Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 3670166" data-attributes="member: 63">I'm so proud, since I'm pretty sure by the details listed that I wrote the adventure Sam is running. War of the Burning Sky, right? If that's the case, I have some, ahem, suggestions for later adventures that you might want to bear in mind, since I like me my moral dilemmas, and there are quite a few of them in the campaign saga.  Every group has to come to its own consensus on what is reasonable for paladins, but in my opinion, I have to agree with . . . one of the many posters above. Whenever someone wants to play a paladin, the following should happen.Guide to Cutting Down on Needless Arguments1. The GM and player discuss what their respective views of how a paladin should behave are.2. The GM suggests what he'll be comfortable with, but as long as it sounds like the player is playing the paladin because he's interested in having a noble character, the GM promises to respect the player's interpretation of his character's code. If it sounds instead like the player wants to play a paladin to prove a point or to piss off another player (or the GM), the GM should heavily advise against such a character, the same way he would with any disruptive character.3. The GM should explain to the rest of the group, "There is not just one 'right' answer to what constitutes a proper code of honor for a paladin, so even if you disagree with his version, it's not worth arguing about outside the game. Of course, if your character would have a disagreement with the paladin in-game, go for it, but let's not have real-life bitterness over what happens in a game where we kill stuff with dice." Then, in the game, the paladin decides he has been deceived by a monster, and that letting the monster live would be emboldening evil. He attacks the monster, and the GM asks, "Do you think this is within the bounds of your paladin's code? It sounds a little dishonorable because of x, y, and z."The player says, "But a, b, and c make me think this is the right course of action." The GM says, "Okay. Go for it. Your god trusted you enough to make you a paladin, so he trusts you enough to not violate your code." Then, later, the paladin has to make a decision between accepting the bargain of a devil so it doesn't kill him and his party, or trying to fight it and probably dying. The devil's bargain requires the party to look the other way as it commits an evil act, but if they refuse and the devil manages to kill them, many might perish. The paladin bristles at the choice the devil offers, and is ready to attack, but the GM says, "This isn't the same situation as last time. Is failing your mission worth it just so you can take a swing at a monster? Remember, it's always possible to atone for associating with evil for the sake of the greater good. After atoning, you can accomplish this mission, and many people are counting on you to do so. But you can't finish the mission if you die. What do you decide?"If the player decides his character's code requires him to fight, but that the greater good requires him to agree to the devil's bargain, then take away his powers, but give him a chance to atone. He has, after all, decided what his code requires. If instead the player decides that his character's code is lenient enough to allow suffering evil to live for the sake of the greater good, then don't take away his powers.</blockquote>

Verification