Montana MacAilbert's page

Yeah, then we should go ahead and let Paladins be neutral, or evil, and after that we should give them arcane magic too. And double all their channeling, and let them take an edilion instead of a war horse. Also? Full access to fighter feats. That'd be awesome.

Suggesting that a holy warrior shouldn't be required to be lawful so long as she is good is different from suggesting they not be holy warriors at all. I never said they should be neutral. As for evil, letting anti-Paladins have any evil alignment handles that role just fine. As for the rest, that's just unnecessary snark. Nobody suggested buffing the class.

I read it, MDT. It's why I used to use NG and NE dragons heavily before I finally chucked alignment out of my games altogether.

Sorry, Cheapy. Gotta save up for some Legends and Lairs, Malhavok, and Penumbra stuff. No room for a hit and miss book. I can work fine with a homebrew Swashbucker archetype for the Fighter based off of Complete Warrior.

Are you watching this thread, James?

A short list:

- Ultimate Steampunk: industrial and gaslamp variants, archetypes, maybe an alternate class, mundane tech functioning on par with lower tier magic items

- Ultimate Space Opera: scifi sourcebook, alternate classes, advanced tech that doesn't simply mimic spell effects, etc.

- Ultimate Horror & Mystery: what it says on the tin, GMG equivalent

- Ultimate Villainy: players as antiheroes and villains, supportive archetypes, alternate classes, spells, etc.

I want these.

I don't like prestige classes, but I do love having a mountain of archetypes to choose from. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I'm hoping for an "ultimate subsystems" (which will hopefully have a much better name) that would compile, update and expand on the various subsystems that Paizo has done, as well as adding additional ones:

- Spirits (as an update to the Haunt rules already in the Gamemastery Guide)
- Kingdom/city building
- Mass combat
- Trust/Notoriety rules that help guide interactions with an entire town or organization, and trigger events.
- Romance rules
- Caravan rules
- Ship/fleet management rules (probably a variant of the caravan rules)
- Ship to ship combat allowing all PCs to take part in a role
- Running a business rules
- and more!

DO WANT!

ALL HAIL TO THE LAWD!

Whatever gets NG and CG Paladins it good with me. I don't really care what justification ends up used so long as it happens.

Did you ever look through Complete Warrior for 3.5? I'm flipping through a library copy and thinking of converting a bunch of the prestige classes into archetypes for the Pathfinder base classes. I'm also thinking of turning the Swashbucker base class it has into a Fighter archetype. Do you have any ideas for which prestige classes you think I should archetype?

A Paladin is a paragon of virtue, a servant of justice and goodness, who struggles to do what is fair and right, to uphold order in the service of good. That is their purpose. Having one that doesn't have to attempt to uphold order or justice is not having a Paladin. Being bound by their code is not a limitation on their power, it is the source of their power.

If you can get powers from a devotion to justice and order, why not from justice and freedom?

I recently was re-reading the Order of the Stick webcomic.

Miko - example of how not to play a LG paladin.
O-Chul - why I want to play a LG paladin.

Sorry, magic missles should be auto-hit, and paladins should be limited to lawful good. Yes, I am a grognard.

I love O-Chul, and I love playing lawful good characters. I just don't like the idea of NG and CG Paladins being forbidden.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

All I know is that dragons have listed alignments, generally lawful or chaotic, but mostly keep to themselves and behave TN, or at the most NE or NG.

What? Just because dragons are solitary creatures does not mean they behave outside their set alignment. Just because your LG does not mean that fades if you live in a cavern by yourself somewhere.

Eh. I'd classify most metallic dragons as NG. It's because they generally don't get involved unless they really have to, and despite the fluff I don't imagine any of them as being particularly lawful or chaotic, but rather as creatures that would do what they think needs to be done. I'm pretty sure my interpretation is not RAW at all, however, so feel free to disagree.

Except clerics do not have a code of conduct that is similar to a paladins. Remember, a paladin might work with evil, but it would only be for set period of time. I am not too familiar with Hell Knights, but I imagine there would be friction between the paladins and evil members of the orders?

