Then again 4th also had a slimmed down alignment system, if I recall correctly.DnD Next is going to test that premise. They've made paladins multi-alignment.Actually 4th had multi-alignment paladins too, and the avenger class and other cool things. There are also other games with multi-alignment paladins, some video games and others tabletop.
And a lot of people slammed the system, in addition to its customer base dwindling thanks to the success of Pathfinder.
I really don't count it as a true test.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm biased in that I think paladins should be lawful good, and that Arcana Evolved champion is great for a non-LG paladin. But the discussion of non-LG paladins in 3E (Unearthed Arcana variants) and 4E seem to revolve around non-LG paladins not being fun or played much. It looks to me like other than the champion, attempts at non-LG paladins have failed.
Non LG are the most played ones at my table. I don't think it means that people couldn't or don't want to play a non LG sort of paladin, it might mean that when you offer things on the side instead of upfront its less likely people will play them. In order to say paladin should remain LG I'd think you'd have to prove that paladins would actually be played less in total if you had more freedom in their creation process or that it would legitimately hurt sales and your community.
I'm biased in that I think paladins should be lawful good, and that Arcana Evolved champion is great for a non-LG paladin. But the discussion of non-LG paladins in 3E (Unearthed Arcana variants) and 4E seem to revolve around non-LG paladins not being fun or played much. It looks to me like other than the champion, attempts at non-LG paladins have failed.Non LG are the most played ones at my table. I don't think it means that people couldn't or don't want to play a non LG sort of paladin, it might mean that when you offer things on the side instead of upfront its less likely people will play them. In order to say paladin should remain LG I'd think you'd have to prove that paladins would actually be played less in total if you had more freedom in their creation process or that it would legitimately hurt sales and your community.
Yeah, core content is always going to be played more than non-core, especially when it comes to stuff that pre-dates the internet. Personally, I've seen plenty of games with houseruled Paladins where the alignment rules got shifted to fit what the player wanted to run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again 4th also had a slimmed down alignment system, if I recall correctly.DnD Next is going to test that premise. They've made paladins multi-alignment.Actually 4th had multi-alignment paladins too, and the avenger class and other cool things. There are also other games with multi-alignment paladins, some video games and others tabletop.
4e does, however, still have LG.
And a lot of people slammed the system, in addition to its customer base dwindling thanks to the success of Pathfinder.
I really don't count it as a true test.
Say what you will about 4e, but as you yourself noted, the 5e team has opted to follow in its footsteps in this particular case. I wish they had taken more cues from 4e, but of all the controversies that the 5e play test has stirred up, I can't remember anyone complaining that paladin players will continue to get to choose their characters' alignment.
(Not directed at you personally, MagusJanus) I think this fact demonstrates that the "If people wanted non-LG paladins, we'd have non-LG paladins" sentiment is the result of a very insular community. People tend to game with others who share their general opinions and values, which can lead to confirmation bias, and the Paizo community itself can be a bit echo-chambery.
Not to mention the Paizo team's well known bias toward many of the game's legacy quirks. When the writers themselves don't like an idea, it's no surprise that they omit that idea from the game!
The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.
Erm... Why? How many have to play it, is it a particular number? If your going to create a rule just to exclude people I'd think that's the one that needs justifying, rather than the lack of rule.
I'd think saying someone else has to justify a change is a lot like saying "DIBS!", because they didn't justify having it in the first place. And as I said, an exclusion isn't exactly something friendly.
there's also the fact this game is meant to be fun, I think its priority should be "is it fun" and is it fun to have paladins of all alignments? Can it keep people from having fun by being restrictive?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4E has paladins of different alignments, and they are not particularly popular.
Prove it?
4E has paladins of different alignments, and they are not particularly popular.Prove it?
Does this help? I'm aware of the burden of proof, but that was a bit silly. If you were asking to prove their lack of popularity, valid. I'm not the one who claimed it, but I have some free time, so I decided to look at the 4e forums. Investigation is underway. Pray for my soul. Or for my dice, if you don't believe in souls.
Say what you will about 4e, but as you yourself noted, the 5e team has opted to follow in its footsteps in this particular case. I wish they had taken more cues from 4e, but of all the controversies that the 5e play test has stirred up, I can't remember anyone complaining that paladin players will continue to get to choose their characters' alignment.
