Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 945545" data-attributes="member: 158">I find this argument as nebulous as "it has always been this way." Why should everything make logical sense in a fantasy game? Are campaigns with ambiguous morals really the dominant form? It's as difficult a statement to prove as disprove. The default assumption of D&D is solid good vs. evil paradigms, and I have a strong feeling that the majority play with the default paradigm in mind.No argument there. As I said, in a polytheistic society, there are multiple sources of power, for good AND evil, so Lawful Good is not necessarily the only effective one.Here I must disagree. Joan of Arc was a girl when called, and had little battle experience, if any. The legend says she was bolstered by God to restore the Dauphin, not because she quested for the honor and proved it with skill at arms. So it goes for Percival of the Knights of the Round table. Many versions do not mention many battle experiences for him at all, and the reason he succeeded in the Grail Quest was because of his purity, not because he fought hard.The point is, some are simply CALLED. Fresh out of the Turnip fields, not fresh from the jousting field. To make the Holy Warrior concept unavailable at first level is to deny several of the legends which gave the class its origin.</blockquote>