Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4076786" data-attributes="member: 51942">That's a good call.&nbsp; I think it's possible to play a campaign in which Paladins are bound in a very literal sense; it's not easy and often arbitrary.&nbsp; It's easier to bind em to the concept of protecting the innocent - and what exactly that might mean, will depends on the details of the paladin's faith.&nbsp; Ideally, the player would have the majority of the say in the detailing of such aspects of his faith, unless the faith is preexisting and it's dealings with innocent babies have actually had an in-game impact.So, in my idea of a paladin, he'd be being irresponsible at the least by letting the beast out of his sight, and potentially obliged to destroy the egg (and thereby choosing for the more certain and greater good of the many innocent the chimera would likely kill) - but if a player were to play a paladin, and he wishes a more literal, spur-of-the-moment oath, that's fine with me too</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4076786, member: 51942"] That's a good call. I think it's possible to play a campaign in which Paladins are bound in a very literal sense; it's not easy and often arbitrary. It's easier to bind em to the concept of protecting the innocent - and what exactly that might mean, will depends on the details of the paladin's faith. Ideally, the player would have the majority of the say in the detailing of such aspects of his faith, unless the faith is preexisting and it's dealings with innocent babies have actually had an in-game impact. So, in my idea of a paladin, he'd be being irresponsible at the least by letting the beast out of his sight, and potentially obliged to destroy the egg (and thereby choosing for the more certain and greater good of the many innocent the chimera would likely kill) - but if a player were to play a paladin, and he wishes a more literal, spur-of-the-moment oath, that's fine with me too [/QUOTE]

Verification