Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 3365846" data-attributes="member: 9053">That's a highly pedantic point, but it's also one that I completely disagree with: if your character does X, bad thing Y happens to him. If bad thing Y is a social or roleplaying restriction, I'd agree with you. Since what happens is that you mechanically lose all of your class abilities, I'd call it more than a penalty.Except that this flavor restriction makes you lose all of your class abilities. However, if this also means that a player can choose to play a paladin in your game and not have a code, I suppose that would make sense.You're right: I think it's a silly rule, but it remains as a mechanical penalty. Yes, it's an extremely minor restriction, but it's still a restriction with mechanics behind it.Well, if there weren't so many threads about conflict in a campaign because of a paladin being there, I'd agree with you. As it is, if we would just take the idea that the paladin's code was (to paraphrase Pirates of the Caribbean) was more of a guideline, I'd say that nothing further needs to be said or done. As it is, we balance mechanics with mechanics, so the paladin should get something for adhering to the code. In a campaign I would run, this would be a social advantage based on their position in the society, not something like an extra feat or class abilities.Just let me add here that I'm not saying that "Paladin's got the shaft!" I'm more saying that the only way to balance mechanics is with other mechanics. --Steve</blockquote>

Verification