(Not directed at you personally, MagusJanus) I think this fact demonstrates that the "If people wanted non-LG paladins, we'd have non-LG paladins" sentiment is the result of a very insular community. People tend to game with others who share their general opinions and values, which can lead to confirmation bias, and the Paizo community itself can be a bit echo-chambery.
Not to mention the Paizo team's well known bias toward many of the game's legacy quirks. When the writers themselves don't like an idea, it's no surprise that they omit that idea from the game!
True. But, having an expanded alignment system is what I see most likely as a true test. Especially since it gives people three options for being good and three for being lawful that they can use to represent various Paladin ideologies.
True. But, having an expanded alignment system is what I see most likely as a true test. Especially since it gives people three options for being good and three for being lawful that they can use to represent various Paladin ideologies.
The ability to use any kind of paladin you want to fill any paladin ideology without a threat of falling in a 5 alignment or no alignment system isn't a test to see if people might enjoy it or if the game suffers for it? Nor my experiences allowing people to use build your own code and give them the power to control their fall?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.
Homebrew (oh, look, it's called the Zealot!)
Kobold Press blog series (in six parts!)
Plus one, two, three, four people wanting to play paladins of Cayden Cailean!
People want to play this. The effort in changing the rules is minimal. As posted above, you can make an any-alignment-but-TN version of the paladin class in about 10 minutes. The only reason it needs to be justified is that some people are sentimentally attached to the LG paladin and want to preserve that. And I can sympathize with that. LG paladins can be awesome. But other paladins can be awesome, too, and I have seen that, I have played with that, I have embraced that.
And yet whenever one of these threads pops up, with yet another person wanting to play a differently-aligned paladin, I have to once again defend the concept. A lot of people haven't seen it and don't know what it's like, not because it's a bad concept or because there's no demand, but simply because LG is the default and fewer people will do something if you have to take the effort to opt in and try something outside the default. Doubly so when they fear being accused of cheating for the power if they suggest it.
And that's the only reason why what's in the published books actually matters to me.
Because as long as the official paladin is LG-only, each new player wanting to try a CG paladin has to once again shoulder the burden of proof that the concept is a valid one.
4E has paladins of different alignments, and they are not particularly popular.Prove it?
A guy in my 4e group and I were once having a conversation about possible characters, and I asked him "Why don't you try a paladin? You haven't played one of those yet." I had never seen this guy be anything but calm and cool, but in that moment his whole face transformed, and he started ranting about how paladins are about players mindlessly following rules and commandments and being punished for independent thought...it was like I had flipped a switch in his head! I know that he had never played a 4e paladin, so obviously he must have had a horrible paladin experience during some prior edition.
So clearly, traditional paladins are downright infamous with some gamers, which I think is a good reason for any D&D-alike game to drop the LG restriction, but 4e paladins in particular? Because of their role playing freedom? I too am gonna need a citation for that.
Say what you will about 4e, but as you yourself noted, the 5e team has opted to follow in its footsteps in this particular case. I wish they had taken more cues from 4e, but of all the controversies that the 5e play test has stirred up, I can't remember anyone complaining that paladin players will continue to get to choose their characters' alignment.True. But, having an expanded alignment system is what I see most likely as a true test. Especially since it gives people three options for being good and three for being lawful that they can use to represent various Paladin ideologies.
*so confused*
Have you ever been star- or cloud-gazing with a friend, and they say "Hey, that one looks just like a reticulated giraffe playing hockey," and you're like "Uh what?" That's how I feel right now.
In other words, what does # of alignments have to do with testing the freedom to role play one's paladin however one wishes? Actually, I'm not even sure what it is about role playing freedom which requires testing...
The ability to use any kind of paladin you want to fill any paladin ideology without a threat of falling in a 5 alignment or no alignment system isn't a test to see if people might enjoy it or if the game suffers for it? Nor my experiences allowing people to use build your own code and give them the power to control their fall?
Sadly, individual experience is not really that usable for sales because you can have individuals who love it, and the majority of people hate it. Plus, homebrew and third-party systems are often easily tossed out as being invalid tests of acceptability.
*so confused*Have you ever been star- or cloud-gazing with a friend, and they say "Hey, that one looks just like a reticulated giraffe playing hockey," and you're like "Uh what?" That's how I feel right now.
