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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6335058" data-attributes="member: 22779">Because there is no negotiation at all.  The DM is right.  The player cannot gainsay the DM, after all.  If you, the DM, claim that the Raven Queen is X, I cannot, as a player, claim that it is Y.As two players, OTOH, we are free to claim X and Y and there is no way for one player to tell the other player that he or she is wrong.So, yeah, if the DM's interpretation is counter to the player's, but the DM didn't negotiate that at the outset, the DM should back off.  The DM is playing bait and switch otherwise, and telling the player that he or she is playing the wrong character.  I think that my character is X, you tell me, no and it's really Y.  If you do so at chargen, I'll probably be fine with it, since I can choose not to play that character.  But, afterwards, yeah, it's better for the DM to step back and let the player play the character that the player sees as his or her own character.But, this is somewhat besides the point.  The issue was that you wanted to play a "LG Paladin" but are somehow prevented from doing so because I'm playing a CG paladin.  Bringing in the DM into the equation is simply clouding the issue.  Presumably, in a DM/Player situation, the DM can simply declare that all paladins are LG at chargen.  Cool, no problems.  It is the DM's world after all.  But, if the DM allows for any alignment paladin, you, as another player, should not ever be able to tell me that I can't play my any alignment paladin just because you want to play a traditional LG paladin.</blockquote>

Verification