NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CyanideSprite" data-source="post: 6773067" data-attributes="member: 6798894">For the last time, no it is not. I never said the other players are not having fun. You can take up a know-it-all attitude and say "Well if *I* was the player, I wouldn't be disruptive at all, or if *I* was the DM this would never happen", but you're not helpful, you're barely paying attention to the discussion, and you're free to go to a mirror and give yourself all the smiles and praise you need for being a Stepford tabletop gamer.The problem is that his Oath is giving him not only the freedom but the motivation to do these things in the name of righteousness and there is no way to handle that outside of role play scenarios we've discussed or banning the character. If there was something more appropriate in the rule book to limit this behavior for the Paladin like a moral code listed for the OoV then that would be perfect, but there's not. People saying things like:As far as I can tell are just making things up and using their own interpretation because the OoV section is remarkably brief and I don't see rationalizations inherent to the class like that.And the vast majority of everyone else here are debating the wrong thing like:You are completely missing the point of this.Honestly "changing his alignment" doesn't mean much anyway because there's no punishment for doing that to Paladins. He thinks he's good, so saying "hey your alignment is evil" doesn't change much because alignment means so little anymore, even for the classes which would make sense if they should. But hey if a Paladin gets their holy powers through sheer determination "as much as they do from a god", then hey alignment be damned if the whole class isn't made to make sense at all.1) Yeah I've already stated my qualms with that, and it's less 1e Paladin and more that they are STILL described in those terms, but people want to be edgy with it literally because "nothing says I can't"... But in this scenario it's more that it's the biggest loophole in the book for good/neutral characters doing evil to get to their sworn enemy.2) It makes sense in the context of the world and character. As 5e so hamhandedly emphasizes with all the flaccid vigor of a spouse saying "eh whatever" when asked what they want for dinner: There are grey areas in everything. It's not that alcohol is inherently evil to the whole world, but he justifies its evilness through the lives he's witnessed alcohol destroy. He works for the government to inspect taverns and shut them down. He's still friendly with the party and treats them as victims of the evils of alcohol and allies on his quests to get to these increasingly more and more exotic taverns. He brings a very interesting dynamic to the game.3) I'm tired of talking about alignment. It matters so little it seems. I've poured over the rulebook over and over and the instances when alignment matters are so few and far between. People have mentioned in this topic some rules for things like "fallen Paladin" which is not an Oathbreaker and other things, but I'm pretty sure they just made that up because all I can find is that... and he's not even going against his oath. "Forced alignment changes" are a card the DM can pull, but that holds all the power of elementary school hallway monitor. Unless I houserule say "hey alignment changes mean you lose your paladin powers", then this whole alignment situation seems pointless.4) No it's not. Again, I never said they weren't having fun. They are along for the ride. They're not out to slay dragons. They want to go to taverns. There's even a pirate in the party who wants to see him succeed in destroying the alcohol institution so he can make a killing by bootlegging. The issue is the narrative is so heavily favored by what the OoV drives him to do and gives him the freedom to do without divine consequence at all. I mean literally him slowing down for lesser enemies is against his oath.5) The end result that's probably going to happen is me telling him "hey just scale back the zealotry a bit". I don't want the campaign to be railroaded by him, and I know he's not trying to make it that way, but following his Oath so rigidly is making it that way.</blockquote>

Verification