Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7818855" data-attributes="member: 22779">He did fail though.&nbsp; The NPC got eaten.&nbsp; The NPC was in his protection and he failed to protect the NPC.&nbsp; Failing =/= breaking your oath.&nbsp; For you, though, apparently, any failure must be a violation of the paladin's oath.&nbsp; Therefore, in your games, the paladin can never fail.&nbsp; You will never allow the paladin to fail, since that would violate the paladin's oath, and you apparently don't want to do that.&nbsp; The examples of what you would do - maybe the dragon was actually a gold dragon and was &quot;testing&quot; the paladin - bear that out.&nbsp; None of your examples end with the NPC eaten.&nbsp; Therefore, by the examples you've given, the paladin can never actually fail.&nbsp; For me, failure is FAR more interesting.&nbsp; What we do when faith is tested is far more interesting than constantly succeeding at everything because we've been &quot;chosen by the gods&quot; or some such thing.&nbsp; Hey, that's what you want to do, that's fine.&nbsp; Cool.&nbsp; Groovy.&nbsp; But, you've made some pretty broad statements - Conanesque games don't work with paladins, for example - when I'm demonstrating exactly how they DO work and, for me at least, are far more interesting.&nbsp; See, because there is no way out, it's a no win situation, there was no willingness on the part of the paladin.&nbsp; He was forced into it.&nbsp; So, to me, no, it's not dumbing down.&nbsp; It's taking a pretty healthy moral view of a paladin's oath and then incorporating it into the game without taking a big old dump on the player's character or getting out the magic fudge eraser and changing the scenario so that it's rigged to let the paladin win.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7818855, member: 22779"] He did fail though. The NPC got eaten. The NPC was in his protection and he failed to protect the NPC. Failing =/= breaking your oath. For you, though, apparently, any failure must be a violation of the paladin's oath. Therefore, in your games, the paladin can never fail. You will never allow the paladin to fail, since that would violate the paladin's oath, and you apparently don't want to do that. The examples of what you would do - maybe the dragon was actually a gold dragon and was "testing" the paladin - bear that out. None of your examples end with the NPC eaten. Therefore, by the examples you've given, the paladin can never actually fail. For me, failure is FAR more interesting. What we do when faith is tested is far more interesting than constantly succeeding at everything because we've been "chosen by the gods" or some such thing. Hey, that's what you want to do, that's fine. Cool. Groovy. But, you've made some pretty broad statements - Conanesque games don't work with paladins, for example - when I'm demonstrating exactly how they DO work and, for me at least, are far more interesting. See, because there is no way out, it's a no win situation, there was no willingness on the part of the paladin. He was forced into it. So, to me, no, it's not dumbing down. It's taking a pretty healthy moral view of a paladin's oath and then incorporating it into the game without taking a big old dump on the player's character or getting out the magic fudge eraser and changing the scenario so that it's rigged to let the paladin win. [/QUOTE]

Verification