quote:
Kait had this to say about Duck Tales:
-_- I don't have any books at all, my plan (should I choose to accept this mission) was just to go to Barnes and Noble for a few hours and make my character there...then buy a manga book or something to appease them.Libraries should carry D&D books. They really should.
Or you can borrow mine.
3.5 ed players guide
3rd ed players guide
3.5 Dungeon masters guide
3rd ed Monster Manual
Send me a messege if you need one, or ask zaza he apparently has all of them.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Kait:
Except you'd have a heck of a time dealing with the charas that don't want to rule under someone else. I know my Seville would never stand for that, and I'm sure there are other charas who wouldn't, either.
The best sort of the mastermind is the one who makes himself the obvious and indispensable choice for people to turn to for the sake of working out how things work. Even chaotic evil people can appreciate victory. Does it really matter how, exactly, you achieve that victory?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Knight Rider:
The best sort of the mastermind is the one who makes himself the obvious and indispensable choice for people to turn to for the sake of working out how things work. Even chaotic evil people can appreciate victory. Does it really matter how, exactly, you achieve that victory?
The Legion of Dooooom! Lashanna fucked around with this message on 04-18-2005 at 10:36 PM.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Lashanna said:
The Legion of Dooooom!
Lex Luthor was hardcore for holding them together for so long.
Also, if accepted, I will wear the still-wet hides of one of my enemies at some point. Sakkra fucked around with this message on 04-19-2005 at 12:24 AM.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Monks are easier to munchkinize, I think, but a lot of classes CAN with a little work can take that honor.
quote:
Dr. Gee had this to say about Tron:
Any class could probably be munchkin'd if you really go about it properly. It's in the interaction with the other players that munchkining can be allowed to happen.
Some players are just prone to it. Like a mutual friend of Deth and I. But Deth keeps him in line, so he doesn't get out of control. Definitely a min/max'er though.
And even easy to munchinize classes can work well. I played a half-dragon monk in the campaign before this. Perfect munchkin concept, but she didn't overpower the group. She was the siege engine yes, but a clever DM can get around that. Deth really got me by putting me up against a Morgue(sp?), a skelly that was amazingly easy to hit...and had a shitload of HPs. Took the party a while to get that one down.
And monk Flurry isn't as powerful as people think it is. We decrease in our ability to hit things with each successive hit. Sometimes my last two in a run would miss. I just hit so hard that hitting the first few times made it up, but I also had a 24 str. With a monk closer to average, they wouldn't do as well. Lyinar Ka`Bael fucked around with this message on 04-19-2005 at 12:42 AM.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael's fortune cookie read:
She was the siege engine yes, but a clever DM can get around that. Deth really got me by putting me up against a Morgue(sp?), a skelly that was amazingly easy to hit...and had a shitload of HPs. Took the party a while to get that one down.
You see though, thats a classic example of overcompensating to make it a challenge to one particular player.
Now, don't take that as a knock against Deth, cause he is good at what he does, has nothing to do with him. 
But, seriously, thats making an encounter that is specifically geared to one player and one player only really, at the expense of all the other players. If in the event something happened to you, or you couldn't make it whatever, the ecounter would have to be changed again, or the other players would have to suffer because of the "Monk" Encounter.
I dont like the encounters that any combination of a party, or classes, can't handle with equal degree.
-The campaign will probably start around the time summer begins. I want to keep with this campaign, and I've always gone into my other campaigns half-assed, so I want to give a lot of planning to this, aight?
-I will announce my selection when I announce it, and not before. If you bother me about it, I'll kill you.
-When the campaign is finished, I'll send out callbacks. It'll be a way to narrow down the players. I'll give you the specifics of the world, then you'll make another character concept from those specifics.
-Things you should know about the world: There are no Monks or Gnomes. There are deities of Death, Tyranny/Strife, Warfare/Survival of the Fittest, Roguery/Shadows, Greed/Wealth, Justice/Light, Savagery/Barbarism.
-Races, subraces, and the new class, a revised Blackguard, will be included in the world specifics.
-Please don't ask me about anything covered in this thread.
Finals are coming up, I'm having fun with things and trying to seduce five women at once. It's very hard.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Pirotess:
For those in the unawares/some fun factsThere are no Gnomes.
