Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8871783" data-attributes="member: 6915329">In all fairness, having such strict rules about something like a paladin falling forces a particular chain of events to occur, without allowing the DM to say "well, in my world, what actually happens is X." Which is fine if your system and setting are tied, but are less cool for a generic system like D&D (well, generic in the sense that you're encouraged to make your own setting, not generic in the sense of using these rules with any genre). 2e was still riding on the coattails of Gygax's ideals of what real D&D was, even if unconsciously.What they should have done is given a list of preferred options. You break your vows, you (a) become an Oathbreaker (or a Redemption paladin, depending on circumstances); (b) become a Champion fighter of equal level; or (c) can no longer take paladin levels but don't lose what you currently have. Any of those are fine; it's up to the DM and player to decide which one makes the most sense for the character and setting.</blockquote>