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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6316757" data-attributes="member: 42582">My own view is that, for the paladin to work in this sort of situation, it has to be open to the player of the paladin to prove, in play, that the world is not a "grimdark" one, and hence that the paladin's direct and open tactics are not suboptimal.This requires the GM to be open to and receptive of player contributions to the campaign. And where there are multiple agendas among the players, they have to be willing to compromise, or perhaps to lose out in the contest to impress the players' wills upon the campaign world.I was referring to the bits where you say that you don't mind alignment rules, and that part of your reason for liking flexible paladins is that the D&D alignment framework doesn't make it feasible to proclaim LG as a uniquely superior alignment.I completely agree with your reasoning here, but I push it the other way: because I want it to be viable for the player of the paladin to push the line that his/her god and outlook are uniquely superior, I prefer to drop the alignment framework which (if it is in place) makes that unfeasible.Who said that "nothing" is the answer?But some relevant questions include: (i) why are paladins any different in this respect from clerics? (ii) why are paladins and/or clerics any different in this respect from a fighter or a rogue who has sworn an oath? And, most importantly, if the player believes that his/her PC is not failing to live by those standards, why does the GM need the power of override?</blockquote>

Verification