1
\$\begingroup\$

Changing paladin's oath was closed as primarily opinion based.

It seems to me that this is possibly another case of 'homebrew prejudice'.

My answer there clearly shows that the question is answerable with RAW content. My answer also received 6 up votes and one down vote. The down vote apparently coming from a close voter.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Nitpick: I find it unwise to guess who downvotes answers and why and I really fail to see how it is relevant to the question in any case. Additionally, even if your guess is correct, just because someone might have voted to close the question doesn't mean their downvote is somehow invalid. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose May 8 '18 at 20:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rubiksmoose -- the intent was that my answer was generally accepted by not receiving a downvote until the last close vote was cast. \$\endgroup\$ – ravery May 8 '18 at 20:39
6
\$\begingroup\$

The post in question contains the following questions:

  • Are there any other rules for renouncing an oath are replacing it with another one?
  • If presented with such problem as a GM, how would you rule the situation?
  • Would he face some curse? Would he lose access to clerical spells for being irreligious or would his conviction to the Cause be enough to retain spellcasting ability? Could that warrant or require change of alignment? [In other words, what are the consequences of doing this]

First off, these are 3 separate questions and so should be asked in different questions. The third really could be subsumed into either the first or second, and a good answer to either one would explain enough to not warrant asking it anyway.

Second off, "Are there any other rules for renouncing an oath are replacing it with another one?" is a stackable question, it clearly has an answer and it can be found. Meanwhile, "If presented with such problem as a GM, how would you rule the situation?" is pretty much the definition of an opinion-based question. It's asking for opinions and is an idea-generation question.

If the question were edited to be focused on that first question then I would vote to reopen it, but as long as it has 2 questions and 1 is opinion based it should stay closed.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ ok, a reasonable explanation. I saw the second question as part of the first since the PHB and DMG do not explain switching oaths, but give explanations for breaking and atonement. \$\endgroup\$ – ravery May 8 '18 at 20:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Honestly I would expect someone to answer all three questions by answering the first, but there is a difference between someone adding extra opinion to their answer and specifically requiring opinion-based stuff. \$\endgroup\$ – GreySage May 8 '18 at 20:46
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Indeed. I have fixed and reopened the question by simply deleting everything after "are there any rules for changing oaths?". \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica May 8 '18 at 21:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .