Find another DM to play with. Clearly the DM does not want to be flexible (his prerogative) and neither do you (your prerogative). In cases like this, you need to part ways... especially if you are friends outside the game. Don't let in-game disagreements destroy real life friendships. As a friend of mine always used to say, "life > game."
We are not close friend IRL, just stick with him until the end of this month only.
I have always found that LG is a challenging alignment to play because you have to think about your actions more. CN is easy mode and boring as you just do what ever is easiest most of the time.
No! The DM is just saying paladins have a very strict alignment code to follow and if you violate it you’ll lose your Paladin status. He’s afraid cause you’re a warlock now you’ll forget about the Paladin code.
Playing a multiclassed Paladin/warlock is tough but it can be done.
Dw. The DM’s not out to get you 😊. Don’t suicide your character.
Knowing this, I felt demotivated to play Paladins anymore.
I don't blame you. My favorite character from back in the old days was a LG paladin, but once you've played it, it can get kind of boring. Same could be said about playing with a DM that says all rogues have to be CE or NE. Takes away RP opportunities, which is generally counter to why a DM says paladins should be LG. ("I think paladins should be LG for RP reasons" Is a common thought process)
See if the DM will let you switch classes. If they make you jump through hoops or make you a lower level, reduced items, etc, I'd consider leaving the group. Because at that point the DM is just being petty and is punishing you for not playing their idea of what a paladin should be. Which is even worse if the DM didn't tell you about the LG restriction at character creation.
Playing a LG, paladin or not, well is far from boring. Your character has to really care about those around them and not just wander about acting like a conquest paladin looking for evil to conquer, never actually worrying about consequences or what is really 'right' or 'just.'
I was more referencing the old 2nd Edition rules, and meant that if all a paladin could ever be was LG, it can get boring after a while. (By "it" I mean forced LG paladins, not LG in general) I'm glad they went away from the stereotypical Paladin and allowed for different style oaths and alignments.
I like the change in alignment requirements, but I also like how the Oaths create restrictions that fit certain themes. If you really want that old school LG Paladin, Oath of Devotion fits that theme perfectly for example.
Playing a LG, paladin or not, well is far from boring. Your character has to really care about those around them and not just wander about acting like a conquest paladin looking for evil to conquer, never actually worrying about consequences or what is really 'right' or 'just.'
I was more referencing the old 2nd Edition rules, and meant that if all a paladin could ever be was LG, it can get boring after a while. (By "it" I mean forced LG paladins, not LG in general) I'm glad they went away from the stereotypical Paladin and allowed for different style oaths and alignments.
It was clear you were referring to old school paladins. The point I was trying to make is that if you step beyond a simplistic black and white model of LG or the early paladin oaths, actually try to find solutions that fulfil your oath with minimal killing, take concepts like collateral damage seriously, etc with respect to your oath, etc, it becomes a lot deeper a concept.
In other words, the problem was arguably stereotyping Lawful Good rather than forcing Paladins to be Lawful Good.
The problem with this particular issue that the OP has is that the DM is forcing all paladins to be LG. In 5e, alignments aren't as big a part of the game as they used to be. And old school paladins from previous editions (which the OP's DM appears to be stuck on) were even more restrictive than "just" LG. They were the most rigidly LG of any LG character. In other words, they were the "stereotypical" LG. As it relates to this particular issue, I am willing to bet that this particular DM will only allow the most black and white, stereotypical, cookie cutter paladin. Which, over time, would be boring. Not in a single campaign, but across multiple campaigns. Imagine playing in multiple campaigns or adventures, and the only thing that is "allowed" to be different about the 2 or 3 paladins you chose to play is their names, backstories, and equipment.
I totally agree with you, btw, that LG can be played in a ton of different ways. And yes, I am totally guessing that the DM would be that rigid, but the limited info we've seen makes me think it's a decent guess.
In 5e, alignments aren't as big a part of the game as they used to be.
I agree that, as the rules are written, this is true. However, as a practical matter, how big a part of the game alignment is really rests with the DM. If this DM in particular wants to make them a big deal, that's up to him. For instance, I'm not quite as strict as old school but I use them to a greater degree than the 5e book implies. That's up to me, as DM. And, of course, up to the players, who would have to tell me if they have a problem with that (no one has).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In 5e, alignments aren't as big a part of the game as they used to be.
