You are really trying hard not to get it... because you don't want to get it.
It crosses a line when you tell people what they want and think. I don't tell you that you want speghetti for dinner, I ask nicely... Provided I am for some reason offering speghetti I guess, but my metaphors have never been the best.
I could see a barbarian with a code. He might get angry sometimes, but he's still a human being capable of rational thought and palnning. Unless he's like, a dwarf. But then he's a dwarf capable of rational thought. Unless he's a really mean thick headed dwarf, but they have good wisdom right?
As a more serious example of the barbarian, they do have a fluff about worshipping totems and gaining power from them and emulation of beast don't they? That shows a code and static thought right?
As another example Demonic Obedience is purely for CE dieties known as Demon Lords. Their purpose is very much destruction, corruptions, or savagery in one shape or another. You get super powers for performing a regularly scheduled act of reverence in a specific manner. Is that not lawful?
|
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?
Paladins of 'any good' make sense fluff-wise because right now paladins are all about doing good with a lawful slant and they can easily do good with any slant they like, and crunch-wise they don't need to change.
Evil paladins wouldn't make sense because paladins are about doing good (fluff) and this is reflected in the mechanics (crunch). Fortunately the anti-paladin already exists, and opening them up to 'any evil' wouldn't involve any change in mechanics.
Paladins and anti-paladins, good and evil, are two sides of the same coin. A 'champion of the balance' makes sense between law and chaos because, as explored by Moorcock in the books which coined the 'law/chaos' axis which inspired Gygax, both extreme law and extreme chaos are inimicable to human life, whereas ultimate good would be fine, so trying to get a balance between good and evil on the grounds that ultimate good is bad for humans doesn't hold up.
The 'slippery slope' excuse won't work. No-one wants non-good paladins.
|
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?
You did get an answer, but it was a long post so I can see why you missed it.
Short version: most of the "slippery slope" changes you mentioned are either not forbidden or explicitly encouraged by the PF system. Barbarians aren't required to be angry despite the Rage label, bloodlines aren't all genetically inherited, rogues can have any background including investigators on the side of the law, and a monk can be a "self-taught brawler."
Of the three that don't currently exist, one is clearly nonsensical (the evil paladin who smites evil), one is increasingly incongruent and could be removed without problems (the druid armour restriction, since druids can take the Metal subdomain), and one is strongly grounded in mechanics and thus more defensible than the lawful paladin, though still potentially bendable (druids revere nature and have nature-based powers).
So I don't see this "slippery slope" as a problem.
The 'slippery slope' excuse won't work. No-one wants non-good paladins.
No, you don't want non-good Paladins (nevermind you just called for "any evil" anti-paladin). I've already posted comments from some one who does. You say it doesn't work fluff wise. I say chaotic doesn't work fluff wise.
So again (how many times now), why you but not me, why you but not MrSin?
The 'slippery slope' excuse won't work. No-one wants non-good paladins.No, you don't want non-good Paladins (nevermind you just called for "any evil" anti-paladin). I've already posted comments from some one who does. You say it doesn't work fluff wise. I say chaotic doesn't work fluff wise.
So again (how many times now), why you but not me, why you but not MrSin?
I would gladly say that I would like a LE option for anti-paladins. I had a Paladin of Tyranny BBEG that I really liked back in 3.5.
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?You did get an answer, but it was a long post so I can see why you missed it.
Short version: most of the "slippery slope" changes you mentioned are either not forbidden or explicitly encouraged by the PF system. Barbarians aren't required to be angry despite the Rage label, bloodlines aren't all genetically inherited, rogues can have any background including investigators on the side of the law, and a monk can be a "self-taught brawler."
Of the three that don't currently exist, one is clearly nonsensical (the evil paladin who smites evil), one is increasingly incongruent and could be removed without problems (the druid armour restriction, since druids can take the Metal subdomain), and one is strongly grounded in mechanics and thus more defensible than the lawful paladin, though still potentially bendable (druids revere nature and have nature-based powers).
So I don't see this "slippery slope" as a problem.
