Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9443078" data-attributes="member: 7045806">It may be. I'm not arguing against the change. I have issues with the change being made to fix bad behavior.  My argument is purely on the reasoning for the change.I struggle to see why this is hard to understand. To help illustrate my thoughts, I will state a few things about the game in general, and than give a few examples of why a bad faith actor, especially in the DM chair, causes the system to stop functioning.In short, the DM's power, as illustrated in the DMG, is limitless. This, effectively, means any rules based attempt to limit that power is going to fail. Because the DM has the job of interpreting their own limits. With this in mind we can probe bad and good faith within the descretion used with the 2014 command spell.DM malice in this case would be a ruling, made purposefully, that effectively nueters the player's spell to the point of ineffectiveness. Good faith here, would be a ruling that gives the player a reasonable effect that comes somewhere close to the command word. The DM acts as a filter to prevent the "1st level dominate" theory so many argue. And if the DM wishes to use the spell in that way, there is also no way to stop them as they are the arbiter of the rules.We can see this in other contexts as well. The use of the "haunted one" background, for example. The feature provided is titled "Heart of Darkness." Link below if you wish to read it. We can, again, probe the differences between bad and good faith in the actions of a DM.It is simple for a DM to act in good faith and have commoners give special treatment to the PC with this feature. This feature works fine if good faith is presumed. However, one could argue that because of there being no mechanical benefit, that the feature does nothing because it could be "trampled over" by the DM. In essence, the DM could ignore it purposefully to avoid giving a benefit. One could, falsely, frame this as an innate multi-target friends spell. But both are red herrings. The DM could also ignore the mechanical benefit, and could easily stop the overly generous friends application. The DM could also enforce either in spite of any change.We can see this across the system. When I say the system doesn't function under bad faith, this is why. Any saving throw is pointless if the DM is acting in bad faith. Any skill check is subject to that DM's ill-conceived desires. Every rule filters through the DM's intentions. The entire house of cards comes crumbling down as soon as you presume such intent.So any time someone proposes "reigning in" DMs or that DM malice causes an issue, or hypothetically could, they are fighting a battle that can't be won. The game requires good faith to function, in this respect.Maybe the rule needs cleaning up for confusion reasons. Maybe it need changing for some other reason. But changing it to prevent "malice" is a doomed attempt at changing human behavior and has no hope of success. The DM's power is, in fact, only limited by their players willingness to tolerate it.I hope that makes my argument more clear, and why good faith is required. I don't really want to keep rehashing it.EDIT: Forgot my citation: <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/backgrounds/34-haunted-one" target="_blank">https://www.dndbeyond.com/backgrounds/34-haunted-one</a></blockquote>

Verification