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="Felon" data-source="post: 3291893" data-attributes="member: 8158">Well, let's take a look here:"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."I suppose the notion of "acting with honor" might preclude using a ranged weapon against an opponent specifically because said opponent lacked the ability to retaliate in kind, thus making for an easy kill. But to be quite frank, it's pretty obtuse to apply this rationale as an absolute. If goblins are rading a village and attacking noncombatants, shooting them down with a bow seems a lot better way of protecting innocents than clomping around in plate mail attacking one at a time. OTOH, if the paladin jumps on his warhorse and starts trampling the little buggers to death, that works pretty darn well, but mowing down three-foot-tall guys from the comfort of your medieval John Deer is hardly any more fair or honorable than shooting them with a bow--and yet, I suspect fewer DM's would object to that simply because it's a cool visual. It's way more "in-your-face" than using a bow.As with most judgments of character, it's far more wise to look at patterns of behavior than applying some unilateral rule to every situation.Says who? Sorry, you're just pulling that outta your ear.</blockquote>

Verification