D&D General Holding non-Paladins to their class vows

[Blue]

Every Paladin archetype implies an alignment, with a suitable code accordingly.

This is demonstrably not true in 5e. In 5e there are no required alignments for any of the subclasses. I've personally played two different Oath of Ancients paladins with different alignments, one CG and one NG. They had the same Oaths and focused on them in different ways.

 

[Blue]

That's the exact opposite of what the book says. It's up there in the middle quote from the other post.

But it is exactly on the money for what the default setting does.

And most official settings. And most published adventures.

Officiants of churches are almost always show as casting clerics.

 

[Yaarel]

This is demonstrably not true in 5e. In 5e there are no required alignments for any of the subclasses. I've personally played two different Oath of Ancients paladins with different alignments, one CG and one NG. They had the same Oaths and focused on them in different ways.

Of course, there are no alignment mechanics in 5e.

I merely meant that you can match which archetype had an alignment requirement in previous editions: LG, CE, LE, CG.

Of course, the player can pick whatever alignment one wants.

This also extends to picking whatever code makes the most sense for that alignment for that character concept.

 

[S'mon]

A very Eberron POV on "gods" and spell power, which is totally valid!

I grew up being exposed to the D&D novels first and then FR as my original setting I played in, so the gods are very much "real" and very much "interactive" with the world to me.

Yeah, I treat FR gods much like the gods of Greek myth, 'real' and active. Whereas 4e Nentir Vale gods are 'real' but distant, and Wilderlands gods are abstract expressions on the crystalline matrix of the Gaea derived from the beliefs of the peoples of the Wilderlands, and Primeval Thule's Conanesque gods may not exist at all.

This potentially affects how I view deity-PC interaction; only my FR gods are directly talking to PCs in dreams, and occasionally manifesting personally. I don't find it affects stuff like class powers or paladins since I've never had cause to think a PC was in conflict with their patron.

 

[Coroc]

Since my group and me love all three pillars of the game means also the RP pillar, of course class selection has meaning far deeper than what spells and feats and powers the character gets from a mechanical p.o.v..

Everything divine has the most potential to come into conflict with their tenets, but it can also happen to some rogue or even fighter that I would say e.g. "your character "Steal Whatsnotattached" would never leave that loot / share it with the poor etc. etc. " or, "Sir Bravealot is a honorary member of the city watch, no way he would gang up with those murderhobo brigands killing innocent civilians"

So this could have alignment changes as consequence or in game context arising like "Steal gets thrown out of his guild because he shared the tithe for the guild with the mob" or "Bravealot is wanted dead or alive for membership in a criminal group and his honorary membership in the watch is denounced"

For classes other than divine there is no consequence as spells not granted, so this seems a bit unbalanced but nothing is fair neahter in this RL world nor in a campaign world that's the way it is.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would not punish the character for being... out of character. But I would certainly bring up at the table, that it makes no sense to put a label on your character sheet if you do not intend to play up to it in the game. And if the player insists on roleplaying badly, (s)he is going to face a worse outcome than being penalized in-game, i.e. risking not being welcome to play with us anymore.

 

[Blue]

So, I have never had to actually remove powers. Discussion has always been sufficient. But I would take it from paladins, clerics, druids, and warlocks without much concern. BUT, their is no appropriate box for me to select to indicate that?

Read the thread title, which is the things we are supposed to vote on. it says "...have you ever..." Well, my answer is "no" but that not a choice, so I can't vote. So one has to assume every vote cast is for those DMs that have actually done it. And that makes the earlier point I was responding too a poor conclusion from the available data. Or think of it this way, if every valid response is positive, then it doesn't make sense to say how common a positive response is based on that survey.

The survey is phased as intended.

I was looking for what DMs have done in actual play. I believe there is a significant difference between those that will do it on the theoretical and those that, faced with doing it to a real, live player in actual play, are willing to do it.

Removing powers would be the most extreme - other forms of discipline such as in-game sanctioning by the church or whatever also count.

 

[DammitVictor]

The key is, once you get on the same page at start, I find you get more buy-in as those play out in play.

That thing that frustrates me to tears is that the people who are most committed to preserving the alignment system-- or else the entire game is ruined forever-- swear that this is not necessary, and should only ever be applied as an option on top of the character's alignment which always takes precedence.

Honestly, this step? This is all you need. You define the actual, concrete specifics of the character's Oath or Code or Pact and that's how you and the player run it. Everything else is as necessary and as productive as STR limits for female PCs.