I agree that, as the rules are written, this is true. However, as a practical matter, how big a part of the game alignment is really rests with the DM. If this DM in particular wants to make them a big deal, that's up to him. For instance, I'm not quite as strict as old school but I use them to a greater degree than the 5e book implies. That's up to me, as DM. And, of course, up to the players, who would have to tell me if they have a problem with that (no one has).
I'd bet money that the DM is only "alignment checking" the Paladin. ShadowJoker767, has the DM ever brought up alignment to any other player?
When I join the table, I want to create a protector type of character that always shield his friend. After 1 year, my character get to level 7, I plan to multiclass into Warlock, heck it must be fun to role play. When I said this to my DM, he said he allow it, since other player have already multiclass. After that, my DM always said to me "If you break your tenet you lose your Paladin ability", he said this several time during every session. The way that he say, sound like he want to do something worst for my character, I'm okay with that, PC sometime die. But the way he said that, kind a like displease toward my choice of multiclass.
Currently I felt very uncomfortable when he said that, should I just stop playing with the DM OR suicide my character so that I can make a new one?
Everyone else is latching on to Warlock/Conquest Paladin but the bolded passage seems the opposite of a conquest paladin. You have chosen a paladin with a very offense oriented oath with a defensive goal. That is actually a conflict.
That said, the DM really does not seem to understand the concept, nor the concept of Oathbreaker. Even with an Oathbreaker option though, your character would be expected to be even further from a goal of shielding your friend.
At the beginning, I want to play a character that change alignment from CN to any other alignment depend on the campaign. My first hope is to become a protector, but after playing with the party few time, I know that I should drop of the protector and go with the party flow. That why I multiclass into warlock.
I have always found that LG is a challenging alignment to play because you have to think about your actions more. CN is easy mode and boring as you just do what ever is easiest most of the time.
The reason why my character alignment CN due to he had been betrayed by his own allies, now he is full with anxiety toward society. He wander the world alone with no one to trust. One day he almost die, but someone save him. The person told him that, "there a lot of good people out there, you just need to give a chance". So he pledge an Oath to conquer his fear and gain back trust to society.
He is neither good or evil, with the certain trigger he might become good OR evil in the future game. He is a little bit chaotic, since he is new with the paladin things.
No! The DM is just saying paladins have a very strict alignment code to follow and if you violate it you’ll lose your Paladin status. He’s afraid cause you’re a warlock now you’ll forget about the Paladin code.
Playing a multiclassed Paladin/warlock is tough but it can be done.
Dw. The DM’s not out to get you 😊. Don’t suicide your character.
Every session I play, I never once forget about the paladin code. Once, I was keep quite and the DM still give me warning.
In 5e, alignments aren't as big a part of the game as they used to be.
I agree that, as the rules are written, this is true. However, as a practical matter, how big a part of the game alignment is really rests with the DM. If this DM in particular wants to make them a big deal, that's up to him. For instance, I'm not quite as strict as old school but I use them to a greater degree than the 5e book implies. That's up to me, as DM. And, of course, up to the players, who would have to tell me if they have a problem with that (no one has).
I'd bet money that the DM is only "alignment checking" the Paladin. ShadowJoker767, has the DM ever brought up alignment to any other player?
Most of the time only he only warn me about the alignment. But there was once the Rogue try to be nice and good, his tone suddenly become weird, like he is annoyed with the action. The Assassin Rogue spare the live of the man after he give us the information and the Rogue give him 5gp to get out of town, the DM said "You really doing that?" with annoyed intonation.
It sounds like your table should have done a more thorough session 0 (or done one at all, if you didn't). During that session you should discuss your expectations and the DM could present his vision of how the campaign will run. One thing to definitely discuss, is alignment. Will you follow it in the world, and how strictly? It seems like, the DM is following an old school, "AD&D" style version of alignment, expecting you to strictly adhere to your alignments, not change them absent some sort of magic spell or "Helm of Alignment Change," etc. And the players appear to want to make RPed decisions in the moment, regardless of what their alignment might happen to be. Neither way is right or wrong - it's all down to how you want to play. But if the players are going with alignment as a weak descriptor and what happens in the moment trumps alignment, and the DM wants to play "alignment rules all RP," then you are in 2 different places and it is not going to work out.
