The last Paladin "conduct" thread ever needed.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically it all boils down to this- trust.

Arguing back and forth on a forum with people you do not game with is pointless when it comes to this topic. It's all about how "you" and your "GM" interpret the paladin's code and you two coming together to find a common ground. Then you have to decide from that point on if you are going to trust your DM after that common ground has been found.

If you two can't find common ground then you are left with three choices. You either, play any way and hope for the best, choose another class, or find another GM who will reach a common ground with you. The code "is" a part of the class, it is what makes the paladin iconic, not Smite Evil.

The alignment is not the problem, it's the person and his GM that are the problem. If you want to play in a game that leaves no room for interpretation then Pathfinder is not for you nor is it fair on others for you to try and have it changed to fit that type of system.

If you want the power, you gotta accept the responsibility.

Cheers


shallowsoul wrote:

Basically it all boils down to this- trust.

Arguing back and forth on a forum with people you do not game with is pointless when it comes to this topic. It's all about how "you" and your "GM" interpret the paladin's code and you two coming together to find a common ground. Then you have to decide from that point on if you are going to trust your DM after that common ground has been found.

If you two can't find common ground then you are left with three choices. You either, play any way and hope for the best, choose another class, or find another GM who will reach a common ground with you. The code "is" a part of the class, it is what makes the paladin iconic, not Smite Evil.

The alignment is not the problem, it's the person and his GM that are the problem. If you want to play in a game that leaves no room for interpretation then Pathfinder is not for you nor is it fair on others for you to try and have it changed to fit that type of system.

If you want the power, you gotta accept the responsibility.

Cheers

Thank you Spiderman.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope, I think I'll keep discussing things on the forum.

Silver Crusade

Rynjin wrote:
Nope, I think I'll keep discussing things on the forum.

So you enjoy beating a dead horse?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

shallowsoul, your argument could be made about any facet of the game (so, if we accept it, we don't need most of the forum anymore).

If you don't want to discuss paladins then... don't discuss paladins. It's not a hard thing to do.


It's like with any class: ask your GM how it works. If he tells you that the paladin is likely to face challenges where he loses all his powers then keep that in mind when you decide whether or not to roll up that character. You should do the same with any class really, otherwise you might end up with a wizard that gets pigeonholed as a heretic because the state religion hates arcane casters or a barbarian brute who is considered noble when you just wanted to be a gritty marauder. The paladin is just much more easy to break "naturally" than other classes but you should do the same preparations before rolling up any character.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

We've never needed a discussion. That has never stopped us from having them.

Silver Crusade

Trikk wrote:
It's like with any class: ask your GM how it works. If he tells you that the paladin is likely to face challenges where he loses all his powers then keep that in mind when you decide whether or not to roll up that character. You should do the same with any class really, otherwise you might end up with a wizard that gets pigeonholed as a heretic because the state religion hates arcane casters or a barbarian brute who is considered noble when you just wanted to be a gritty marauder. The paladin is just much more easy to break "naturally" than other classes but you should do the same preparations before rolling up any character.

Well the paladin is the only class that has an ethics code built into the class. Heretic Wizards are campaign setting fluff so it's not really the same thing.

It's all down to how your GM interprets the code.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
We've never needed a discussion. That has never stopped us from having them.

So what other answer are you looking for?

If it's not down to you and your GM then what else is there?

Silver Crusade

Whale_Cancer wrote:

shallowsoul, your argument could be made about any facet of the game (so, if we accept it, we don't need most of the forum anymore).

If you don't want to discuss paladins then... don't discuss paladins. It's not a hard thing to do.

Same questions I just posted to TOZ.

What other answer are you looking for?


shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

shallowsoul, your argument could be made about any facet of the game (so, if we accept it, we don't need most of the forum anymore).

If you don't want to discuss paladins then... don't discuss paladins. It's not a hard thing to do.

Same questions I just posted to TOZ.

What other answer are you looking for?

How the paladin should be run according to Paizo (as determined by examination of existent texts; i.e. hermeneutics).