I did say satisfactory answer. None of my examples are listed in the book. I was not saying you couldn't play those concepts, I was saying you shouldn't demand they be listed as options. If you start listing options there will always be someone asking for one more. I understand you don't want more but the next person will. So if you get yours why can't they get theirs? What do we have when everything is anything?
Opening up CG paladin's probaby won't open the floodgates for Calistrian paladins
Calistrian Paladins is a horrifying thought though imo
Why not?
LG Paladins can already worship Abadar and Irori, since they are only one step away on the alignment axis. So, we're opening it up to CG deities, which means now Gorum and Calistria get some Paladins as well. Malachi is calling for "Any Good" alignment Paladins, which means Neutrals. Guess who's coming to the party now? That's right! It's Nethys, Pharasma, and Gozreh. Seem ridiculous yet?
More is better, but theres probably a good place to stop and still have most everyone happy.
And you're saying there's no chance we've already reached that point? That maybe there's a small group of malcontents who will never be happy and the rest of us are quite pleased with where we're at?
Interesting.
Opening up CG paladin's probaby won't open the floodgates for Calistrian paladins
Calistrian Paladins is a horrifying thought though imo
Why not?
LG Paladins can already worship Abadar and Irori, since they are only one step away on the alignment axis. So, we're opening it up to CG deities, which means now Gorum and Calistria get some Paladins as well. Malachi is calling for "Any Good" alignment Paladins, which means Neutrals. Guess who's coming to the party now? That's right! It's Nethys, Pharasma, and Gozreh. Seem ridiculous yet?
More is better, but theres probably a good place to stop and still have most everyone happy.And you're saying there's no chance we've already reached that point? That maybe there's a small group of malcontents who will never be happy and the rest of us are quite pleased with where we're at?
Interesting.
I think that the current option involves a super strict LG option and a possibly insane CE option, so I would like a lenient good option and a slightly more sane and strict LE option yes. If only for a wider spectrum of good and evil and to give people a chance to try it without feeling held down by a strict code.
My talk about the Calistrian was joking, I'm fine with it, just don't let it interfere with your paladinhood. You know about her priesthood and tenants and how varied she can be right? I could see an avenger in her name, but I could also see a prostitute and rogue, and I could also see a crazy for vengance chaotic character. 3 spectrums that are different.
|
|
I did say satisfactory answer. None of my examples are listed in the book. I was not saying you couldn't play those concepts, I was saying you shouldn't demand they be listed as options. If you start listing options there will always be someone asking for one more. I understand you don't want more but the next person will. So if you get yours why can't they get theirs? What do we have when everything is anything?
Of course you can't make an exhaustive list of exactly every specific character concept in the CRB. If the CRB lists a "self-taught brawler" as a general background option for monks you should be able to infer that someone who learned to fight in a circus is also an option and that is one of your examples:
a character who used the mechanics of the monk class but instead of being from a monastery that taught martial arts, he is instead an acrobat who learned to fight growing up in the circus?
The problem arises when the description excessively focuses on the most obvious concept (discussing only monks from monasteries without mentioning a self-taught option, leading readers to believe that monks are not able to be self-taught or informally trained at all) or explicitly rules out other backgrounds (all monks must be from monasteries, also lawful because apparently all disciplined people are lawful).
The monk description is mostly focused on the monastery concept but mentions that some are self-taught, suggesting a range of other possible backgrounds.
The cleric description is highly focused on the most obvious concept, a servant of a deity, but it mentions that this is not the only possible concept. It doesn't give an exhaustive list of philosophy cleric ideas, but it says they could exist in general.
The paladin description is highly focused on the concept of a LG knight, but should mention that other concepts (alternate codes, nonlawful champions) may be possible. It doesn't have to give an exhaustive list of every possible variant, just say that there might be some.
The problem is particularly pronounced when the flavour intersects with mechanics in alignment restrictions because while it's generally understood that character background is a flexible, creative enterprise, alignment restrictions are supposed to be rules. People who ignore the obvious fluff may still take the alignment restrictions seriously because that's not fluff, it's rules. This despite the fact that alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket and behavior that might qualify you for lawfulness in one GM's book (being disciplined, following a personal code) won't always be considered lawful by a second GM's definition. This is especially true with the law-chaos axis which is even less well-defined than the good-evil one.
