jgbrowning
Hero
Herpes Cineplex said:Hm. Maybe the GM should have given the rapist a Spot and a Listen roll to notice the clanking, armor-clad, sword-toting paladin following him. I bet the DC would have been something like 3. Even this 1st-level commoner NPC could have passed it with flying colors.
...oh, but then this whole little morality play wouldn't have happened in the first place, because the rapist wouldn't have let the paladin catch him in the act. You know, I think that's good for another point on the "kick-the-paladin" scoreboard for this scenario.
One of the reasons I don't like paladins, beyond the arguements they spawn, is that once a situation occurs that creates an arguement, someone invarably accusses the DM of "kick-the-paladin" or some such.
That in and of it self, the idea that in every game, every situation should be solvable using a very rigid code of behavior or else the GM has it out for the player really gets my goat. It's another example of how poor game design (linking abilities to Role-Playing Aspects *in particular Alignment*) causes unending headaches over the paladin.
I don't think that every encounter must be solvable without breaking a paladin's code just because a paladin is part of a group especially when, when a paladin isn't part of a group, such requirements aren't necessary.
In otherwords, I'll play devils advocate since I've heard this arguement many times before. Why should I, as a DM, change the universe for all the other players because one player wants to play a character which prevents a broader type of role-playing because of alignment/personal code requirements and because the player also wants to be able to advance in levels and stay alive, regardless of what said code may actually require in the way of action according to situation?
joe b.
Last edited: