Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.
I was going by memory and I got confused between the playtest and current paladins. I don't think the PHB version requires anything, really.
I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.
I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.
Hi -
I think there's a piece of this that should be brought up logically. It's what agency means to a specific player. I'm not seeing a group discussion on agency.
Agency such that a single player is satisfied is fine if the player is choosing his or her own adventure.
Agency such that a single DM is satisfied is fine if the DM is writing a story and has no players.
In my opinion there's no such thing as either of these two examples when you have a group of players around a table. Agency for any player has to be influenced by all other folks at the table for everyone to be happy.
While this may result in individual sacrifices that may not suit any given player at any time, if everyone wants a long standing game it's the only way you're going to make it happen.
/snip
First off, I wouldn’t let players choose scores because you get that situation, %99 will never choose a bad score even if it makes sense PC build wise. It leads itself to power gaming and doesn’t force the players to make choices and be creative, although you choosing the 8 is creative it is also the first time your group did it.
/snip.
I would amend what you are saying to compromises instead of sacrifices. As long as they are trade-offs the social contract can be upheld. Because if these are indeed sacrifices, someone is chronically on the losing side every time. Or less extremely, the give-ins are too front loaded for one person and things don't last enough for the compensations to be gained.
Sorry if I'm babbling, but let's go back to your previous examples of your system. The first one is more of a compromise "You are not the chosen one, but you are still special in a way", fine. The second one is closer to a sacrifice, "You are not the well connected socialite that has friends everywhere, instead you are creepy, socially awkward, and deluded". The former is a concept getting adapted to the group's needs and wants -albeit by a shared public laugh at the player's expense-, the latter is a completely different character concept altogether, a total corruption of the original intent of the player -and with an even bigger laugh at the player's expense, more so because it comes from the figure of authority-, and the player has to go with it because that is the cost of playing in the group, which is desirable on itself, but still a net loss overall.
Perhaps it becomes a compromise in the long run, the player uses the knowledge imparted by the ghosts to actually get to befriend a couple of important people, or in a later campaign the DM compensates the player by being more permissive on something that is more acceptable, but only if the campaign/group lasts that long and the same player doesn't keep getting the short end of the stick consistently. In which case we are talking of a sacrifice.
This is why I have such a problem with the whole "trust your DM" line that gets thrown about. Here we have a DM who is presuming that players will always act in bad faith and never choose a bad score. Players need to be "forced" to make choices and be creative.
Trust is absolutely a two way street. Why one earth would I trust you to run your game if you cannot trust me to run my character? If you feel that I need to be forced to be creative, why shouldn't I feel that you need to be forced to keep your hands off my character?
IOW, this is a very adversarial approach to DMing.
Just as an aside, but there has never been an edition of D&D that did not have paladins of alignments other than LG. 1e relegated them to NPC status, though the DM could allow them as PCs if he wanted. 2e had specialty priests of I want to say Horus that were CG paladins. 3e had paladins of freedom, tyranny and slaughter. 4e just allowed whatever alignment you wanted to play. 5e only requires lawful at this point.
There's no need to challenge LG status when that status wasn't absolute by RAW.