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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 5827672" data-attributes="member: 9037">The DM actually didn't use the word good she used the word lawful. It was Sean who argued that it was an evil act and should cost the player his spells until he atoned. Even if we were not using an alignment in this game this issue would still come up. Sean would have still argued that it was an evil act and that the character should be punished some how.And yes in game I think the DM has every right to say with is good and what is evil in her setting. She is not telling the players that their real life morals are wrong or that their characters have to agree. But when it comes to adjudicating the rules about a cleric or paladin losing spells until they atone that is most certainly in the DM hands. Or adjudicating how the NPCs are going to view the act.Just like the DM can make a house rule that all clerics must be the same alignment as their god or if warlocks get their power from pacts with demons then they detect as evil. In my game warlocks are burned at the stake because the only way to get the power is to make a deal with a demon or devil.  So a player who insisted on playing one would need to understand this. I would encourage them to pick another class.I have played in plenty of games where characters have disagreed on what is good or evil or dishonorable. But we left the actually rules of it up to the DM. I have a paladin in my game and I worked closely with him to develop his code and he and I agreed that if I thought he might be heading down a dangerous path I would stop the game and talk to him about it. But we both agreed that the final say on if he broke his code would be mine as the DM. Now as a DM I don't put in situations that no matter what the paladin does he will screw up his alignment there will always be choices.I also while looking at alignment look at the situation, the motives  the big picture. I don't believe that alignment is black and white nor is a straight jacket. For example it says a paladin will never work knowing work with an evil character. I am of the opinion that it depends on the situation. If there is an evil threatening to destroy the world  and an evil character can help stop it then I most definitely can see a paladin working with him in this case and I think his alignment would be just fine. It also says paladins never lie and people thinks that means a paladin has to tell the truth to the BBEG because otherwise he loses his paladin hood. I say BS I view the lying thing as a paladin does not lie for personal gain like telling a woman he loves her just to get her into bed when he doesn't.As DM I can adjudicate how these things work. And I make sure any player who has a character tied to alignment knows how it works in my game.Look I agree that if you build a character that you have an expectation to be able to accomplish something and the DM agrees then makes it impossible then yeah that is pretty sucky and bad DMing.The player Sean making the big stink is playing a warlock. His background is that his father sold hm before he was born in pact to a devil. But his mother had twins and he was second born . Now the devil still wants him but a celestial being stepped in and said no. So they are fighting over his soul and tempting him. Sometimes he looks more demonic and other times more angelic. Depending on how he is leaning his alignment switches from chaotic good to chaotic neutral. His eldreicth blasts change color to when he is being more demonic they are red when he is leaning more celestial they are white.Now he has no issue trusting the DM with this and he keeps saying he leaves the judgement of the alignment up to her based on how he is acting. Yet he still felt the need to argue with her about the evil clerics.</blockquote>

Verification