Ideas for Paladins

[doomman47]

BretI wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

well that's poopy, all that does is stifle peoples creativity

That is how some people feel about restricting the class by alignment.

Personally, I don't think Paladin should be a class, especially when we only get 12 classes in the new core rules. For many people, there is a very narrow definition of what they consider a Paladin. With a limited number of classes, I want each class to have a wide range of character concepts it can be used to fill.

I would much rather have a holy martial class where you have options that affect what they can do. You could even have gating options which restrict what choices are valid for the class. As an example, one of those options could be "Pure" meaning someone who has never strayed from the faith while another is "Redeemed" meaning they got to where they are by becoming a believer.

Pure Evil would be very different than Pure Good or Pure Chaos. Making the decision to be Pure would open up some options that those who didn't choose that wouldn't be able to take. Selecting Redeemed would mean someone who found their faith and may have a different set of gated options based on that.

If we are to take from Starfinder, perhaps one of the profiles for this Warrior of Faith would in the fluff make reference to Paladins, Fáris or other cultures chivalrous knights.

any and all fluff should be made at the behest of the characters player and the gm of the game, classes are ment to bring mechanics into the game, player and gm ideas are what bring fluff

[Weirdo]

MP Punk wrote:

For Paladins I would like to keep the Lawful requirement, but the good/evil/neutral alignment would depend on the god worshiped. In my opinion this is a good compromise between people who want paladins of any alignment and people who don't want them to change overmuch.

That's a pretty disappointing compromise, since there are more people who want "any good" paladins than want "any lawful." I mean, I've heard that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy, but I don't think that's what they meant.

MP Punk wrote:

So, if a person wanted to be a Paladin of Abadar, then they'd be LN. If they wanted to be a Paladin of Asmodeus, they'd have to be LE, and if they wanted to be a Paladin of Desna, they'd have to be LG.

I don't think we're likely to see a change to the one-step alignment rule for deities, so not expecting LG Desnans.

[Caterpillars]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would happily give up spellcasting to keep deityless Paladins (or Paladins who worship like all the gods they like.) Whole "gotta worship only one" thing in Golarion is like no Polytheistic culture I've ever heard of.

How many polytheist cultures are there that let you decide, "all right, I'm going to go kill god(s) today" and then ride off on your steed with a band of followers to do so? And bring back proof of kill?

In fantasy settings, gods are tangible, superpowered nPCs. It makes sense within a fantasy realm to require picking one and sticking with her/him/it.

[doomman47]

Caterpillars wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would happily give up spellcasting to keep deityless Paladins (or Paladins who worship like all the gods they like.) Whole "gotta worship only one" thing in Golarion is like no Polytheistic culture I've ever heard of.

How many polytheist cultures are there that let you decide, "all right, I'm going to go kill god(s) today" and then ride off on your steed with a band of followers to do so? And bring back proof of kill?

In fantasy settings, gods are tangible, superpowered nPCs. It makes sense within a fantasy realm to require picking one and sticking with her/him/it.

not really, no mear mortal should ever even come close to even touching a god let alone defeating one

[Threeshades]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

But, they are still required to use preform, correct?

No they aren't. They are allowed to use perform. That's what the class feature does.

A paladin doesn't have a class feature that allows them to be lawful good instead of something else. They just have a line that tells them they MUST be lawful good or nothing they have works.

[HWalsh]

doomman47 wrote:

BretI wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

well that's poopy, all that does is stifle peoples creativity

That is how some people feel about restricting the class by alignment.

Personally, I don't think Paladin should be a class, especially when we only get 12 classes in the new core rules. For many people, there is a very narrow definition of what they consider a Paladin. With a limited number of classes, I want each class to have a wide range of character concepts it can be used to fill.

I would much rather have a holy martial class where you have options that affect what they can do. You could even have gating options which restrict what choices are valid for the class. As an example, one of those options could be "Pure" meaning someone who has never strayed from the faith while another is "Redeemed" meaning they got to where they are by becoming a believer.

Pure Evil would be very different than Pure Good or Pure Chaos. Making the decision to be Pure would open up some options that those who didn't choose that wouldn't be able to take. Selecting Redeemed would mean someone who found their faith and may have a different set of gated options based on that.

