@Weirdo: Even putting aside the arguments that a CG Paladin is possible, adding a side-note to the core rules about "alternate alignment paladins" creates at least as many problems as you think it would solve. From that point forward DM's are no longer permissive in allowing a CG Paladin, they instead become restrictive in denying them. Players are not the only participants in the game. There's no need to put extra burdens that may villify some DM's to make your houserule a core rule.
Could you expand on this? I don't quiet get what your saying, but it interest me if you would explain it.
Well, I (like most people) approach the situation from my own particular viewpoint. I come from a very small (gaming) community. I currently know seven people who play Pathfinder (and I taught three of them). So a lot of the problems I see on these boards are just foreign to me. If you are playing with a "vicious GM" who constantly forces "fall or fall" situations with your Paladin, the problem is not the Paladin. (Although most of the ones I've seen have had a fairly simple answer.) I have never had a Paladin fall or made one of my players fall (although they rarely play Paladins). I have never rejected a player's concept but I've never had to deal with someone trying to "steal mechanics." (I have one player who doesn't even know the mechanics. Seriously, he took Lighting Reflexes because he thought it meant he could go first every round. Fifteen years we've been playing...) Sorry I zoned out for a second there. What were we talking about? Oh yes, the Internet. People on the Internet always make broad definitive statements. Everyone, everywhere knows this! So I try not to get too worked up about them. Someone using the code as "balance" is probably coming from an older generation of the game when it was about balance. The people suggesting you play another class might just like that class or actually think it fits your concept better. Someone saying, "you are all idiots" might be joking (just a little). Also, typing is hard. Some people try to reduce what they're saying down to a basic sentiment and leave out nuance or caveats they might have in a conversation. So I guess what I'm saying is someone disagreeing with you might not mean you're having badwrongfun (or is it wrongbadfun?). They might not be as eloquent as I am. (I have honestly forgot what my point is now.) Oh well, enjoy your wrongly played CG Paladin. (I hope you get that's a joke. I hate having to point them out. Ruins the whole joke.)
However, I still feel Paladins by-the-book should be LG. I said earlier and will repeat now, I think the easiest way to play the CG Paladin is to drop the code. I see the CG Paladin more as a divinely inspired warrior. Having the code you have to thread this crazy needle of it affecting your life enough to properly be called "following a code" but not so much that it renders your chaotic alignment moot.
(Wow, that really got away from me. Sorry about the wall of text.)
@Weirdo: Even putting aside the arguments that a CG Paladin is possible, adding a side-note to the core rules about "alternate alignment paladins" creates at least as many problems as you think it would solve. From that point forward DM's are no longer permissive in allowing a CG Paladin, they instead become restrictive in denying them. Players are not the only participants in the game. There's no need to put extra burdens that may villify some DM's to make your houserule a core rule.Could you expand on this? I don't quiet get what your saying, but it interest me if you would explain it.
It's been covered if you want to go back and reread these 43 pages!
Err... Well you know I would do that Durngrun, its just easier to ask for a summary than go through 43 pages of things I can barely keep up with as is.
I am SOOOOOOO glad my circle of RPG friends are reasonable/rational people.
Some of you guys scare me.
A lot.
Reasonable? Rational? How do you have any fun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Weirdo: Even putting aside the arguments that a CG Paladin is possible, adding a side-note to the core rules about "alternate alignment paladins" creates at least as many problems as you think it would solve. From that point forward DM's are no longer permissive in allowing a CG Paladin, they instead become restrictive in denying them. Players are not the only participants in the game. There's no need to put extra burdens that may villify some DM's to make your houserule a core rule.Could you expand on this? I don't quiet get what your saying, but it interest me if you would explain it.
Sure. Let's take Paladins and Codes of Conduct out of the equation, first.
So, at your home game, one of your players comes to you and says, "I have an idea for a Barbarian who is the child of afflicted lycanthropes. Instead of inheriting full lycanthropy, he just has uncontrollable rage-bloodlust at times of high stress like combat, etc. To make this character work, though, I need him to struggle against his nature. To that end, I'd like him to be Lawful Neutral alignment."
Now, at this point, you as DM have the option to say, "I'm sorry, but I prefer to follow the core rules as closely as possible. So, you can't have a Lawful Barbarian."
Or, you could say, "That sounds like a great concept! I'd enjoy seeing that fleshed out in game. Sure, you can do that."
In neither case are you, as the DM, denying your player something they feel that they have the right to have.
