Storyteller01
First Post
Sejs said:
Big difference between killing as a last resort (the game gives no other options I take it), and killing folk who happen to be running through the area to get away from the bad guys.
Why Should It Be Hard To Be A Paladin?
- Thread starter FireLance
- Start date
Big difference between killing as a last resort (the game gives no other options I take it), and killing folk who happen to be running through the area to get away from the bad guys.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Kratos is at best Neutral, though.
Sejs
First Post
No other options, no. It's already a done deal by the time you arrive. Prevention's long since gone out the window and all your left with is the possibility of mitigation. I'm not doing the whole scenario proper justice, frankly; it was quite well put together.Storyteller01 said:
Eventually, yes. Not from this incident, though. He doesn't really go blackguard until the arc on Northrend.DM_Matt said:
PallidPatience
First Post
No. Arthas went Death Knight, which makes Blackguard look like "I kick puppies, mwa ha ha!"
Storyteller01
First Post
delericho said:
Could be less an issue of de-sensitizing and more along the lines of a lack of consequences for the actions. It's not just kids who's knee jerk reaction would be 'Kill the Child!!'. It is one of the reasons people play the game
Imagicka
Explorer
Greetings…
Should playing a paladin be more difficult than other character classes? Well, technically, I would have to say no. Because my answer is that ALL classes should be made more difficult to play.
Being an adventurer shouldn’t be an easy thing. After all, if all it required was a person to pick up a sword and go off and kill a few monsters that will net you more than few decade’s worth of wages as a cobbler, why wouldn’t you want to do that? Evidently the reward totally outweighs the risk.
The way I see it, playing a paladin, cleric, ranger, druid, or monk has the built-in hierarchical structure of having to deal with superiors within the organization you belong to. As for the other classes such as wizard, fighter, rogue (or whatever class you want to consider)… if your players aren’t aligning themselves with guilds, liege lords, and the like… then people should be pestering them into do so.
Now if you want a game where paladins are free to do what they want, as well as everyone else. Where they don’t have to answer to anyone, except for a governing deity that gives them a certain amount of their abilities… well, that’s fine.
Frank, I respectfully disagree with you. The only agreement that the players and the DM have to come to is the DM’s definition of ‘evil’ in the game. It is of course the job of the DM to make sure those ideas about the nature of evil in your game is conveyed to the players. However, I think everyone would easily agree upon what evil is. What I don’t think everyone agrees upon is their own personal view as to the nature of a pseudo-Christian dogma and a code of conduct that loosely encompasses this dogma.
However, most of the time in-game, the conflict I see is when someone personally interprets morality with their own personal views and dogma that is coloured by their own real-world experiences and/or religious structures that one has been exposed to. Then of course the DM has to step in and say ‘no, it’s like this…’. Which is usually good enough for the 99% other issues where a player assumes something, and the DM corrects them on. However, when it comes to interpreting morality and dogma that reflects our own real world, that’s when we start to have problems.
I don’t see any problems with DMs who want to be fast and loose with alignment (I’m not looking to derail this topic by spinning it off into another topic… All I would like to say on the matter is this… In our real world, we don’t see divine powers punishing their parishioners and worshipers for doing ‘evil’ acts. So, if a DM wants the same sort of ‘realism’ in their own game world…well… that’s perfectly find. Though personally, I agree with you on the fact that DMs should have a clear definition of ‘evil’ and the consequences of being such in their own game-world.
Should playing a paladin be more difficult than other character classes? Well, technically, I would have to say no. Because my answer is that ALL classes should be made more difficult to play.
Being an adventurer shouldn’t be an easy thing. After all, if all it required was a person to pick up a sword and go off and kill a few monsters that will net you more than few decade’s worth of wages as a cobbler, why wouldn’t you want to do that? Evidently the reward totally outweighs the risk.
The way I see it, playing a paladin, cleric, ranger, druid, or monk has the built-in hierarchical structure of having to deal with superiors within the organization you belong to. As for the other classes such as wizard, fighter, rogue (or whatever class you want to consider)… if your players aren’t aligning themselves with guilds, liege lords, and the like… then people should be pestering them into do so.
Now if you want a game where paladins are free to do what they want, as well as everyone else. Where they don’t have to answer to anyone, except for a governing deity that gives them a certain amount of their abilities… well, that’s fine.
Frank, I respectfully disagree with you. The only agreement that the players and the DM have to come to is the DM’s definition of ‘evil’ in the game. It is of course the job of the DM to make sure those ideas about the nature of evil in your game is conveyed to the players. However, I think everyone would easily agree upon what evil is. What I don’t think everyone agrees upon is their own personal view as to the nature of a pseudo-Christian dogma and a code of conduct that loosely encompasses this dogma.
However, most of the time in-game, the conflict I see is when someone personally interprets morality with their own personal views and dogma that is coloured by their own real-world experiences and/or religious structures that one has been exposed to. Then of course the DM has to step in and say ‘no, it’s like this…’. Which is usually good enough for the 99% other issues where a player assumes something, and the DM corrects them on. However, when it comes to interpreting morality and dogma that reflects our own real world, that’s when we start to have problems.
I don’t see any problems with DMs who want to be fast and loose with alignment (I’m not looking to derail this topic by spinning it off into another topic… All I would like to say on the matter is this… In our real world, we don’t see divine powers punishing their parishioners and worshipers for doing ‘evil’ acts. So, if a DM wants the same sort of ‘realism’ in their own game world…well… that’s perfectly find. Though personally, I agree with you on the fact that DMs should have a clear definition of ‘evil’ and the consequences of being such in their own game-world.
VirgilCaine
First Post
RangerWickett said:
In the Core RAW, Paladins aren't chosen by deities to be paladins.
