So you would be okay having your Warlord in a party with a gunslinger Cowboy, a magical pony, a "fantasy girl" in a chainmail bikini and a Chaotic Evil sociopath? I mean, where do you draw the line? When do you pick up your dice and go home? Because what I'm hearing is that you would be perfectly fine with this party composition because everyone should be able to play whatever they want to play and it won't effect you at all. I find that hard to believe.
If I was playing in a group where the DM came up with a campaign that involved a mash-up of D&D and the Wild West, I would have no problem with it (and I think @
Morrus already did with
Santiago/
Campaign_Guide). If someone wanted to make a genre-appropriate version - a medieval "gunslinger" - I'd have no problem with someone playing such a character in my games, or playing in a game where another player was playing one. It ever sounds like something I might be interested in playing myself.
If someone wanted to play a magical pony, and they weren't a pre-adolescent child, I'd first look at them as if they were nuts and then, after my initial reaction, ask them what their concept was and why it interested them - and use that to build a race and class for them to envision it in a way that was consistent with my campaign. It's called working together - compromising - not dictating an either/or situation. If I was playing in a game where someone played such a character, I'd probably use it as the virtually unlimited source of jokes and ribbings that such a character would induce - but I'd have no problem playing in the game.
If someone wanted to play a chainmail bikini "fantasy girl", I'd say No - but not because of any class or race, but because I find it ethically and morally inappropriate - a perpetuation of misogynist elements. I'd say no even if it was a female player. There are certain things I absolutely won't allow to be represented in my games, such as torture, rape, systemic racism, misogyny and misandry - nor will I play in such a game. But again, this has nothing to do with a race or class, and certainly has nothing to do with a Warlord class.
If someone wanted to play a Chaotic Evil character, I would definitely allow it as long as the player has a reason for the character to be a part of and work with the group (not just try to kill everybody at every turn). I'll also note that I have had such characters in my games, and have even played such characters in other games. As long as the player has the maturity and perspective needed to do so, it's not a problem. Again, it's not the character that would potentially be a problem, it would be the player.
Not playing in a game where another player is playing a Warlord is entirely your preference - but it's your problem, not theirs. It's no different than if I decided I hate Paladins...or Rogues...or Warlocks...or whatever...to such an extent, that I wouldn't play in a game where someone was playing them. However, I can tell you that I most certainly would not behave in that manner - Ever.
To me, it's the same as two kids playing together in a sandbox, and one of them decides the other is playing "wrong"...
No...just, No.
If a player has a problem not with another player's behavior, but merely with their choice/preference of character - to the extent that one of them has to change or go - then that's a problem with the person, not the game or a class. In my games, if that person couldn't accept the other player, they would be asked to leave.
I play to have fun with a group - with the group, together, creating the story. I do not view the group as background or a mere accessory to my character or campaign. Somebody else playing a character that I don't prefer does not define my character or my involvement in the game. That would be incredibly silly and immature if I acted that way.
By the way, if I had to pick one of the above to play with, it would be the Warlord, as that would be the least objectionable.
I try to remember that objectionable really only applies to what I prefer for me - I have no right whatsoever to object to other's preferences for themselves.
Because there is a difference. I don't want to play with Warlords in my game. If Warlords are a strictly optional class that has to be intentionally added in, then it is an easier argument for excluding them. And yes, I do want to exclude them from my game.
A Warlord class, whether explicitly stated that it's optional or not, is already 100% optional. You can't get more optional than that. The argument is not any easier or harder.
You can already exclude any class, race, spell, concept, rule, or whatever else you want from your game. Everything is already 100% optional, as per the direction in the PHB and the DMG. The rules already say everything is optional.
So, there is no difference.
It's the same argument/complaint as those that are peeved that Drow are included in the PHB.
"Now I have to let anyone play a Drow in my games!"
No, you don't.
You guys still aren't understanding the objection to the Warlord. For me it would be like sitting down with a character to play D&D and suddenly find I'm playing Traveler. Well, I don't want to play Traveler, I want to play D&D.
Nobody games in a vacuum. Whether one likes it or not, unless one plays D&D in their own mind, we all need a group for the game. Groups mean other people, other ideas, other preferences - some of which are going to be things we don't like. None of us have the right to dictate our views, in exclusion to all other views, on anybody else.
It's never
My group; it's always
Our group.
If a group is truly that antithetical to someone, then that group is probably not for them. Not all groups are suitable for all players, and vice-versa. To put it another way, if you're a player in a group with someone that decides to play a Warlord, you have two choices: play anyways or leave.
Just food for thought: Do you think there might be the possibility here, that you're trying to protect yourself from having a potential group you might play with tainted by something you really don't want? That you're trying to preempt that by advocating against it, in the hopes you never have to deal with this situation? That avoiding this is more important than anyone else having the potential to enjoy it?
Some people might decide that their D&D doesn't have psionics in it, or no Monks, or whatever. My D&D doesn't have Warlords in it.
If by
"my D&D" you mean
"the D&D being played at my table" - then Cool.
If however, you mean the game in general, then very not cool.
Though I think it's worth pointing out again, that if it's the former rather than the later, it already is and always has been that way anyways...