If, on the other hand, the CRB had a note about the possibility of Lawful Barbarians, your denial would have to be more along the lines of, "No, I don't allow Lawful Barbarians."
At this point, you are restricting something that is allowed in the Core Rules. Instead of being "generous/permissive" or "fair, if a bit strict", like the first two examples, you have become "unfair/restrictive/stifling".
Does that help?
|
The difference between my suggestion and just changing the alignment restriction to "Any Good" is that it makes it clear that the LG is still the standard and that GMs are not being unfair in sticking to that standard - just that it is also fine to expand that standard.
Are philosophy clerics a problem? Are GMs vilified for requiring that clerics have a deity in their games? What about the Gunslinger class? Did Paizo decide not to include that class on the grounds that some GMs don't like firearms in their fantasy? Were they afraid that this would turn GMs who disallow firearms into the Bad Guy? Clearly not. GMs can place whatever restrictions they like for flavour reasons, and mature players will accept that as the GM's right. No matter what the CRB says, I would never try to play a CG paladin if I knew my GM didn't like them.
Will immature players cause problems? Probably. But immature players will always cause problems, they will always try to find a way to cheat the system no matter what the system is. The OP was about the fact that immature players shouldn't even try to play paladin classic, given that the class depends so strongly on player-GM trust (the GM trusts the player to behave appropriately, the player trusts the GM not to make them fall for jaywalking to stop a murder).
We shouldn't make things hard on mature players in an attempt to control or discourage immature players.
@Durngrun and Bill Kirsch, thanks, you both made me smile. I really have no idea what other peoples' games look like. Some of the comments I see here are pretty scary, but maybe it is just internet rhetoric. I do feel like I'd get along with most of the people on this thread just fine if I ran into them in a PFS game.
Some examples and things.
No, that doesn't help at all actually. I would say "That doesn't sound very lawful... Can you try and do this another way or are you okay with being another alignment? You can still be conflicted if your chaotic or nuetral. Maybe after some conflict resolution we can move you around a little, but for now this is just a little too much. You won't lose any class features though okay?" Thats conflict resolution and talking things out. Flexibility and agreement so everyone is happy.
That said, Its basically hiding behind the core rule book in one example and in the other its a DM who wants to enforce his own campaign rules. He's the type who bans monks and ninjas becuase he hates the idea of eastern classes in his medival game. Neither are good imo.
Heres another type of GM responce for you. "Hey, so you know how you want to bring that Atheist CG paladin into my game? I'm not really into that, but I want to work with you since this is what you picked. Can we call him a Champion or Liberator instead? I mean, I want paladins in my world to work like this, and your just not into that. We can talk more about this over a sweet strawberry cheesecake I bought for the potluck. You don't mind if I take some of your cookies do you?" GMs who work with the player are the best.
Its not some entitlement or anything, its about making everyone happy. Having cake and eat it to and whatnot. The GM might have gone out of his way to say something and think something over, but that wasn't much work on his part and he made one of his players really happy in doing so. This way you keep a player, you have something interesting to work with, and also had a fine excuse to eat a fine rich desert.
Which is exactly the point! A DM can work with his players to allow them to do any of these things without having to change the Core Rules!
So why, in your opinion, do they need to be changed?
Becuase like in the example you just gave, many DMs just say no based on the idea that RAW is perfect and the only way to play. It creates a close minded ness that not everyone overcomes, and sometimes a GM just wants to get started instead of dealing with all these "may I" things and making exceptions on the offchance it blows up their game. Sometimes a GM feels like he has to put trust in a new player he just doesn't have.
RAW giving many options helps open up things and helps the mind create many ideas, rather than thinking "What!? Paladins are only LG. Its the only way they can and always will be. Your crazy for thinking otherwise!"
Saying no to this just becuase you can house rule it is like kicking some innocent players in the face for even thinking about it. If your not against it being a houserule why so against RAW?
Edit: You also have situations like PFS or GMs who use PFS only rules where RAW is the only way.
|
@Weirdo: Even putting aside the arguments that a CG Paladin is possible, adding a side-note to the core rules about "alternate alignment paladins" creates at least as many problems as you think it would solve. From that point forward DM's are no longer permissive in allowing a CG Paladin, they instead become restrictive in denying them. Players are not the only participants in the game. There's no need to put extra burdens that may villify some DM's to make your houserule a core rule.
No more of an extra burden than saying, 'No gunslingers.'