In other words, what does # of alignments have to do with testing the freedom to role play one's paladin however one wishes? Actually, I'm not even sure what it is about role playing freedom which requires testing...
It's not about number, but about having a full alignment system, which 4E didn't have.
It's not about number, but about having a full alignment system, which 4E didn't have.
On the other hand, it still has a 5 part chart, and there are no alignment systems with their versions of a paladin for their holy warrior. Ultimate freedom yo. Embrace it... Embrace the roleplaying and character creation freedom!
It's not about number, but about having a full alignment system, which 4E didn't have.
*so confused*Have you ever been star- or cloud-gazing with a friend, and they say "Hey, that one looks just like a reticulated giraffe playing hockey," and you're like "Uh what?" That's how I feel right now.
In other words, what does # of alignments have to do with testing the freedom to role play one's paladin however one wishes? Actually, I'm not even sure what it is about role playing freedom which requires testing...
Still confused. Are you concerned that fans won't accept non-LG paladins and the 9-alignment grid in the same edition, or are you worried that the two will create some kind of chemical reaction at the game table?
I'm really not being obtuse or anything, I'm honestly just completely lost as to what you think requires testing and how a 'full' alignment scheme might make a difference.
|
|
Plus, 4E actually has an alignment system that is more friendly to the LG-only paladin than 3E/PF.
Namely, that LG actually is "Good Plus." There is no CG - chaos can be a particular vice in an evil creature, but never a particular virtue. Since LG actually has an extra-special status compared to ordinary good in 4E, it would make more sense that LG also has an extra-special class associated with it.
It doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.People want to play this. .
None of those proves that a non-LG Paladin will actually BE played and since historically they haven't that's pretty good argument right there. Sure, a loud minority of folks- most of whom have issues with the very concept of alignments- do complain about the Paladin class being LG (or CE). That doesn;t mean that such classes are actually in demand to be played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of those proves that a non-LG Paladin will actually BE played and since historically they haven't that's pretty good argument right there. Sure, a loud minority of folks- most of whom have issues with the very concept of alignments- do complain about the Paladin class being LG (or CE). That doesn;t mean that such classes are actually in demand to be played.The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.People want to play this. .
The fact people have created homebrew to be played and people have stated they want to play them, and that people have played those things and they are played in their game want to be played, doesn't prove people want to play them or will play them?
Okay?
edit: I mean really, I've played and would play a non LG holy or idealist warrior with smite-y goodness, of all alignments. Does that not prove there's a demand?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of those proves that a non-LG Paladin will actually BE played and since historically they haven't that's pretty good argument right there.The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.People want to play this. .
Chef of a Restaurant: "Customers saying that they want chicken cordon bleu doesn't prove that chicken cordon bleu will actually be eaten, and since historically it hasn't been, that's pretty good argument against adding it to the menu right there."
I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy, but hopefully you can recognize the absurdity of your claim without it.
The warpriest exists. Your prayers have been answered.
The warpriest exists. Your prayers have been answered.
Warpriest gets auras and smite and is a four level caster with litanies now? Ahh man, that's a pretty big change from the playtest! I thought they were going to be a six level caster with 3/4 BAB and a focus on a using a deities weapon and blessings or something.
The warpriest exists. Your prayers have been answered.Warpriest gets auras and smite and is a four level caster with litanies now? Ahh man, that's a pretty big change from the playtest! I thought they were going to be a six level caster with 3/4 BAB and a focus on a using a deities weapon and blessings or something.
You could always just play a cleric or an Inquisitor instead. Or a cavalier. Surely one of those is a Paladin without the arbitrary legacy restrictions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The warpriest exists. Your prayers have been answered.Warpriest gets auras and smite and is a four level caster with litanies now? Ahh man, that's a pretty big change from the playtest! I thought they were going to be a six level caster with 3/4 BAB and a focus on a using a deities weapon and blessings or something.
Lawful good is the hardest alignment to keep as an adventurer. The paladins code only works for that alignment. You're not getting all of the benefits of the paladin class and none of the restraining bolts.
Lawful good is the hardest alignment to keep as an adventurer.
For you it might be, I might not have a problem at all. You know what can be really hard? Chaotic Evil. You have to get away with breaking rules and sometimes you get caught, and man, it sucks when you do. Sucks to live in that society place like Absolom where they just don't seem to do anything right. Or CG, I mean having to work for the greater good and sometimes justicars of other groups just aren't that into the way you work and that's gets in the way.
