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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3201589" data-attributes="member: 30001">Yea, like I said, 33% of the clerics are LE.  I think the point of what I have to say doesn't change if you change it to 20%, the point being that a paladin of Wee Jas theoretically associates with LE.Well it seems obvious to me that a paladin is willingly associating with Lawful Evil beings simply by being a member of the faith of Wee Jas.  Now you might say "well, no, he doesn't have to talk to a LE cleric" which is sort of like me playing a paladin in your campaign, getting a cohort and having HIM do all of the talking for me when I join an evil party.  I think that still counts as associating with evil.  So I think it's pretty safe to say that the paladin is associating with LE by virtue of belonging to the same organization.  Otherwise, what would the paladin do if he observed a LE cleric being attacked?  The typical reaction would be to intervene on behalf of his fellow church member, but hopefully you can see the potential problems with that.  And he's certainly associating at that point.By the way - consider the possibility that the "association" rule for paladins and the "three alignment" idea for clerics came from *two entirely seperate sources* in the DnD rules, and were never designed to be compatible.  I think it's possible that the 3E designers just never realized the problem with it.I completely agree - I'm talking about the "rules for clerics in DnD" as you say.  I'm not saying that it's not the rules - I'm saying that something isn't right - either the cleric and paladin rules are incompatible, or very strange things are happening in the fantasy world they are trying to describe.  Though I realize, as I often say, that the DnD rules are not designed to be "simulationist".  The alignment/cleric alignment system is probably one of the worse aspects in this regard.</blockquote>

Verification