@Weirdo: Even putting aside the arguments that a CG Paladin is possible, adding a side-note to the core rules about "alternate alignment paladins" creates at least as many problems as you think it would solve. From that point forward DM's are no longer permissive in allowing a CG Paladin, they instead become restrictive in denying them. Players are not the only participants in the game. There's no need to put extra burdens that may villify some DM's to make your houserule a core rule.No more of an extra burden than saying, 'No gunslingers.'
You do know not everybody says "no gunslingers," right? (Now if they tried playing chaotic gunslingers, well...).
All kidding aside, I like to make as much use of a product as I can. My world has gunslingers and summoners (but no witches, am I right people? Sorry, reflex). I even have NPCs with Amateur Gunslinger feats.
Point being, just because I'm against CG Paladins in the CRB in no way means I'm running around with a ban hammer (learned that here, I like it). My argument has been pretty much the opposite. I try to allow everything "pathfinder" into my game so opening up Paladins changes my game. What other GMs allow or ban on their own doesn't affect me. And this is all about me! (Alright last one. Happy Easter, everybody!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your not against it being a houserule why so against RAW?
Because there is no reason why your houserule should affect my game. Should we begin adding my most recent group's house rules into RAW? I promise you that would be very unsatisfactory to a lot of people.
Also, saying that my belief the RAW should not change is the same as me "kicking some innocent players in the face for even thinking about it" is crossing the line, by quite a margin.
|
|
If your not against it being a houserule why so against RAW?Because there is no reason why your houserule should affect my game.
How would the option of 'any good' paladins in the CRB spoil your game?
Your paladin could still be LG. The existence of a CG paladin somewhere else in the world will spoil your paladin how?
If your not against it being a houserule why so against RAW?Because there is no reason why your houserule should affect my game. Should we begin adding my most recent group's house rules into RAW? I promise you that would be very unsatisfactory to a lot of people.
Also, saying that my belief the RAW should not change is the same as me "kicking some innocent players in the face for even thinking about it" is crossing the line, by quite a margin.
It does not, you betray people when you say they don't deserve options and you help it never reach them. It can be a houserule is not balance or options. That didn't answer my qeustion even, theres a huge difference between opening options and a houserule.
It really doesn't hurt him Wierdo, but I don't think that'll change peoples minds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
kicking some innocent players in the face for even thinking about it
you betray people when you say they don't deserve options
I can only assume at this point, that you are resorting to hyperbole because you have exhausted everything resembling a legitimate argument.
I can only assume at this point, that you are resorting to hyperbole because you have exhausted everything resembling a legitimate argument.kicking some innocent players in the face for even thinking about it
you betray people when you say they don't deserve options
No, I just get emotional when people do things that I feel hurt other people. Saying things like that is unneeded though, it comes off as an insult. Play nice.
The thing is no matter what, I can't change RAW, so I can't change some peoples opinions on this thread. I'm fine with houserules, but I don't like houserules being used as an excuse to be closeminded. I feel like thats a thing here, its rather unwelcoming.
I can only assume at this point, that you are resorting to hyperbole because you have exhausted everything resembling a legitimate argument.kicking some innocent players in the face for even thinking about it
you betray people when you say they don't deserve options
No, I just get emotional when people do things that I feel hurt other people. Saying things like that is unneeded though, it comes off as an insult. Play nice.
The thing is no matter what, I can't change RAW, so I can't change some peoples opinions on this thread. I'm fine with houserules, but I don't like houserules being used as an excuse to be closeminded. I feel like thats a thing here, its rather unwelcoming.
You do realize there is a section of the forums for house rules, don't you? I'm not sure how that's unwelcoming. Unless you mean you want every person on here to welcome your house rules, because that's not gonna happen. Not even Paizo gets that on these boards.
If a cleric wants to be Chaotic and follow a Lawful God, yes.Are philosophy clerics a problem?
Clerics of the ideal aren't bound by those things. At the same time, I don't advocate claiming to be Lawful good while worshipping Lamashtu or Urgothoa. Possibly Chaotic and following Irori becuase you like excercising but are prone to chaotic behavior, but I would defenitely suggest against being contradictory for the sake of it.
|
@MrSin - This now 2000 post thread is exactly the problem. The Paladin exists as a concept. A core class no less. Yet asking someone to simply conform to that concept is provoking a 2000 post thread from about 3 or 4 of you who don't want to houserule for your game, but rather want to blow up the concept for everyone else who actually likes the concept, including the designers of the game...
