Petry to ask, why his loyal servant doesn't pay him more attention. If the answer doesn't satisfy, you should start small, as a kind reminder and just take all domain spells, first, so he can't even prepare them by normal means for maybe a tenday/until the character does penance. Mythology (and especially the Forgotten Realms) shows that gods aren't anything like mortals, so Corellon can do anything for any reason, which doesn't collide too much with his alignment (and even then, sometimes such things happen).
If after the first reminder of the glorious, the character might think this over. If not, strip one cleric feature after another, until the character wants to convert or does something to please Corellon again.
I just go with what you say about your player. Be hard, if you think it's deserved, but most of the time, a kind reminder is better. And I would look who he praises about the vaguely good things he does: Does he praise Corellon or himself? If he spread Corellon's glory, the god is much more likely to overlook some unruly behaviour. ;)
If the player complains, ask him, why he plays a cleric. I mean, being the agent of a god is a good way to roleplay and having adventure hooks and if it's about healing, the bard and druid do fine, too.
I have an issue with the mindset of "punishing" a player. We're supposed to work together to make fun games, not be the fun police. The best way to "punish" a problem is to just put them less in the limelight and give them less attention for undesirable behavior.
In any case, a chat OOC about the player's expectation helps. More information is always good, and helps make better decisions.
If you want to handle it IC, then use plot hooks. Make a story out of it and challenge the player that way. So, play up the parts about him actually being a priest. Bring it into the story. Reward for acting in the part. The player might be doing this because he's being.... slightly meta-gamey for lack of a better word. He knows that he's going to get magic to do whatever. So, he doesn't see a reason to play the whole priestly aspects. Its a lot like the complaint "race doesn't matter" since everyone is treated like a human, even if the party was made up of a drow, dragonborn, half-orc, and tiefling. Playing up the story aspects of the cleric class helps alieviate this issue.
I agree with some other posters, be careful when your mind starts using words like "punishment". If you're playing a very old school game, maybe your gods behave this way, but nowadays, gamers don't have the stomach for anything that curtails them doing whatever they want. But if, as some have said, it's impacting the fun of the group (and you), then action should be taken. My first choice would be to talk to the player outside the game world and explain that your group wants a higher level of RP consistent with race, class and alignment norms within the game. And maybe he should either change classes, or start taking a few multiclass levels to justify that his faith is somewhat weakened. If you try out of game and he just won't play ball, I would consider letting it go unless for some reason it's a big downer at the table. Then if you're forced to handle it in game, I would kind of hint that there's a problem for a while. Perhaps he has strange feelings of separation from his god, then maybe once he feels a sputtering feeling while casting a spell. Then next time a healing spell restores a smaller amount of HP than it should. Explain that as his relationship with his god grows weaker so do his own powers. Eventually, rather than taking away all spells, you could just take the highest level one. And explain that the stronger the relationship with the god, the stronger the gifts from that god or something. Good luck!
Backslash0 wrote:
Yeah, pretty much the player is within their rights to portray their character how they choose. Unless such portrayal is destructive to the people at the table. That's a qualification that goes well past "He doesn't do what I think he should do" and is much closer to "He's verbally abusing the other players and nobody wants to be in the room with him."
I would not punish a player for playing a character I don't like. Or choosing to do things differently than I would.
Besides what our fellow DnD friends have already mentioned, IMHO I believe there is a difference in "believing in (a) God and worshipping Him/Her" and churches.
Sometimes its better to be smiting foes and making sure your God's goals are met, then kneeing in a bench while the BBEG is causing havoc in the streets.
But my opinion is based on my personal, out of game, belief system with believing and (not) attending church.
"Punishment" is the wrong term, and an inapproprate goal. A "logical consequence of their actions" is an appropriate goal in my opinion. If a PC goes on a murder rampage in town, there will be consequences. If a cleric denounces his god, there will be consequences. If a wizard in Mulmaster doesn't register, there will be consequences.
To me, the question is, what is a reasonable consequence for a cleric stating he 'doesn't care' about his faith, and apparently not doing anything in service.
