You really don't see the difference?
You really don't see the similarity?
It's not that the Warlord prevents me from playing my character as I want, it's that it makes assumptions about how my character views the Warlord.
As long as the mechanics aren't malformed, and the ability functions based on how you decide your character feels, rather than "forcing" that feeling on you, there's no issue. You can decline the benefit.
The only difference between that and the religions differences is that it's the /player/ consciously declining the benefit, vs the character verbally declining it in the fiction.
And, sure, I can be a jerk at the table and refuse to play along with that.
There's a hypothetical "don't be a jerk" unwritten rule out there, but I don't think that declining a benefit for RP reasons qualifies.
But, as I said previously, it's not really about what might happen to me personally at the table. It's that I think the concept is antithetical to an important underlying principle of the game.
An important underlying principle of the game is that the party works together to overcome challenges. It strongly supports that principle.
I think the principle you're talking about is more specific to the classic game, and, especially to 5e, and is derived from Player Agency concerns. When the DM holds virtually all agency over the game, and Player Agency is tightly circumscribed to making decisions for his own character, /any/ external agency that intrudes on that, even indirectly, by offering an inducement, can be concerning.
I wouldn't call it an underlying principle, though. More an emergent concern in some eds.
How exactly are you losing player agency with the Warlord abilities?
See above. It's not /just/ hypothetical with the warlord, it's already an issue with Inspiring Leader, social skills, backgrounds, saving throws, and even something as unalterably core as having a CHA score, at all.
That's why some DMs rule that CHA skills can't be used 'against' other players.
Let's say that a wizard casts a spell on you that gives you Improved Invisibility. Have you lost agency because you are "forced" to play (temporarily) as a character who is invisible and takes advantage of that?
Traditionally, the D&D community gives total dispensation of all possible complaints about a mechanic, so long as it's modeling magic. Because magic.
If a bard gave you Inspiration, have you lost agency because you now feel compelled to utilize it?
Grey area. Has the jury ever delivered a verdict on whether Bardic Inspiration is magical?
If a monk knocks an adjacent enemy prone and the enemy stands up, have you lost agency because that triggered an opportunity attack for you? Have you somehow lost agency if someone provides advantage with the Help action?
No, because it didn't affect /your character's internal life/ in any way.
Honestly, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], the grounds for your opposition to the Warlord and loss of agency is kinda absurd and unfounded by any actual sense or meaningful understanding "player agency."
The concern should be more than adequately addressed so long as the player can decline a benefit if he deems his character is 'not feel'n it.'
You even seem to recognize this when your sole point of "yes, but..." is that it would make you look like a dick for refusing, though that ship will have probably long since sailed for the rest of your group by then.
But for internet anonymity, he'd've watched it vanish over the horizon years ago. I suspect he's a very different fellow in person, and sincerely doesn't want to seem like a jerk at the table.
