Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 2723914" data-attributes="member: 8439">That would be your interpretation.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> I'm of mixed minds on being tricked into 'sin' as it were. I think a lot depends on the nature of the campaign and the conception of the paladin. There's definitly mythological support for divine retribution for mistaken actions. Abraham kept getting cities struck with plagues by lying about his marriage, Helen was held responsible for starting the trojian war in spite of being essentially under a love spell, the arthurian fall mentioned earlier.... Also, there's the idea of "spiritual cleanliness". Striking down an innocent could be seen to leave a spiritual stain which interferes with the purity of soul which is the paladin's source of power. (campaign dependant thinking here obviously). It would not at all be unreasonable to expect a paladin to ritually purify himself (atonement) before again being a propper vessel for the power of good to flow through. As long as this process was relitively painless and did not require long quests or hassle, I see this as no more unfair than a PC beng poisoned and having to get a restoration spell cast or wait out the recovery.The other side obviously hinges on the interpretation of the word "willingly" and the feeling that its unfair for the paladin to suffer a temporary loss of powers based on an outside agency's actions. If this was used to "screw" the paladin, or the player simply could not get into the "ritual cleanliness" mode, I'd see it as a bad thing for the game.</blockquote>

Verification