Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tilt.FUN
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!tilt!chenr
From: chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Paladins
Message-ID: <283@tilt.FUN>
Date: Sun, 5-May-85 18:03:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: tilt.283
Posted: Sun May  5 18:03:27 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 6-May-85 02:01:33 EDT
References: <544@udenva.UUCP> <380@ttidcc.UUCP> <684@umn-cs.UUCP> <5189@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: chenr@tilt.UUCP (Ray Chen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton University EECS Dept
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <5189@ucla-cs.ARPA> reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) writes:
>I think that people who say, "Well, any religion can have a paladin." have
>a point, but they blow it by allowing their paladin to have the same powers
>as the AD&D standard while living up to lower obligations.  If you are going
>to have your blood-and-guts war god have paladins, then give them a set of
>powers more appropriate to that god.  Paladins are extremely powerful 
>characters, except that they have inconvenient obligations which they must
>meet which cripple them somewhat.  If you remove those obligations, you've
>destroyed the game balance.  Less realistic, too.

Untrue.  NOTHING could be more painful than opening a door, discovering
3 Balrogs, and as everyone thinks "Let's get OUT OF HERE!!!" having
the paladin of the blood-and-guts wargod go "CHAAAARRRGE !!!"

There are other situations that can be just as bad.  For example,
when you're facing the traditional enemy of the paladin's religion.
Or better yet, "Guys, do we REALLY want to desecrate this temple?
This could be VERY painful.  Oh, sh*t, somebody grab the paladin
before he..."

	Ray Chen
	princeton!tilt!chenr