Give me a hand deciding what to go for in the next D&D Campaign. The setting is supposed to be a really rough and barbaric land where might makes right and failure is often lethal. The party is quite the mix up but they need a pure healer so I’m considering the following:
A) Orphaned, bastard child from a Norse-like settlement that was the sole survivor and fled to another settlement where he was raised by the local Priest of Thor. He’s learned to channel divine energy, but he’s not the kind of Cleric to lead a church or sermon. No, he’s young and strong so he’d rather be out exploring, drinking, wenching and doing the sort of things a young man does. He’s strong as an ox but as bright as an ember. He has a decent moral compass and is likable… when he’s conscious. (Chaotic Good Human, Cleric of Thor)
B) A dirty, rotten little Goblin who has somehow found the favor of Loki, for how long? Who knows. But he’s going to milk it for all its worth! He’s a dirty, coniving pest who gets into things you probably don’t want him to get into and the only reason he gets away with it is that you need him. In these lands, he is one thing keeping you from feeding the local carrion eaters. He’s useful and his uses outweigh his issues… at least for now. (Chaotic Neutral Goblin, Favored Soul of Loki)
Healer A will be more of a wade into combat and help out sort of Cleric and he’ll be the more durable of the two (armored, melee capable, buffer/healer).
Healer B will be around to heal, but won’t be focused on dishing out damage – he will get in the way of enemies, drawing Loki’s attention to the enemy and causing them trouble (little to no armor, more mobile focused, debuffer/healer).
Personally, I’m leaning towards B because it’d be a lot of fun. Only reservations are that the character might be short lived. I’ll do what I can to avoid that (including not pushing my luck) but sometimes things just don’t work out.
A or B?