I have two players playing two characters each. Both characters
seem to expect the deities to be active NPCs in the campaign.
Both players gave their main characters extremely dramatic
backstories involving gods and a pocket universe. Okay, I want to >accommodate, so that's all right I guess. One of them is a
neutral paladin -- I okayed the idea for this, which is not about
"the balance" but about dishing out what someone has coming,
whether that's punishment or aid. To help with this, he has some
sacred dice to tell him what someone has coming (I give the dice
reading). I agreed to this. I had my doubts about a divine
artifact in the hands of a 2nd level character, but the character
did need to do some growth after a prior incident, and I wanted
to accommodate my players with their own characters' growth arcs,
so I allowed it.
Recently, one's main character killed an NPC to whom he had
promised safe conduct. Several people protested this, and while
trying to justify the act, several characters mentioned the dice.
Both players seemed to expect NPCs to take the claim seriously.
"I have holy dice which give me divine permission to execute
cooperating prisoners" is not a claim which easily meets belief,
IMO. Accordingly, I had the NPCs express skepticism. The players
think their characters are being treated badly by the
townspeople.
On another occasion, one had his character explicitly ask
Corellon Larathian for a sign. I didn't do anything because I
don't think gods would pop up on call like that. The character
took this as rejection.
I may have created inappropriate expectations by allowing the
wild backstories. I don't really want to run a campaign where the
gods might pop up at any time. IMO, any characters who meet gods
should do so at a much higher level where the gods might
reasonably notice them. At first I figured they were just used to
5e and its instant superheroes, but at this point I'm pretty sure
one of my two players is a munchkin.
Should I meet expectations and involve more gods? I feel like I
got myself into this and shouldn't impose a sudden "Enough with
the gods already" change by fiat. It would also be more difficult
to reintroduce divine involvement later, when it becomes more
appropriate.
I know I got myself into this by allowing too much divine stuff
already, but I'd still like to dial it back to normal levels if
possible. I think I should make it explicit that normal people
aren't going to accept these dice as a reason to ignore the law,
common sense, and their given word. I also think I need to apply
more resistance to my munchkin.
Is that the right way to get out of this?
There's no real 'right answer'. Even TSR was very wishy-washy on how
often gods would respond to requests. I think the best thing to do is
talk with the characters and explain your side of things; that it's
not how you envision deities to act in your campaign, and you feel it
would change the setting and balance too much. Try to come to a
compromise but ultimately as DM you are the one that sets the tone for
the setting. Perhaps suggest that the reason that the gods did, in
past, respond for /reasons/ (fit to your particular adventure/setting)
but those were exceptions rather than the rule.
For what it's worth, I always played with a fairly low level of godly intervention (and, in fact, PCs who were exceptionally demanding of
gods usually found out the hard way how much immortals disliked being
seen as personal genies ;-).
That said, I also played it that
spell-flinging clerics were a cut-above the usual priesthood; they
were the ones who the gods chose to interact with. So given an option
to a god responding to Bob the Cleric asking for something, and Joe
the miller, Bob was more likely to get a response. And, of course,
higher level clerics were more likely to be granted the ear of god
than Joe Schlub the 1st-level druid.
Although usually this deific interest also came with significant cost.
If you call on the gods for help, expect them to demand repayment in
one way or another. In a lot of fantastic (and historic) mythos, it
was often considered the better option NOT to attract the attention of
the gods if you could; a lot of them could be right bastards even to
their most loyal subjects. And Gods help you if They thought you were
working /against/ Their interests. An occasional smiting can sometimes
be necessary to remind PCs who is the god and who is the person
begging for godly benificence ;-)
It is a difficult area of the game though. I knew one player who
earnestly believed that the Judeo-Christian god did actively listen
and respond to prayers of the faithful (albeit never with such flashy
results as D&D deities, obviously) and this clouded her opinion on how
the fictional gods in the game should react. You could be
inadvertantly treading on someone's serious religious beliefs, so
tread carefully.