I imagine that there would be LG churches and LE ones, with the LN deity allowing both to exist. While there might be LG and LE clerics in the same church, having a paladin in the mix would complicate things. LG clerics of the LN deity might even be opposed to many of the activities that the LE clerics get up too.

Just because the deity allows it, does not mean it runs smoothly.

Oh, I know. I'm not saying it should run smoothly, either. The repercussions of LG Paladins of an LN deity being around LE individuals of the same deity would be an interesting story hook.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

I really don't think that there is a government of outsiders, i mean really a government of archons?

According to the Bestiary, archons do indeed belong to a celestial government.

How can any creature be of law or chaos (or any alignment) if it doesn't act on it?

I dunno. All I know is that dragons have listed alignments, generally lawful or chaotic, but mostly keep to themselves and behave TN, or at the most NE or NG.

At the end of the day it would create for some very weird circumstances if chaotic paladins were allowed and an example of this is that:

Gorum is a CN deity but if a paladin can be CG then i don't see why Gorum couldn't have paladins, but as CN Gorum also has antipaladins. Can you imagine what happens at Sundays in Gorum church?

That's no different that an LN deity having both LE and LG Clerics, and would be pretty interesting.

St. Augustine defined evil as the absence of good. If a paladin is to receive the benefits of paladinhood they need to be as free of evil as is possible to remain a paladin. If they don't then they loose that status and the abilities that go with them.

I never said Paladin's shouldn't have to be good. They should. My issue is with law. I like that play style, but I don't think it should be mandated for Paladin players. Just because you or me can have fun with an LG character doesn't mean that lawfulness should be mandated as the only way to create a Paladin. I think there should be more options in this arena, because that's what Pathfinder is about: playing the person you want to be. If that means a chaotic Paladin, I'm not going to stop you.

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Even if I did use the term, I wouldn't qualify Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis as splatbooks—to me, splatbook speaks to a book that's mostly ONLY about character options, like Complete Warrior or Complete Divine. A book like Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis does FAR more than just give out new character options—they introduce entire new rules subsets (like mass combat) or are filled with GM tools (like new monsters and support for the same in Libris Mortis).

Discounting the books I helped write for 3.5... I'd have to say that my favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5 was probably the Book of Vile Darkness.

I put a used copy of Book of Vile Darkness on my birthday list :D

Which official WOTC 3E/3.5 supplements did you help write?

Did you help write the core rulebooks for 3E or 3.5?

Not counting my work on Dungeon or Dragon magazine... and not counting books like Monster Manual 2 or the Spell Compendium that picked up stuff I'd designed from elsewhere to reprint, the 3rd edition books I worked on were:

World of Warcraft Campaign Setting (this never saw print from WotC, but it was the first hardcover book I worked on for D&D)

Races of Faerun

Fiend Folio

Frostburn

Dungeon Master's Guide II

Lords of Madness

Red Hand of Doom

Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk

Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss

Elder Evils

I think that's it... but I feel like I might be forgetting one in there somewhere...

Aw, I don't have anything you wrote. I've borrowed Lords of Madness from the library, and have Frostburn on hold from them right now, but I own none of these and don't plan to buy them. What I want to get is Heroes of Horror, Book of Vile Darkness, and assorted 3PP offerings.

I DO, however, own all eight hardcover Pathfinder rulebooks, so I do have something you wrote :D

Belle Mythix wrote:

3.5 Unearthed Arcana says Hi, so does 4E but you probably don't care about that one.

Also, there are times when one cannot be/act both Lawful and Good at the same time.

Not a fan of the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, to tell the truth.

And when you can't act both lawful and good at the same time... you do the best you can. How you react to those situations is more what makes you a paladin than just writing it on your character sheet.

As an aside... back in Dragon #310 and #312, I actually wrote a pair of articles that detailed a paladin for every single alignment. Folks interested in checking out those kinds of solutions to the problems should check those out—they're 3.5, so they transfer over to Pathfinder not that bad. That said... my experience writing that article ended up solidifying my opinion that having more than one version of the Paladin is a bad thing for the game.

