Home > DM Questions & Answers

When is a suggestion a suggestion?

Don't get me wrong - I think it's grand when a DM takes the time to inform a player that he doesn't feel his PC cleric's behaviour is consistent with the chosen religious dogma. However, when does a "suggestion" cease to be a suggestion, and crosses over into "ramming your opinion down someone's throat"?

Telling a player that he HAS to be a buff-whore battle-priest or a pacifistic support healer is a bit much. I mean, 2-3 paragraphs from FoF isn't enough to go and tell someone that his diety's dogma REQUIRES him to be one or the other. There simply isn't enough written in FoF to define how one should or shouldn't play a priest.

Sure - some things are pretty obvious - lying, cheating, stealing, human sacrifice and all that. But how one behaves when fighting with a party - well, very few religions FORCE you to behave in a certain manner. A cleric of Uthgar, for example, might buff the fighters and hang back chanting out loud to incite their religious fervour - even a priest of a god of blood & battle isn't REQUIRED to buff himself and run into the melee.

So, I think it's rather narrow-minded to tell a player, "do it my way or get spell-stripped".

I think it would be far better to: 1. ask the player to submit a PC bio for the DMs, so they might understand his behaviour and motivations better. I'd guess that the DMs probably haven't a clue for the most part as to why a player does one thing or another. Wouldn't it be better to find out if you're curious, rather than jump to conclusions based on observing a PC for a few minutes here and there? 2. Ask the player to explain his actions (which the DM sees as questionable) in a written summary. If the DMs are considering handing out punishment, the player should at least have the opportunity to defend himself, no?

That said, I suppose it's better than some DMs method of dealing with people that they take a dislike to (ie: drop an uber spawn on them for no apparent IC reason). But it's a big step down from popping them into the DM-only area and asking them why whey did something, as a question and not an accusation.

*edit* To put this in perspective, consider the Muslims and terrorism. You have some priests who scream for suicide bombers and death to the infidel. And you have those who call for peace and say that blowing yourself up in a crowd really isn't what Allah had in mind... and you have a whole bunch inbetween. Essentially what the DM was telling me was that "you're one or the other" - is that really reasonable?

Hey, it seems like something happened to you personally, or somebody you know. Typically, we tend to have a fairly lenient interpretation of a deity's portfolio. If you were dealt with in a manner that you find unfair, and not given a chance to offer up an interpretation of your actions that was consistent with your deity, please, find us in IRC or in-game, and ask for a chat. I think you'll find that we're pretty approachable.

-Cross

I believe the conversation you had with a DM about your character happened several months ago, and it may have been better to discuss this at the time, instead of now, when things are a bit hazier. That said, I apologize if you came away with a negative feeling. When the DMs take the time to talk to a player about play-style (anything from dogma issues to failure to RP stats to anything else), it's never easy but the DM is always just trying to do the best they can and explain their perspective. It is never a situation of demanding changes, but rather reflecting the concerns the DM may have or giving an OOC heads up as to possible spell-failure.

As you actually pointed out in this thread it is the responsibility of the DMs to monitor the RP of characters who belong to classes that are intrinsically tied to a particular patron deity. This is one of the more difficult things we have to do, but we do the best we can. I can say that we pay particular attention to high-level clerics/druids/paladins/etc., as we do feel like we need to make absolutely certain that the character is behaving in a way that would warrant the tremendous trust and powers from the NPC deity.

In most cases I don't think we're too radical, and if we're missing something we absolutely do welcome the player to explain or to point things we may have missed.

I don't want to discuss a specific situation with a specific character on a public forum, but I'm happy to do so privately.

I guess the final thing to say is although we don't have any interest in telling players how to play their character, it is our responsibility to role-play the deity NPCs in the setting.

As Howland says, specific situations won't be discussed in a public forum, but you can talk to any of us privately about it.

I think, essentially, when you interpret a Deity's dogma in your own way, and with inaccuracy, we have to warn you of this as much as our scripted system warns you and alerts you to the fact that you aren't going to be able to cast spells because you have the wrong domains. Domains and dogma are effectively of the same importance when playing a cleric, but it just so happens we have to ensure clerics are adhering to their deity's dogma rather than a scripted system.

PCs are never stripped of their spells or been given degrees of spell failure without warning or without good reason.

The best course of action, if you are given such a heads up, is to talk to the DM team if you really do think you're just mistaken on how you've interpreted the dogma and think that your character should be a fine example of a cleric of that given deity. Alternatively, if you think your interpretation is correct, or you actually want your cleric to be a not-too-fantastic cleric of any given deity as part of his/her persona, you could just go along with it and RP the fall from grace. I know of Paladins who have done as much in the past and their character certainly gains a lot from soldiering on rather than being quit.