Spalls Hurgenson wrote in article ><565ralthebgqpc62m0k0d4pgmur9gks8u8@4ax.com>:
There's no real 'right answer'. Even TSR was very wishy-washy on how
often gods would respond to requests. I think the best thing to do is
talk with the characters and explain your side of things; that it's
not how you envision deities to act in your campaign, and you feel it
would change the setting and balance too much. Try to come to a
compromise but ultimately as DM you are the one that sets the tone for
the setting. Perhaps suggest that the reason that the gods did, in
past, respond for /reasons/ (fit to your particular adventure/setting)
but those were exceptions rather than the rule.
I talked to one of them about it. We may discuss it a little more
tomorrow, but I'm hoping to let the divine involvement fade away
without too much discussion.
For what it's worth, I always played with a fairly low level of godly
intervention (and, in fact, PCs who were exceptionally demanding of
gods usually found out the hard way how much immortals disliked being
seen as personal genies ;-).
That is an interesting idea.
Unfortunately, since he created his own god, the player feels
entitled to say that the god wouldn't do that. I don't like to
step on his creation, but it's turning out to be unbalanced, and
I probably should have insisted he pick one of the standard
deities.
Should I meet expectations and involve more gods? I feel like I
got myself into this and shouldn't impose a sudden "Enough with
the gods already" change by fiat. It would also be more difficult
to reintroduce divine involvement later, when it becomes more
appropriate.
On 9/18/2026 1:55 PM, The True Melissa wrote:
Should I meet expectations and involve more gods? I feel like I
got myself into this and shouldn't impose a sudden "Enough with
the gods already" change by fiat. It would also be more difficult
to reintroduce divine involvement later, when it becomes more
appropriate.
Gods are petty and cruel. Gods are vainglorious. Involve the gods more. Involve OTHER gods much more. There's a petty god on every mountain top
and in every river. What if you think you need to invoke the powers of
your god in their local domain?
The involvement of a major god will also attract the attention of their rival. Corellon aids the hero? Turns out Gruumsh takes an interest. What happens if the next time they fight orcs their opponent does exactly the same? Also: are they really willing to have all their actions tested by their gods? Are they sure they needed to kill those orcs in cold blood?
You invoke the gods, the gods will pay attention to you as well. You
might not like that.
I think one of the core problems is that a lot of players come from a
very Christian point of view where God is all-knowing and all-powerful,
but also generally beneficial. But DnD is largely not set in a
monotheistic world. DnD is much more akin to Ancient Greek mythology,
and there's lots of fun with that as well.
These are just half-baked ideas.
In my campaign I have established a polytheistic church as the source of clerics, and Clerics rarely have actual patron deities until they are established as part of a particular temple hierarchy.
I actually want to have more petty gods in the campaign as well (see the
ORC supplement Petty Gods, and the old JG supplement Unknown Gods), but
I haven't actually gotten around to doing that. So far my players had to
do a single Quest in exchange for a god (Chthon, a rebranded Dyonisos) healing a character's affliction with lycantrophy.
I kind of wish I hadn't allowed this being into the game. He's a
greater god who bills himself as true neutral but leans evil IMO.
Oh, I like that idea! There must be some god granting their early
spells, though.
I have two players playing two characters each. Both characters
seem to expect the deities to be active NPCs in the campaign.
Both players gave their main characters extremely dramatic
backstories involving gods and a pocket universe. Okay, I want to accommodate, so that's all right I guess. One of them is a
neutral paladin -- I okayed the idea for this, which is not about
"the balance" but about dishing out what someone has coming,
whether that's punishment or aid. To help with this, he has some
sacred dice to tell him what someone has coming (I give the dice
reading). I agreed to this. I had my doubts about a divine
artifact in the hands of a 2nd level character, but the character
did need to do some growth after a prior incident, and I wanted
to accommodate my players with their own characters' growth arcs,
so I allowed it.
Recently, one's main character killed an NPC to whom he had
promised safe conduct. Several people protested this, and while
trying to justify the act, several characters mentioned the dice.
Both players seemed to expect NPCs to take the claim seriously.