The paladins code only works for that alignment.
That's up for debate. You can be non traditional and do certain things. You could even have a totally different code for another holy warrior, because its not like everyone has the same expectations. Lots of ways to do it.
You're not getting all of the benefits of the paladin class and none of the restraining bolts.
Did I say anything about that? Maybe I follow my own code, or maybe I want to make a holy warrior of Calistria who's all about vengeance, or maybe I want to make a paladin of Abadar who weighs the scales of justice above all, or maybe I want a paladin/hellknight of Asmodaeus. I could want a paladin inspired by Cayden and out doing the adventuring thing for good, with a good flask on my hip of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful good is the hardest alignment to keep as an adventurer. The paladins code only works for that alignment. You're not getting all of the benefits of the paladin class and none of the restraining bolts.The warpriest exists. Your prayers have been answered.Warpriest gets auras and smite and is a four level caster with litanies now? Ahh man, that's a pretty big change from the playtest! I thought they were going to be a six level caster with 3/4 BAB and a focus on a using a deities weapon and blessings or something.
1) It's been a long time since the Paladin was Fighter+ with RP restrictions intended to balance that out.
2) Lawful Good being the "Hardest" alignment or "Best Good" is purely subjective. And it's not like some kind of code of honor/rules is something that only Lawful Good can do. Clerics, Druids, and Cavaliers all manage to handle that just fine without being locked into LG alignment.
3) Did you really have to go down the "Anyone who has different ideas about how the Paladin class could work is an evil scumbag munchkin rollplayer who has badwrongfun!" route?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still confused. Are you concerned that fans won't accept non-LG paladins and the 9-alignment grid in the same edition, or are you worried that the two will create some kind of chemical reaction at the game table?
I'm really not being obtuse or anything, I'm honestly just completely lost as to what you think requires testing and how a 'full' alignment scheme might make a difference.
Concerned they won't accept the two together.
And the reason a "full" alignment system makes a difference is because it allows for the possibility of paladins being far afield from the alignment system in 4E or 3.5E, specifically in that there could be a chaotic good paladin who strives against unjust laws in the name of trying to help people and having an alignment to reflect that and mechanics that make it have actual effects which differentiate her from paladins of the other eight alignments.
Or, to simplify: It gives people the most amount of options in the core rules, thus eliminating the capacity for people to rule the results as unofficial.
Chef of a Restaurant: "Customers saying that they want chicken cordon bleu doesn't prove that chicken cordon bleu will actually be eaten, and since historically it hasn't been, that's pretty good argument against adding it to the menu right there."
I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy, but hopefully you can recognize the absurdity of your claim without it.
Yeah. It's called politics :P
On the other hand, it still has a 5 part chart, and there are no alignment systems with their versions of a paladin for their holy warrior. Ultimate freedom yo. Embrace it... Embrace the roleplaying and character creation freedom!
Not certain what you mean with this?
|
The warpriest exists. Your prayers have been answered.Warpriest gets auras and smite and is a four level caster with litanies now? Ahh man, that's a pretty big change from the playtest! I thought they were going to be a six level caster with 3/4 BAB and a focus on a using a deities weapon and blessings or something.
In fairness, Warpriests are effectively full BAB due to class features. And can swift-action cast spells, and thus pull some smite-like stuff. And barring it being used to do that, Fervor is basically Lay on Hands (you get it at the same level and it heals the same amount of damage, as the same action). They get armor bond instead of weapon bond, and do miss out on the auras and litanies in exchange for being better casters...but it's damn close to the Paladin, especially thematically, but mechanically too.
Still confused. Are you concerned that fans won't accept non-LG paladins and the 9-alignment grid in the same edition, or are you worried that the two will create some kind of chemical reaction at the game table?Concerned they won't accept the two together.
And the reason a "full" alignment system makes a difference is because it allows for the possibility of paladins being far afield from the alignment system in 4E or 3.5E, specifically in that there could be a chaotic good paladin who strives against unjust laws in the name of trying to help people and having an alignment to reflect that and mechanics that make it have actual effects which differentiate her from paladins of the other eight alignments.
Or, to simplify: It gives people the most amount of options in the core rules, thus eliminating the capacity for people to rule the results as unofficial.
Okay, I'm not following your second paragraph here -- 4e and 3.5 have different alignment schemes. And I don't know what to make of your example because striving against unjust laws falls under the purview of every Good alignment, in every edition.
But if I understand your simplification, you're worried that opening paladins up to all alignments by default will make it difficult for DMs to house rule in the traditional LG restriction?
Still confused. Are you concerned that fans won't accept non-LG paladins and the 9-alignment grid in the same edition, or are you worried that the two will create some kind of chemical reaction at the game table?Concerned they won't accept the two together.
And the reason a "full" alignment system makes a difference is because it allows for the possibility of paladins being far afield from the alignment system in 4E or 3.5E, specifically in that there could be a chaotic good paladin who strives against unjust laws in the name of trying to help people and having an alignment to reflect that and mechanics that make it have actual effects which differentiate her from paladins of the other eight alignments.
Or, to simplify: It gives people the most amount of options in the core rules, thus eliminating the capacity for people to rule the results as unofficial.
Okay, I'm not following your second paragraph here -- 4e and 3.5 have different alignment schemes. And I don't know what to make of your example because striving against unjust laws falls under the purview of every Good alignment, in every edition.
But if I understand your simplification, you're worried that opening paladins up to all alignments by default will make it difficult for DMs to house rule in the traditional LG restriction?
Nope. It's about leaving people unable to say that, if played via core rules only, that the preference results as invalid as a majority acceptance or rejection of paladins with multiple alignments. And, concerned that the majority might actually play LG paladins only, viewing the alignment range as unacceptable.
Nope. It's about leaving people unable to say that, if played via core rules only, that the preference results as invalid as a majority acceptance or rejection of paladins with multiple alignments. And, concerned that the majority might actually play LG paladins only, viewing the alignment range as unacceptable.
In that case a 9 point alignment system wouldn't work either would it? You're still not getting a census as to what people have played. You also have people like me, who've played and do play non LG paladins and also have not been able to ingames because of a restriction.
I don't know why you have to prove people would dare to play a non LG paladin. Shouldn't you have to prove its bad to have only LG? That people lose out or that its overly restrictive or it can cause long arguments on a forum and a few dozen of locked threads that could've been prevented? Doesn't make more sense to start with the tolerant view of "its cool bro!" instead of the intolerant view of "not cool bro!"
MrSin, how well has the tolerant viewpoint worked for proving it to others?
Approaching from the intolerant viewpoint and then proving it helps marginalize the idea it shouldn't be allowed. Even more so if there is a same number of alignments available to the control system (Pathfinder) and the test system (DnD Next). Then, you can sit back and compare the two and see what results they have.
None of those proves that a non-LG Paladin will actually BE played and since historically they haven't that's pretty good argument right there.The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.People want to play this. .Chef of a Restaurant: "Customers saying that they want chicken cordon bleu doesn't prove that chicken cordon bleu will actually be eaten, and since historically it hasn't been, that's pretty good argument against adding it to the menu right there."
"Well we put chicken cordon bleu on the menu twice in response to a couple of complainers. No one ordered it."
"Well we put chicken cordon bleu on the menu twice in response to a couple of complainers. No one ordered it."None of those proves that a non-LG Paladin will actually BE played and since historically they haven't that's pretty good argument right there.The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.People want to play this. .Chef of a Restaurant: "Customers saying that they want chicken cordon bleu doesn't prove that chicken cordon bleu will actually be eaten, and since historically it hasn't been, that's pretty good argument against adding it to the menu right there."
Is that what happened though? I mean, I ordered it. I've been refused some places and in others they're happy to deliver. I'm happier in the later of course. Its not like I'm ordering Lasagna at a place that only serves Chinese cuisine. I'm being refused a sandwich with mayo instead of ketchup at a Sandwich place!
Edit: Its sort of awkward to see this chat going about in a way like no one would or has ordered it. Even if I couldn't ask anyone else for a census, at the very least, there's one person I know who wants it. Me.
So, other that the "alignment is BDAWRONGFUN!" crowd, I don't think the buying public is demanding "paladins" of every alignment.If they were, then they'd have them. Simple.
Yeah no. Pardon the off topic.
Megaman as a series has essentially been abandoned by Capcom due to their "claims" of no fans for the series. Of course massive polling and any look into the Megaman community says otherwise but y'know.
Most of the time, a concept has backers, but the developer/publisher is either pointedly ignoring it or vastly underestimating it's potential.
It's really disappointing when people would decry open minded concepts for shoe horned ones.
Is tradition that sacred that the desire for character diversity is to be shamed?
Is tradition that sacred that the desire for character diversity is to be shamed?
Imo, that's one of the more awkward things about the whole thing. The guys who want less restrictions? They're fine with people playing the old LG ones. They aren't stopping people from playing the way they want. The guys who want it to stay the same? They're arguing that those people shouldn't be allowed to play the way they want, or at least not in core. That's why earlier I was saying it makes more sense to make things less restrictive, unless it legitimately causes a problem, rather than having to prove people will play the other options enough to allow it. If even one person plays it then do it! Its less word count if it isn't restricted anyway. The restriction is added.
"Well we put chicken cordon bleu on the menu twice in response to a couple of complainers. No one ordered it."None of those proves that a non-LG Paladin will actually BE played and since historically they haven't that's pretty good argument right there.The burden of proof is on the non-LG paladin supporters to prove that a non-LG paladin will be played enough to justify the change.People want to play this. .Chef of a Restaurant: "Customers saying that they want chicken cordon bleu doesn't prove that chicken cordon bleu will actually be eaten, and since historically it hasn't been, that's pretty good argument against adding it to the menu right there."
"Oh, you mean those napkins with ALSO ON TODAY MENU CHICEN CORD ON BLU scribbled on in the waitress' lipstick. Of course nobody ordered that. If you print it on the original menu like the restaurant across the street did, people will."
Also, agreed with MrSin: non-LG paladins are more akin to a simple substitution.
Nope. It's about leaving people unable to say that, if played via core rules only, that the preference results as invalid as a majority acceptance or rejection of paladins with multiple alignments. And, concerned that the majority might actually play LG paladins only, viewing the alignment range as unacceptable.Still confused. Are you concerned that fans won't accept non-LG paladins and the 9-alignment grid in the same edition, or are you worried that the two will create some kind of chemical reaction at the game table?Concerned they won't accept the two together.
And the reason a "full" alignment system makes a difference is because it allows for the possibility of paladins being far afield from the alignment system in 4E or 3.5E, specifically in that there could be a chaotic good paladin who strives against unjust laws in the name of trying to help people and having an alignment to reflect that and mechanics that make it have actual effects which differentiate her from paladins of the other eight alignments.
Or, to simplify: It gives people the most amount of options in the core rules, thus eliminating the capacity for people to rule the results as unofficial.
Okay, I'm not following your second paragraph here -- 4e and 3.5 have different alignment schemes. And I don't know what to make of your example because striving against unjust laws falls under the purview of every Good alignment, in every edition.
But if I understand your simplification, you're worried that opening paladins up to all alignments by default will make it difficult for DMs to house rule in the traditional LG restriction?
I just can't parse the bolded part, but you seem to be saying that your concern is that a majority of gamers will give up on 5e because they want the LG restriction. Am I getting warmer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful good is the hardest alignment to keep as an adventurer.For you it might be, I might not have a problem at all. You know what can be really hard? Chaotic Evil.
4 out of 5 "chaotic neutral" characters disagree.
Or CG, I mean having to work for the greater good and sometimes justicars of other groups just aren't that into the way you work and that's gets in the way.
Chaos' advantage is its flexibility.
That's up for debate. You can be non traditional and do certain things. You could even have a totally different code for another holy warrior, because its not like everyone has the same expectations. Lots of ways to do it.
A chaotic character, by definition, is not going to value strict adherence to a code.
Did I say anything about that? Maybe I follow my own code
Which lets you do what you want.
or maybe I want to make a holy warrior of Calistria who's all about vengeance
Which you already can do with every class but paladin.
or maybe I want to make a paladin of Abadar who weighs the scales of justice above all
already doable with several classes and possibly the paladin.
or maybe I want a paladin/hellknight of Asmodaeus.
If you want a contradiction have a starburst. They're solid yet juicy.
I could want a paladin inspired by Cayden and out doing the adventuring thing for good, with a good flask on my hip of course.
Try a paladin of Kurgess. Takes a dc 30 knowledge religion check to tell them apart.
3) Did you really have to go down the "Anyone who has different ideas about how the Paladin class could work is an evil scumbag munchkin rollplayer who has badwrongfun!" route?