Can you post those or email them to me, or does WOTC own them?

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government. Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos. Even if you define the two differently than I do, I still don't see an issue with a Paladin who takes the CG or NG side and not the LG side.

Whoa now, that may be your personal definition, but that is not necessarily the canon definition as by the RAW.

The PFSRD said wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Emphasis mine. Law and Chaos are far more than you stated in your post. You can debate how they play out at the table all well and fine, but these are how the RAW defines them. Asserting them to be only stripped down...

The problem here is that all of the qualities listed as lawful, except for adherence to law, can be had by a chaotic character, and vice versa.

I disagree, because an LE character could easily act like this. Don't get me wrong. I do NOT think that a Paladin should do this. I just don't think it is inherently lawful or chaotic.

Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government. Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos. Even if you define the two differently than I do, I still don't see an issue with a Paladin who takes the CG or NG side and not the LG side.

Also, I can see an LE or NE character doing what this Paladin did, not just a CE character. That's why I don't think it's chaotic behavior.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Even if I did use the term, I wouldn't qualify Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis as splatbooks—to me, splatbook speaks to a book that's mostly ONLY about character options, like Complete Warrior or Complete Divine. A book like Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis does FAR more than just give out new character options—they introduce entire new rules subsets (like mass combat) or are filled with GM tools (like new monsters and support for the same in Libris Mortis).

Discounting the books I helped write for 3.5... I'd have to say that my favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5 was probably the Book of Vile Darkness.

I put a used copy of Book of Vile Darkness on my birthday list :D

Which official WOTC 3E/3.5 supplements did you help write?

Did you help write the core rulebooks for 3E or 3.5?

The Law as in Lawful alignments does not have to pertain to the "Letter of the Law". In this case the Law in Lawful has to do with hasty and rash decisions that fit the Chaos side more than the Law side.

I don't think that defining rashness as non-lawful is a good idea. Lawful characters can make astronomically stupid decisions without thinking. Remember Miko Miyazaki?

How does the existance of spells like chaos hammer and detect alignment don't make alignment any less subjective? If that's true then who judges when and to what extent these spell work?

Yes everyone has a different idea because they bring subjectivity instead of just following what the rulebook says, also a lot of times they bring 21st century morality to a fantasy setting.

The rulebook doesn't cover all the possible conflicts of alignment, and it only gives a page or two to it. There has to be interpretation as a result, and interpretations, by their very nature, differ. Alignment may not be subjective in game, but it sure is out of game.

The objectivity or or subjectivity of alignment is relevant to whether NG or CG Paladins make sense, because if you can't tell the difference between law and chaos then they should very well not exist as rules, thus NG and CG paladins make sense, if law and chaos are different things then NG and CG paladins might not make sense.

I can tell the difference between law and chaos. I just define it different than you do, and I feel that the RAW should have a place for NG and CG Paladins. I'll still play LG Paladins on those occasions when I have to have an alignment at all, but I think they should be an option for others.

I'm going to hide from you from now on, considering the fact that I'm probably fairly high on your "to smite" list.

I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Yeah, except Fighter and Rogue is math, while this is "how I view the alignments, how I read the Paladin code, and why some people are brainless douchebags".

The intent was "The Paladin code should be less strict and only require a good alignment, not a lawful alignment".

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Kesley it seems to me that you can't define Law and Chaos and by not doing that you can't understand why it can't be (or shouldn't be) a CG or even a NG paladin, you seem to see the lawful and chaotic alignments as something subjective and nothing more than labels, well they aren't. They are defined, objective, measured forces.

I'm not seeing it. If Shelyn is willing to create an LG Paladin, she'd be willing to create an NG Paladin.

As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective.

That's your mistake right there, you don't understand in the game world Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are objective, there are spells that instantly measure you and harm you if you are of the opposite force, for example chaos hammer.

