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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4004300" data-attributes="member: 3424">My view is perhaps a cop-out compromise position. I believe that it is not necessary for paladins to have to lose their abilities and atone. In fact, if both the player and the DM think that doing so is a needless complication, they should just ensure that moral issues don't crop up in the game, or consider an alternate concept for the paladin as a character who has to promote good instead of avoid evil. However, I also believe that if the player and DM want to be able to play out a paladin's fall from grace and (possibly) redemption, there should be rules for that.As for the train question, it is a dilemma because it forces a choice between two basic moral principles: do no evil, and act to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. It works as a theoretical construct, but in the real world, true heroes often try to find a third option, and in games, they occasionally succeed. Unless the DM is determined to stack the deck against them, of course. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I personally would have no problems with playing a perfect virtuous hero, even if some would consider him implausible or a dull, robotic caricature. In fact, I think I would rather enjoy it, if I had the right DM, of course. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification