Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9369967" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Um... that is absolutely not a problem? This is in fact the only possible way Paladins can exist and move forward? Like, okay, you could include punishments for the player who doesn't follow whatever they say their oath is... but you immediately run into the problem of the Paladin PLayer and the DM disagree with an interpretation. Which is fine if it is not mechanical, because unless it is REALLY egregious then a disagreement won't really go anywhere. But once it is mechanical, the paladin and the DM have an end point beyond debating morality. Penalties for the player, enforced by the GM. And that was where the old paladins broke down.IF you want a paladin who does those things, make them. But I don't want a paladin that is going to tell me that I must be against "lust" and that they poorly define to make all sexuality bad. Or falling into the trap of "pride" and how THAT is such a mess. Or why in the absolute HECK would I want a paladin even touching the idea of forbidden love or worldliness? And the more you make these into mechanics that cannot be altered, the more you will inevitably start enforcing morality and cultural standards. Which is the WORST possible way to go forward.</blockquote>