Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1914861" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>it wont. i have every confidence in your ability to imaginatively reconstrue to produce a more assailable image of those who do not share your views.Now i will reORDER your questions to make a point. yes i know its risky but it is not being done to change what you said, but to highlight what i am saying.Yes, absolutely, 100% Matter of fact, i would suggest CHARACTER instead of paladin. This of course assumes not a character who is born a certain way like demons and such. i would also wonder, if you do disagree here, WHAT other than character choice do you derive alignment for characters on?yes. if the CONCLUSION made in context of the game and setting lead you to "is not good" then an evil or neutral result is appropriate and a change would be made. These are ONE step, ONE question. Numbered for your convenience.1 Yes. It remained such in my game. heck, one of my plotlines revolved around a defrocked in game paladin NPC regaining her faith.4. No.  thats the one!Note that, while 3 is underway, there should be ample cautions and warnings in game (signs, omens, warnings from church authorities and even temporary withholding of favors) to make sure the character is aware of his straying. (In practical terms, this insures it is a deliberate choice of the player to take his character story down this road, as opposed to a misunderstanding 'twixt player and GM as to "what good is in this world".)let me repeat that... the change in alignment is a deliberate choice made by the player by the choices he makes with the character. i find it odd to consider this implementation of the player's goal in character development a proscriptive process.Back to the paladin...I see the paladin abilites as a "you get these neat things, if you do these things so we like you" with the "we" being the god or the church. this is them granting benefits on those who share their goals. A paladin who believed in those goals would not "not be evil" because he feared losing his power, but because he believed doing evil was wrong. he doesn't do "good things" because he needs to but because he thinks doing good things is right.Its no more "proscriptive" than a rogue's ability to sneak attack (which only works if he is flanking or is surprising) is "proscriptive" against him attacking alone in the open or proscribes him from attacking undead. (Though the paladin thingy is longer term.)The character chooses to move away from the faith, so to speak, and loses or risks losing his favors. The thief decides to attack undead, he loses his main damage. In both cases, the player makes the choice to take the character down that path. Thats where he wants it to go. Of course, both these "if you..., then gain..." things are a part of the CLASS. Still not a part of alignment.This comes back to the core... the character doesn't do certain things because he is alingment so-n-so, he is alignment so-n-so because he does certain things.The reason i reordered your questions was to put them in the order they occur in practice: choices made in character, overall pattern develops long term to the point that the paladin is stripped of his powers and changes his alignment.i cannot think of a way to explain it better.[/QUOTE]

Verification