That doesn't make alignment any less subjective. I again point you to the fact that everybody has a different idea of what alignments mean.

Furthermore, the objectivity or subjectivity of alignment is irrelevant to whether NG or CG Paladins make sense.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

This is highly situational, I would say. Encountering four kobolds lazing about, I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!

With all due respect, James, I don't think this action is lawful or chaotic. I think it's either evil or close to it.

He said 'at the very least', as in, the best possible spin on it given the information available is CN act, more likely CE.

I don't agree, however. I have a great deal of respect and affection for James, but I do not think he is correct in this matter. I don't think that this action has anything at all to do with the law. I could see an LE or NE character doing it as easily as I could see a CE character doing it. I think that it is a question regarding good and evil, not a question regarding law and chaos.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I don't advocate making my house rules RAW.

.....
What I do advocate is loosening the RAW ... because I disagree

You're not advocating making your house rules into RAW, you're just advocating changing the RAW because you disagree with it?

Yes.

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one seeing the self-contradiction here?

It's no different than expressing an opinion that the Rogue or Fighter has issues that should at some point be fixed or expressing disagreement with pretty much any other rule. Expressing disagreement with the RAW is perfectly valid.

This is highly situational, I would say. Encountering four kobolds lazing about, I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!

With all due respect, James, I don't think this action is lawful or chaotic. I think it's either evil or close to it.

Kesley it seems to me that you can't define Law and Chaos and by not doing that you can't understand why it can't be (or shouldn't be) a CG or even a NG paladin, you seem to see the lawful and chaotic alignments as something subjective and nothing more than labels, well they aren't. They are defined, objective, measured forces.

I'm not seeing it. If Shelyn is willing to create an LG Paladin, she'd be willing to create an NG Paladin.

As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I don't advocate making my house rules RAW.

.....
What I do advocate is loosening the RAW ... because I disagree

You're not advocating making your house rules into RAW, you're just advocating changing the RAW because you disagree with it?

Yes.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I'd like to expand on this. America's history is deeply tied to issues of ethnicity. You can't teach American history without covering these issues in depth without giving a completely inaccurate view. Ethnic studies are something that is needed to understand our past. Without them you aren't teaching history at all, you're teaching mythology.

Except in that case you shouldn't be teaching "ethnic studies", you should be teaching a more complete history (the good and bad of every group). To isolate such knowledge in individual courses that are probably an elective in any case you are saying it is ok that not everyone should know this history.

I agree with you, but I don't see it happening at the moment. Until it does, ethnic studies are better than nothing at all.

Must resist urge to rail against the rules forbidding NG and CG Paladins and non-lawful Monks. Must. Resist.

James, what are your favorite 3.5 D&D splatbooks?

I removed a post that was not helping. Also, a post that abused the quote function. As well as the replies to both.

Can I get a clarification on this? Is breaking up a quote to discuss it piece by piece considered abuse?

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Under my house rules alignment doesn't exist, and Paladins have to be good but not necessarily lawful. The issue is playing in games that do use alignment and having Paladins shoehorned in those cases.

So the issue is having to play with people who don't use your houserules? And your suggestion is that your houserules should become the actual rules?

So basically, your issue is that other people don't like to play the same way you do, and so you want them to be forced to via a change to the rules?

Learn to play well with others. Sometimes it'll require not getting your way. Deal with it.

No, I don't advocate making my house rules RAW. If I did, we'd be having a whole different debate right now. What I do advocate is loosening the RAW concerning Paladins a bit, because I disagree with how strict the class is. I can play under the RAW as it is, seeing as how LG is my favorite alignment (when I use alignment at all). However, I do not agree with the RAW, even though it doesn't prevent the characters I like to play, on principle. I don't think the class should be as strict as it is, because I think NG and CG Paladins should be a perfectly valid choice from a RAW perspective, even if I myself like my Paladins LG.

Bard/Paladin. I love it from a fluff perspective.

