LaZodiac's Super Turbo Championship Edition Random Banter Thread #242

[Rater202]

So you've never played a mercenary beholden to their contract? Someone with a king or lord?

None of those characters lose their powers if they disagree with their employer or go against their employers wishes. If I've got a contract with someone and it turns out that they have decided that I've grossly violated it I can contest that either in a personal conversation if they're reasonable, in a court if they're not, or worst case scenario, at the point of a sword.

There are options and recourse here.

As for character, I've played... Mostly martials and arcanists. I have a fondness for Warlocks: Worst case scenario you agree to do services in exchange for a permanent investment of power, which means that in the event of a dispute between you and your patron, you can just leave with the power you already have and, given the etymology of the word "warlock" IE, "Oathbreaker" it's totally valid that you tricked a patron into giving you power.

And in 3.5 there might not be a deal at all. You could just have been born like that.

[Peelee]

Clerics don't actually need to worship a God. They can follow a cause or other equivalent idea as well and be empowered.

I tried that route a page back, but lemme see if I can try again.

I feel like you're all focusing on the wrong part of my argument.

Okay, losing powers is a harder process than I recalled: That changes nothing.

"I can not put myself in the mindset of a willing servant of an external power I have no recourse against" is the thesis here. If Bob, God of Fried Chicken decides I've grossly violated the code of conduct he set out for me, my spells go away and I need to go out of my way to appease him to get them back

Ain't no appeal process, ain't no neutral arbiter, ain't nothin'. It's a lopsided relationship with a being so much more powerful than I am that they can dictate terms and I have to accept them.

How's this. You have a character concept. No class yet, but you know what you want the character to be like. You know what you want the personality to be, what they feel strongly about, what they would be willing to fight and die for. Could you put yourself in this mindset?

Now, take this exact character, and them a level in cleric, and choose not even a deity that goes along with this, but whatever cause aligns with this. Whatever your character would be willing to fight and die for, that's their cause, that's the source of their magic. Your character, by their very nature, would nog go against that cause. There is no entity that will strip the character of their powers.

And you can't get into that mindset, which is the exact same mindset it was before? Is that a correct representation?

[Rynjin]

I'm fairly certain Warlock patrons actually CAN remove your powers? And for basically any reason, quite literally at a whim.

But I'm for once more familiar with the 5e Warlock than other variants.

And I think you're missing the big picture as far as the lord example goes. There's no amount of going to court or "taking justice by the sword" that will restore your social status to you if your king says "you're not a knight anymore, GTFO".

At least with the deity you can literally just say "I'm sorry" and get a spell cast on you to get your powers back.

[Rater202]

I tried that route a page back, but lemme see if I can try again.

How's this. You have a character concept. No class yet, but you know what you want the character to be like. You know what you want the personality to be, what they feel strongly about, what they would be willing to fight and die for. Could you put yourself in this mindset?

Now, take this exact character, and them a level in cleric, and choose not even a deity that goes along with this, but whatever cause aligns with this. Whatever your character would be willing to fight and die for, that's their cause, that's the source of their magic. Your character, by their very nature, would nog go against that cause. There is no entity that will strip the character of their powers.

And you can't get into that mindset, which is the exact same mindset it was before? Is that a correct representation?

You assume that I am capable of of imagining that kind of fanatical devotion at allbut assuming I am...

No. I can't. Because that character being a cleric means that they are devoted enough to their cause that they register as worshiping it, have been granted power by a cosmic force that aligns with that cause, and have trained in using that power.

It also means that should he change his mind he's at risk of losing that power.

Devotion to a worthy cause? Yeah, I can get that. Willing subjugation to external power that can be taken away? That's a fundemental distinction that prevents me from getting into the correct frame of mind.

[Keltest]

You assume that I am capable of of imagining that kind of fanatical devotion at allbut assuming I am...

No. I can't. Because that character being a cleric means that they are devoted enough to their cause that they register as worshiping it, have been granted power by a cosmic force that aligns with that cause, and have trained in using that power.

It also means that should he change his mind he's at risk of losing that power.

Devotion to a worthy cause? Yeah, I can get that. Willing subjugation to external power that can be taken away? That's a fundemental distinction that prevents me from getting into the correct frame of mind.

I at least assume nothing. You already have demonstrated extremely strongly held beliefs in things like the need for justice. And people usually don't just change their minds about things they fanatically believe in.

[Rater202]

I'm fairly certain Warlock patrons actually CAN remove your powers? And for basically any reason, quite literally at a whim.

Not in any edition that I know of.

And I think you're missing the big picture as far as the lord example goes. There's no amount of going to court or "taking justice by the sword" that will restore your social status to you if your king says "you're not a knight anymore, GTFO".

Assuming that I or any characters I've played care for such things. Social status is imaginary.

Spells, the tasks to earn forgiveness, and the cost of an Atonement spell are real.

I at least assume nothing. You already have demonstrated extremely strongly held beliefs in things like the need for justice. And people usually don't just change their minds about things they fanatically believe in.

There are certain topics that are not appropriate to this forum that I held strongly held beliefs on that nonetheless have changed over time.

