Can paladins suspend Divine Health and Aura of Protection?

[Mastikator]

Divine Health
By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease.

Aura of Protection
Starting at 6th level, whenever you or a friendly creature within 10 feet of you must make a saving throw, the creature gains a bonus to the saving throw equal to your Charisma modifier (with a minimum bonus of +1). You must be conscious to grant this bonus.
At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.

Could a paladin suspend these benefits by choice. Let's say hypothetically they want to become diseased, can they choose to turn off these class effects long enough for the disease run its course if you wanted it to?

[CheddarChampion]

RAW, no for Divine Health.

For Aura of Protection, RAW the paladin can't turn it off for themselves unless they make themselves unconscious. For non-self targets, I think the paladin may determine who counts as friendly.

[NecessaryWeevil]

For Aura of Protection, RAW the paladin can't turn it off for themselves unless they make themselves unconscious. For non-self targets, I think the paladin may determine who counts as friendly.

Given that the text states, "You or a friendly creature," on what basis are you making this distinction between the paladin and others?

[MoiMagnus]

Given that the text states, "You or a friendly creature," on what basis are you making this distinction between the paladin and others?

Everybody which is either "you or a friendly creature" is affected.

The difference is that "you" is an objective descriptor (you cannot chose to not be yourself), so you will always be affected.

While "friendly creature" is a subjective descriptor (you might consider as friendly someone who doesn't consider themselves as friendly to you, like an imposter, or at the contrary you might not consider as friendly someone who think you do). So if you don't want to affect someone, you can just consider them as hostile to you, and they are no longer affected.

Note that whether or not you can willingly consider as "not-friendly" for the sake of this effect someone you still honestly believe to be friendly to you is much more dubious.

[Kane0]

I usually allow a PC to suppress any passive benefits they may have, its just so rare they might want to.

[quindraco]

Everybody which is either "you or a friendly creature" is affected.

The difference is that "you" is an objective descriptor (you cannot chose to not be yourself), so you will always be affected.

While "friendly creature" is a subjective descriptor (you might consider as friendly someone who doesn't consider themselves as friendly to you, like an imposter, or at the contrary you might not consider as friendly someone who think you do). So if you don't want to affect someone, you can just consider them as hostile to you, and they are no longer affected.

Note that whether or not you can willingly consider as "not-friendly" for the sake of this effect someone you still honestly believe to be friendly to you is much more dubious.

RAW, the aura isn't interpretation based; it's omniscient, in much the same way OAs make all creatures omnisicient. 5E is full of abilities that seemingly grant you the ability to just know if a target is friendly or hostile. I don't like that mechanic in any context, but it's the way the rules are written.

[Guy Lombard-O]

RAW, the aura isn't interpretation based; it's omniscient, in much the same way OAs make all creatures omnisicient. 5E is full of abilities that seemingly grant you the ability to just know if a target is friendly or hostile. I don't like that mechanic in any context, but it's the way the rules are written.

Not that I'm actively disagreeing with you, because I honestly don't know the answer (I'd have thought it was the paladin PC's subjective opinion about who was a "freindly" or not). But when you say it's RAW, could you please cite your source in the written books? I'd be glad to have that definitive answer.

Thanks!

[MoiMagnus]

I've found some guidelines for it in the DMG p185 (and there is more about it p244)


In general terms, an NPC’s attitude toward you is described as friendly, indifferent, or hostile. Friendly NPCs are predisposed to help you, and hostile ones are inclined to get in your way.

So friendly/indifferent/hostile is, as far as GM guidelines goes (which is a weak form of RAW), is called the creature's attitude, so something that IMO relates to something that can be observed (you can take an attitude that doesn't reflect your true feelings). However, other paragraphs are quite confusing as they say that it is also about whether or not the creature wants to help or hinder the heroes, so factors the intention.

It seems to be a mess.

[Kane0]

I've found some guidelines for it in the DMG p185 (and there is more about it p244)



So friendly/indifferent/hostile is, as far as GM guidelines goes (which is a weak form of RAW), is called the creature's attitude, so something that IMO relates to something that can be observed (you can take an attitude that doesn't reflect your true feelings). However, other paragraphs are quite confusing as they say that it is also about whether or not the creature wants to help or hinder the heroes, so factors the intention.

It seems to be a mess.

Yeah there appears to be a difference between friendly/hostile in a combat sense and friendly/hostile in a social sense.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I usually allow a PC to suppress any passive benefits they may have, its just so rare they might want to.
This. If it makes sense and won't break things, it should be allowed on that basis; if not, no amount of ruless lawyering should make a difference.