If we are to take from Starfinder, perhaps one of the profiles for this Warrior of Faith would in the fluff make reference to Paladins, Fáris or other cultures chivalrous knights.

any and all fluff should be made at the behest of the characters player and the gm of the game, classes are ment to bring mechanics into the game, player and gm ideas are what bring fluff

That is your preference. That is not the preference of others. In my opinion, the fluff is what makes the Paladin worth playing, and if I only have that fluff because I fan-fictioned it up then it is cheap and loses any value or weight.

Actual real official fluff makes the world more real, fluff you made up is worthless.

[BretI]

In my opinion, classes that support multiple concepts within a general category are better than those that only support a more narrow concept. Allow people to build the established concepts, but also allow people to experiment with other variations on that archetype.

Paladin is in my opinion too narrow for a class, especially with the original offering needing to make the most of each class provided. Allow people to realize the concept with the correct selection of archetypes, backgrounds, and feats. Make it an option within a broader class.

Not tying it to twelve peers of Charlemagne's court would also be nice. I’ve read a translation of Song of Roland, did not care for it.

[doomman47]

HWalsh wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

BretI wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

well that's poopy, all that does is stifle peoples creativity

That is how some people feel about restricting the class by alignment.

Personally, I don't think Paladin should be a class, especially when we only get 12 classes in the new core rules. For many people, there is a very narrow definition of what they consider a Paladin. With a limited number of classes, I want each class to have a wide range of character concepts it can be used to fill.

I would much rather have a holy martial class where you have options that affect what they can do. You could even have gating options which restrict what choices are valid for the class. As an example, one of those options could be "Pure" meaning someone who has never strayed from the faith while another is "Redeemed" meaning they got to where they are by becoming a believer.

Pure Evil would be very different than Pure Good or Pure Chaos. Making the decision to be Pure would open up some options that those who didn't choose that wouldn't be able to take. Selecting Redeemed would mean someone who found their faith and may have a different set of gated options based on that.

If we are to take from Starfinder, perhaps one of the profiles for this Warrior of Faith would in the fluff make reference to Paladins, Fáris or other cultures chivalrous knights.

any and all fluff should be made at the behest of the characters player and the gm of the game, classes are ment to bring mechanics into the game, player and gm ideas are what bring fluff

That is your preference. That is not the preference of others. In my opinion, the fluff is what makes the Paladin worth playing, and if I only have that fluff because I fan-fictioned it up then it is cheap and loses any value or weight.

Actual real official fluff makes the world more real, fluff you made up is worthless.

fluff you make up yourself is what builds oppon the world fluff forced oppon you by some game developer somewhere shuts down opportunity for creativity and forces one to just strait up overhaul a ton of system mechanics if they want to do away with it

[Arakhor]

HWalsh wrote:

In my opinion, the fluff is what makes the Paladin worth playing, and if I only have that fluff because I fan-fictioned it up then it is cheap and loses any value or weight.

Actual real official fluff makes the world more real, fluff you made up is worthless.

You are literally saying that you don't want to think for yourself and must only play what the designers tell you to do.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

If we're going to really go out on this limb, Seelah is the iconic Paladin.

Should we therefore only allow people to play Garundi women Paladins who follow Iomedae?

Since, after all, that's what the picture says a paladin is?

[Ryan Freire]

Arakhor wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

In my opinion, the fluff is what makes the Paladin worth playing, and if I only have that fluff because I fan-fictioned it up then it is cheap and loses any value or weight.

Actual real official fluff makes the world more real, fluff you made up is worthless.

You are literally saying that you don't want to think for yourself and must only play what the designers tell you to do.

Literally not the case. Just because you don't like coloring within the lines doesn't mean there isn't an amazing variety of options in there.

[doomman47]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

In my opinion, the fluff is what makes the Paladin worth playing, and if I only have that fluff because I fan-fictioned it up then it is cheap and loses any value or weight.

Actual real official fluff makes the world more real, fluff you made up is worthless.

You are literally saying that you don't want to think for yourself and must only play what the designers tell you to do.

Literally not the case. Just because you don't like coloring within the lines doesn't mean there isn't an amazing variety of options in there.

except that's exactly the case here, paladins as is are just stick in the mud goodie two shoes, which is bad as there is no variety.