I did say satisfactory answer. None of my examples are listed in the book. I was not saying you couldn't play those concepts, I was saying you shouldn't demand they be listed as options. If you start listing options there will always be someone asking for one more. I understand you don't want more but the next person will. So if you get yours why can't they get theirs? What do we have when everything is anything?Of course you can't make an exhaustive list of exactly every specific character concept in the CRB. If the CRB lists a "self-taught brawler" as a general background option for monks you should be able to infer that someone who learned to fight in a circus is also an option and that is one of your examples:
Huh? I guess I never read the monk fluff (or have since forgot if I did). But still, this just goes to prove my point (doesn't everything?). You have all these options available. Specific example within the book plus the option to add more and still it's not enough. You want "any good" Paladins, MrSin wants "extreme alignments" Paladins, Mr. Silverclaw wants "any good" and now "any evil." Is it really that big of a stretch to think someone else will want TN? You just want to remove a few restrictions. You don't think there is anyone out there who wants to go further than you?
Malachi is calling for "Any Good" alignment Paladins, which means Neutrals.What do you mean by this? Good means neutrals? I don't get it.
I think he means NG, which would mean you could worship a TN god.
Paladins and anti-paladins, good and evil, are two sides of the same coin. A 'champion of the balance' makes sense between law and chaos because, as explored by Moorcock in the books which coined the 'law/chaos' axis which inspired Gygax, both extreme law and extreme chaos are inimicable to human life, whereas ultimate good would be fine, so trying to get a balance between good and evil on the grounds that ultimate good is bad for humans doesn't hold up.
Just flashed on this for some reason. Do I understand you right? You went from CG to any good to any good and any evil, or you now suggesting LN and CN? Wouldn't they be the champions of balance between lawful and chaotic? Are Paladins now every alignment but TN?
|
|
Just flashed on this for some reason. Do I understand you right? You went from CG to any good to any good and any evil, or you now suggesting LN and CN? Wouldn't they be the champions of balance between lawful and chaotic? Are Paladins now every alignment but TN?Paladins and anti-paladins, good and evil, are two sides of the same coin. A 'champion of the balance' makes sense between law and chaos because, as explored by Moorcock in the books which coined the 'law/chaos' axis which inspired Gygax, both extreme law and extreme chaos are inimicable to human life, whereas ultimate good would be fine, so trying to get a balance between good and evil on the grounds that ultimate good is bad for humans doesn't hold up.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
I think 'any good' paladins, and 'any evil' anti-paladins work because of the eternal conflict between good and evil. I cannot see a realistic place for a champion of a balance between good and evil, even though I can see a place for a champion of the balance between law and chaos.
The reason the balance between law and chaos is desirable in the Moorcock books is because the extremes of both law and chaos in those books were both deadly to humans. Think of inevitables and proteans. These go way, way beyond the human scales of order/freedom, and into planes of existence where nothing is allowed to change (ultimate law; but the processes that enable life to function include change) and where matter itself is mutable and reality changes every few moments. The gods of chaos want to conquer the more moderate, human dominated planes and turn them into planes of pure chaos, and the gods of law would like to change all the planes into an unchanging solid.
Against the backdrop of the war between the gods of law and chaos in those books, a champion of the balance is needed just to prevent either extreme from gaining victory, because victory by either side would be fatal for humanity.
But the same is not true about good/evil. It is not true that the final victory of good over evil would result in the destruction of humanity, therefore no motive to hope that neither side wins. A champion of the balance between good and evil would not make sense in the way that a champion of the balance between law and chaos would.
On another matter, I've always found it strange that LN gods have paladins. It's an artifact of the 'your god must be within one alignment step of you' rule. That rule isn't actually written in the PF paladin description, even though it is usually inferred. For me, in addition to the 'one step' rule I'd also have a 'only good' rule for a paladin's deity.
Wow. Just wow.
So, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Anti-Paladin of Abadar?
-a NG Paladin of Pharasma meets a NE Anti-Paladin of Pharasma?
-a CG Paladin of Gorum meets a CE Anti-Paladin of Gorum?
Because I'm pretty sure all common sense dies at that point...
Malachi is calling for "Any Good" alignment Paladins, which means Neutrals.What do you mean by this? Good means neutrals? I don't get it.
I'm pretty sure everyone here understood "Any Good" to mean Lawful Good, Chaotic Good,
Are you just arguing to argue, at this point?
|
Wow. Just wow.
So, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Anti-Paladin of Abadar?
-a NG Paladin of Pharasma meets a NE Anti-Paladin of Pharasma?
-a CG Paladin of Gorum meets a CE Anti-Paladin of Gorum?
Because I'm pretty sure all common sense dies at that point...
Common sense isn't needed for some campaign settings apparently...
Homebrew to your hearts content, but making your corner cases core so you can force a GM to accept such absurd concepts is ridiculous.
If you can't even get your home GM to allow such things, why should they be forced on the rest of us.
That this is yet another proof of what James Jacobs stated years ago. That the Paladin is the most disruptive class in the game, and if he had had the choice would have been one of the first classes elimnated entirely, the second being the Summoner. The Paladin is a relic of an earlier generation with different social and moral codes than those of the present. And it simply does not belong in a game where the gm and players are playing the cultural relativism theme of morality.
I'm on my way out the door to work, and don't have time to search, right now. If you don't mind, would you link the original statement/thread, please? I would be interested in reading JJ's actual wording in his statement.
Ok... so, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Legalist of Abadar?
-a NG Benefist of Pharasma meets a NE Malefist of Pharasma?
-a CG Liberator of Gorum meets a CE Destroyer of Gorum?
Because that doesn't make it any less stupid, for me...
|
|
Ok... so, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Legalist of Abadar?
-a NG Benefist of Pharasma meets a NE Malefist of Pharasma?
-a CG Liberator of Gorum meets a CE Destroyer of Gorum?
Because that doesn't make it any less stupid, for me...
These conflicts are already happening between clerics of those faiths in Golarion. The Gorumites of Lastwall clashing with the Gorumites of Belkzen are a notable ongoing example.
Next time you break a law, explain your theory to the officer...Well, I guess I can post other definitions and see what other places have to say. Heres one. ** spoiler omitted **
I don't understand why your telling me this... Are you infering I like... go out and break the law and reexplain definitions to police officers and hope I get away or something?
Ok... so, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Legalist of Abadar?
-a NG Benefist of Pharasma meets a NE Malefist of Pharasma?
-a CG Liberator of Gorum meets a CE Destroyer of Gorum?
Because that doesn't make it any less stupid, for me...
Because people inside of their own religion never fight with themselves ever? I mean if you follow pharasma your main gig is don't fight fate and don't raise the dead, which is pretty easy to follow. So long as your following the law your following abadar, so long as you fight anything ever your following gorum. Whats the problem? Saying people within the same religion can't fight or argue? Even over things totally unrelated to the religion?
|
Ok... so, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Legalist of Abadar?
-a NG Benefist of Pharasma meets a NE Malefist of Pharasma?
-a CG Liberator of Gorum meets a CE Destroyer of Gorum?
Because that doesn't make it any less stupid, for me...
Their gods' forums erupt in 2000 post threads about how their deities really prefer them to behave.
These conflicts are already happening between clerics of those faiths in Golarion. The Gorumites of Lastwall clashing with the Gorumites of Belkzen are a notable ongoing example.
Gorum seems to be a special case, as the god of battle for the sake of battle (and other things, but we'll focus on that part of his portfolio). Gorum actually encourages this conflict and provides his blessing to both sides, as long as each side is faithful in their worship. For Gorum, this is kind of an ideal setup.
Most of the other churches of Golarion won't have a reason to have the same sort of major in-fighting. Not for religious reasons, anyways. Goblin tribes quarrel all the time, but probably not because of disagreements about Lamashtu's doctrine.