How the paladin should be run that would be best for the player and DM.

Now answer why you would discuss anything rules related on the forum if, as you correctly say, everything is in the end up to the player and DM?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't come here for answers, I come for entertainment.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't come here for answers, I come for entertainment.

This, I believe, is also perfectly valid.

Silver Crusade

Whale_Cancer wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

shallowsoul, your argument could be made about any facet of the game (so, if we accept it, we don't need most of the forum anymore).

If you don't want to discuss paladins then... don't discuss paladins. It's not a hard thing to do.

Same questions I just posted to TOZ.

What other answer are you looking for?

How the paladin should be run according to Paizo (as determined by examination of existent texts; i.e. hermeneutics).

How the paladin should be run that would be best for the player and DM.

Now answer why you would discuss anything rules related on the forum if, as you correctly say, everything is in the end up to the player and DM?

You don't need a direct answer from Paizo because you have it in the CRB. It is up to you to take the initiative and speak with your GM about how the code of ethics is interpreted. Paizo left it like it is on purpose so it can be interpreted amongst different types of playstyles. Paizo don't need a disclaimer in the class that says the following- Due to the nature of this class, it is our recommendation that you speak with your GM before playing the class so a common ground, as to the nature of the Paladin's Code, can be reached. Paizo doesn't need to tell you how to you use common pre-game preparation.


shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

shallowsoul, your argument could be made about any facet of the game (so, if we accept it, we don't need most of the forum anymore).

If you don't want to discuss paladins then... don't discuss paladins. It's not a hard thing to do.

Same questions I just posted to TOZ.

What other answer are you looking for?

How the paladin should be run according to Paizo (as determined by examination of existent texts; i.e. hermeneutics).

How the paladin should be run that would be best for the player and DM.

Now answer why you would discuss anything rules related on the forum if, as you correctly say, everything is in the end up to the player and DM?

You don't need a direct answer from Paizo because you have it in the CRB. It is up to you to take the initiative and speak with your GM about how the code of ethics is interpreted. Paizo left it like it is on purpose so it can be interpreted amongst different types of playstyles. Paizo don't need a disclaimer in the class that says the following- Due to the nature of this class, it is our recommendation that you speak with your GM before playing the class so a common ground, as to the nature of the Paladin's Code, can be reached Paizo doesn't need to tell you how to you use common pre-game preparation.

And that is just your interpretation (an unsupported one at that; are there links from devs saying anything like that? That would be a positive contribution to the paladin discussion).

Your interpretation is not the be-all and end-all (despite the title of this thread).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys, you do realise you're arguing with shallowsoul, right?


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Guys, you do realise you're arguing with shallowsoul, right?

I'm too green on these forums to know more than a few posters by reputation.

Edit: Or was that a joke on his name?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm not arguing. That would be futile. I'm just commenting.

Silver Crusade

Whale_Cancer wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

shallowsoul, your argument could be made about any facet of the game (so, if we accept it, we don't need most of the forum anymore).

If you don't want to discuss paladins then... don't discuss paladins. It's not a hard thing to do.

Same questions I just posted to TOZ.

What other answer are you looking for?

How the paladin should be run according to Paizo (as determined by examination of existent texts; i.e. hermeneutics).

How the paladin should be run that would be best for the player and DM.

Now answer why you would discuss anything rules related on the forum if, as you correctly say, everything is in the end up to the player and DM?

You don't need a direct answer from Paizo because you have it in the CRB. It is up to you to take the initiative and speak with your GM about how the code of ethics is interpreted. Paizo left it like it is on purpose so it can be interpreted amongst different types of playstyles. Paizo don't need a disclaimer in the class that says the following- Due to the nature of this class, it is our recommendation that you speak with your GM before playing the class so a common ground, as to the nature of the Paladin's Code, can be reached Paizo doesn't need to tell you how to you use common pre-game preparation.

And that is just your interpretation (an unsupported one at that; are there links from devs saying anything like that? That would be a positive contribution to the paladin discussion).

Your interpretation is not the be-all and end-all (despite the title of this thread).

