Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1606602" data-attributes="member: 17296">Oh yea, it's really his idea. Not that of the character's. It's as if the characters actual motivations don't matter, only the character's actions. And, I agree, that shows a lack of ability on the part of the GM. For that matter, in the same campaign with the same GM... The paladin lost an exhalted feat because members of his party (not him) were in a skermish wherein they performed an action that THEY believed to be good but did have some bad consequenses (an innocent was killied). The paladin wasn't actually able to affect the fight in any way, and wasn't even in the room at the time. The characters involved in the fight were firmly convinced that this was an enemy that needed killing... and yet.Now, as to which he should do.Both are really nearly equal, and depend on the person's own personal beliefs and motivations. Saving the town would be a good thing to do, there's always a chance that the army can be defeated later, and this is saving the most innocent lives NOW. A paladin (or any good character) with lesser wisdom, or less stratigic knowledge of the situation would be more likely to choose this path. Becuase the character would be less certain that this is the only opportunity to take out the army as a whole.Allowing the town to be slaughtered in order to take the opportunity to destroy the army entirely would also be good, and more tactical, more wise. Because if the army isn't taken down then it could always take out the town later... On the other hand, it would be best to not only take this course of action, but to also send a runner out to the town to get them to evacuate, and then help with rebuilding later. But not everything is always thought of, and there could be some reason why this isn't an option, etc...He'd still be lawful good either way. A lot depends on his motives, and I personally do think that a good person can do some "evil" and remain good, although an alignment restricted character should be held to a slightly higher standard. Allowing the town to be killed could be a minorly evil action, but not enough to remove any paladin abilities... depending on the character's thought process. If the character didn't really think of the town at all, that's a very minor mark against him. But only minor. The character should have at least attempted (alghough a cursory attempt, or a failed attempt would be fine) to think of something to save the people, or anguished a bit, or something. If the paladin was actually glad that the town were there as a diversion, then that would be an actual evil thought, and might even warrant some small reprimand, although I wouldn't say a loss of paladin power. Likely a phrophetic dream/nightmare showing the suffering of the pesants, followed with a revelation of things that the character COULD have done (Even possibly with revelations of things the character couldn't have done, but could have considered and didn't, and therefore is a little guilty for not having even tried...).</blockquote>

Verification