It sounds like the whole table needs to have a talk about just what you want to do regarding alignment and how you want to interpret it, and you need to understand that if the DM won't budge, then you either need to bow to his choices or leave the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
At the beginning, I want to play a character that change alignment from CN to any other alignment depend on the campaign. My first hope is to become a protector, but after playing with the party few time, I know that I should drop of the protector and go with the party flow. That why I multiclass into warlock.
The reason why my character alignment CN due to he had been betrayed by his own allies, now he is full with anxiety toward society. He wander the world alone with no one to trust. One day he almost die, but someone save him. The person told him that, "there a lot of good people out there, you just need to give a chance". So he pledge an Oath to conquer his fear and gain back trust to society.
He is neither good or evil, with the certain trigger he might become good OR evil in the future game. He is a little bit chaotic, since he is new with the paladin things.
That is not a typical interpretation of the oath of a conquest paladin. It also feels more lawful than chaotic.
Every session I play, I never once forget about the paladin code. Once, I was keep quite and the DM still give me warning.
You keep saying things that do not fit, somehow. English does not seem your first language. What do you understand the oath of a conquest paladin to be? Also, although less important, what do you consider CN to be?
Most of the time only he only warn me about the alignment. But there was once the Rogue try to be nice and good, his tone suddenly become weird, like he is annoyed with the action. The Assassin Rogue spare the live of the man after he give us the information and the Rogue give him 5gp to get out of town, the DM said "You really doing that?" with annoyed intonation.
That might have been because the man may well have run to the guards and reported the assassin. Depending on who they were, 5gp might not have been more than a couple day's pay. They might have a family there and cannot so easily convinced to abandon them. They may simply be honest and report things. These are all possible reasons for questioning the rogue's choice that have nothing to do with alignment.
English is not my mother tongue.
I consider CN is where the character believe that they should do what ever they want to. For my PC, he always do what he want to do and try not to cross against the tenet.
The man was a drug dealer who sell drug to teenagers, we were assign to stop the drug issue no matter what.
It sounds like your table should have done a more thorough session 0 (or done one at all, if you didn't). During that session you should discuss your expectations and the DM could present his vision of how the campaign will run. One thing to definitely discuss, is alignment. Will you follow it in the world, and how strictly? It seems like, the DM is following an old school, "AD&D" style version of alignment, expecting you to strictly adhere to your alignments, not change them absent some sort of magic spell or "Helm of Alignment Change," etc. And the players appear to want to make RPed decisions in the moment, regardless of what their alignment might happen to be. Neither way is right or wrong - it's all down to how you want to play. But if the players are going with alignment as a weak descriptor and what happens in the moment trumps alignment, and the DM wants to play "alignment rules all RP," then you are in 2 different places and it is not going to work out.
It sounds like the whole table needs to have a talk about just what you want to do regarding alignment and how you want to interpret it, and you need to understand that if the DM won't budge, then you either need to bow to his choices or leave the game.
We do have session 0, but not that thorough.
I remember the session 0, where the DM said "You don't need to put in your alignment, feel free to play any alignment and change it while based on how the campaign goes".
We are not close friend IRL, just stick with him until the end of this month only.
I have always found that LG is a challenging alignment to play because you have to think about your actions more. CN is easy mode and boring as you just do what ever is easiest most of the time.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No! The DM is just saying paladins have a very strict alignment code to follow and if you violate it you’ll lose your Paladin status. He’s afraid cause you’re a warlock now you’ll forget about the Paladin code.
Playing a multiclassed Paladin/warlock is tough but it can be done.
Dw. The DM’s not out to get you 😊. Don’t suicide your character.
I was more referencing the old 2nd Edition rules, and meant that if all a paladin could ever be was LG, it can get boring after a while. (By "it" I mean forced LG paladins, not LG in general) I'm glad they went away from the stereotypical Paladin and allowed for different style oaths and alignments.