Thank fucking God.
quote:
Sakkra probably says this to all the girls:
Thank fucking God.
But what are we going to use for footballs? Did you think about that before your celebration?
quote:
Mooj had this to say about dark elf butts:
But what are we going to use for footballs? Did you think about that before your celebration?
Severed heads and skulls. They have a million uses. Though despite the common axiom of drinking wine from your enemies' skulls, they make remarkably poor chalices. They're unbalanced and any fracture will cause leakage, to say nothing of the eye sockets or mouth.
quote:
Sakkra had this to say about (_|_):
Severed heads and skulls. They have a million uses. Though despite the common axiom of drinking wine from your enemies' skulls, they make remarkably poor chalices. They're unbalanced and any fracture will cause leakage, to say nothing of the eye sockets or mouth.
Since the mouth of a skull is not linked at all to the brain cavity, that wouldn't be a problem. There is still the whole "your spinal cord has to connect to your brain through a hole in your skull" thing, though.
quote:
Taylen thought about the meaning of life:
If I were ever evil I'd much rather be an evil henchman. Takes away all the stress of having to make the big descisions, and leaves you to get on with the business of having fun being bad.
Except you have the stress of not knowing when your boss is going to either flip the hell out and kill you for accidently cracking his peanut or decide that you look like a good test subject. And then there's the being used as sacrifical fodder in case of escape or as handy dandy packmule. Not to mention that finding a new henchman is less expensive than ressurection most of the time.
quote:
Why, Lashanna! where you goin' with that shotgun?
Also, as an evil henchman, you're always doomed to die in some hilarious and humiliating fashion. As an evil lieutenant, you're doomed to die in some gruesome fashion, with a high possibility of having your method of killing turned against you.
quote:
your lieutenant may be prone to redemption or delusions of grandeur and may kill you.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Vise the Stompy thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I prefer the middle ground evil of feelancer mercenaries and similar such professions*Classic Examples Boba Fett, Deathstroke, Deadpole ect*
That's not evil, that's neutral. Evil implies a desire for willfull destruction of either property or another person's well being. Deathpool may satisfy this because most of the time he is clinically insane, but Boba Fett and Deathstroke are just doing a job. Most of the time they have no desire to harm a person except for what is within the guidelines of the job or helps to accelerate the job.
If you're talking about middle grounds for alignment then alignment can't really exist, because it's a desire to categorize things into set places in order to have one set of people believe they are the good crusaders while the others are malicious monsters. If something is 'Mostly evil, but good in a way', than that person is evil to most people and good to those that share the same alignment.
quote:
Ferret had this to say about dark elf butts:
If you're talking about middle grounds for alignment then alignment can't really exist, because it's a desire to categorize things into set places in order to have one set of people believe they are the good crusaders while the others are malicious monsters. If something is 'Mostly evil, but good in a way', than that person is evil to most people and good to those that share the same alignment.
I might be reading this wrong, but are you really saying there can't be shades of good and evil, and that everything's either absolutely good, absolutely evil, or absolutely neutral? I'd have to disagree there. The nine alignments in D&D aren't absolute, they're just descriptions of a character's overall behaviour.
Does a Lawful Good paladin have to be Lawful Good every second of every day? No. If he has a bad day, his team really screwed up a quest, some of his best friends just got killed by giants, I'd bet he'd be really damn pissed. Now, he wouldn't exactly go on a killing spree in the next town he meets, but if someone decides to piss him off further, he probably wouldn't see much wrong with threatening that person with bodily harm and/or death. Is it the Lawful Good thing to do? No, the Lawful Good thing to do would be to just ignore the bastard. However, in D&D, there aren't a whole lot of beings that can be absolutely 100% any alignment. Even a paladin has a dark side, he just doesn't show it very often.
Let's say a town is under seige by orcs. Two warriors, both of whom are enemies to each other, are currently in the town. One is the stereotypical paladin, a champion of Order and Righteousness. The other is an evil Fighter. This fighter, however, isn't "AAAGH MURDER DEATH BLOOD KILL ARGH" evil, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't killed any of the townsfolk and really doesn't intend to. This fighter is very selfish, with a Darwinian outlook on life. Both warriors choose to band together and help defend the town. The paladin does it to protect the innocent townsfolk. The fighter does it because, hey, orcs to kill in honourable combat! He doesn't give two shits about the weak townsfolk, he just wants to become a better warrior. Ordinary townsfolk are no challenge, but orcs are very strong, and are good fighters. Plus, the people will see him as a hero and like him more.
Evil can do good deeds for evil reasons, just as good can do evil deeds for good reasons.
quote:
This one time, at Ruvyen camp:
I might be reading this wrong, but are you really saying there can't be shades of good and evil, and that everything's either absolutely good, absolutely evil, or absolutely neutral? I'd have to disagree there. The nine alignments in D&D aren't absolute, they're just descriptions of a character's overall behaviour.
No, I'm saying that in terms of D&D, a character is one of the nine alignments. He can't be 'Partly evil and partly good', That's neutral. If a traditional paladin does an chaotic or evil act, he loses his paladin status and most likely goes from Lawful good to neutral good or lawful neutral. There aren't supposed to be shades of gray in D&D by the way D&D is structured.
quote:
Does a Lawful Good paladin have to be Lawful Good every second of every day? No. If he has a bad day, his team really screwed up a quest, some of his best friends just got killed by giants, I'd bet he'd be really damn pissed. Now, he wouldn't exactly go on a killing spree in the next town he meets, but if someone decides to piss him off further, he probably wouldn't see much wrong with threatening that person with bodily harm and/or death. Is it the Lawful Good thing to do? No, the Lawful Good thing to do would be to just ignore the bastard. However, in D&D, there aren't a whole lot of beings that can be absolutely 100% any alignment. Even a paladin has a dark side, he just doesn't show it very often.
Except by definition a Paladin is supposed to be the epitome of Lawful Good, which is why most dieties penalize such acts by making them do atonements or other such.
Yes, players are not 100% of any alignment, because they are human beings attempting to play something that is a certain alignment from their point of view. In most cases it should be that character's goal to be as close to that alignment as possible, otherwise instead of alignment they just have a 'How do you act' box so that it would be more open.
quote:
Let's say a town is under seige by orcs. Two warriors, both of whom are enemies to each other, are currently in the town. One is the stereotypical paladin, a champion of Order and Righteousness. The other is an evil Fighter. This fighter, however, isn't "AAAGH MURDER DEATH BLOOD KILL ARGH" evil, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't killed any of the townsfolk and really doesn't intend to. This fighter is very selfish, with a Darwinian outlook on life. Both warriors choose to band together and help defend the town. The paladin does it to protect the innocent townsfolk. The fighter does it because, hey, orcs to kill in honourable combat! He doesn't give two shits about the weak townsfolk, he just wants to become a better warrior. Ordinary townsfolk are no challenge, but orcs are very strong, and are good fighters. Plus, the people will see him as a hero and like him more.
Thus the Paladin is acting Lawful Good and the Fighter is acting chaotic neutral, which is most likely in line with their alignments from the information you supplied.
quote:
Evil can do good deeds for evil reasons, just as good can do evil deeds for good reasons.
A good deed done by an evil person is either in order to further their evil agenda, like gaining the trust of an individual to get the scroll they had, because it would be too difficult to slaughter them. A good person that does an evil act either does it unwittingly, which for most of the 'I must be good classes' would require atonement, or is for the greater good.
The point is that characters in traditional D&D are by the large meant to be as close to their alignment as possible. Any time a DM goes 'You can't do that because of your alignment' will require either a quick mental rodeo for the player to justify it or a change in alignment. The mental excuse the player comes up with then becomes a part of that character, which in turn becomes how that character views his alignment. I could play a Lawful Good Ranger who slaughters every Rabbit he sees because his god considers them an abomination, and still be lawful good to my own definition and the diety.
I Dr. Gee fucked around with this message on 04-19-2005 at 08:56 PM.
Eberron for taking a big step towards alignment relativism.
Even a Paladin can't be Lawful Good 100% of the time. Why? Well, for one, being absolutely 100% Lawful would require the character to have no emotions whatsoever, just an overwhelming desire to see justice done. And 100% Good characters would never, EVER so much as annoy anyone in any way.
Take a 100% Lawful Good paladin versus a goblin warrior. The goblin is most likely going to be your stereotypical evil creature. However, the Paladin is 100% good. He cannot harm the goblin in any way, physical or emotional, because if he does, he takes a slight alignment change towards neutral. He can't even attack the goblin if it's attacking innocents, as it would require harming a sentient, living being. He could try to talk the goblin into not attacking the innocents, but I doubt it would listen. Some Paladin that is, eh?
Paladins kill things. It's in honourable combat and always for the greater good, but they are killing things. When the paladin's sword sinks into the goblin's flesh, it hurts the goblin. Plus, that goblin warrior might have a wife and kids back home. Now, does killing the goblin seem like a 100% good thing to do?
With the evil warrior in my example, he's not chaotic neutral. Chaotic Neutral would be, "Hay, orcs coming this way! This could be fun!" kind of thinking. Lawful Evil warrior thinking would be, "Orcs... They're good fighters, a suitable challenge. I need to become a better warrior, or no one will ever respect or fear me! Plus, if I save these weak townsfolk, they'll see me as their hero. That could work to my advantage... Yeah, what the hell." The paladin and fighter in my example are both doing a good deed, but the fighter is doing it for an evil reason: power. Just as the paladin is doing something commonly considered evil, killing, for a good reason, protecting the townsfolk.
Think of real people for a moment. Is it possible for a normal person to be so consumed with achieving one goal that they exclude everything else from their lives so they can devote the maximum possible time towards achieving said goal? This is 100% lawful behaviour. However, normal real people would never do that. For one, we need to eat and sleep. For two, we need hobbies and entertainment. We all have career interests. Mine is Computer Science. I really love computer programming. Does this mean that I would ever spend all of my waking hours (excluding, of course, time for eating, sleeping, bathroom breaks) coding programs? No. A normal human being could never do that. I'd spend maybe three days straight on it, then think, "Y'know, I've got a lot of work done on this program. Let's play some UT".
D&D characters are the same way. A paladin does need to be a champion of good and justice, but they're allowed to have a life, too. It would be impossible for a sentient being to ever be 100% of any alignment, due to those tricky little things called emotions. Have you ever played the NeverWinter Nights Official Campaign? Remember how pissed off Aribeth got when Fenthick was hanged? A 100% lawful good Aribeth wouldn't feel anything. She wouldn't even have fallen in love with Fenthick, as it would ultimately contribute nothing to the cause of good and justice.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Pirotess:
You see though, thats a classic example of overcompensating to make it a challenge to one particular player.Now, don't take that as a knock against Deth, cause he is good at what he does, has nothing to do with him.
But, seriously, thats making an encounter that is specifically geared to one player and one player only really, at the expense of all the other players. If in the event something happened to you, or you couldn't make it whatever, the ecounter would have to be changed again, or the other players would have to suffer because of the "Monk" Encounter.
I dont like the encounters that any combination of a party, or classes, can't handle with equal degree.
She was making a point, but didn't elaborate entirely. I wasn't gearing it to specifically deal with the aforementioned half-dragon monk. Even without her, the party was very good at taking down run of the mill critters. It just so happened that Lia (the monk) had a tendency towards high damage.
Any undead critter would have done equally well. Killing Lia's ability to do Critical Hit damage evened things out nicely, and the non-tanks (especially the spellcasters) had a chance to shine.
But in all honesty, it was a learning experience for me. The party was exceedingly well geared to handle "standard" challenges. Druids to buff and heal, a paladin and a monk as your primary tanks, with a surprisingly lucky Sorceress as fire support, with rogues to back it up. Against a hardened party layout like that, you almost HAVE to gear your encounters to specifically challenge them, because they're pretty immune to the standard "a gang of orcs attacks you" or "a massive dragon stands before you" type challenges. I hadn't ever had a party that had all of its bases covered so solidly, so while I intellectually understood the idea of tailoring encounters, I had up until that point largely been using somewhat standardized encounters. The Morg I used just happened to give Lia something meatier to chew on while at the same time giving the other party members a chance to do something more than "I cast lightning bolt" or the like. One of my players has, since then, fully embraced the idea of using spells for creative uses. He blocked a cannon firing with a Leomund's Tiny Hut (long story) for instance.
In the current game, I've taken it a step further. Every now and then they'll fight or encounter "gimme" foes. Throngs of mindless skeletons, or corporate goons in plate mail. And usually they handle them rather well. The current party is full of sneaky people, liars, cheats, etc, with only one real front line tank (a Barbarian) and two supplemental tanks (a fighter/sorcerer and a ranger who specialized in ranged weapons). No full-time healers in the party, so while Alferd (the half-orc barbarian) is a very impressive siege engine, and can do even more damage than Lia did in the last game, challenges tailored to the character's advantages and disadvantages makes for a far more satisfying experience for everyone. For one thing, I don't run into situations where I have a "well...shit...they aced the critter I wanted to use on them to anchor this adventure in two rounds" sort of problem, and they're stimulated more, plus they seem to like the little ego pat on the back that comes with knowing I'm writing the interface between the characters and the story specifically to be pertinent to THEM, rather than a more generic "this is the story that's going on, you guys just happen to be the ones there to go through it" sort of situation.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Yes, Ruvyen deserved to die, and I hope they burn in hell!
Take a 100% Lawful Good paladin versus a goblin warrior. The goblin is most likely going to be your stereotypical evil creature. However, the Paladin is 100% good. He cannot harm the goblin in any way, physical or emotional, because if he does, he takes a slight alignment change towards neutral. He can't even attack the goblin if it's attacking innocents, as it would require harming a sentient, living being. He could try to talk the goblin into not attacking the innocents, but I doubt it would listen. Some Paladin that is, eh?Paladins kill things. It's in honourable combat and always for the greater good, but they are killing things. When the paladin's sword sinks into the goblin's flesh, it hurts the goblin. Plus, that goblin warrior might have a wife and kids back home. Now, does killing the goblin seem like a 100% good thing to do?
That was the absolute worst explanation I have ever, ever heard, and only goes to prove how little you understand about Paladins and alignment in general.
You've described a pacifist, not a holy warrior or a knight. Standing by and allowing the slaughter of innocents is the antithesis of a Paladin, sacrifice for the protection of innocents and upholding of the law is what they're all about.
It sounds to me like you've either A) Never played an actual campaign, or B) Never played a campaign with a DM worth his d20s.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Sean was all like:
a holy warrior or a knight.Standing by and allowing the slaughter of innocents is the antithesis of a Paladin, sacrifice for the protection of innocents and upholding of the law is what they're all about.
This is why you can't have a paladin in group with a single character of evil allignment. The paladin would get up in the evil persons face everytime there was a disagreement with anything.
From what I remember paladins were pretty arrogant. Always felt that god was on their side and that they were right about everything.
quote:
Sean stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
That was the absolute worst explanation I have ever, ever heard, and only goes to prove how little you understand about Paladins and alignment in general.You've described a pacifist, not a holy warrior or a knight. Standing by and allowing the slaughter of innocents is the antithesis of a Paladin, sacrifice for the protection of innocents and upholding of the law is what they're all about.
It sounds to me like you've either A) Never played an actual campaign, or B) Never played a campaign with a DM worth his d20s.
Yeah I tend to agree. I've heard that argument made before, actually. How can you be considered good if you essentially go out looking for things to kill, even if it's in the name of good? Aren't all points of view just relative, etc?
The answer is simple. There's a difference between nature and morality. Here's how it should work by dint of Ruvyen's logic:
It may be in a goblin's nature to prey on those who can't defend themselves, but it doesn't make them good. They're just following their natural social imperative. A paladin strong enough to defeat them, by the code of "the fittest are victorious" should be perfectly fine, but the goblins don't likely see it that way. By the logic of Ruvyen's argument, they're "evil" because they don't accept the "natural" order of things; the morality or ethics of the person who wipes them out don't even come into play as significant. They are more powerful, therefore (to chaotic evil entities) they have the right to do pretty much whatever they want.
Orrr you can have absolute good and evil. Preying on others is evil. A paladin avoids "preying" on anyone by the fact they practically CAN'T profit off of worldly possessions. They have to pay a tithe out of their earnings as an adventurer, for one thing, and are limited in what numbers of magic weapons and gear they can own, for another. Avarice isn't a temptation.
Now a paladin who gets his jollies by going out and massacring foes is at best a bully and at worst straying from the narrow path.
