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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 1480102" data-attributes="member: 2067">Another strawman?Sorry if I gave that impression, but that just doesn't accurately reflect my views on the issue. I, personally, request that a DM that I play for be forthcoming with his motivations for changing the rules that he does so that I can make an educated opinion about whether or not his game is something I'd enjoy.I have had no expectation that a DM change his world to accomodate a specific character concept, as I have repeatedly said.The rules support the flavor. A wizard can be a faithful warrior of religion, but only a Paladin gets his Cha bonus to his saving throws because of his moral righteousness, only a Paladin alleviates suffering with a touch of his hands, and only a Paladin will loose these powers if he strays from the path. Those rules help enforce the idea of a sacred warrior dedicated to an ordered, benevolent code, but the mechanics of a wizard don't. They don't preclude it, but they don't help the idea in the slightest. What's the point of playing a moral wizard if playing an immoral or amoral one works exactly the same way? Rule Zero is the trump. It means that the DM has final say. It doesn't mean I have to tacticly accept a bad DM's arbitrary rulings just because Rule Zero is there, however. And it doesn't mean that I have no right to ask about a DM's motivation. If Rule Zero means you won't explain your reasoning to me, that's just not something that meets my own personal standards of an 'enjoyable game.' Sorry.</blockquote>

Verification