@MrSin - This now 2000 post thread is exactly the problem. The Paladin exists as a concept. A core class no less. Yet asking someone to simply conform to that concept is provoking a 2000 post thread from about 3 or 4 of you who don't want to houserule for your game, but rather want to blow up the concept for everyone else who actually likes the concept, including the designers of the game...
Wait, whats this part about and how does it relate to me? Would make it easier to respond if you could quote a part of what I said.
Anyways, yeah... I like paladins as they are now mechanics wise, I have slightly different idea about the way they can and do work than you I know, but I definitely am not against paladins and I would never argue that paladins can be chaotic by RAW.
I don't think adding options would destroy it, but I'm not out to wreck the class or anything or make a huge change to the way it is now. That would be way over the top and bad wrong imo. Add options, not destroy. I mean, I know I can houserule and everything, but I've played PFS for over half a year and I've been with way too many DMs who won't let me use something unless its RAW so to me it actually would be very helpful if they gave me additional options. More so I've seen DMs who are a LG paladin is just doomed to fall of anything, even mistakes. So something lenient would really help me and give me a chance to actually experience the class without stress.
kicking some innocent players in the face for even thinking about it
you betray people when you say they don't deserve options
Saying things like that is unneeded though, it comes off as an insult. Play nice.
I couldn't agree more.
Part of RAW is the ability to add options that don't exist in the written rules. It is in the very front of the CRB. It is Rule Zero. Do you want to turn Pathfinder into GURPS? Total options with no restrictions? No flavor?
I don't. If that is betrayal, then I guess I'm guilty of it...
|
|
@MrSin - This now 2000 post thread is exactly the problem. The Paladin exists as a concept. A core class no less. Yet asking someone to simply conform to that concept is provoking a 2000 post thread from about 3 or 4 of you who don't want to houserule for your game, but rather want to blow up the concept for everyone else who actually likes the concept, including the designers of the game...
Actually, I do not think 3 or 4 people who agree with each other will ever cause a thread to explode past 2000 posts ;-)
Part of RAW is the ability to add options that don't exist in the written rules. It is in the very front of the CRB. It is Rule Zero. Do you want to turn Pathfinder into GURPS? Total options with no restrictions? No flavor?
I don't. If that is betrayal, then I guess I'm guilty of it...
Taking things out of context to make me look bad now? If you agree then please don't take it there. I am not out to insult you, nor be insulted. Bad karma and it doesn't accomplish anything.
Well the thing is thats not really RAW, its an option a DM can take. Its things that aren't written at all. As I've stated before not every one is willing to take it. In PFS there isn't a choice at all, and I'm not against existing flavor at all, but I like having lots of options. I think having lots of options is a good thing don't you?
I just made a big post about how its okay that theres existing flavor and I'm not out to destroy it but allow other choices to open up.
I consider you calling my beliefs "a betrayal and kick to the face of innocent players worldwide" fairly insulting. At the very least, it is too facetious to be useful to the discussion.
So, where do you draw the line? After you get your "Any Good Paladin" someone is going to want an "Any Neutral Paladin". And why not? Abadar and Iriori already have them. I assume Pharasma and Calistria will get some after we expand alignment. Then we'll need some evils, too, of course. James Jacobs already has endless facepalms over the Asmodeus write-up that said he had Paladins. But, I guess he'll get them now. Why don't we just make Smite and Lay on Hands feats and be done with it?
More is not always better. And when you get your "more", will you be content? Or will the new "more" always be the thing that will make happy?
To be perfectly honest I'd be fine with just a paladin for CG/LG and possibly CE/LE. Most games don't take place on the Chaos/Lawful axis, and that does pretty much open everything. At the moment I don't think theres anything keeping the current paladin from worshipping Pharasma or Irori.
More is better, but theres probably a good place to stop and still have most everyone happy. Opening up CG paladin's probaby won't open the floodgates for Calistrian paladins, and definitely not lay on hands and smite as feats
Calistrian Paladins is a horrifying thought though imo, can't trust neutrals. I'm not sure what you would even call her paladins. The embodiment of vengeance lust and trickery probably doesn't want that label anyway.
-Too much arguing over Paladins-
-Head Hurts-
|
|
Which is exactly the point! A DM can work with his players to allow them to do any of these things without having to change the Core Rules!
So why, in your opinion, do they need to be changed?
The balance myth. The idea that a CG paladin or one with a different or more flexible code will break your game.