Now, if he does have a vendetta against the Orcs, or if he is giving money to advance the arts, or something.... that changes things. And there may be a difference of 'expectations' from a cleric to Torm or Loki.... But he chose to play a PC devoted to a god, one that gets his power from the god(s)...... to me its like a wizard thinking spell books are stupid, and leaving his at home... but still wanting all of the benefits of preparing spells each day. If you don't want to deal with a spellbook, don't play a wizard. If you don't want to deal with a god, don't play a claric.
I would start by asking the player why he chose a cleric, and why of that god? Perhaps he would be happier playing a bard, or sorcerer, or whatever. Perhaps he is just trying to roleplay a 'chaotic' worshipper. Perhaps he is a douche trying to show how 'edgy' he is by playing a cleric that doesn't care about his god, who knows.... but it *may* help find a solution.
I wouldn't take away powers or anything like that, but ultimately Corellon is your npc, so if you think He isn't happy with the cleric, He isn't happy with the cleric. That being said, it is better for all involved if He gives the cleric a chance to adventurously Do His Will (especially if it involves getting loot and xp as a side effect). I would refluff a malison yuan ti as a lillend or a genie as a pre-4e eldarin (depending on what level the party is) and have it encounter the party, and make some statement of concern about the cleric. Then throw them a quest to do something that you think Corellon would want (make sure the opportunity for loot, either divinely provided or from the treasure chest of the bad guys is apparent from the beginning). I wouldn't have the first messenger conflict with the group unless they treat the messager poorly.
Thank you folks! I know punishment is the wrong way to phrase it, but it's just so irritatating that he's the only one of my PCs who don't stick to character. I don't think I need to change anything unless he says something particularly blasphemus. Even then I like what Nevvur said about Corellon probably has a good sense of humor, being the chaotic god of the elves.
I've been trying to reward the other characters who do a lot more role playing in the cities, but he gets annoyed with their extra curricular activities so I'm sort of at a loss with this guy.
Backslash0 wrote:
But he IS sticking to character. It's a cleric whose chosen and apathetic, who has yet to live up to expectation, who is more interested in war-war than jaw-jaw. (Actually, I don't know this guy, but what he chooses to do IS his character. The choices they make define them).
Backslash0 wrote:
Backslash0 wrote:
Backslash0 wrote:
1. Would the cleric lose any powers if he suddenly started following another God? Only if you want him to. But where's the fun in that for you or the player?
2. Would the cleric lose any powers if he suddenly started dencouning all Gods? Only if you want him to. But where's the fun in that for you or the player?
3. Unfun consequences = punishments
4. fun consequences = a game
5. Don't force unfun consequences on your players. Instead use your imigaination add some detail to the world that makes the lack of punishment make sense.
6. Or make there be a consequence but instead of an unfun your not playing right consequence make sure the consequence is something that will be fun to resolve or a fun change of pace or a fun new challenge with some nifty reward that ends up puting your characters in just the right place at just the right time for one of their other goals.
7. Taking powers away is sooo boring and unfun! There's countless other ways to create consequences that have the same effect without screwing the player and some of those can even make the game more fun instead of less fun.
moonbeast wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CLIFF CLAVIN!
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Backslash0 wrote:
Backslash0 wrote:
RedSiegfried wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
By virtue of the fact we're playing a game for funsies, however, logical consequences that ensue from a player's chosen actions for his or her character should always be fun for the players (even if it totally sucks for the characters!) or else the group risks failing to achieve the goals of play. This doesn't mean that the character gets off scot-free. Rather it just means that whatever happens as a result must be fun.
Also, CLIFF CLAVIN!
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Backslash0
I'm going to approach your question from a slightly different perspective.
I agree with much of what is said above - as DM, it's not your job to enforce in game behaviour. BUT...it is your job to appopriately roleplay all of the NPCs. Even the divine ones.
So the question to ask is - what would Corellon Larethian, and the elders of his/her church, do to a blasphemous slacker?
That's a question only you can answer. Though I do think the response is likely to be chaotic.
I appreciate all of the input! I'm still pretty new to D&D so still learning a lot.
iserith wrote:
CLIFF CLAVIN!
iserith wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Backslash0 wrote:
Cliff Clavin is the forum phenomenon wherein someone uses "jumping off a cliff" or "falling off a cliff" in order to illustrate their point.
