Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7918282" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I find this is a problem when ether the GM or the player feels that way but the other does not. So for example, some GMs hate players who play more neutral paladins because they define them by their class while some players will play &quot;Lawful Stupid&quot; paladins because they don't think they can &quot;within character&quot; do anything else. Which results in general avoidance of Paladins, Warlocks, druids, and Clerics as well as hate for multi-classing them like Paladin/Warlock builds for example. While the game does not restrict these a GM who thinks &quot;your character IS your class&quot; will not allow the idea that a Paladin of Oath of the Ancients aka fey knights might make a deal with an allied Patron to their cause becoming an Archfey Patron Warlock multi-class despite their being not rules or even fluff that prevents a Nature Domain Deity&nbsp; from having Archfey subordinates who grant additional power from the same faction, to fight for the same cause, against the same enemy, in reverence and support of the same original Deity. Its simply not allowed because &quot;you are your class&quot;.This is made more complicated because often the same GMs and players only hold the &quot;you are your class&quot; beliefs to specific classes. In the same group you might have a GM that feels that way about warlocks and clerics while one player feels that way about druids and another player that way about paladins.In the end, these are opinions with no actual basis in the rules. So none of them are &quot;wrong&quot; and none of them are &quot;right&quot;. No argument will ever over rule someone's opinion.&nbsp; The best you can do is work around the conflicts by being aware of them and picking different options that avoid problems at your table. Generally speaking it comes to a head when the table runs into these unaware that these &quot;restrictions&quot; were there before they got invested into a campaign. I have had &quot;Lawful Stupid&quot; Paladins end up changing characters mid campaign because they could not let themselves play that character with out trying to PVP their own party and Players changing from warlock (forced-evil), cleric (forced pushy religious), or druid (Lawful Tree hugger) because the GM felt players should be tied to acting in a specific manor due to their class that was not how the player intended or wanted to play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7918282, member: 6880599"] I find this is a problem when ether the [B]GM [U]or[/U] the player[/B] feels that way but the other does not. So for example, some GMs hate players who play more neutral paladins because they define them by their class while some players will play "Lawful Stupid" paladins because they don't think they can "within character" do anything else. Which results in general avoidance of Paladins, Warlocks, druids, and Clerics as well as hate for multi-classing them like Paladin/Warlock builds for example. While the game does not restrict these a GM who thinks "your character IS your class" will not allow the idea that a Paladin of Oath of the Ancients aka fey knights might make a deal with an allied Patron to their cause becoming an Archfey Patron Warlock multi-class despite their being not rules or even fluff that prevents a Nature Domain Deity from having Archfey subordinates who grant additional power from the same faction, to fight for the same cause, against the same enemy, in reverence and support of the same original Deity. Its simply not allowed because "you are your class". This is made more complicated because often the same GMs and players only hold the "you are your class" beliefs to specific classes. In the same group you might have a GM that feels that way about warlocks and clerics while one player feels that way about druids and another player that way about paladins. In the end, these are opinions with no actual basis in the rules. So none of them are "wrong" and none of them are "right". [B]No argument will ever over rule someone's opinion[/B]. The best you can do is work around the conflicts by being aware of them and picking different options that avoid problems at your table. Generally speaking it comes to a head when the table runs into these unaware that these "restrictions" were there before they got invested into a campaign. I have had "Lawful Stupid" Paladins end up changing characters mid campaign because they could not let themselves play that character with out trying to PVP their own party and Players changing from warlock (forced-evil), cleric (forced pushy religious), or druid (Lawful Tree hugger) because the GM felt players should be tied to acting in a specific manor due to their class that was not how the player intended or wanted to play. [/QUOTE]

Verification