D&D General Warlocks' patrons vs. Paladin Oaths and Cleric Deities

[Neonchameleon]

If you can find a DM who's okay with that then go ahead.

Nobody's stopping you from making houserules.

The thing is "Paladins lose their powers for an evil act" hasn't been part of mainline D&D's rules since 2008 and has never been a part of the most popular version of D&D in history.

You are either not playing 5e or are dumpster diving through previous editions to pull out a bad rule from them and insert it in as a house rule.

You are the one arguing for a specific terrible house rule here. And most DMs do not do this. Most people on ENWorld are DMs - and if you find a random DM they will be a 5e DM unless explicitly saying otherwise and there is a 95%+ chance they will on this matter play RAW rather than use your bad houserule

 

[tetrasodium]

My point is and has always been, as I originally said, that the conclusions folks almost always draw from the experiment, and the claims people make about exactly what happened during the experiment, are almost always overblown and, generally speaking, presented in a way that is outright opposing what actually happened.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about with this "a charismatic player standing up as a self-proclaimed authority of something like fairness or roleplaying". Like I genuinely have no idea how that even remotely relates to this.

In fact, the only thing I can see which would relate to this is that your described situation is the exact antithesis of what the Milgram experiment examined. It would be a rebellious figure standing up against the person several people on this very forum allege to be the "absolute" authority on genuinely everything going on at the table, the person allegedly invested with the ability to break any rule, tell any lie, deceive the players at any time for any reason about anything, etc. It would be someone challenging authority. Which, from the section I referenced, having another person there who challenges the authority causes the number of people to go along with it to drop to nearly zero. As in, having even ONE person present who questions authority completely breaks the whole "powerful authority figures can throw their weight around" thing.

So...no. My point has nothing whatsoever to do with that. My point has to do with exactly what I said originally:

Let me help you on that bold bit milgram was about authority and coercion. None of your quibbles change it's relevance to the point made in 148 where it was not the only thing mentioned. The link was approaching the same "how did people allow that historical event happen" question by looking at it from a different perspective. The single solitary link explains

To a degree yes, but it was more about the impact of putting people into groups and having one group in power with the minimal rules over the other second group carrying a negatively charged term like prisoners. The prisoners who were under power also developed notably in less interesting ways. There are other studies that cover that whole power without rules/responsibility bwith bon group context like the milgram experiment where acting as the will of an authority figure left nearly every participant willing to execute the lone unseen test taker who was begging for their life over a speaker was analyzed & Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity where the how/why a charismatic leader with an us vrs them agenda unlocks crowds was explained

More importantly wrt Stanford prison experiment and the other two in the context ttrpgs like d&d 5e: the players at the table are part of a group and the gm at the table is there as a group of one. In all three, the group of players have a role and entire forests of text about player agency good railroading bad etc while the gm without a group has a Job rather than role. You could link the erosion of barriers in rest/recovery and removal of magic item churn as a need into a couple in various ways to give a removal of authority for the player group too.

TL;DR: Stanford prison experiment is more about groups set above other groups, players have and benefit from a group in ways that only need a group member to stand up with conviction and authority or charisma while slinging an us vrs that guy cause.

I wasn't the one to bring up milgram originally when I corrected it's relevance to d&d table dynamics between a like GM and group of players . I've attempted in two posts to guide you back at the original post 148 point you ignored.