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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7815632" data-attributes="member: 4937">This still feels to me like the wrong question, and it's followed up by really broad and vague questions. I mean, yes, Champions are assumed to be special, and if it is known that a player is a Champion, there will be an assumption that they are acting out the will of their deity. Whether that is actually 'compensation' or not will depend a very great deal on the local communities relationship to that deity.Yes, but there is a categorical difference between having a personal code and having an external code, and the experience of living with the two is different. And if the character is in fact living up to the code, then the DM really doesn't have to do anything at all. And if the Oath is really just witnessed by the player, then really only what you have is a oath that represents a personal contract with yourself. And a contract that you make where you are the only party in the contract is very different than a contract you make where there is a second party in the contract.I don't think that is true. I know that is true. For one thing, I'm one of those players that thinks that is fun. For another thing, I have a player know who by personality is pretty much not capable of playing a character except with a lawful mindset. Every character he plays ends up lawful, and while he gets teased about it by some of the other players who think he should be more flexible, he does make a really great Paladin. I don't have to make this player put himself under external codes. He's going to do that all on his own regardless of the class he is playing.No, I think your still missing the core of what I'm saying here. Again, there is a categorical difference between a personal code and an oath sworn with yourself as the witness, and an external code where you call upon a second party as witness.And further, you still seem to be in this mindset that this is all a metagame thing, with this being between a player and a DM. If someone in my game takes an Oath, and calls a deity like Aravar the Traveller as witness to that Oath, then Aravar the Traveller is the one that is judging whether that Oath is upheld. And I have to somehow put myself in the place of this being and decide how Aravar views the situation.Which is why I put my parenthetical side note at the end. In actuality, the Champion homebrew class in my game is vastly more flexible than even the 5e Paladin with respect to it's particulars of what it means to be what D&D traditionally calls a 'Paladin'. There is a very strong possibility that a player could ask to play a Champion of a deity or philosophy that I've never really thought about much in my game, and in that case there will be a long Session Zero session where we mutually hash out what the expected behavior of that Champion will be. But once that is decided, the deity and not the player character is the one that decides if those expectations are being met.I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you swear an oath of vengeance as a chaotic evil character, who is the witness you called to hear that oath, and what do you expect that witness to do? And why if you are chaotic evil would you bind yourself in that fashion? I mean I'm not saying you can't, but it does seem a little bit out of character. If you are swearing in such a way that you are the witness to the oath, then of course you get to decide how to keep that oath.   I've never denied that chaotic evil doesn't exist, and can't swear oaths, but then considering that a chaotic evil character believes that there is no such thing as truth, and no external thing that by right ought to constrain them, pretty much every oath that they make is probably one they intend to break either by letter or by spirit.</blockquote>

Verification