Its invariably stupid & pedantic, much like Cheers' Cliff Clavin.
So it's fun to call it out when we see it.
Whats more - consequences, setbacks, and outright failure CAN be fun and often are. However, punishment is not. And, if you're adults, you've got neither the place nor the right to punish any other adult. I point this out as the thread has "punishing" in its title. It's outmoded DM-ing, it's disrespectful, and isn't fun.
Theres an anecdote on another thread where an overly punitive DM ruins his own game by not taking into account the players' fun. Of course, the DM and the other pro-being-a-dick player feel that the people they are punishing are entitled whiners. That game broke apart, because people don't like playing with you if you're a dick.
So don't be one. Instead, as DM, concern yourself with what the players actually enjoy (not what you feel they should enjoy) and treat each other with the love and respect each person deserves. :-)
bawylie wrote:
I choose to be offended, instead of taking anything in jest, as that will elicit exponentially more posts in response. The forum monster must be fed!
Macv12 wrote:
AquaticSpaceChicken wrote:
Apparently I broke a forum law. Never been a fugitive before. I feel...sexier.
Is it too late to change it to "eaten by velociraptors?" Can I have a do-over?
And Corellon Larethian spake and spake thusly:
" Yo! Hey, \0 guy! Hands off my cleric. He's cool, man. Temples are so last year. And man, stop placing all those orc encounters. Orcs are so gross. Give it a rest. Peace and love."
I would probably introduce a cleric npc with a similar attitude, and then explore the whole concept of devotion to that particular deity. You could get some really interesting roleplaying out of that.
Well, I thought it was a joke, because it came across as a silly drinking game sort of thing, but then Bawlie provided an explanation, and I wondered if it was a meta like when people follow a post with just "Stormwind Fallacy!" or "Oberoni Fallacy!" and no other explanation, and its supposed to be taken seriously. I don't know the origins of those either, so I just go by what definition someone's kind enough to provide. My Joke-O-Meter seems to have been malfunctioning last night-- I was in a dour mood-- so I'll just return to my original assumption now. Carry on.
So, I guess I'll be Frasier and actually keep offering suggestions.
Another way to approach "punishing" a players behaviour, and one more in keeping with 5E's design, is by doing the opposite. Don't punish them for doing X. REWARD them for not doing X (or doing Not-X, if you prefer).
As an example, award them an inspiration dice every adventure when their character behaves appropriately for their faith. And don't, when they don't.
Macv12 wrote:
AquaticSpaceChicken wrote:
Backslash0 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
moonbeast wrote:
Player's shouldn't be denied the right to play their characters the way they want to do or in manner that accomodates their world views. PCs are supposed to reflect personnas we want to expore or fantasies we wish to fulfill. However, one of the things that makes the fun and good moments in D&D so meaningful is that actions don't exist in a vaccum. Actions have consequences. If a player wants to play a character that breaks the mold in RP terms, this need to be covered and worked into the game during character creation. Otherwise, you're within your rights to impose mechanical incentives (both positive and negative) to help simulate the consequences of that RP.
This goes for all PCs where RP impacts mechanical features. Paladins have to obey their oaths, warlocks have to obey their pacts, and druids can't turn in Captain Pollution. If the PC is going to disrespect the source of his or her powers, then there will eventually be consequences. When and what happens depends entirely on the source and the amount of disrespect.
Were I in this position, I'd talk to the player and establish the nature of his PC's relationship to Corellion. If Corellion is merely charging up Red Shirt X with divine power because Red Shirt X will wander through and fulfill a divine mandate unintentionally, then Corellion may not care about that PC's behavior so long as he's not desacrating temples or leading a drow uprising. Otherwise, this cleric may need to develop a more substantial relationship with Corellion then saying to people, "I serve Corellion," while saying to Corellion, "I'm a nice guy. Give me juice."
Once you work that out, you and this player can work out a plan of positive and negative incentives so that his RP decisions will work in synergy with the game world. Everyone who's spoken before me has pretty much covered the incentive options. Working together, you can give his RP decisons weight while keeping the game fun for him.