[Arakhor]

There are 20-40 different varieties of plum, but that doesn't mean that eating plum jam every day isn't going to be boring.

How exactly does your comment have any relevance to my pointing out the immense foolishness of the statement "fluff you make up is worthless"?

[doomman47]

Igwilly wrote:

Ok, I have something to say.

I took a time off this thread to think a little bit about this question. Perhaps I am being too inflexible and single-minded. I don't want to exclude other people's play-styles.

I'm divided here. I want the Paladin's legacy to remain. However, I also want to satisfy people who simply do not like the LG Paladin, and how I can accommodate them. I still didn't reach a solution, but I'm thinking about this in a whole different way.
I may post a solution if I find one.
I ask your pardon if I was rude to anyone here.

thing is if paladins alignment restriction is removed people will still have the option to be lawful good, heck they could even self impose more restrictions oppon themselves it would just open the class to literally every one else.

[Ryan Freire]

doomman47 wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

In my opinion, the fluff is what makes the Paladin worth playing, and if I only have that fluff because I fan-fictioned it up then it is cheap and loses any value or weight.

Actual real official fluff makes the world more real, fluff you made up is worthless.

You are literally saying that you don't want to think for yourself and must only play what the designers tell you to do.

Literally not the case. Just because you don't like coloring within the lines doesn't mean there isn't an amazing variety of options in there.

except that's exactly the case here, paladins as is are just stick in the mud goodie two shoes, which is bad as there is no variety.

I mean...this is so factually incorrect that i'm wondering if you're trying to strawman FOR my point.

[doomman47]

Ryan Freire wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

In my opinion, the fluff is what makes the Paladin worth playing, and if I only have that fluff because I fan-fictioned it up then it is cheap and loses any value or weight.

Actual real official fluff makes the world more real, fluff you made up is worthless.

You are literally saying that you don't want to think for yourself and must only play what the designers tell you to do.

Literally not the case. Just because you don't like coloring within the lines doesn't mean there isn't an amazing variety of options in there.

except that's exactly the case here, paladins as is are just stick in the mud goodie two shoes, which is bad as there is no variety.

I mean...this is so factually incorrect that i'm wondering if you're trying to strawman FOR my point.

the paladins current only function is to be a LG stick in the mud and ruin other players fun, removing that restriction would improve the class for the health of the entire game

[Igwilly]

My current idea: wait to see what the designers think about this and then provide feedback on their views.

[Steelfiredragon]

my idea:

piss everyone off
drop the paladin for the warpriest.

[Orthos]

Warpriest is the class that has no reason to exist :P I'm all in favor of any option that is not "use warpriest" because that class is literally pointless.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Since the class name 'Paladin' has so much baggage (and apparent story-power), why don't we ditch it and just have 'Holy Warrior' with any alignment?

Would that fix it for everyone so we could move on to something better and more productive?

Or is this triggering folks and that is what is causing the 'death spiral'?

[Demon Lord of Paladins!]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Since the class name 'Paladin' has so much baggage (and apparent story-power), why don't we ditch it and just have 'Holy Warrior' with any alignment?

Would that fix it for everyone so we could move on to something better and more productive?

Or is this triggering folks and that is what is causing the 'death spiral'?

Dude, even D&D, which created this issue, has moved on from LG only paladins. Fantasy as a whole has moved on from that archic view of what a paladin is.

Its the the word that has the baggage. Its a sub set of players

[Steelfiredragon]

because the traditionalists wont like it be cause the paladin powers( like divine grave that I would want it to have) would weaken the paladin class, respect the tradition garbage. bla bla bla want the powers not the commitment .. bla bl a bla, some of them are so full of beans they really should go relieve themselves....

[Ryan Freire]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Since the class name 'Paladin' has so much baggage (and apparent story-power), why don't we ditch it and just have 'Holy Warrior' with any alignment?

Would that fix it for everyone so we could move on to something better and more productive?

Or is this triggering folks and that is what is causing the 'death spiral'?

Dude, even D&D, which created this issue, has moved on from LG only paladins. Fantasy as a whole has moved on from that archic view of what a paladin is.