Willing to go halvsies on that one?
So, other that the "alignment is BDAWRONGFUN!" crowd, I don't think the buying public is demanding "paladins" of every alignment.If they were, then they'd have them. Simple.
Yeah no. Pardon the off topic.
Megaman as a series has essentially been abandoned by Capcom due to their "claims" of no fans for the series. Of course massive polling and any look into the Megaman community says otherwise but y'know.
True, sometimes something has only a few fans, but those fans are TRUE FANS.
ST:TOS is a good example, and there are others.
But sales are sales. No matter how fervent the TRUE FANS are, no matter how much the TRUE FANS crowd makes sure to get to a poll or get excited in a community, in the end sales dollars are just that. Mind you, if a product is marginal but the fans are TRUEFANS, then sure, you have to take that loyalty into consideration.
However, still, that Dragon article never had many fans (even tho it was pretty well written, I think) nor did the Andy Collins alt Paladins. I guess it's possible that "Paladins of every alignment " could be popular in PF, but those prior examples do show some trending against it, true?
And of course, how many "Old School" traditionalists will the game lose? I really can't see sales increasing by any meaningful number.
I think (and I could be wrong) that most of the cries for Paladins of every alignment is NOT by people who really want to play alt paladins, it's by those who don't like the classic alignment system, which they feel is a straightjacket and limiting. However, I am pretty sure that's here to stay.
I just can't parse the bolded part, but you seem to be saying that your concern is that a majority of gamers will give up on 5e because they want the LG restriction. Am I getting warmer?Nope. It's about leaving people unable to say that, if played via core rules only, that the preference results as invalid as a majority acceptance or rejection of paladins with multiple alignments. And, concerned that the majority might actually play LG paladins only, viewing the alignment range as unacceptable.Still confused. Are you concerned that fans won't accept non-LG paladins and the 9-alignment grid in the same edition, or are you worried that the two will create some kind of chemical reaction at the game table?Concerned they won't accept the two together.
And the reason a "full" alignment system makes a difference is because it allows for the possibility of paladins being far afield from the alignment system in 4E or 3.5E, specifically in that there could be a chaotic good paladin who strives against unjust laws in the name of trying to help people and having an alignment to reflect that and mechanics that make it have actual effects which differentiate her from paladins of the other eight alignments.
Or, to simplify: It gives people the most amount of options in the core rules, thus eliminating the capacity for people to rule the results as unofficial.
Okay, I'm not following your second paragraph here -- 4e and 3.5 have different alignment schemes. And I don't know what to make of your example because striving against unjust laws falls under the purview of every Good alignment, in every edition.
But if I understand your simplification, you're worried that opening paladins up to all alignments by default will make it difficult for DMs to house rule in the traditional LG restriction?
Take a look at this thread and the argument that DrDeth is posting, particularly his conclusion on the playing of alt paladins. The idea is to see whether or not that argument is right, using the same alignment system so the results cannot be tossed out.
And of course, how many "Old School" traditionalists will the game lose? I really can't see sales increasing by any meaningful number.
I don't know, how many will you lose or gain? Do I have to be a ravenous "I'll quit if you keep up the alignment restrictions!" to get my way? Do you really want people who say "You can't have fun because my way is the one true way!" to be the ones playing your game and the kid of community you foster? Is that going to help sales or people have fun?
I think (and I could be wrong) that most of the cries for Paladins of every alignment is NOT by people who really want to play alt paladins, it's by those who don't like the classic alignment system, which they feel is a straightjacket and limiting. However, I am pretty sure that's here to stay.
Similar to "People who complain don't actually play this game", statements like that aren't really helpful. They disregard any merit in the ideas given and just disregard people who might actually want something. I don't think you'd like it if I said 'people just pretend to be oldschool traditionalist, they really play 2E and come here to make it more like the game they remember!". Doesn't add anything, as opposed to saying "I think it works best this way because of these facts!". You of course have to expect a retort.
To be honest I don't get my hopes high that anything I say here will actually change the game. I don't think the core rulebook is going to say something different about paladins because I said I'd play one or I think it hurts the game. I don't think anything I say about fighters or rogues or martial caster disparity will change the game either. Still, I join in on those conversations to add in facts and opinions. Just because something is one way doesn't make it perfect or right.