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:

I do not believe that public schools should be teaching etnic studies relating to any particular group, rather they should be devoting their time and effort to teaching necessary subjects such as math, writing, and reading (at which they seem to be failing ). If a parent wants his child to study the history or aspects of their own ethnicity, the parent should enroll the child in a non public afterschool program. This was what my grandparents who emigated to the United States did; and it turned out just fine.

The issue that a lot of people see is that the traditional "history" classes are exactly what you believe we shouldn't be doing -- teaching ethnic studies relating to a particular group (in this case, old white dudes), rather than teaching history in general. All the other "ethnic studies" are an attempt to re-introduce everyone else into the curriculum, rather than pretending they didn't exist or somehow were of no importance.

I'd like to expand on this. America's history is deeply tied to issues of ethnicity. You can't teach American history without covering these issues in depth without giving a completely inaccurate view. Ethnic studies are something that is needed to understand our past. Without them you aren't teaching history at all, you're teaching mythology.

There was a funny comment that I read on the Dragonlance webpage discussion boards. IIRC I think it was someone's signature. It went something like this: Why bother with what the rule's say when everything I say and want is much better?

If you don't like debating the rules, you don't have to, but I see no reason to keep silent about things I disagree with.

Weables wrote:

Heck,

To be a virtuous, honorable knight willing to die in the protection of the weak, you don't have to be lawful. You also you don't have to be a Paladin.

True. But a paladin DOES have to do that and make sure that their honor and morals are above reproach while doing so. Paladins are not just Lawful Good. They are held to a higher standard of goodness and justness, that is the real meat of the RP of the class. Can you play ANY class like that? Sure. But the Paladin is a specific example of that specific role and has a singular background that caused it to be what it is.

Again if the Paladin annoys you, don't play one.

Paladins don't bug me. I find LG Paladins loads of fun. My issue is telling players they can't have an NG or CG Paladin. I think that's wrong.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Then what do you think Law should be better at than Chaos? Or should neither be better than the other at anything?

Neither should be better than the other at anything.

That's what I thought. In that case, your gripe is with the entire concept of alignment, not with Paladins. You just notice the issue with Paladins because they have the most specific interaction with alignment.

The whole point of "Law vs Chaos" is that Law is better at some things while Chaos is better at others. Neither is better overall, they just have differing strengths and weaknesses (and the CRB spells this out explicitly).

If you don't like the idea of one alignment being better at X than another, that's fine. It's just not about the paladin. :)

Under my house rules alignment doesn't exist, and Paladins have to be good but not necessarily lawful. The issue is playing in games that do use alignment and having Paladins shoehorned in those cases.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.

Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.

I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.

Not with the Paladin class features there aren't.

Then like i said either house-rule it or suck it up and play a cleric or inquisitor.

I already do have house rules to that effect, but I can't use them under another GM, and I don't want Cleric or Inquisitor features. Why can't I just have the Paladin features and be NG?

I do not think that it has anything to do with the way that the class is designed and written about in the Core book. It has to do with the way people play or do not play the class. How is that the fault of the class or the book?

The reason the Paladin gets played how it gets played is because of how easy it is to misconstrue what the book says.

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.

Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.

I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.

I suspect, that the issue is more that the paladin is one of the most powerful classes in the game. There is (or may be) a view (not one I share, mind) that it being restricted to a LG alignment accordingly crowns that alignment with the "Most Noble and Good" award. If someone doesn't view LG as deserving that place (whether true or perceived) it rankles.

You got me. LG is my favorite alignment, but I don't think it deserves a place as "most noble and good". I think all good alignments deserve equal places as paragons of virtue, and if I was forced to choose only one as "most noble and good" it'd be NG, not LG, do to NG's neutrality on anything not involving good.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.

Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.

*cough* spellbooks! *cough*

Yeah, it's a hardwire rigid class, but it's one such class out of dozens. And there are folks who enjoy just that.

The problem is that you can be hardwire rigid without the code of conduct requiring it. You can be hardwire rigid and be a Fighter, even.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.

Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.

I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.

Not with the Paladin class features there aren't.