Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3671090" data-attributes="member: 35788">Well, FWIW, I never said that the paladin would be committing an evil act.&nbsp; I did say he would be a blood-spiller in the best case scenario and on the path to darkness in the worst case scenario.Blood-spiller can be interpreted negatively, but then again, most characters made are blood-spillers.&nbsp; That's what they do in D&amp;D, most characters fight and slay things.&nbsp; Whether the spilled blood is justified or not, is situational.&nbsp; Regarding the other extreme: On the path to being a fiend would be more dire.&nbsp; For a paladin that would be a first step of breaking their code and not seeking atonement.&nbsp; But attacking a random imp found in a dungeon wouldn't automatically be this extreme, of course!However, I do understand your point.&nbsp; Most people hear the words &quot;blood-spiller&quot; and assume a negative context.&nbsp; But in D&amp;D, it's really just saying that the character is normal.As to the wandering monster slaying, to me it would be campaign dependant.&nbsp; In most campaigns I am involved in I personally would raise an eyebrow if anyone simply slays anything just for the sake of killing it.&nbsp; If the party is threatened or attacked, then of course they can respond!&nbsp; I have run a few campaigns where the goal was to advance without ever killing a foe at all.&nbsp; But those campaigns are rare and I admit it.EDIT:[Sblock=For Fenris, Sblocked to avoid hijacking the thread]Long time no-see, Fenris!&nbsp; Totally an aside, of course, but good to see you around![/Sblock]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nonlethal Force, post: 3671090, member: 35788"] Well, FWIW, I never said that the paladin would be committing an evil act. I did say he would be a blood-spiller in the best case scenario and on the path to darkness in the worst case scenario. Blood-spiller can be interpreted negatively, but then again, most characters made are blood-spillers. That's what they do in D&D, most characters fight and slay things. Whether the spilled blood is justified or not, is situational. Regarding the other extreme: On the path to being a fiend would be more dire. For a paladin that would be a first step of breaking their code and not seeking atonement. But attacking a random imp found in a dungeon wouldn't automatically be this extreme, of course! However, I do understand your point. Most people hear the words "blood-spiller" and assume a negative context. But in D&D, it's really just saying that the character is normal. As to the wandering monster slaying, to me it would be campaign dependant. In most campaigns I am involved in I personally would raise an eyebrow if anyone simply slays anything just for the sake of killing it. If the party is threatened or attacked, then of course they can respond! I have run a few campaigns where the goal was to advance without ever killing a foe at all. But those campaigns are rare and I admit it. EDIT: [Sblock=For Fenris, Sblocked to avoid hijacking the thread]Long time no-see, Fenris! Totally an aside, of course, but good to see you around![/Sblock] [/QUOTE]

Verification