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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6599818" data-attributes="member: 92511">I am fairly sure I was fairly clear that is not what I asked/said. For starters, the first response I was looking for, minus the defensive snark, would be "Yes, I am the DM." So there's one thing. That was not clear to/recalled by me from the OP.Following that, the question at hand was "Why are you expecting a discussion about what Oath the character will take at 3rd level." That is not, even as a DM, something I would expect. What the player does with their character -within the parameters set at the table- is up to them. In this case it is an AL table and so there are very clear parameters within which the players must comply.Now, I see you mention that AL prohibits Oathbreaker paladins. So, yeah. "What oath are you taking?" "I'm thinking Oathbreaker." "Can't do that in AL. Pick something else." seems to be something that would need saying. That's not a discussion on how they are playing their "LE." That's not what you were "anticipat[ing] a discussion about." According to the post I read, anyway. So, my misunderstanding, I guess. Apologies.I am not.Sounds very important. Good thing you take it so seriously and responsibly.Yes. Which is something that would be your place, as a DM of any table, to say. Not exactly something that requires great ponderance. I also missed the detail that the player has already made this PC a paladin of Loviatar. Guess I should read first posts more thoroughly.Follow up thought, why did you permit a LE character -or are you not permitted to adjust AL's parameters (assuming AL allows Evil PCs)- if you are concerned about their effect on the tone at the table?Again, I am not. I'm not looking to "keep" any "boundaries." I was questioning yours. The response "I'm the DM." would have pretty much answered that nicely.Carry on.</blockquote>

Verification