On another occasion, one had his character explicitly ask
Corellon Larathian for a sign. I didn't do anything because I
don't think gods would pop up on call like that. The character
took this as rejection.
Should I meet expectations and involve more gods? I feel like I
got myself into this and shouldn't impose a sudden "Enough with
the gods already" change by fiat. It would also be more difficult
to reintroduce divine involvement later, when it becomes more
appropriate.
I know I got myself into this by allowing too much divine stuff
already, but I'd still like to dial it back to normal levels if
possible. I think I should make it explicit that normal people
aren't going to accept these dice as a reason to ignore the law,
common sense, and their given word. I also think I need to apply
more resistance to my munchkin.
On 9/19/2026 5:56 PM, The True Melissa wrote:
Oh, I like that idea! There must be some god granting their early
spells, though.
My reasoning is that they are using generic spells that invoke
particular gods in one way or another.
I.e. like you might invoke a Cure light wounds from the god of healing,
and a Speak languages spell from one god, while Detect Magic comes from another.
There is that whole idea I have where equivalent to the way magic users
need to learn spells specifically, clerics might have to go to specific temples and monasteries to learn the rites necessary to invoke the magic
of a specific god or saint, but I haven't yet worked that out all that
well yet. The group I play with didn't even have all that many clerics
until recently.
One sub-idea of that was actually that maybe clerics did not actually
cast spells as such, but petitioned to specific deities or saints
instead. So a spell cast would not be an actual spell, but rather a
petition on intervention of a divine entity.
Seldom gods would giving away artifacts, more likely an item made by a wizard or demon, they could have taken the form of the deity's avatar,
the dice should work toward the creators will (daemon: towards evil,
wizard: some plot to give him/her power of some sort).
Recently, one's main character killed an NPC to whom he had
promised safe conduct. Several people protested this, and while
trying to justify the act, several characters mentioned the dice.
Both players seemed to expect NPCs to take the claim seriously.
I would spin that the dice is a cursed item made by demon, they PCs may
get a hunger for blood... first small things, if the players do play
more blood thirsty, then make the next a bit more sever, keep on doing
so until either the players begins to find how to get rid of the dice or they cross the red line and you change then to be NE.
Should I meet expectations and involve more gods? I feel like I
got myself into this and shouldn't impose a sudden "Enough with
the gods already" change by fiat. It would also be more difficult
to reintroduce divine involvement later, when it becomes more
appropriate.
Nah, let it just be a lesser demon of some sort, when they are level 10+
or something they may meet the demon in person, no matter if they will
have become his servants or trying to smith him.
May be that next PC they make will not have this grand background, or
just kill them of, next time they create them give them some simple
options for background, they can fill up the gaps a bit to personalize
the story.
I know I got myself into this by allowing too much divine stuff
already, but I'd still like to dial it back to normal levels if
possible. I think I should make it explicit that normal people
aren't going to accept these dice as a reason to ignore the law,
common sense, and their given word. I also think I need to apply
more resistance to my munchkin.
They could wake up a morning, there is a few coins with Corellon's face
on it but the dice is gone, no more connection from the gods.
J.O. Aho wrote in article <nh9n9lF73gjU1@mid.individual.net>:
Hmm. The religion seems pretty important to the player who
invented it, so I'm hesitant to say that the god was really a
demon in disguise.
I know I got myself into this by allowing too much divine stuff
already, but I'd still like to dial it back to normal levels if
possible. I think I should make it explicit that normal people
aren't going to accept these dice as a reason to ignore the law,
common sense, and their given word. I also think I need to apply
more resistance to my munchkin.
They could wake up a morning, there is a few coins with Corellon's face
on it but the dice is gone, no more connection from the gods.
That would basically be taking away his paladin status. That's a
lot. I could do that if he continues on this path, though,
because if he does then he'll slide into evil.
The player has expressed some regret for the character's actions
since then. We're a 420-friendly table, and he thinks his
judgment was affected. He has now decided that true neutral
paladinhood requires offering evil people a chance to redeem
themselves, and I can live with that. It should keep him from
slipping into true evil himself.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 18:01:08 -0400, The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> said this thing:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote in article ><565ralthebgqpc62m0k0d4pgmur9gks8u8@4ax.com>:Kill the god.
