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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kevmann10583" data-source="post: 947450" data-attributes="member: 12506">RigaMortus, thank you so much, out of everyone here, I think you realy know how to play a paladin the best. Actualy, if you read the atonements spell:"Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class feature due to unwillingly or unwittingly committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell."So you can see, the spell states that a paladin can lose thier class feature due to unwillingly or unwittingly committing an evil act, and dominate person fits in this catagory I think.But everything else is true, thank you for re-stating the bread situation, I think you did it best, I was in a hurry and did not pust as much thought into it as I should have.I think intent is very important, but the ends does not justify the means.  I think these two rules mixed together is a good rule.Your artifact situation is a good one, and I think the paladin should lie in that retrospect.  But I still belive he would be forfiet his powers, mabie not, I realy don't know, but in EXTREME cases like this one I, as a DM, might let a lie slide, or at least make it so they just have to pray for atonement instead of actualy reaciving the spell.reapersaurus, I think your right, but it is not the DMs or players fault, it is Wizard of the COast.  They may do this in 3.5, but they need to describe the paladin and his code in much greater detail then they did in 3.0.  WIth a good description, most of these arguments can be cleared up!</blockquote>

Verification