Kinder reader Inflection wanted
I actually don't think that most people hear disagree in general. This thread is mostly about conflict resolution of preconceived and differing opinions. My reply is less a disagreement of your position and more a description of how to look at the same conflict. Instead of "I don't like paladin/warlock multi-classing" up front, I find it better to say "I would like to support on all multi-classing in context of setting and circumstance which will mean a mutual agreement of lore between the player and the GM, because the GM has to live with your character decisions in the world the GM is creating for you, despite those decisions being your decisions to make." While the first is easier to say, its like getting ready to fight while the second tends to more about working together to resolve it. The second prepares me and them (which ever side I am on) to start negotiations and suggestions. The first tends to make people shut down and get butt hurt.I don't think we disagree as much as maybe you think we do. I'm pretty relaxed about multiclassing in my campaigns. My main reasons for wanting to look carefully at someone wanting to combine the two classes are A) They can heterodyne extraordinarily well and B) I want to make sure it fits (or can be made to fit) into the setting I'm running in. Coming to a mutual understanding with the player about the character is part of this, too.
So, we may not disagree at all but your going to trigger a lot of "uh uh" replies because of the direction of your mental approach to the same direction and possibly results. Sometimes it is less about what your saying and what your goal is than how you say it and the path you take to get there that causes everyone to lose there minds despite being able to find the same result and move on in actual practice at the table.