No, really.
Make it a whole quest thing. A war in heavens that involves this
character's god, and the deity is (unknown to the player) fated to
lose. Perhaps the god's frequent interventions in mortal affairs was
the trigger. Involve the PC in the war somehow. In the end, the cleric
PC either transfers his faith to another god (depending on the player,
a deity with a similar portfolio, or maybe even the god that killed
his original deity). Give the player something even as you take away
his crutch.
It does sound like --munchkinism aside-- the player is making a
good-faith attempt to be a good member of the group. It's great that
he's open to the idea of rebalancing his character/story (and it's
equally cool that you respect his creation enough not to want to unjustifiably nerf it). You may even wish to involve the player in the
broad strokes of the adventure concept; ask him about how he thinks
his deity would react if attacked, or who the god's enemies are. Keep
the players involved and let them feel that they are as important to
the story as anyone else.
I have two players playing two characters each. Both characters
seem to expect the deities to be active NPCs in the campaign.
Both players gave their main characters extremely dramatic
backstories involving gods and a pocket universe. Okay, I want to accommodate, so that's all right I guess. One of them is a
neutral paladin -- I okayed the idea for this, which is not about
"the balance" but about dishing out what someone has coming,
whether that's punishment or aid. To help with this, he has some
sacred dice to tell him what someone has coming (I give the dice
reading). I agreed to this. I had my doubts about a divine
artifact in the hands of a 2nd level character, but the character
did need to do some growth after a prior incident, and I wanted
to accommodate my players with their own characters' growth arcs,
so I allowed it.
Recently, one's main character killed an NPC to whom he had
promised safe conduct. Several people protested this, and while
trying to justify the act, several characters mentioned the dice.
Both players seemed to expect NPCs to take the claim seriously.
"I have holy dice which give me divine permission to execute
cooperating prisoners" is not a claim which easily meets belief,
IMO. Accordingly, I had the NPCs express skepticism. The players
think their characters are being treated badly by the
townspeople.
On another occasion, one had his character explicitly ask
Corellon Larathian for a sign. I didn't do anything because I
don't think gods would pop up on call like that. The character
took this as rejection.
I may have created inappropriate expectations by allowing the
wild backstories. I don't really want to run a campaign where the
gods might pop up at any time. IMO, any characters who meet gods
should do so at a much higher level where the gods might
reasonably notice them. At first I figured they were just used to
5e and its instant superheroes, but at this point I'm pretty sure
one of my two players is a munchkin.
Should I meet expectations and involve more gods? I feel like I
got myself into this and shouldn't impose a sudden "Enough with
the gods already" change by fiat. It would also be more difficult
to reintroduce divine involvement later, when it becomes more
appropriate.
I know I got myself into this by allowing too much divine stuff
already, but I'd still like to dial it back to normal levels if
possible. I think I should make it explicit that normal people
aren't going to accept these dice as a reason to ignore the law,
common sense, and their given word. I also think I need to apply
more resistance to my munchkin.
Is that the right way to get out of this?
kyonshi wrote in article <118n476$1p26p$1@wilderland.ovh>:
On 9/19/2026 5:56 PM, The True Melissa wrote:
Oh, I like that idea! There must be some god granting their early
spells, though.
My reasoning is that they are using generic spells that invoke
particular gods in one way or another.
I.e. like you might invoke a Cure light wounds from the god of healing,
and a Speak languages spell from one god, while Detect Magic comes from
another.
Hmm, that makes sense. I've always played it as your own god
giving you all the spells, but your way does make more sense.
I already started this campaign this way, though, so I'd better
stay consistent.
There is that whole idea I have where equivalent to the way magic users
need to learn spells specifically, clerics might have to go to specific
temples and monasteries to learn the rites necessary to invoke the magic
of a specific god or saint, but I haven't yet worked that out all that
well yet. The group I play with didn't even have all that many clerics
until recently.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:16:46 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |