Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Gaming > Debate > Re: session re*...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 16 of 106 Topic 280 of 369
Post > Topic >>

Re: session re****t

by mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mary K. Kuhner) Jan 24, 2007 at 10:30 PM

In article <slrnerfm50.rl2.neelk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Neelakantan Krishnaswami  <neelk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <ep89db$b6j$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

>> Even Charis sees this.  Paladins who fall from grace traditionally
>> end up chaotic evil, but I think this one could end up lawful evil.

>Heh. In most of the games I've played in, fallen paladins were
>typically still good-aligned -- they just had performed one sin they
>thought wasn't wrong. So: we have a fighter without bonus feats with
>all the evil enemies made back when he or she had superpowers, a sense
>of obligation to still oppose them, and just for kicks the holy
>inquisition was also after them.

You found paladins to have superpowers?  I'm continually frustrated
with the class.  SCAP (very appropriately, I think) has paladins as
very rare and individually significant people, and I really like that
flavor.  But in play they just aren't, unless you load them up with
special-purpose equipment.

Arcanus Unearthed has the exact same problem with the Champion class.
They are dedicated champions of a person, place, organization or
ideal, and they should be *impressive* as such.  But they are so
darned weak, you just feel sorry for them:  they would have been
much better off as warmains (the heavy fighter equivalent).

I doubt Charis will ever lose her sense of obligation, but I could
see her giving up on her principles and deciding that the ends
justify the means, and I think that would make her, in this case,
closer to lawful evil than lawful good.  She has never been very
solidly good anyway; she's a Law-paladin rather than a Good-paladin.

At the moment Fritz is saying to her, "I think this prisoner can
be redeemed.  I know she's too dangerous to turn loose and too
difficult to keep, but I have a Plan for dealing with that."  It
is hard for Charis to say "No, I don't care if she can be redeemed--
kill her."  But if she agrees to Fritz' plan, well, it's blackest
necromancy to start with, and the odds are quite good that rather
than redeeming the NPC, it will corrupt Fritz.  Fritz is the big
chink in Charis' personal ethics anyway; he's not a nice person at
all, but he's her older brother and she doesn't want to lose him, 
no matter how badly she needs to.

I have been surprised at how hard it's been for Charis to maintain
her personal standards in this setting.  Much harder than for any
paladin I'd played before, even though nothing has tried to corrupt
her directly at all.  (At least, I don't think so.)

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 




 106 Posts in Topic:
session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-15 22:35:03 
Re: session report
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-15 15:26:19 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-15 23:58:28 
Re: session report
arromdee@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-16 09:10:06 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-15 18:03:35 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-15 18:16:23 
Re: session report
"David Meadows"  2007-01-27 22:29:58 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-28 02:12:53 
Re: session report
tussock <scrub@[EMAIL   2007-01-16 22:47:25 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-17 19:55:17 
Re: session report
tussock <scrub@[EMAIL   2007-01-18 22:14:04 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-18 22:03:58 
Re: session report
tussock <scrub@[EMAIL   2007-01-24 03:41:54 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-24 18:43:55 
Re: session report
Neelakantan Krishnaswami   2007-01-24 22:07:29 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-24 22:30:36 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-24 16:54:04 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-24 23:14:40 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-24 18:37:06 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-25 00:54:29 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-24 23:34:51 
Re: session report
Jeff Heikkinen <no.way  2007-01-25 05:59:55 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-24 19:54:33 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-24 23:44:38 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-25 06:12:51 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-25 08:32:55 
Re: session report
Rick Pikul <rwpikul@[E  2007-01-26 03:22:40 
Re: session report
Simon Smith <simon_smi  2007-01-27 21:49:07 
Re: session report
Neelakantan Krishnaswami   2007-01-25 00:37:45 
Re: session report
Gary Johnson <zzjohnsg  2007-01-25 09:40:51 
Re: session report
John Morrow <morrow@[E  2007-01-16 16:17:23 
Re: session report
"Will in New Haven&q  2007-01-16 17:44:08 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-17 22:16:53 
Re: session report
"Will in New Haven&q  2007-01-17 17:37:47 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-19 01:04:22 
Re: session report
"Will in New Haven&q  2007-01-19 19:32:52 
Re: session report
Rick Pikul <rwpikul@[E  2007-01-20 04:42:41 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-22 18:20:10 
Re: session report
Jeff Heikkinen <no.way  2007-01-22 18:53:40 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-22 19:08:57 
Re: session report
Jeff Heikkinen <no.way  2007-01-23 00:46:42 
Re: session report
justinf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-01-23 11:12:15 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-23 17:46:39 
Re: session report
justinf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-01-24 16:08:17 
Re: session report
Simon Smith <simon_smi  2007-01-22 20:29:54 
Re: session report
"Will in New Haven&q  2007-01-22 11:05:47 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-22 19:28:36 
Re: session report
"DougL" <lam  2007-01-22 14:15:43 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-22 23:04:05 
Re: session report
tussock <scrub@[EMAIL   2007-01-24 02:11:30 
Re: session report
delrio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-01-24 18:58:43 
Re: session report
Neelakantan Krishnaswami   2007-01-24 21:56:15 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-24 22:17:33 
Re: session report
Gary Johnson <zzjohnsg  2007-01-25 09:33:47 
Re: session report
justinf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-01-25 16:22:16 
Re: session report
Gary Johnson <zzjohnsg  2007-01-25 22:20:20 
Re: session report
justinf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-01-26 11:34:29 
Re: session report
dalamb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-01-24 03:35:09 
Re: session report
Jeff Heikkinen <no.way  2007-01-24 21:05:52 
Re: session report
"DougL" <lam  2007-01-23 10:17:55 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-23 18:54:02 
Re: session report
delrio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-01-24 18:55:59 
Re: session report
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-24 19:33:18 
Re: session report
delrio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-01-25 18:08:32 
Re: session report
Thomas Lindgren <*****  2007-01-25 18:41:11 
Re: session report
delrio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-01-25 19:30:26 
Re: session report
Thomas Lindgren <*****  2007-01-25 23:30:07 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-23 11:14:36 
Re: session report
"DougL" <lam  2007-01-23 15:26:18 
Re: session report
"DougL" <lam  2007-01-23 16:14:21 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-24 11:38:52 
Re: session report
delrio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-01-25 18:17:59 
Re: session report
"Will in New Haven&q  2007-01-24 17:17:07 
Re: session report
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-24 17:48:04 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-24 19:56:38 
Re: session report
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-24 18:15:57 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-24 20:36:58 
Re: session report
Jeff Heikkinen <no.way  2007-01-25 06:07:34 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-25 06:21:20 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-25 07:33:21 
Re: session report
Neelakantan Krishnaswami   2007-01-26 00:55:32 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-25 19:40:31 
Re: session report
Neelakantan Krishnaswami   2007-01-26 17:56:24 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-25 20:27:44 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-25 21:25:34 
Re: session report
"DougL" <lam  2007-01-25 09:17:49 
Re: session report
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-25 16:17:56 
Paladins and Jedi
"gleichman" <  2007-01-25 20:04:36 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
Indiana Joe <indianajo  2007-01-26 07:09:36 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
"gleichman" <  2007-01-26 06:30:15 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
Indiana Joe <indianajo  2007-01-26 13:01:13 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
"Will in New Haven&q  2007-01-26 06:34:41 
Re: session report
"DougL" <lam  2007-01-26 09:04:24 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-26 22:12:07 
Re: session report
"gleichman" <  2007-01-26 23:53:50 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-26 10:35:26 
Re: session report
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-26 15:58:41 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-26 16:49:37 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
"gleichman" <  2007-01-27 00:20:46 
Re: session report
"DougL" <lam  2007-01-27 13:02:28 
Re: session report
Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB  2007-01-27 16:03:44 
Re: session report
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-27 21:03:25 
Paladins (was Re: session report)
John Morrow <morrow@[E  2007-01-28 01:12:33 
Re: Paladins (was Re: session report)
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2007-01-30 18:07:34 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
"psychohist" &l  2007-01-29 16:15:08 
Re: Paladins and Jedi
"gleichman" <  2007-01-29 18:51:40 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Fri Jul 25 22:14:46 CDT 2008.