Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7819525" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Yes and this is sometimes aided and abetted by a GM or social contract that says "you cannot just tell Bob's PC to go away." which puts the party de-facto hostage to that player's choice. In a campaign where some of the recent "what it takes to be a paladin" were in- play, I cannot see hardly any group at all like a typical "adventuring troupe" agreeing to accept a paladin in the group. But then I look at the more traditional devotion paladin listed above..."Oath of Devotion / White Knight<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you."</li> </ul>It seems to me that these all have a degree of choice and selectivity to them...Dont give your word and you cannot break it... caution is ok... temper with wisdom... as much good "as possible"... cause the lesdt amount of harm... obey just authority... protect those entrusted to you...These each allow more than a little bit of a need to opt-in for each circumstance or at least ways to opt out without breach.So a lot of these extremes of " inaction" triggers failure seem even to the white knight seem at odds with this. For me, willingly included knowingly. Before the situation and before the deed both player and GM will be up-front znd agreed thst this is a intentional breach of oath. The character has lots of tons of more experience with the oaths and teachings than the three to four vagely worded bullet points. At least figure they got the whole power point presentation, not just the one summary slide, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />So, as a GM, I make sure before and during, not just after the deed, that it's a willing breach. As a player, if it seemed even close to a "moral question of oath or religion" I have no qualms about saying "what do my teachings tell me is the right thing to do here and specifically are there any wrong or breach causing ones on the table?"If the GM cannot provide good or even neutral guidance from your teachings and only negative ones, your problem is not with the oath.</blockquote>

Verification