Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7820364" data-attributes="member: 53980">Your argument is quite intelligent. That said, unless your table consists of theologians and moral philosophers who have agreed to this concept, it may be a touch excessive for a game.I have little doubt that some of the guys I game with would have trouble wrapping their heads around this concept (or would simply flat-out refuse to agree with it). I'm not going to tell them that they cannot play a paladin because of that, nor am I inclined to punish them for playing their paladin "wrong" with respect to this. The PHB outlines fairly clear guidelines for them to follow, and rules for what happens when they don't. It also explicitly calls out that willfulness is pertinent. What we've been discussing is what does and does not constitute such.I think that it is important to keep in mind that this is a game people play (for fun, among other reasons). If the way a table handles a paladin's oaths run contrary to that end, then the table's approach may require reexamination. Otherwise, all you're doing is imposing a soft ban on paladins and frustrating the players who do attempt to play them. To me, that's the opposite of fun and therefore contrary to the purpose of the game. Of course, not everything has to be fun all the time. There is space within the conception of fun for loss and death (no risk, no reward). However, as I see it, this differs from something like the risk of failure. It would be as if, because you want magic to be dangerous, every time a magic user casts a spell they need to make a saving throw versus death. Why offer an option just to render it effectively unplayable?Another option, of course, is to never place the paladin in a situation where there is real risk of failure to live up to their oaths. If it seems like the paladin is in a no-win situation, all they need do is stick to their principles and their deity will reward them with a pillar of flame from the sky, or whatever. To me, this is not a good option because I dislike deus ex machina solutions, and because as soon as the players pick up on this, the paladin can never fail. It results in a paladin who upholds his oaths because doing so assures success, which is not the way it should be in my opinion.Of course, play as you will. This is merely my own perspective on the matter.</blockquote>

Verification