You do know not everybody says "no gunslingers," right?
Not everyone does, but some do, and those that do aren't generally labelled “evil GMs.”
Point being, just because I'm against CG Paladins in the CRB in no way means I'm running around with a ban hammer (learned that here, I like it). My argument has been pretty much the opposite. I try to allow everything "pathfinder" into my game so opening up Paladins changes my game. What other GMs allow or ban on their own doesn't affect me. And this is all about me!
But not having even a mention of CG paladins in PF materials is affecting players with GMs who are not inclined to deviate from the rulebooks.
Are philosophy clerics a problem?If a cleric wants to be Chaotic and follow a Lawful God, yes.
1) Happens in the Eberron setting.
2) A philosophy cleric doesn't follow any God so they sure don't follow a Lawful one.3) A CG paladin wouldn't be following a Lawful God.
It is for Pathfinder. Any other bit of code a Paladin picks up is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't conflict with the parts that are in the book.Which are the parts that make the Paladin Lawful.
You can't spend 2000 posts arguing against what is written then try to argue you want more rules.
You don't even like following the ones that are included.
You've mistaken me for someone else. I quite like the Paladin the way it is :)
|
|
You've mistaken me for someone else. I quite like the Paladin the way it is :)It is for Pathfinder. Any other bit of code a Paladin picks up is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't conflict with the parts that are in the book.Which are the parts that make the Paladin Lawful.
You can't spend 2000 posts arguing against what is written then try to argue you want more rules.
You don't even like following the ones that are included.
I was more replying to who you were replying too.
|
|
Which is exactly the point! A DM can work with his players to allow them to do any of these things without having to change the Core Rules!
So why, in your opinion, do they need to be changed?The balance myth. The idea that a CG paladin or one with a different or more flexible code will break your game.
Or the "I actually like the setting" fallacy?
How about "I think it is a stupid concept to have a Chaotic Paladin, because Paladin's are pretty much the opposite of Chaotic, so why don't you not be a knob and make something that makes sense in the actual setting" Fallacy?
How about "I think it is a stupid concept to have a Chaotic Paladin, because Paladin's are pretty much the opposite of Chaotic, so why don't you not be a knob and make something that makes sense in the actual setting" Fallacy?
Has someone actually been saying that!?
|
|
1) Happens in the Eberron setting.
2) A philosophy cleric doesn't follow any God so they sure don't follow a Lawful one.
3) A CG paladin wouldn't be following a Lawful God.
1. No, actually it doesn't if you are playing the Pathfinder rule set in the Eberron setting
2. A Philosophy God isn't following a Lawful Good Philosophy and being Chaotic.3. This is true. Because a CG Paladin is like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Doesn't exist unless you want to make it up. And is silly, even if you do.
Doesn't exist unless you want to make it up. And is silly, even if you do.
Wait, is that your arguement against a CG paladin? Even if you change the code?
Doesn't exist unless you want to make it up. And is silly, even if you do.Wait, is that your arguement against a CG paladin? Even if you change the code?
It's what I've been saying. Codes and chaotics don't play well together. This has been discussed at length by this point. Where did you join in?
|
|
Doesn't exist unless you want to make it up. And is silly, even if you do.Wait, is that your arguement against a CG paladin? Even if you change the code?
Yes.
You can be chaotic and have a personal code.
You CANNOT be chaotic and follow someone else's code.
The entire premise of a Paladin is following someone else's code.
Doesn't exist unless you want to make it up. And is silly, even if you do.Wait, is that your arguement against a CG paladin? Even if you change the code?Yes.
You can be chaotic and have a personal code.
You CANNOT be chaotic and follow someone else's code.
The entire premise of a Paladin is following someone else's code.
What if your code had a clause about being able to break it when needed... Wouldn't that be chaotic? Seems to be what the anti-paladin code does. It still enforces evil and selfishness, but in addition to that it doesn't have the trap where you have choices and both make you fall. Couldn't we have something like that for a CG paladin? I know the several times i bring up Chaotic Clerics/inquisitors/anti paladin I just get shot down becuase apparently they're stupid in the first place, but I think it makes some sense.
|
|
What if your code had a clause about being able to break it when needed...Doesn't exist unless you want to make it up. And is silly, even if you do.Wait, is that your arguement against a CG paladin? Even if you change the code?Yes.
You can be chaotic and have a personal code.
You CANNOT be chaotic and follow someone else's code.
