Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 6832975" data-attributes="member: 6776133">Which isn't a reason to not have a warlord. Really, you can't change human interpersonal relationships with game mechanics. At some point, you have to leave it up to each person to decide for themselves. I mean, dang, "no warlords because some people might be uncomfortable with a fictional relationship between two fictional character avatars" is a condescending position. As is "people withhold their objections because they don't want to make a stink." Assuming you CAN mind-read, why isn't that a valid decision? What's wrong with deciding that going along with the group has more value than voicing objections to a subset of game mechanics?I mean, look at the old 'lawful stupid' paladin debates. Nobody seemed to have any reservations about disagreeing with paladin players when they played morality-cop. Those were some heated debates over minute points of morality. I really don't think "receiving some healing" or "taking advantage on a roll" even ranks among issues people have a problem with (and I'm borrowing the telepathy in order to make this assertion). In the end, this all circles back to reaching for justifications why there shouldn't be a warlord in 5E. The justifications are invariably ridiculous, rife with double-standards and tortured hypothetical scenarios of quietly suffering true role players. If you don't like warlords, that's cool. You don't need a reason. I do like them. So I don't see a need to create one that caters to people who don't want one, and I don't see a need to jump through the hoops of objections that are remote possibilities, or those that don't apply when literally any other class is concerned. Good gravy! Do the mechanics enforce a social order on the group! No. The group does that on their own. End of.</blockquote>

Verification