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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CyanideSprite" data-source="post: 6772659" data-attributes="member: 6798894">I'm a Banana, the point isn't that a Paladin can be evil without being a Death Knight, it's that a character who claims to be good and THINKS they are absolutely good and righteous in their cause has a license to do very dubious things to get to their sworn enemy. Regardless if you think Paladins should be allowed to be evil without being something like Death Knights (and I do disagree with you on the Oath of Devotion being evil like that. That clearly goes against tenets such as helping the most and harming the least), by the Oath of Vengeance, they can do a lot of things that would normally not be good or even neutral because it fights their "sworn enemy". And outside of coming up with a variety of NPC scenarios to combat this and suddenly make the focus all around this character, there's very little to deter the character from those actions outside of the DM just saying "hey don't do that", which I try to avoid when someone is role playing a character very well and they technically aren't doing anything wrong. If he's a zealot who believes alcohol is the source of all evil and he's not going to stop at anything until every last drop of it is destroyed, then that's great. I just wish that as a Paladin, there was more in the rules to describe conductYou as a DM may want to put tighter rails on what your party is or is not, but I like to reward great role playing and that usually starts by allowing a character to be the character they imagine within the context of the written rules (hence this debate) and a little tug and pull.</blockquote>

Verification