But I liken paladins to being like Superman. Sometimes you have to beat the crap out of the bad guy to do the right thing. It all depends on your intentions, and how you go about resolving those intentions, however. Sometimes, judicious restraint IS the right thing to do. Other times it is not.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ahh man, I shot DrPaintThinner in the face.
This is why you can't have a paladin in group with a single character of evil allignment. The paladin would get up in the evil persons face everytime there was a disagreement with anything.
Well, certainly, because that's how things work.
But a lot of people seem to forget what the Lawful in Lawful Good or Lawful Evil stands for. It's a respect and adherence to common law; your Lawful Evil and Lawful Good characters may know fully of eachother's intentions, but they'll never, ever, act against eachother violently until there is a breech of law by one or the other.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
How.... DrPaintThinner.... uughhhhhh:
From what I remember paladins were pretty arrogant. Always felt that god was on their side and that they were right about everything.
no that's a Zealot. You can be a zealot AND be a paladin, but you don't HAVE to be a zealot to be a paladin.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Sean:
Well, certainly, because that's how things work.But a lot of people seem to forget what the Lawful in Lawful Good or Lawful Evil stands for. It's a respect and adherence to common law; your Lawful Evil and Lawful Good characters may know fully of eachother's intentions, but they'll never, ever, act against eachother violently until there is a breech of law by one or the other.
Which is why Superman didn't just beat the crap out of Lex Luthor.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Then why did you try to fuck him like a bitch, Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael?
How can you be considered good if you essentially go out looking for things to kill, even if it's in the name of good? Aren't all points of view just relative, etc?
This comes back to option B, a DM not being worth his d20s. A Paladin, by nature, will be the heart and compass of your campaign; it's one of the few ways they work in a game. It's unavoidable.
Your Paladin should be on a mission, he should have a goal, because he's a motherfucking warrior of his God/dess. Any killing is absolutely secondary to his given mission.
Another way I've seen them work, usually much to the chagrin of the player, is as an appointed bodyguard to another Good or Lawful-aligned character of importance. I'm the inverse of this at the moment; Lawful Evil - well, turned Neutral, gg deity dance - bodyguard of an Evil-aligned character of importance. Sean fucked around with this message on 04-19-2005 at 10:38 PM.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Sean painfully thought these words up:
This comes back to option B, a DM not being worth his d20s. A Paladin, by nature, will be the heart and compass of your campaign; it's one of the few ways they work in a game. It's unavoidable.Your Paladin should be on a mission, he should have a goal, because he's a motherfucking warrior of his God/dess. Any killing is absolutely secondary to his given mission.
Another way I've seen them work, usually much to the chagrin of the player, is as an appointed bodyguard to another Good or Lawful-aligned character of importance. I'm the inverse of this at the moment; Lawful Evil bodyguard of an Evil-aligned character of importance.
It was in this case a rhetorical question, actually. I've had that argument made to me.
I personally don't agree with it at all.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when DrPaintThinner wrote:
This is why you can't have a paladin in group with a single character of evil allignment. The paladin would get up in the evil persons face everytime there was a disagreement with anything.From what I remember paladins were pretty arrogant. Always felt that god was on their side and that they were right about everything.
Not with a blatantly evil character. But with someone who is conniving or manipulative, it's entirely possible. As a Paladin, there are evil people everywhere, and you can sense them, but as a society, you can't rush into a market and overturn the moneychanging tables of usurers (that's Jesus' job).
Also, I don't understand this idea that a Paladin can't kill a goblin... Thousands of real life 'paladins' waged war with people that they barely considered human at times, and as a society at the time, very few seemed to question it.
Now, if D&D advanced to a 20th-21st century, I'm sure goblins would have their civil rights advocates and what not. Or they might not have progressed to civil rights by then, maybe only PETG.
I know I'd send one silver every month to help a poor starving underpriviledged goblin child in exchange for a letter and photograph of the goblin.
quote:
Because Lashanna is my friend.
Not with a blatantly evil character. But with someone who is conniving or manipulative, it's entirely possible. As a Paladin, there are evil people everywhere, and you can sense them, but as a society, you can't rush into a market and overturn the moneychanging tables of usurers (that's Jesus' job).
quote:
I know I'd send one silver every month to help a poor starving underpriviledged goblin child in exchange for a letter and photograph of the goblin.
It's not something people hear about.
