Search results

Most of this post has already been addressed, but this part needs my personal response:- Part of what I was going for was to avoid falling! I absolutely did not want to become an Oathbreaker paladin! I was going to become a Vengeance paladin, already set up in many ways including specific...

I must admit that when I read it I understood it as 'DM control'. That's what got the 'worst thing a DM can do' response. Perhaps I misunderstood.

How this fits into what I'm saying; first, cooperation is best, no-one disagrees with that. Second, sure the DM can say "you feel angry". But I, the player of that PC, can say "Actually, I was expecting this so I don't feel angry, but I'll pretend to, just to let him think he's riled me". Or...

The idea was that The Fiend wanted to corrupt the paladin, but only slowly. Corrupting the paladin too quickly means a corrupted 3rd level guy. The fiend wants to (finally) corrupt him when he's a high level guy. So much more tasty! So the imp (disguised as Odin's raven) has to subtly influence...

Any DM who sees the word 'paladin' on a character sheet who is then triggered to do their utmost to try and strip their RAW abilities away is showing themselves to be the wrong DM!

And here you go again! Yeah, you could view my PC's background through a cynical lens of "ALL Pal/War players are powergaming munchkins and their fluff only exists to try and excuse badness", but again, that says more about you than it does me. Yes, I went into a lot of detail. It's what I do...

So you are triggered by your bad experience of players. So are some others in this thread. To be fair, some are triggered by their bad experience of DMs. I'm one of them. But what we should ALL be wary of is assuming that the player (or DM) WILL be a jerk! The quote above is typical of that...

So your virulent objections to other people's paladin or MC paladin PC is based on bias rather than reason? That being the case, why would the player of any paladin or MC paladin care what you thought about it, one way or the other?

* we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells * we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e * we know that some fiends, like Lolth for example, are both fiend AND god * Odin doesn't know about this fiend messing with this paladin; gods are not omniscient in D&D *...

What kind of paladin do you like to play, Lowkey? :D

Not self-contradictory. What 'unutterably' means in this context is:- "I can tell you that it's wrong, but the words do not exist that could accurately allow me to convey just how wrong it is!"

Which goes back to the original point of this thread (at last! :D). Some DMs forbid some multiclass combinations (read: paladin/warlock) for what they claim are 'fluff reasons'. The reason that this approach is absurd is because they are pre-banning PCs before they even know what this...

No, that would be unutterably wrong! What this DM is trying to do is control what the PC does using their perfectly valid choice of class to take the player's agency away. This is the worst role-playing thing a DM can do. The player decides what their PC does. Not the DM, and not the DM hiding...

Thank you for posting this! This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time!

Thank you for posting the evidence which supports my claim. :D

I totally agree that this conversation is how the game actually works in practice. My point has never been that it's 100% player or DM when talking about how the game actually occurs at real tables. My point is about who comes up with the PC's fluff, player or DM. It's the player. The DM...

Which is exactly the sense I mean Which supports what I've been saying all along: the player invents the fluff for their own PC, the DM can, if they have a valid reason, say no. If the DM says no for an invalid reason, the player has the final say by either playing a different PC or leaving...

Yes. In the case of a player persuading the DM to allow MCing, the player is trying to play the PC they want. But in the case of a player persuading the DM to change from allowing MCing to banning it, then that player is not trying to get permission to play what PC they want to play (because...

If the DM has already said that he is not allowing the MC rules, then I might (if I felt so inclined) have a friendly conversation as to why, and might even ask if he would change his mind and lay out my case. But I recognise it as his prerogative, and if he says no then I have no business...

I have another point of view to that bolded part: no it bloody well isn't! As I mentioned when I first posted in this thread some 600 pages ago, DMs have control over everything in their world EXCEPT the PCs! The PC's fluff is the prerogative of the player, not the DM, where 'prerogative' =...