Actually, as much as you want to disagree it "is" up to your GM how the code is handled. I haven't interpreted the code in any way on this thread, I have only stated what is a fact with regards to who decides how those interpretations are handled.

The player's don't get to decide how the GM interprets the code of ethics. Now the GM may agree with you and side with you but in the end it's all down to how he interprets it if no middle ground is reached.

You can argue against that all day long but you will always be wrong.

Silver Crusade

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Guys, you do realise you're arguing with shallowsoul, right?

Some people just can't handle it.


shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

shallowsoul, your argument could be made about any facet of the game (so, if we accept it, we don't need most of the forum anymore).

If you don't want to discuss paladins then... don't discuss paladins. It's not a hard thing to do.

Same questions I just posted to TOZ.

What other answer are you looking for?

How the paladin should be run according to Paizo (as determined by examination of existent texts; i.e. hermeneutics).

How the paladin should be run that would be best for the player and DM.

Now answer why you would discuss anything rules related on the forum if, as you correctly say, everything is in the end up to the player and DM?

You don't need a direct answer from Paizo because you have it in the CRB. It is up to you to take the initiative and speak with your GM about how the code of ethics is interpreted. Paizo left it like it is on purpose so it can be interpreted amongst different types of playstyles. Paizo don't need a disclaimer in the class that says the following- Due to the nature of this class, it is our recommendation that you speak with your GM before playing the class so a common ground, as to the nature of the Paladin's Code, can be reached Paizo doesn't need to tell you how to you use common pre-game preparation.

And that is just your interpretation (an unsupported one at that; are there links from devs saying anything like that? That would be a positive contribution to the paladin discussion).

Your interpretation is not the be-all and end-all (despite the title of this thread).

Actually, as much as you want to disagree it "is" up to your GM how the code is handled. I haven't interpreted the code in any way on this thread, I have only stated what is a fact with regards to who decides how those interpretations are handled.

The player's don't get to decide how the GM interprets the code of...

The player's also don't get to decide if the DM says that the fighter class is now called the gimp and they start with a free gimp suit, for all that is worth.


I love "I'm going to start a discussion about not needing discussions, because I have magicked upon SUPERIOR LOGICNESS that everyone else EVER has missed" threads!

/popcorn

Silver Crusade

yeti1069 wrote:

I love "I'm going to start a discussion about not needing discussions, because I have magicked upon SUPERIOR LOGICNESS that everyone else EVER has missed" threads!

/popcorn

It's amazing how you can actually take the time and zero in on an obvious answer to stop the same questions being asked over and over and over.

At the end of the day it isn't superior logicness, it's just plan old common sense and pointing to an answer that has been floating out there for some time that some people just didn't bother to pay attention to.


shallowsoul wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Guys, you do realise you're arguing with shallowsoul, right?
Some people just can't handle it.

*applauds*

Liberty's Edge

I am with Shallowsoul on this (except maybe the very last part on not changing the system).

Wow. Can't believe I wrote that. The World ENDS NOW !!!

That said, I have always been amazed how much people argue about alignments without ever even quoting the RAW.

When compared to any other rules point where the RAW are always mentioned and often quoted (if sometimes distorted/truncated), it feels weird.

Liberty's Edge

yeti1069 wrote:

I love "I'm going to start a discussion about not needing discussions, because I have magicked upon SUPERIOR LOGICNESS that everyone else EVER has missed" threads!

/popcorn

Well it does happen from time to time that someone hits the spot.

Gravity has been an obvious fact of life for billions of people in all of history. But it was only cornered quite recently by a certain Isaac Newton.


And he only scratched the surface of gravitational physics.


ultimately, everything is between gm and the players. my guess would be that most gaming tables have many house rules (i still find the idea of non-good rangers to be strange, and no one confirms crits at my table). the point of all the discussions are, i think, more a philosophical debate rather than a straight up "this is right, you are wrong" argument. i enjoy reading the paladin debates because i have a strong interest in philosophy, debate, and the nature of good and evil. the definition of good and evil has changed so much in our society over just the past three decades that it can't really be defined in any other way than a subjective one. i say keep the debate open. you score points when you change someone's mind.

