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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 7814547" data-attributes="member: 762">No, what happened was a scenario that required a mind reader to properly navigate and a poor result because the player prioritized his overall mission vs. The situation at hand.And what further happened was a divide in expectations that could have been avoided with proper conversation and a meeting of the minds.One only has to look at this thread to see how very differently people expect paladins to behave.   It has a lot to do with what happened in the game universe, the design of the scenario led to what happened.       No, the mistake was the DM setting up a scenario that required a mind reader to navigate. Any set scenario that, especially unintentionally, has the conditions of fall or die is a terrible scenario and is a mistake.      You are suggesting that the DM not allow any scenario where the player gets to continue playing the paladin, even after having set up a gotcha scenario. Could the player have handled it better? Absolutely. But since this was a failing on both sides, discussion is warranted.          Maybe cut the Ad hominem?     No I'm advising taking a step back before severely punishing the player, that's it.        The question here is did the player realize he was violating his oath? As the thread has shown, it's far from obvious.       That's not even remotely what I said. I said there needs to be clear communication and there wasn't in this case. How you got " inability to fail" from that is beyond me.   The mistake was in the DMs presentation of the initial scenario and his failure to see that it wasn't properly laid out for the player. The DM did not intend a fall or die scenario, but that's what the player took it as. Failure to address such a blatant miscommunication can only cause bigger problems down the line.</blockquote>

Verification