Ergo, either I am not capable of fanatism, or fanatics can change their mind.

[Peelee]

Social status is imaginary.

In the same way fiat currency is imaginary. You can say it's pretend all you want but it still affects things in very real ways.

[DataNinja]

In the same way fiat currency is imaginary. You can say it's pretend all you want but it still affects things in very real ways.

On the other hand, if you'd rather not have your fiat currency, I'd be willing to take it off your hands.

[Peelee]

On the other hand, if you'd rather not have your fiat currency, I'd be willing to take it off your hands.

Deal, but you're getting monopoly branded money. What can I say I believe in it.

[Rater202]

In the same way fiat currency is imaginary. You can say it's pretend all you want but it still affects things in very real ways.

It doesn't matter how much of a social pariah I am if my money spends as well as anyone else's. As long as there's not a bounty on my head no amount of lost social status is a concern to anything but ego.

And honestly? Once you're high enough level even being an outlaw ceases to be too much of a concern.

[Keltest]

Not in any edition that There are certain topics that are not appropriate to this forum that I held strongly held beliefs on that nonetheless have changed over time.

Ergo, either I am not capable of fanatism, or fanatics can change their mind.

And depending on how you handle the crisis of faith, you either can find your faith strengthened or find a new belief to empower you.

[Peelee]

Also, Rater, do you similarly disagree with jobs in the real world? Because those work the same way. You work a job (say, a judge or a cashier) you get things you can do because of that job (say, you send people to jail until they comply or you handle cash for a company), and if you are fired then you no longer have no abilities (say, you can no longer order people to jail or you can no longer reach into the register). That's how things work, generally. That's life.

Also, have you changed your mind to be opposed to whatever you initially felt? Because that's whats required to lose your powers. A 180. Not a Bob the god of fried chicken "deciding" you lose your powers. Which, I should note, isn't how the rules work anyway.

[Rater202]

Also, Rater, do you similarly disagree with jobs in the real world? Because those work the same way. You work a job (say, a judge or a cashier) you get things you can do because of that job (say, you send people to jail until they comply or you handle cash for a company), and if you are fired then you no longer have no abilities (say, you can no longer order people to jail or you can no longer reach into the register). That's how things work, generally. That's life.

"I know you don't like apples but are you opposed to oranges?"

Tangible supernatural abilities are not in any way, shape, or form comparable to assumed social responsibilities.

Additionally, at least on paper, you're supposed to have recourse against wrongful termination and a social safety net to keep you from being completely screwed if you lose your job, equivalents thereof do not apply to the loss of your very real and tangible powers in the case of a cleric whose deity or patron fundemental force decides that they have grossly violated their code of conduct.

There is literally no answer I could give that question that would have any relevance at all to the topic at hand.

Also, have you changed your mind to be opposed to whatever you initially felt?

Yes. My views on a great number of topics have, over time, shifted to become diametrically opposed to what they started out as.

[BisectedBrioche]

The way I see it: Clerics are trained in the worship and understanding of a god and keep up with their prayers, so when they ask for some spells for the day, the answer is yes (their god may or may not know them that well, but there's a little book somewhere with their name and a note that says "yep, this one gets it", help 'em out" until there isn't). It's basically a fuzzy sort of gentleman's agreement, because the relationship between a deity and their followers is established by the rules of society.

Paladins swore an oath that they're held to, but otherwise have the same relationship.

Warlocks actually sought out their patron (or vis versa) and sat around the bargaining table, so their connection is more direct, and has more specific terms they've agreed on or been forced into.

[Rynjin]

It doesn't matter how much of a social pariah I am if my money spends as well as anyone else's.

Being a social pariah absolutely affects whether your money spends as well as anyone else. Nobody will want to enter into long term deals with you, or if they do they'll try to fleece you. You may find yourself getting the exact opposite of the "friends and family discount", etc.

Social status was the medieval equivalent of your credit score. Still is synonymous, in some respects.

[Peelee]

"I know you don't like apples but are you opposed to oranges?"

Apples to apples. Both are abilities you get specifically due to your position, which can be taken away due to you no longer being in that position.

Tangible supernatural abilities are not in any way, shape, or form comparable to assumed social responsibilities.

A Cleric can banish you to a different plane with a few words. A judge can banish you to jail with a few words. Seems like a pretty direct comparison to me.

Additionally, at least on paper, you're supposed to have recourse against wrongful termination and a social safety net to keep you from being completely screwed if you lose your job

This is highly fact specific and generally not true, at least in the US (most of the time if you think something is "wrongful termination" it isn't and you have no recourse). But you want to talk about specific D&D version, so let's talk about it! There is no wrongful termination from being a Cleric. I think this is the crux of your issue. You think that the deity can just choose to yank a clerics powers. Per the rules, that is not the case. And unless you have a spectacularly bad DM, that will never happen in actual play, either. You're arguing against something that would virtually never happen in practice and if it ever did would be going against RAW, and using that as justification for your position.

Yes. My views on a great number of topics have, over time, shifted to become diametrically opposed to what they started out as.

Then good news, if you did this as a Cleric you could jsut shift your deity or cause over to your new belief and have all your powers and abilities! You don't even need to worry about losing your powers at all if you're proactive about it!

