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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1916844" data-attributes="member: 7240">No. Because the rogue is still a rogue after he hits the zombie. Operationally, the paladin is no longer a paladin after he turns evil. Similarly, a druid is no longer a druid if his alignment changes to chaotic good, for instance. I am not arguing that the smite evil ability proscribes a paladin from attacking neutral creatures. But I am arguing that the alignment requirement for the class functions to proscribe the paladin from becoming evil. See the difference? To argue that a special class ability not applying universally to all situations is somehow equivalent to losing every single ability associated with the class if a certain threshold is crossed is not tenable here.Note that I am talking about the operational functioning of a rule. Evidence shows that the operational function of a paladin's alignment requirement does actually proscribe certain behaviours.On an operational level, it is never an efficient or rational choice for a paladin to change his alignment. It is never an efficient or rational choice for a druid to change his alignment to a non-neutral one. Because it is never an efficient or rational thing to do, it is proscriptive.You cannot similarly argue that it is never rational for a ranger to attack a creature who is not a favoured enemy. There are all kinds of situations in which such an act is rational. Similarly, there are all kinds of situations in which it is rational for a rogue to attack undead creatures.I might argue that if the rule said, "a ranger loses all spells and class abilities and can no longer advance as a ranger if he attacks a creature other than his favoured enemy," that this was the case. But the ranger does not lose anything by attack a non-favoured enemy. Don't you think that's a pretty substantive difference?You see, swrushing, we are talking about the operational effects of a rule. If such a discussion is not one you actually wish to entertain, that's fine.</blockquote>

Verification