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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7814254" data-attributes="member: 6802951">I think that there are two different discussions going  on here, and that they're getting conflated is the reason for some of the discussions getting more heated.1) The actions of the DM in creating an encounter that appeared to be a no-win scenario against an arbitrarily too-powerful opponent. If they did telegraph the solution, the player did not pick up on it and so was presented with a potential loss of ability or enjoyment playing their character.2) The in-game actions of the Paladin of Ancients that chose to hand over a casualty to die in order to live to continue on their world-saving quest.For 1, we don't know the full story, but it does seem an unpleasantly adversarial thing to do, particularly without the player's buy-in. I do not believe that the DM should have created that situation in the first place, but would be interested to know why they did: there may be a good reason I'm missing.For 2, its a bit trickier since handing over an injured person to be eaten is against the oath, but so too would be failure to do your best to save the world. DM will be arbiter on that, but should understand the reasoning of the paladin before they make a judgement. DM might have final say, but if they've not informed the player of their opinion of how it works, the player might have made a choice based on how they thought the DM views it rather than how the DM actually views it.</blockquote>

Verification