Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2333392" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well put.&nbsp; Yes, a cleric does not need to be LG.&nbsp; However, that's never been the point.&nbsp; The point was a LG cleric is under just as many restrictions as a paladin.&nbsp; The fact that a LG cleric HAS a code of conduct handed down to him from on high means pretty much the same as the paly's code.&nbsp; In both cases, if the character grossly violates that code, they lose their powers.&nbsp; If the LG cleric commits an evil act, that would generally constitute a gross violation of his code and thus would strip him of his abilities.&nbsp; Pretty much in an identical way to a paladin.I do agree with Rocco that a number of paly's get very loosely played.&nbsp; That's true.&nbsp; And I also agree that paly players tend to get steamrolled by DM's who have the Arthurian Knight stamped across their forehead when it comes to paladins.&nbsp; ((On a side note, I've gotten slapped with that one.&nbsp; Despite spending much time creating a code for a paladin for a DM, we still constantly argued over things and I eventually retired the character as unplayable with that DM))&nbsp; However, the idea that only Paladins have to adhere to a code is ludicrous.&nbsp; The fact that the divine casters need to Atone to get their abilities back (Druids too need to atone - gotta revere nature, can't lose the neutral aspect of their alignment) means that their code is handed to them from somewhere - either some sort of philosophy or a diety, take your pick.&nbsp; Yes, the code for a CE cleric of Spam would be different than a LG cleric's code, but it would still exist.&nbsp; IMVHO, there are far more healing battery clerics wandering around who have never once questioned any of the party's actions than poorly played paladins.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2333392, member: 22779"] Well put. Yes, a cleric does not need to be LG. However, that's never been the point. The point was a LG cleric is under just as many restrictions as a paladin. The fact that a LG cleric HAS a code of conduct handed down to him from on high means pretty much the same as the paly's code. In both cases, if the character grossly violates that code, they lose their powers. If the LG cleric commits an evil act, that would generally constitute a gross violation of his code and thus would strip him of his abilities. Pretty much in an identical way to a paladin. I do agree with Rocco that a number of paly's get very loosely played. That's true. And I also agree that paly players tend to get steamrolled by DM's who have the Arthurian Knight stamped across their forehead when it comes to paladins. ((On a side note, I've gotten slapped with that one. Despite spending much time creating a code for a paladin for a DM, we still constantly argued over things and I eventually retired the character as unplayable with that DM)) However, the idea that only Paladins have to adhere to a code is ludicrous. The fact that the divine casters need to Atone to get their abilities back (Druids too need to atone - gotta revere nature, can't lose the neutral aspect of their alignment) means that their code is handed to them from somewhere - either some sort of philosophy or a diety, take your pick. Yes, the code for a CE cleric of Spam would be [i]different[/i] than a LG cleric's code, but it would still exist. IMVHO, there are far more healing battery clerics wandering around who have never once questioned any of the party's actions than poorly played paladins. [/QUOTE]

Verification