Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7627669" data-attributes="member: 6999115">What you're saying is actually our point. Alignment is not a straight-jacket, because player agency overrides what the alignment says they would do. If they're a good character they'll have a taboo against killing the innocent, but they're still within their right as a player to have their character kill whoever or whatever they want. They can start as Anakin and end up as Darth Vader. It's up to them as the player, not their alignment nor the class lore, to decide what they're going to do. All the player has to consider is whether or not they're willing to deal with the consequence of their actions.The primary thing we've been saying is that lore is exactly as you just explained. Every class has lore, and the lore varies to great degrees even within that class. When a class has a taboo, or an alignment has a taboo, it is intrinsically known that the game system allows the player to have their character violate that taboo, unless there is something put in place that makes it an impossible action for the player to perform. Clerics can be unfaithful to their deity, Paladins can violate their oaths, Warlocks can violate their pacts, and so on. The rules do not have to specify that they can act in opposition of any of these elements, which is why even though Paladin oaths are written with absolute language, it's assumed by (nearly) everyone that the player character can make their Paladin do whatever they want.If they're lawful good and they want to murder some orphans for fun, they can do that, but that enables the DM to shift their alignment to match with their behavior. If they're a good Paladin, and they have a tenet to protect the innocent, then odds are that's going to grant the DM discretion in either forcing them to seek penance, to adopt a different class, or becoming an Oathbreaker, as listed in the game rules. You can't say player agency trumps lore for one class, but then say class lore trumps player agency for the next. If a Paladin is allowed to ignore class taboo because RAW assumed player agency inherently trumps taboo imposed by class lore, as well as taboo placed by alignment, then it only stands to reason that this be true for Druids. If a Druid chooses to ignore their taboo, what happens? The official answer to that so far is absolutely nothing. Does the fact that Druids don't get punished for breaking their taboo somehow make it more egregious for them to break it than if a Paladin does so? Because personally I say the implication there is the exact opposite.</blockquote>

Verification