Its the the word that has the baggage. Its a sub set of players

At current a 2 to 1 ratio subset of paizo forum goers. so......

[doomman47]

Orthos wrote:

Warpriest is the class that has no reason to exist :P I'm all in favor of any option that is not "use warpriest" because that class is literally pointless.

warpriest does have a function tho, its function is fighter/cleric hybrid that functions a lot better than fighter 10 cleric 10

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Wow, um, that's definitely not how I read that informal poll.

*redacted modern political comment* much there, Ryan?

[BretI]

doomman47 wrote:

the paladins current only function is to be a LG stick in the mud and ruin other players fun, removing that restriction would improve the class for the health of the entire game

I disagree. The current Paladin can be very interesting and can be Lawful Good without being a stick in the mud.

There are limits on what they can do, but those limits do not restrict what others can do. There is nothing in the Paladin Code that says all their associates must abide by their code.

[seekerofshadowlight]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Since the class name 'Paladin' has so much baggage (and apparent story-power), why don't we ditch it and just have 'Holy Warrior' with any alignment?

Would that fix it for everyone so we could move on to something better and more productive?

Or is this triggering folks and that is what is causing the 'death spiral'?

Dude, even D&D, which created this issue, has moved on from LG only paladins. Fantasy as a whole has moved on from that archic view of what a paladin is.

Its the the word that has the baggage. Its a sub set of players

At current a 2 to 1 ratio subset of paizo forum goers. so......

Even eith your hocky numbers, it is irrevelant to what I said

[Ryan Freire]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Wow, um, that's definitely not how I read that informal poll.

*redacted modern political comment* much there, Ryan?

Maybe calculate it up as "wants it to remain LG* votes vs *wants the alignment opened up*

It rolls out to roughly 2 to 1 in favor of keeping it LG

[seekerofshadowlight]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Wow, um, that's definitely not how I read that informal poll.

*redacted modern political comment* much there, Ryan?

He took every option but one, even the double votes and lumped them as vs. His numbers are way, way off. Its more like 3 to 1 for changing them.

[Igwilly]

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Dude, even D&D, which created this issue, has moved on from LG only paladins. Fantasy as a whole has moved on from that archic view of what a paladin is.

Its the the word that has the baggage. Its a sub set of players

Bah! I do not care anymore about what D&D says since 2000 or so. WotC is doing D&D no favor.

Also, you overestimate how common non-LG paladins are in fantasy. There are certain cases in which a paladin does not follow the traditional code (even in AD&D 2E!)
However, they mostly are clearly labeled as exceptions, rather than the norm or even something common among paladins, and there are the cases of paladins who have fallen from paladin-hood and lost his/her powers (like in World of Warcraft). We also have the fact that even the same alignment can have very different emphasis based on specific characters, and so does LG. I've seen only a few cases of the norm not being the norm anymore.

[doomman47]

BretI wrote:

doomman47 wrote:

the paladins current only function is to be a LG stick in the mud and ruin other players fun, removing that restriction would improve the class for the health of the entire game

I disagree. The current Paladin can be very interesting and can be Lawful Good without being a stick in the mud.

There are limits on what they can do, but those limits do not restrict what others can do. There is nothing in the Paladin Code that says all their associates must abide by their code.

paladins have the restriction that they can not travel with people who break their code consistently which means unless the party is also following the code they are likely breaking it enough that this part of the code kicks in and the paladin can no longer travel with them so its either stick in the mud telling every one what to do or just not being in the party like at all

[Wei Ji the Learner]

People keep bringing WoW into this, but I don't EVER recall seeing an alignment checkbox there that says they can't roll 'greed' for loot or rob either their fellow players or opponents blind...

[Ryan Freire]

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Wow, um, that's definitely not how I read that informal poll.

*redacted modern political comment* much there, Ryan?

He took every option but one, even the double votes and lumped them as vs. His numbers are way, way off. Its more like 3 to 1 for changing them.

No i took all the votes that specified LG and compared them to the votes for opened up alignment.

Given that i'm not arguing about whether it should be an archetype, or powered by pure Law and good, or related to divinity, merely that the alignment restriction + code is a core part of the class and that people prefer that, my point stands. You are nowhere near 3 to 1 for removing alignment restrictions from the paladin. You aren't even in the majority.

