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: 1917085" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>So if we still call the ex-paladin a paladin, will everything be fine? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />Actually, i get it. The difference in the severity of the choices result make the difference. i even admitted from the get-go the difference in harshness.Absolutely, one is much harsher than the other. the "alignment requirement for the class" as i have already suggested, might not be appropriate for all campaigns. fortunately, the Gm can tweak classes,. An argument i did not make. The question i asked was, given your definition of proscribtive, was it proscriptive, and was specifically not "was it equivalent." if you know of someone who is arguing they are equivalent, lets see it.which, under your definition, is a whole lot different than "force" or 'disallow", right? Honestly, with the definition you are using, i think you could go a long way by dropping "proscribe" from the death grip you have on it.If you were to say, for instance, that "class alignment restrictions encourage choices in character consistent with the character's alignment and discourage choices inconsistent with the characters alignment by the threat of repercussions in character abilities", then i doubt ANYONE would argue with the point.However, while that point may be agreed with, is there any sort of PROBLEM inherent in that being true? is there somehow something wrong with the whole encourage/discourage thing resulting in a paladin being more likely to act in a good manner but still being in extremis to "make the sacrifice" if thats the story the player wants to go with?Note also that, if one doesn't cvhange the class restriction, and one relists the alignment traits, one still has "proscriptive" conditions, right?On the other hand, if one changes the class restrictions...if all decisions are based on 'efficiency" and if "proscriptive" does not mean disallowed or forbidden" but rather 'discouraged"...sure. Those are two big "ifs".However, while it may be bad news for these guys to conduct a long term series of choices that would lead to an incompatible alignment, they can certainly at various times perform acts that are not in accordance to their alingment. Paladins one evil act of course being the more severe exception. A druid can do lawful good things, he just cannot BE lawful good.But i can argue its illogical for him to consistently, over a long time, choose to keep attacking non-fave-enemy targets instead of choosing to attack fave-enemy targets. Remember, for comparison, when we compare fave enemy to alignment change we are not talking one single excpetion, but a long series of choices.and, similarly, there will likely be cases when its rational for the paladin to do chaotic acts or for the druid to do non-neutral acts. And they can.yeah, its like the difference between the paladins class restrcition for one evil act as opposed to the differences between the alignment restriction several classes have. cool. glad that would be Ok with you. After all, your permission is so important to me.[/QUOTE]

Verification