The way I see it: Clerics are trained in the worship and understanding of a god and keep up with their prayers, so when they ask for some spells for the day, the answer is yes (their god may or may not know them that well, but there's a little book somewhere with their name and a note that says "yep, this one gets it", help 'em out" until there isn't). It's basically a fuzzy sort of gentleman's agreement, because the relationship between a deity and their followers is established by the rules of society.

Paladins swore an oath that they're held to, but otherwise have the same relationship.

At least in 3.5, there was nothing in the PHB about paladins having any sort of relationship with a deity. At least, not beyond what, say, a fighter would have. People played up paladins as holy warriors commonly but nothing enforced it at all.

[tyckspoon]

At least in 3.5, there was nothing in the PHB about paladins having any sort of relationship with a deity. At least, not beyond what, say, a fighter would have. People played up paladins as holy warriors commonly but nothing enforced it at all.

3e Paladin is sworn to uphold Good and Law, with a strong implication that should they be unable to find a course of action that satisfies both then they will prioritize Good over Law. Being sponsored by a god specifically is a Forgotten Realms-ism, because -everybody- has a patron god in that setting (I'm pretty sure Druids and Rangers are also associated with patron gods in Forgotten Realms, for example, despite being vaguely 'empowered by Nature' in default rules.) 5e moved that to a more general 'warrior dedicated to and empowered by their dedication to a cause' concept, so you can have Paladins devoting themselves to supporting all kinds of ideas or goals with the nature of what they want to achieve and how they go about it reflected in their particular Oath (choice of subclass.)

[Form]

Deal, but you're getting monopoly branded money. What can I say I believe in it.

And lo, with the issuing of a new currency the Principality of Peelee, The Prince-Dragon, The Silver Lord, He-Who-Escapeth-The-Vengeance-Of-Roland-St.-Jude, was founded.

[Peelee]

And lo, with the issuing of a new currency the Principality of Peelee, The Prince-Dragon, The Silver Lord, He-Who-Escapeth-The-Vengeance-Of-Roland-St.-Jude, was founded.

I think I just found my Minister of Whatever Department You Want.

[Mystic Muse]

I prefer prefectures to principalities.

[Bartmanhomer]

And lo, with the issuing of a new currency the Principality of Peelee, The Prince-Dragon, The Silver Lord, He-Who-Escapeth-The-Vengeance-Of-Roland-St.-Jude, was founded.

Io is pretty okay-ish in my opinion. I choose him as #5 in my top 12 favorite dragon deities.

[LaZodiac]

3e Paladin is sworn to uphold Good and Law, with a strong implication that should they be unable to find a course of action that satisfies both then they will prioritize Good over Law. Being sponsored by a god specifically is a Forgotten Realms-ism, because -everybody- has a patron god in that setting (I'm pretty sure Druids and Rangers are also associated with patron gods in Forgotten Realms, for example, despite being vaguely 'empowered by Nature' in default rules.) 5e moved that to a more general 'warrior dedicated to and empowered by their dedication to a cause' concept, so you can have Paladins devoting themselves to supporting all kinds of ideas or goals with the nature of what they want to achieve and how they go about it reflected in their particular Oath (choice of subclass.)

Which is how it should be!

Divine classes like Paladin being limited to "the good guys" is weird. You can be a devotee of the demon lords and still be a holy champion- Blackguards are cool, but if I'm a paladin of the god of war my focus should be on the oaths one would take TO said god.

This is probably why I preferred clerics myself; they are in my eyes more allowed to have an open interpretation of their god. Thus we get Maria, who robbed a cult dedicated to the god she worships because really they should have known better, and Tiamat'll approve of that big score in her eyes- just as she'll approve of her doing unambiguously good things for impure motivations, as that is still greed and want and leads to Conquest (which is a domain of Tiamat in the world she's from).

[Fyraltari]

I prefer prefectures to principalities.

In principle, I disagree.

[Mystic Muse]

Io is pretty okay-ish in my opinion. I choose him as #5 in my top 12 favorite dragon deities.

Wrong thing because capital "i" and lowercase 'l' look the same on this font.

They aren't talking about the dragon god Io, they are saying the old timey word "Lo"

[Bartmanhomer]

Wrong thing because capital "i" and lowercase 'l' look the same on this font.

They aren't talking about the dragon god Io, they are saying the old timey word "Lo"

Oh, my bad. I didn't see that.

[Mystic Muse]

Oh, my bad. I didn't see that.

Yeah, the font is unhelpful here!

In principle, I disagree.

That's fine, I'm talking strictly from a name standpoint, I don't know a damn thing about how either functions. I know you're probably just making a goof here but just in case.

[Peelee]

I prefer prefectures to principalities.

You wanna be prefect?

[Jasdoif]

I think I just found my Minister of Whatever Department You Want.

How many seneschals of sinecures do you have at this point?

[Rynjin]

You wanna be prefect?

Pobody's prefect

[Peelee]

How many seneschals of sinecures do you have at this point?

Depends on how you define it. I keep my senators in Senegal for tax reasons.