Hussar
Legend
I have no idea how many times or ways one can say that two people must discuss and reach agreement and things like if that's the agreement they reached it is fine to get across that there are options or things to discuss.
At the end of the discussion tho, of any attempt to reach an agreement, both sides have to be able to say no.
Let's put it another way, for anyone reading with a partially open mind...
If a gm offers up "hey I plan to run a scifi game based in stargate, who is in?" Is that forcing his preferences on people who prefer to play horror RPGs or fantasy swords and sorcery or simply giving them an option to play in a game? Is this a sign of indecency or dickishness?
If a gm creates a setting and offers to run a game and part of the pitch is "in this game there are no cleric, warlock or paladin class pcs. Who is in?" Is that forcing his preferences on people or giving them the option to join a game? Is this a sign of indecency or dickishness?
If the answer to either of those is "that's ok, not forcing, not indecent, not dickishness" then why or how is it forcing, indecent or dickish to say "hey, I plan to run a game where the clerics, warlock and paladin classes require agreement between gm and player over the specific god-temple-patron-oath before game but you can choose to play the other classes if you dont wsnt such ties."
It is a sign of dickishness, (not sure where indecency comes in) when you pitch that game 100% knowing that at least one of your players absolutely hates the idea that you are pitching. That's the very important detail you are leaving out here. When knowing that that pitch will cause one player to leave the game is a pretty strong sign of dickishness.