The entire premise of a Paladin is following someone else's code.
Are you trolling?
It is a code. If it had a clause allowing you to break it whenever you felt like it, it wouldn't be a code, now would it? It would just be "Doing whatever you like"
Which isn't a code.
Point being, just because I'm against CG Paladins in the CRB in no way means I'm running around with a ban hammer (learned that here, I like it). My argument has been pretty much the opposite. I try to allow everything "pathfinder" into my game so opening up Paladins changes my game. What other GMs allow or ban on their own doesn't affect me. And this is all about me!But not having even a mention of CG paladins in PF materials is affecting players with GMs who are not inclined to deviate from the rulebooks.
But this brings us back again. If you get your wish and they put CG Paladins in the CRB, what do you say to the guy who wants a TN Paladin in the book or NE (you say because of smite evil but you're changing the code, why not smite good.). There is always some player that will have trouble with some GM. You cannot cover everything in the rule book.
I never really got a satisfactory answer. Why should we make your "one little change" but not the next guy's? I hate to say "slippery slope" but it seems fitting in a Paladin discussion. This ultimately leads to zero fluff, only mechanics, because as soon as they say, "ok it's now this and this" someone somewhere will ask, "why not that?" Their argument "it should be an option in the book" is as valid as your argument "it should be an option in the book." Is it not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think actually we've been suggesting if you want to play a Chaotic holy warrior, make it a Cleric or Inquisitor. Or even just a zealous fighter or barbarian. It's only the Chaotic Paladin that makes no sense. Not even the RAW Anti-Paladin.
Are Inquisitors and clerics are the same things as paladins with the same mechanics right? nope! They're totally different in play. Much more spellcasty and less smitey. I could also play a fighter who wears armor with holy symbols, or a barbarian who really hates bad guys. They all play very differently once you get in though. I don't tell people on a rogue thread to make a ranger or people on the fighter thread to just make a warblade. I suggest it or say I prefer it maybe, but I do not just tell them not to play what they want to play.
I addressed that earlier Durn. If you hit the 4 corners your mostly done, not sure what a TN paladin would smite anyway. Games are mostly focused on the evil/good axis. You do not strip the fluff by adding options, I don't see how you get there. No matter how many options you add the core paladin is going to be the first one you see, and you do not strip the fluff by adding more options. I don't think its a slippery slope unless you let it be. Aeons(the TN outsiders) are just wierd anyway imo.
Ciretose, its okay for them to have a code. Anti paladins and divine casters of chaotic gods already do. They just don't have the "Code of conduct" Class feature(or at least not one you agree with). Its just a more lenient code. "Fight tyranny and strike at evil where you see it, by whatever means you see fit." Something akin to that. Its basically just "Be a good guy, beat up evil!" but much more free. It is in fact a code, its one that lets you be yourself but still aligns you with a purpose. One you were probably already doing if you wanted to go around smiting bad guys.
But this brings us back again. If you get your wish and they put CG Paladins in the CRB, what do you say to the guy who wants a TN Paladin in the book or NE (you say because of smite evil but you're changing the code, why not smite good.). There is always some player that will have trouble with some GM. You cannot cover everything in the rule book.Point being, just because I'm against CG Paladins in the CRB in no way means I'm running around with a ban hammer (learned that here, I like it). My argument has been pretty much the opposite. I try to allow everything "pathfinder" into my game so opening up Paladins changes my game. What other GMs allow or ban on their own doesn't affect me. And this is all about me!But not having even a mention of CG paladins in PF materials is affecting players with GMs who are not inclined to deviate from the rulebooks.
See what I mean.
I addressed that earlier Durn. If you hit the 4 corners your mostly done, not sure what a TN paladin would smite anyway. Games are mostly focused on the evil/good axis
Well, I guess I can post other definitions and see what other places have to say. Heres one.
1: a systematic statement of a body of law; especially: one given statutory force
2: a system of principles or rules <moral code>
Doesn't say it has to be massive or overbearing or anything. Just a system of principles. Does it have to be Ye old latin direct translation? Becuase if we do that Barbarians are worse than Illiterate.
Yeah, I know you aren't taking it out on your players Durn, its other GMs I worry about though, and PFS. Most of my GMs won't allow anything, but my experience is mostly with bad GMs. I really don't think it opens the flood gates so to speak about all the other kinds of paladins. The 4 extremes are just good places to hit. I don't think its over kill, but I think we'll just have to disagree on theory. Its hard to say.