Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trolls" data-source="post: 5799110" data-attributes="member: 60798">That's not really fair. You're misrepresenting the best case by focusing on the worst case. People will always come up with stupid characters, but closing off GOOD ideas because of that is ridiculous.Bob: I got a cool idea for a character. DM: Sure go ahead.Bob: You the know that paladin class? The one that's all about virtue and honor and smiting evil?DM: Of course! You want to a paladin, that ok...Bob: But it doesn't have an alignment restriction, so I'd like to play with some flaws to make my character more interesting to play. I imagine him as honestly believing what he's doing is for the greater good, but being prone to zealotry in a sometimes destructive way. He's a paladin of the Silver Flame, but being subtly misled by the shadows bound in the Flame. DM: An evil paladin of the Silver Flame? Are you sure that works?Bob: I think so. He's not going to be 'eating babies' evil, obviously. Perhaps he's racist against shifters after the crusade, and is prepared to torture prisoners to get information to further the cause of goodness in his eyes.DM: I see. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with an evil character, sorry Bob.Bob: Oh I know, but I've been talking to Dave and his character is going to lead mine through a sort of redemption arc. And hey, perhaps he sees something of your villain in himself and sees the error in his ways.DM: That sounds like it could work!What's wrong with that? It doesn't matter if it's not something you'd want in your game. What you seem to be proposing is that it shouldn't be allowed in any game. Or rather, printing an extra rule that forbids it without intervention.EDIT: I'd really love to keep talking about this, but it's far too late this side of the pond! I'll be back tomorrow!</blockquote>

Verification