[master_marshmallow]

The entirety of 3.x includes so many paladin clones that I really don't think having alternate classes baked into the core system with different names is the wrong plan.

Especially if they can streamlined and balance exactly what features get changed in the process.

[Igwilly]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

People keep bringing WoW into this, but I don't EVER recall seeing an alignment checkbox there that says they can't roll 'greed' for loot or rob either their fellow players or opponents blind...

Video-games are certainly limited in that regard. Especially one that is more than a decade old.

Also, I was not bringing up WoW as a shining example of the classical paladin...

[doomman47]

Igwilly wrote:

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Dude, even D&D, which created this issue, has moved on from LG only paladins. Fantasy as a whole has moved on from that archic view of what a paladin is.

Its the the word that has the baggage. Its a sub set of players

Bah! I do not care anymore about what D&D says since 2000 or so. WotC is doing D&D no favor.

Also, you overestimate how common non-LG paladins are in fantasy. There are certain cases in which a paladin does not follow the traditional code (even in AD&D 2E!)
However, they mostly are clearly labeled as exceptions, rather than the norm or even something common among paladins, and there are the cases of paladins who have fallen from paladin-hood and lost his/her powers (like in World of Warcraft). We also have the fact that even the same alignment can have very different emphasis based on specific characters, and so does LG. I've seen only a few cases of the norm not being the norm anymore.

in wow being a paladin is just tied to your connection with the light and has no baring with what would be considered lawful good, especially since followers of the light do some pretty heinous acts and still remain paladins so yes there are plenty of non lawful good paladins in fantacy

[doomman47]

Igwilly wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

People keep bringing WoW into this, but I don't EVER recall seeing an alignment checkbox there that says they can't roll 'greed' for loot or rob either their fellow players or opponents blind...

Video-games are certainly limited in that regard. Especially one that is more than a decade old.

Also, I was not bringing up WoW as a shining example of the classical paladin...

wows paladin save for their dependence on an outside source is probably the best example of a paladin in fantasy I have ever seen

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Igwilly wrote:

Video-games are certainly limited in that regard. Especially one that is more than a decade old.
Also, I was not bringing up WoW as a shining example of the classical paladin...

Yet, it is the experience that a potential target demographic for a new PF 2.0 would be trying to reach.

It may not be 'shining', but it is a sad reality that locking it behind one alignment may drive away as many new players as current ones being driven off by it NOT being locked behind one alignment.

...and Paizo can't afford to lose *either*.

[Caterpillars]

doomman47 wrote:

except that's exactly the case here, paladins as is are just stick in the mud goodie two shoes, which is bad as there is no variety.

I'm sure you've read it, but just in case not, are you familiar with the webcomic Order of the Stick? Because the paladins in it aren't one dimensional, nor are they the only LG characters.

[graystone]

Igwilly wrote:

My current idea: wait to see what the designers think about this and then provide feedback on their views.

If we did that, HWalsh would most likely start up a few dozen more 'save the endangered paladin' threads... :P

[Isaac Zephyr]

As I was halfway through writing this when the other paladin thread was closed, and this one actually fits it a little better... Firstly I'll say I disagree with the OP. I don't think Lawful only would be any better for the paladin. Maybe any non-evil (and then antipaladin be any evil as the parallel rather than the extreme)? I present the following though, in spolier to avoid the 3 page wall of text from my story.

The Lawful Neutral Paladin.:

I see a lot of arguement for "Good-only" as an alternative, but let me talk about this paladin. This was an Oathbound Paladin, with an Oath Against Savagery, so she lacked divine grace, instead gaining new uses for her Smite (which to me, is more the quintessential Paladin ability. Smiting your deities enemies). She followed Iomedae, so her three sources of code were as follows.

Code of Conduct:A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Oath Against Savagery:Always heed the call of a community in danger from savages. Be the first in line to defend a settlement and the last to retreat.

Iomedae:The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong, crusaders who live for the joy of righteous battle. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than merely the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them.

*I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
*I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
*I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
*I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
*I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
*I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
*When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
*I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
*I will suffer death before dishonor.
*I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.

Only one sentence fragment was removed. She was not a "good" person. She was a noble, and had noble tastes. She shared tables with lords, held herself to that kind of standard and would not be caught dead in unsuitable accomodations. She actively hated those she viewed as uncultured savages, those who stood to oppose order, even those who did it for "good reasons". However, regardless of this flaw, she held herself to her code.

Though she disliked the thief in her party's midst, killing her was not acceptable. Said thief was also the figurehead for their group, the one who guided their quest and held all their safeties in regard. She was a tactician, and had a strong personality, things my paladin could not argue. The thief was her authority, and though she did not like it, her code held her to respect that authority.

She was the party's sword, her duty was to safeguard her companions, even if she did not care for them. They had a barbarian in their midst as well, a prior soldier who abandoned the ranks to help them. He could go toe to toe with her, and was her equal. Were he ever to challenge her, she would take glee in being able to put him in his place, however she could not initiate such a thing. She honoured him as an enemy, and as a companion.

What she viewed from her code, was upholding order, moreso than upholding good. She though still recognized she needed to quash evil where it rose, as with it stirred chaos. She was not good, but her code said she could not condone evil.

The greatest moral quandaries for her were difficulty being able to accept that the noble class did not always have the best interests of the people at heart, and needing to work with people she felt undesirable. If nobility threatened innocence or order, she was compelled to stop it. She steeled herself to the task by justifying to herself they were abusing such a position. She eventually came to fall in love with that thief. They proved though their occupation and outlook were undesirable, their desire to put the needs of the party over themselves (even down to solving personal disputes as a mediator) was worthy of admiration. They upheld order within their "family", even if their overall outlook was not desirable.

She was not a bad paladin. She was fun, she had moral dilemmas that came with her position, and conflicts between her disposition and the code she swore to live by. She violates the code in no way, accept one. She's not a "good" person. She's not pretending to be a "good" person. She has flaws and weaknesses that to me strengthened her not only as a character, but as a proper paladin. And I would love to see more people be able to play and have that same kind of experience.

Now this was written in a thread with a dozen arguements. Divine Grace being OP and needing restrictions, preserving "the Paladin's legacy", and suggesting that paladins are LG or NG or whatever. This was a real character I played, and I'd love to know why they cannot be a "Paladin"?

[doomman47]

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

As I was halfway through writing this when the other paladin thread was closed, and this one actually fits it a little better... Firstly I'll say I disagree with the OP. I don't think Lawful only would be any better for the paladin. Maybe any non-evil (and then antipaladin be any evil as the parallel rather than the extreme)? I present the following though, in spolier to avoid the 3 page wall of text from my story.

** spoiler omitted **...

why would a lawful neutral being fall for committing an evil act over a chaotic act?

[PhoenixSlayer]

I'm personally a fan of the "warrior of the corner alignments" idea, AS LONG AS they're differentiated enough so that they're not clones with some words replaced here and there. LG is our classic paladin,so paladin still exists as-is, but it opens the class up to greater flexibility. As for how to differentiate, that I don't know, I ain't no game designer to think that far in.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Okay, so this thread has devolved to 'Neener neener you can't have my niche fundamentalist extremist holy good warrior' vs. 'Let everyone have the choice of their own fundamentalist extremismist warrior flavor'?

I just want to make sure I've got the parameters right before hitting the eject tabs.

[The Thing From Another World]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Okay, so this thread has devolved to 'Neener neener you can't have my niche fundamentalist extremist holy good warrior' vs. 'Let everyone have the choice of their own fundamentalist extremismist warrior flavor'?

I just want to make sure I've got the parameters right before hitting the eject tabs.

Please stop spamming this into every Paladin thread. It's starting to become annoying and repetitive imo.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Half of what's in these threads is spam, I was attempting to be Honorable and Announce my Intentions as the 'Niche Fundamentalist Extremist' faction would prefer, while maintaining the discussion as the 'Choice Fundamentalist Extremist' would encourage.

Apologies if that came off a bit spammy.

[Sparrow Jailbird]

Can I have your stuff?

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Nah, I was thinking of having a nice bonfire and burning it all.

There's nothing quite like a burning bonfire to bring all the extremists together, right?

We can even have the goblins light it off!

[Ser Guii de Facien]

...Wut...