Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 4004513" data-attributes="member: 198">I was going to go with the paladin not pushing anyone under the train but making sure the train company pays for the Raise Deads for the people killed. This is D&D after all, right?As for the OP's question, the answer is pretty simple for me. The paladin in the campaign should be one which both DM and player find interesting & fun to have in the game. If that's a paladin who is doomed to fall, fine. If that's a paladin who has absolutely no fear of falling, that's fine too. And it's also perfectly fine to have two completely divergent, maybe even antithetical, paladin concepts played as PCs in the same game. At the end of the day, the paladin is just a class in the game, which should presumably be as usable as any other. And for it to be so, you just need some agreement between DM and player(s). What the agreement is about really doesn't matter. Look at Cedric from my sig. Lots of people on ENWorld would have a heart attack if asked to let him in their game. But I played him in Rolzup's campaign since he was fine with it, and both of us enjoyed having him in the game. And that's all that matters.</blockquote>