Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7822749" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Let me make it clear then.  I'm only talking about scenarios where the DM has set up a challenge such that the player playing his conception of his lawful good character would require him to play lawful stupid.There are 2 solutions.1.  The player could have chosen to play a different character2.  The DM could choose a different challengeIMO Since the DM permitted the character in the game in the first place then the onus is on him to choose a different challenge - unless the player knew full well that the DM would challenge character in said ways and the player still made the choice to play the characterThe rest of this paragraph is you talking past me because it really doesn't matter that there are other conceptions of lawful good - we are talking about a particular lawful good concept that can be placed in no-win situations - which ironically is every kind of lawful good concept except the pragmatic - greatest good for greatest number type (which many would question if that should be counted as a lawful good character in the first place).This side conversation isn't about oath breaking.  It's about whose to blame for lawful stupid.  My take is that non-pragmatic concepts of lawful good exist and should be playable in the D&D universe without them resulting in lawful stupid.  There's a simple way to do that and it's to challenge them with 1 of 10,000 other things that the DM has at his disposal to challenge.  It's not that a smart intelligent villain can't challenge him with that, it's that he has chosen to challenge him with something else entirely.  There's no loss of fidelity or realism or whatever you want to call it with this approach.  The only thing you as the DM has to do is be a little creative and come up with something else the villain decides to challenge the party with.A lawful good wizard plays the same as a lawful good Paladin.  The only difference is a wizard won't lose his powers for abandoning his principles because following them would be costly.  At the end of the day though, if a lawful good paladin would do something to uphold his principles to cost his life then a lawful good wizard would as well.  It's not about punishment for abandoning your principles.  It's about the punishment when you follow them.</blockquote>

Verification