Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kraydak" data-source="post: 5487088" data-attributes="member: 12306">Not really.  Paladins aren't allowed to work with or travel with undead-raising evil clerics.  That is clear.  The DM made an exception, which is perfectly fine for out-of-game reasons (although, as we have seen, it can cause problems down the line).  That is also clear.  What is never clear to the players is how far the exception goes unless the DM makes it crystal clear.  Here, the paladin doesn't appear to have done anything that would warrant falling (or anything close to that) given that the DM said: traveling with a child-eating-zombie-raising-cleric is perfectly ok.Mind, I don't think he figured on the child-eating aspect at the time.  That was one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time, but in restrospect really dumb" thingies that should be retconned out of existence as a funny misunderstanding.  Once you have committed to RL-group cohesion over rules minutia, you should never bring the rules minutia back without being crystal clear and getting the players' approval for exactly the reasons described in the original post.Do active evil?  No.  Ignore evil and not expect to get smacked around for it?  Yes.  Very much so.  It also implicitly gives the cleric the right to not worry too much about what he does, because nothing he does should upset the paladin too much.  The RL-group-cohesion stuff cuts all ways.  Child-eating zombies break that right.So the evil cleric has to play as a not-evil cleric?  Then just say no to the evil cleric.  If you say yes to the evil cleric, then he gets to play as one (unless some more elaborate agreement is reached).This is merely a bog-standard case of a permissive (no negative connotations intended, but it is the best word here) DM deciding to introduce "consequences" that interfere with the social-contract he has de facto constructed and being surprised that it went badly.  It will only become a big deal if he decides to double-down, or one of the players involved gets irritated.  I admit I have no right to complain if edge3343 feels insulted by what I've said, but I do feel that it isn't a big deal.  This is a common, common, common DMing mistake and the best fix is to paper things over and keep on trucking.  Anything else will result in at least one person feeling betrayed, and that is rarely good.</blockquote>

Verification