I like the change in alignment requirements, but I also like how the Oaths create restrictions that fit certain themes. If you really want that old school LG Paladin, Oath of Devotion fits that theme perfectly for example.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The problem with this particular issue that the OP has is that the DM is forcing all paladins to be LG. In 5e, alignments aren't as big a part of the game as they used to be. And old school paladins from previous editions (which the OP's DM appears to be stuck on) were even more restrictive than "just" LG. They were the most rigidly LG of any LG character. In other words, they were the "stereotypical" LG. As it relates to this particular issue, I am willing to bet that this particular DM will only allow the most black and white, stereotypical, cookie cutter paladin. Which, over time, would be boring. Not in a single campaign, but across multiple campaigns. Imagine playing in multiple campaigns or adventures, and the only thing that is "allowed" to be different about the 2 or 3 paladins you chose to play is their names, backstories, and equipment.
I totally agree with you, btw, that LG can be played in a ton of different ways. And yes, I am totally guessing that the DM would be that rigid, but the limited info we've seen makes me think it's a decent guess.
I agree that, as the rules are written, this is true. However, as a practical matter, how big a part of the game alignment is really rests with the DM. If this DM in particular wants to make them a big deal, that's up to him. For instance, I'm not quite as strict as old school but I use them to a greater degree than the 5e book implies. That's up to me, as DM. And, of course, up to the players, who would have to tell me if they have a problem with that (no one has).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd bet money that the DM is only "alignment checking" the Paladin. ShadowJoker767, has the DM ever brought up alignment to any other player?
I’d like to hear from this DM in this thread rather than everyone sandbagging him on hearsay.
At the beginning, I want to play a character that change alignment from CN to any other alignment depend on the campaign. My first hope is to become a protector, but after playing with the party few time, I know that I should drop of the protector and go with the party flow. That why I multiclass into warlock.
The reason why my character alignment CN due to he had been betrayed by his own allies, now he is full with anxiety toward society. He wander the world alone with no one to trust. One day he almost die, but someone save him. The person told him that, "there a lot of good people out there, you just need to give a chance". So he pledge an Oath to conquer his fear and gain back trust to society.
He is neither good or evil, with the certain trigger he might become good OR evil in the future game. He is a little bit chaotic, since he is new with the paladin things.
Every session I play, I never once forget about the paladin code. Once, I was keep quite and the DM still give me warning.
Most of the time only he only warn me about the alignment. But there was once the Rogue try to be nice and good, his tone suddenly become weird, like he is annoyed with the action. The Assassin Rogue spare the live of the man after he give us the information and the Rogue give him 5gp to get out of town, the DM said "You really doing that?" with annoyed intonation.
It sounds like your table should have done a more thorough session 0 (or done one at all, if you didn't). During that session you should discuss your expectations and the DM could present his vision of how the campaign will run. One thing to definitely discuss, is alignment. Will you follow it in the world, and how strictly? It seems like, the DM is following an old school, "AD&D" style version of alignment, expecting you to strictly adhere to your alignments, not change them absent some sort of magic spell or "Helm of Alignment Change," etc. And the players appear to want to make RPed decisions in the moment, regardless of what their alignment might happen to be. Neither way is right or wrong - it's all down to how you want to play. But if the players are going with alignment as a weak descriptor and what happens in the moment trumps alignment, and the DM wants to play "alignment rules all RP," then you are in 2 different places and it is not going to work out.
It sounds like the whole table needs to have a talk about just what you want to do regarding alignment and how you want to interpret it, and you need to understand that if the DM won't budge, then you either need to bow to his choices or leave the game.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
English is not my mother tongue.
I consider CN is where the character believe that they should do what ever they want to.
For my PC, he always do what he want to do and try not to cross against the tenet.
The man was a drug dealer who sell drug to teenagers, we were assign to stop the drug issue no matter what.
We do have session 0, but not that thorough.
I remember the session 0, where the DM said "You don't need to put in your alignment, feel free to play any alignment and change it while based on how the campaign goes".
I don't want to drag this thread for long, I already get my answer. Thank you for the advice and opinion, I really appreciate it
This month will be the last month I will play with that DM.