Silver Crusade

Thing is, people don't post on these boards about the paladin discussion unless they didn't agree with it which usually means that person and their DM never had the talk as to what the interpretation of the code is.

I know a DM who would cause you to fall if you stole an evil artifact from another player in order to destroy it. Even though you are saving a lot of lives, you are still stealing.

That is how easy it is for a DM to interpret the code and cause a Paladin to fall. But the whole point is that I would never play a Paladin in that person's game because he and I have not come to a common ground as to the meaning of the code so I wouldn't be in one of those situations where I thought the DM's rule was just when I did something questionable.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Trikk wrote:
It's like with any class: ask your GM how it works. If he tells you that the paladin is likely to face challenges where he loses all his powers then keep that in mind when you decide whether or not to roll up that character. You should do the same with any class really, otherwise you might end up with a wizard that gets pigeonholed as a heretic because the state religion hates arcane casters or a barbarian brute who is considered noble when you just wanted to be a gritty marauder. The paladin is just much more easy to break "naturally" than other classes but you should do the same preparations before rolling up any character.

Well the paladin is the only class that has an ethics code built into the class. Heretic Wizards are campaign setting fluff so it's not really the same thing.

It's all down to how your GM interprets the code.

Nom Paladins don't have an ethics code "built into them". What they have is a self-destruct whose mechanics cause endless debate, argument, and drama.

Silver Crusade

But if Hulk picks up Thor while Thor is holding Mjölnir, did Hulk pick up Mjölnir?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The black raven wrote:


That said, I have always been amazed how much people argue about alignments without ever even quoting the RAW.

That's because RAW by itself really doesn't serve to address all of the relative parameters of these discussions; Which really aren't about alignment, but of the only class which comes in with a built in self-destruct. No other class faces the issue of permanent loss of it's powers because of behavior. If a cleric misbehaves, all he needs to do is to find a deity that's more in tune with his style of behavior. But if a Paladin triggers his destruct, all he ism is a fighter without class features or bonus feats.

These questions have never truly been about alignment. It's about how Paladins get to blow up.


Booksy wrote:
But if Hulk picks up Thor while Thor is holding Mjölnir, did Hulk pick up Mjölnir?

Technically speaking no. But Thor is probably going through a few walls isn't he?


I don't want to have arguments about paladins, so I'll make a thread and change the world. Then, instead of changing the world, I'll argue about paladins. :(

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Best way to stop seeing Paladin threads?

New threads:

"ZOMG WTF IS WRONG WITH MONKS?!?!?!"

"ZOMG WTF IS WRONG WITH ROGUES?!?!?"

"ZOMG WTF IS WRONG WITH BLASTING WIZARDS?!?!?"

"ZOMG MY PLAYERS EIDOLON DID 83 MILLION DAMAGE IN ONE TURN AT LEVEL 3, WTF IS WRONG WITH SUMMONERS?!?!?!?"

Because its been a solid month since I've seen one of those threads.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:

That's because RAW by itself really doesn't serve to address all of the relative parameters of these discussions; Which really aren't about alignment, but of the only class which comes in with a built in self-destruct. No other class faces the issue of permanent loss of it's powers because of behavior. If a cleric misbehaves, all he needs to do is to find a deity that's more in tune with his style of behavior. But if a Paladin triggers his destruct, all he ism is a fighter without class features or bonus feats.

These questions have never truly been about alignment. It's about how Paladins get to blow up.

You are right that I was going on a tangent.

I definitely need to give it its own thread.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Trikk wrote:
It's like with any class: ask your GM how it works. If he tells you that the paladin is likely to face challenges where he loses all his powers then keep that in mind when you decide whether or not to roll up that character. You should do the same with any class really, otherwise you might end up with a wizard that gets pigeonholed as a heretic because the state religion hates arcane casters or a barbarian brute who is considered noble when you just wanted to be a gritty marauder. The paladin is just much more easy to break "naturally" than other classes but you should do the same preparations before rolling up any character.