Ok... so, what exactly happens when-
-a LG Paladin of Abadar meets a LE Legalist of Abadar?
-a NG Benefist of Pharasma meets a NE Malefist of Pharasma?
-a CG Liberator of Gorum meets a CE Destroyer of Gorum?
Because that doesn't make it any less stupid, for me...
Their gods' forums erupt in 2000 post threads about how their deities really prefer them to behave.
Yeah, this one I'll believe.
The deities in Pathfinder do not require a lot of interpretation on the part of their followers. They make their desires known pretty directly. And their power is not just out in grabbags for their patrons to enjoy. They directly offer it to supplicants they deem worthy. Gorum I'll grant you kind of works, as long as both sides are in conflict, he's happy. But unless the other gods are seriously schizoid, they can't honestly say, "Hey, I love all the do-goodery. Have some power." Then turn around and say, "Hey thanks for all the evily-discord. Have some power, too."
CN gods and LN gods usually don't care much for the Good/Evil axis though. Are you being lawful? All is good. Are you worshipping a chaotic ideal? All is good. Its not "I love you being evil! Here have some ultimate power! and you there, you look good, have ultimate power too!"
Two followers of pharasma could treat the dead with respect, avoid necromancy, and still end up punching eachother in the face over something entirely different. Happens all the time in real life doesn't it?
|
|
But unless the other gods are seriously schizoid, they can't honestly say, "Hey, I love all the do-goodery. Have some power." Then turn around and say, "Hey thanks for all the evily-discord. Have some power, too."
Well that pretty much covers Nethys. ;)
Seriously though, most if not all of the neutral gods could easily have followers coming into conflict while still recieving their patron's blessings. The thing is, the CN,N,LN deities tend to not be concerned with morality. THey're concerned with their spheres of interest. Whether it's Irori's single-minded focus on self-improvement, Abadar's focus on the health and stability of civilization, or Gozreh's focus on nature, they're far less concerned with whether something is good or evil and more on serving the interests of their portfolio.
If Abadar has LG and LE (or LN!) followers coming into conflict, he may very well empower them to let whichever side is most capable of serving his interests prevails. Or it could be a way of allowing each side to "make their case". Is the LG emancipator or the LE slaver better for the city? Abadar would hear both of their cases. It's when they act against whatever their gods are concerned with that they'll likely see their divine gifts yanked away.
And in cases like Nethys and Irori, it doesn't even need to be that. All they want is for you to use magic/improve yourself. Hell, LG vs LE Irori-worshipper conflicts have practically served as the basis for countless martial arts movies and fighting game character backstories.
Most of the other churches of Golarion won't have a reason to have the same sort of major in-fighting. Not for religious reasons, anyways.
From what James Jacobs has hinted, Qadira's Church of Sarenrae seems to be barrelling towards an explosive schism over issues of slavery and nationalistic warmongering appropriating the Sarenraen call to crusade.
A straight conflict example that's going now would be the mainstream Iomedaeans and the Burners, the latter of which do not recieve powers from their goddess on account of her being good and them violating the Geneva Convention like there was a 100% completion achievement to be won. Unlike the morally-neutral gods, she'd be far more inclined to take sides on a moral basis.
So I don't see this "slippery slope" as a problem.
Still don't see it?
Lawful good: Paladin
Neutral good: Benefist*
Chaotic good: LiberatorLawful neutral: Jurist
True neutral: Balancer/Apathist
Chaotic neutral: AnarchistLawful evil: Legalist/Enforcer
Neutral evil: Malefist*
Chaotic evil: Destroyer
Don't forget, the LN/CN gods already have clerics on both sides of the Good/Evil Spectrum. A good cleric of Pharasma might act much differently than an evil Cleric of Pharasma though.
So I don't see this "slippery slope" as a problem.
Still don't see it?
Lawful good: Paladin
Neutral good: Benefist*
Chaotic good: LiberatorLawful neutral: Jurist
True neutral: Balancer/Apathist
Chaotic neutral: AnarchistLawful evil: Legalist/Enforcer
Neutral evil: Malefist*
Chaotic evil: Destroyer
How dare we have archetypes with different names and possibly even class features! Homogenize Everything!
