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: 6773124" data-attributes="member: 6798894">I think it very much should be a "hard rule" because there almost no campaign where this is productive. The sociopathic quality should be the exception, not the rule. If I had power I would change it to be that the class has some semblance of morality to it. If they want it to be like Batman as it seems by calling the class "dark knight", they shouldn't just take the "I am vengeance, I am the night" portion of Batman and instead give the class some of Batman's moral limitations and humanity. If the tenets included some semblance of restraint on personal action instead of motivation to ignore morality in the name of slaying your sworn foe.What? I JUST said I liked the character and I'm trying to find a way to handle the situation more specific to the character without making the consequences for his actions affect the whole party and railroad everything to him."If *I* was the player, this wouldn't happen" is not helpful advice. "Paladins can be evil now" is not helpful advice. The only frustrating thing is that that has to be reiterated over and over. If you want to defend the Oath of Vengeance paladin as a concept, fine, I'm more than willing to debate on you on that and adamantly argue that it could be far better. But the main point is that there should be more specific consequences for divine based characters like Oath of Vengeance Paladins who are described as singlemindedly motivated loners so that their zeal doesn't bog down progress in an adventure when they DO follow their tenets and do some evil stuff, especially when their class encourages it. The best suggestions so far have been role playing scenarios that drag the party in a tangent related to him getting in trouble by overstepping in his zeal.</blockquote>

Verification