Well the paladin is the only class that has an ethics code built into the class. Heretic Wizards are campaign setting fluff so it's not really the same thing.

It's all down to how your GM interprets the code.

Nom Paladins don't have an ethics code "built into them". What they have is a self-destruct whose mechanics cause endless debate, argument, and drama.

Incorrect.

What they have is a code of ethics that are interpreted by the GM a certain way and it's your job to take some initiative and actually speak with your GM about what they are.

Do you trust your current GM?

Silver Crusade

To be honest, I think 99% of the paladin conduct discussions are merely hypothetical examples that don't truly happen. Basically "what if's".


Generally (there are plenty of exceptions no but hurt shhh) these forums are a monstrous waste of time. do what i do ignore them if you see a heading that looks interesting check it out then leave when it turns to suck.


shallowsoul wrote:


If you want the power, you gotta accept the responsibility.

The power of a Wizard doesn't come hand-in-hand with any sort of responsibility like this. Nor the Cleric, nor the Druid, nor the Ranger, nor the Fighter, nor the Magus, nor the Psion, nor the Soulknife.

That's what we're disputing. There seems to be this implicit understanding that the Paladin's power is married to the stick(s) in the rear end, and it's not warranted.

There's no holy writ that decreed this long ago. It's one view that comes at the cost of the enjoyment of others when it could very easily be a more expansive view that only comes at the expense of those who can only enjoy their Paladin if they know other players out there are having to fight tooth and nail to do the same.

Example of such: the Paladin used to have to be human. Why do players no longer have to accept the responsibility of picking human to get the power of a Paladin?

That's the basic issue. People are doing a good job of explaining what the current situation is, but ask them why and watch the logic fall away in lieu of "it's the way it is because it's the way it is".

To date, I have yet to hear a good answer to why it is better for the game to cater to a subset of players at the expense of other players rather than expand to work for more (this time, only at the cost of those players that can't tolerate other players having the same opportunities as them; players that I can't say I agree should be the ones catered to).

"It is a good idea for some but not all players to get to enjoy the Paladin character they want to play without having to beg/bribe/cajole/threaten/blackmail/etc., and other players who want other sorts of characters should have to sit down, shut up, and knuckle under or resign themselves to finding another game because of design conceits and game decisions made decades ago (and not likewise abandoned decades ago) that subsequent game designers never bothered to examine on their own merits because of (BLANK)."

What is (BLANK)? Define (BLANK) for me.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't come here for answers, I come for entertainment.

Ditto this.


Tectorman wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


If you want the power, you gotta accept the responsibility.

The power of a Wizard doesn't come hand-in-hand with any sort of responsibility like this. Nor the Cleric, nor the Druid, nor the Ranger, nor the Fighter, nor the Magus, nor the Psion, nor the Soulknife.

That's what we're disputing. There seems to be this implicit understanding that the Paladin's power is married to the stick(s) in the rear end, and it's not warranted.

There's no holy writ that decreed this long ago. It's one view that comes at the cost of the enjoyment of others when it could very easily be a more expansive view that only comes at the expense of those who can only enjoy their Paladin if they know other players out there are having to fight tooth and nail to do the same.

Example of such: the Paladin used to have to be human. Why do players no longer have to accept the responsibility of picking human to get the power of a Paladin?

That's the basic issue. People are doing a good job of explaining what the current situation is, but ask them why and watch the logic fall away in lieu of "it's the way it is because it's the way it is".

To date, I have yet to hear a good answer to why it is better for the game to cater to a subset of players at the expense of other players rather than expand to work for more (this time, only at the cost of those players that can't tolerate other players having the same opportunities as them; players that I can't say I agree should be the ones catered to).

"It is a good idea for some but not all players to get to enjoy the Paladin character they want to play without having to beg/bribe/cajole/threaten/blackmail/etc., and other players who want other sorts of characters should have to sit down, shut up, and knuckle under or resign themselves to finding another game because of design conceits and game decisions made decades ago (and not likewise abandoned decades ago) that subsequent game designers never bothered to examine on their own merits because...