As a side note, Apparently at least one person was happy to see a benefist.
No reason the "within 1 step" needs to be retained, either; maybe a Champion/"Holy Liberator" of [Insert name of CG deity here] must be CG. You'd still have nine "flavors" of Champions, but each deity would have just one variety serving him/her.
|
|
So I don't see this "slippery slope" as a problem.
Still don't see it?
Lawful good: Paladin
Neutral good: Benefist*
Chaotic good: LiberatorLawful neutral: Jurist
True neutral: Balancer/Apathist
Chaotic neutral: AnarchistLawful evil: Legalist/Enforcer
Neutral evil: Malefist*
Chaotic evil: Destroyer
I have no problem with this. I prefer good-aligned paladins (and evil-aligned anti-paladins) and might house-rule against the Jurist, Balancer, and Anarchist in games I GM, but I don't see a problem with these variants existing for others to use. The paladin/antipaladin classes could easily be converted to an "alignment champion" class. Heck, some games could even restrict it to only the lawful range of champions.
And having a champion for every alignment would make it easier to deal with the problem of LG / LE champions of Abadar, since you could change the one-step rule to a matched alignments rule and require that Abadar only have LN champions (which would prevent his LG champions from having to go against their church in order to fight slavery).
But unless the other gods are seriously schizoid, they can't honestly say, "Hey, I love all the do-goodery. Have some power." Then turn around and say, "Hey thanks for all the evily-discord. Have some power, too."The thing is, the CN,N,LN deities tend to not be concerned with morality. THey're concerned with their spheres of interest... they're far less concerned with whether something is good or evil and more on serving the interests of their portfolio.
Yep. No slippery slope to making the Paladin completely different here.
Thank goodness the folks at Paizo have some restraint...
Indeed.
On the flipside, maybe its being too strict to not allow more than 2 alignments to happen. One of which falls for breathing becuase you accidentally killed innocent particles of worthless living matter.
Still don't see it?
So I don't see this "slippery slope" as a problem.
The paladin/antipaladin classes could easily be converted to an "alignment champion" class. Heck, some games could even restrict it to only the lawful range of champions.
And having a champion for every alignment would make it easier to deal with the problem of LG / LE champions of Abadar, since you could change the one-step rule to a matched alignments rule and require that Abadar only have LN champions (which would prevent his LG champions from having to go against their church in order to fight slavery).
At this point, you must be typing with your eyes closed to not see this...
I have no problem with this.
Do you really not get it yet? It's not a slippery slope because you don't have a problem with these, so far? You don't think, out of everybody that plays Pathfinder, there is going to somebody who wants something that is just one line too far for you? Can we keep adding option after option after option and still retain any meaning? Is it still a creative game if we put everything in the CRB so no one has to think of anything themselves?
Generic Universal RolePlaying System.
Have fun.
And I'm not really seeing how pointing out how the neutral gods actually act is slipping down any slopes.
So the Paladin is LG, Weirdo wants any good, MrSin wants extreme alignments, you want every alignment...
You really don't see a slope yet?
A slippery slope leading to somewhere reasonable is nothing to be worried about.
They only go downhill.
Slippery slope arguments mean nothing to folks who think that all fluff restrictions should be removed from the class mechanics.
|
|
Generic Universal RolePlaying System.
Have fun.
The game is not rendered generic by presenting more options.
Offering options to CG and NG exemplars does not strip the flavor from the game.
And I'm not really seeing how pointing out how the neutral gods actually act is slipping down any slopes.So the Paladin is LG, Weirdo wants any good, MrSin wants extreme alignments, you want every alignment...
You really don't see a slope yet?
I want every alignment to have its own special thing.
I'm not seeing that slope.
Seriously guys, what's with the vilification? Is it that badwrong to you that someone might want to play an alignment exemplar that isn't LG or CE and have some options to back that flavor up ingame?
There really isn't any villification.
Play what you want. That's what houserules are for.