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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3471389" data-attributes="member: 22424">Two notes:1) In the RAW there is no mechanism at all for a Paladin, Cleric or other divine caster to be denied the use of some or all of his class features (including spellcasting) short of being stripped of the class entirely. So, denying the use of the spells for a day is a House Rule, and so the assumption that no spells == loss of status was not unjustified.2) I wouldn't be walking just because the Paladin lost his status (or his spells, whatever). I would be walking because I wouldn't be comfortable playing in a game where the murder of children (of whatever not-interently-Evil race) is considered Good, or even non-Evil. I have absolutely no problem with such things being a facet of the game, and have absolutely no problem in playing in an Evil campaign, or allowing Evil PCs (in the appropriate context). I have a major problem with things that are Evil being labelled 'Good', and vice versa.True...And that's where the issue comes in. 'Truly vast majority' isn't enough to justify killing an infant of the species. If it was 'all', then maybe, but if it's just a vast majority, even of 99% you have to judge on the merits of the individual case... which in this case have to favour sparing the child. It has, as of this time, done absolutely nothing. You can't kill over something the child might do, because most of us, if we're being truly honest, have some level of outrage we can reach where we ourselves might commit murder.You also run into the problem that, if you look at statistical data from the real world, virtually every negative behaviour you care to name is more prevalent amongst specific groups, whether by religion, ethnicity or (most commonly) economic standing. So, should a poor man be judged differently by the courts than a rich man just because it is more likely the poor man stole a loaf of bread? Or should they both be judged equally, and strictly on the merits of the case?It is also worth noting that from the perspective of the English villagers they attacked, the vast majority of Vikings were bloodthirsty savages who lived to raid an attack them. Now, suppose by some circumstance a child of that people were somehow found abandonned in England. Is it acceptable then to kill the child?This I take no issue with and, in fact, agree.</blockquote>

Verification