Because a holy warrior granted magical powers by either a deity or the abstract forces of good and law who doesn't need to follow some sort of a code is... stupid. We can argue about the specifics about what that code is (or what that code should be), but there should be one. Whatever power is granting the spells and magical abilities has specific interests and should only grant powers to those that align with their interests.

There should be codes (or should be more strongly delineated or widely understood codes) for clerics, inquisitors, rangers, druids, and even witches (they have patrons, after all).


Didn't expect anything else.

Man, Paizo would make a killing by offering a $.99 subscription to auto-hide all Paladin threads in the General Discussion subforum.


shallowsoul wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Nope, I think I'll keep discussing things on the forum.
So you enjoy beating a dead horse?

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion


The black raven wrote:
yeti1069 wrote:

I love "I'm going to start a discussion about not needing discussions, because I have magicked upon SUPERIOR LOGICNESS that everyone else EVER has missed" threads!

/popcorn

Well it does happen from time to time that someone hits the spot.

Gravity has been an obvious fact of life for billions of people in all of history. But it was only cornered quite recently by a certain Isaac Newton.

Key Difference Sir Newton started a conversation about gravity; he didn't say, "I'm right, all of you ever have always been wrong, now shut up and go home and be comforted by my enlightenment."

Anyway, on topic...

The paladin code is vague, and encompasses more situations than anyone could possibly anticipate. Even if you DO speak with your DM, it's entirely possible for a situation to come up that neither of you had considered, and that bears some real debate.

Additionally, not everyone talks to their DM, and not every DM is prepared to engaged in an hours-long philosophical debate about the nature of Lawful Goodness in a setting where everyone has an actual alignment, but where actions can still fall in a gray area. That's what the boards are for--to come ask questions.

I'd say that they aren't here for you to post your self-righteous junk like this thread, but they're kinda here for that, too, though this isn't very helpful.


There is only 1 paladin discussion ender...

...Phylactery of Faithfulness, yo.

Owner - Frontline Gaming

I'm just getting back into the game and I see this topic pop up a lot. Is it really such a big deal?

I guess that is all relative. We have people play Paladins in our store a lot and it doesn't seem to be an issue. Often it causes fun RP opportunities.

I guess it all comes down to the individuals. I love Paladins, personally, but I like the idea of an old school, morale champion of good. Like Superman, or Batman.

If you want a character that is more of an anti-hero, just don't play a Paladin, IMO.


th code of conduct is a left over tid bit from a by gone age...( 1e dnd and the cavalier).

the code of conduct needsto be rewritten to

follows the tenets of his/her faith.

as its written and has been written, you might as well use the paper it was written on for something else that involves a restroom.

Silver Crusade

Steelfiredragon wrote:

th code of conduct is a left over tid bit from a by gone age...( 1e dnd and the cavalier).

the code of conduct needsto be rewritten to

follows the tenets of his/her faith.

as its written and has been written, you might as well use the paper it was written on for something else that involves a restroom.

A paladin isnt always doing what he does in the name of religion. The code is written exactly as it should be because it fits many different play styles.


Steelfiredragon wrote:


th code of conduct is a left over tid bit from a by gone age...( 1e dnd and the cavalier).

the code of conduct needsto be rewritten to

follows the tenets of his/her faith.

as its written and has been written, you might as well use the paper it was written on for something else that involves a restroom.

The code is a "leftover tidbit" from the Greyhawk supplement to the original game. Continued in 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E and PF. The origins of the Paladin's Code has nothing to do with the 1E Cavalier. That mongrel came along at the end of 1E and they linked Paladins to them then. Then the Cavalier disappeared in 2E. Paladins did not. Paladins have always had baggage although the exact nature has varied from edition to edition.

*edit* And people have been whining about it since the beginning. Nothing new there.


is still left over baggage.

didnt know that only assumed that it did

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The last Paladin "conduct" thread ever needed. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.