Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4942486" data-attributes="member: 22424">True that.Fair enough.Other than a couple of nit-picky little things, I don't really have any disagreement with you there.I do still have a problem with the character being characterised as Paladins (particularly Ehud, less so David), but that's perhaps because I interpret the law as stated in Leviticus/Deuteronomy rather differently than perhaps many do.I guess that means I lean more towards the &quot;NT-Paladins only&quot; end of the spectrum. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />True. Lancelot, certainly, was a Paladin who fell. Indeed, he may be the foundation of the archetype.Quite. It's often easy to see the &quot;right thing to do&quot; in the big, obvious examples. It's in the difficult corner cases that the situation gets muddy. And, IMO, it's there that the whole area gets most interesting. That's also where alignment mechanics get most interesting. Of course, those are also the areas that generate the arguments.I don't necessarily have a problem not giving the players a way to win - the Kobayashi Maru is a scenario that conceivably could appear in my campaign - but if I did place the PCs in such a position, I wouldn't strip the Paladin of his status as a result of his actions, almost regardless of the choices that he made. I'm willing to screw my PCs over... but only so far. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 4942486, member: 22424"] True that. Fair enough. Other than a couple of nit-picky little things, I don't really have any disagreement with you there. I do still have a problem with the character being characterised as Paladins (particularly Ehud, less so David), but that's perhaps because I interpret the law as stated in Leviticus/Deuteronomy rather differently than perhaps many do. I guess that means I lean more towards the "NT-Paladins only" end of the spectrum. :) True. Lancelot, certainly, was a Paladin who fell. Indeed, he may be the foundation of the archetype. Quite. It's often easy to see the "right thing to do" in the big, obvious examples. It's in the difficult corner cases that the situation gets muddy. And, IMO, it's there that the whole area gets most interesting. That's also where alignment mechanics get most interesting. Of course, those are also the areas that generate the arguments. I don't necessarily have a problem not giving the players a way to win - the Kobayashi Maru is a scenario that conceivably could appear in my campaign - but if I [i]did[/i] place the PCs in such a position, I wouldn't strip the Paladin of his status as a result of his actions, [i]almost[/i] regardless of the choices that he made. I'm willing to screw my PCs over... but only so far. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification