Another Paladin Suggestion

[AnimatedPaper]

Welp, that certainly pushed me firmly into the "Paladins of any alignment" camp.

I was already leaning in that direction, although I had thought that a "champion" or "zealot" class might work better, and Paladins could be a special LG-only subclass within the broader framework, but this thread convinced me. Nothing less than calling them all paladins will do now.

If we're going to tie Paladins directly to deities anyways, instead of making paladins champions of their alignment's ideals, might as well move forward to the logical conclusion that all dieties would find Paladins (with a suitably altered divine bond) useful to have around.

[knightnday]

A small group of people who are granted powers by their ideals does not have to be Lawful Good. That is the crux of the argument. For that matter, not all the LG deities on Golarion are that hung up on truth, justice and the American way given their individual write ups for codes.

The lore of the universe is set up by the Gm and players. If the world exists and each God and Goddess have their holy champions then that familiar feeling you crave is right their baked into the game.

Expanding the lore and legends of a world do not lessen what the game has, but only strengthens it.

[Arssanguinus]

knightnday wrote:

A small group of people who are granted powers by their ideals does not have to be Lawful Good. That is the crux of the argument. For that matter, not all the LG deities on Golarion are that hung up on truth, justice and the American way given their individual write ups for codes.

The lore of the universe is set up by the Gm and players. If the world exists and each God and Goddess have their holy champions then that familiar feeling you crave is right their baked into the game.

Expanding the lore and legends of a world do not lessen what the game has, but only strengthens it.

Neither does that small group of people have to be a paladin.

[Lausth]

No one has to be anything.Do you guys realy like the paladin's alignment more than its god?How trusting the iomade's chosen not better than paladins being the lawfull and good?

[knightnday]

Arssanguinus wrote:

knightnday wrote:

A small group of people who are granted powers by their ideals does not have to be Lawful Good. That is the crux of the argument. For that matter, not all the LG deities on Golarion are that hung up on truth, justice and the American way given their individual write ups for codes.

The lore of the universe is set up by the Gm and players. If the world exists and each God and Goddess have their holy champions then that familiar feeling you crave is right their baked into the game.

Expanding the lore and legends of a world do not lessen what the game has, but only strengthens it.

Neither does that small group of people have to be a paladin.

this is true, they do not have to be a paladin. However, given that there is limited space in the core book the paladin framework is a good place to start to make a Holy/Unholy champion. As Lausth is remarking, the God/Goddess is just as important and should be looked at.

In a perfect world where word count isn't an issue we'd see a fully realized champion for each god with specific abilities, ethos, code, clothing, armor, and so on. You could fully delve into the hows and whys of the groups, their numbers and what they really do that a cleric, warpriest, lay person and so on cannot or would not do.

But, given what we have to work with the paladin is looked at to spread its wings and take on more than they have over the years.

[Claxon]

To me the big thing is that you can have the archetypal Paladin as a specific version of the class, much like you have archetypal versions of Clerics based on the deity they worship. You could aware powers to a "Holy Warrior" classed based on their deity the same way that Clerics are being awarded powers. You would share similar mechanics between these holy warriors of different deities, but they wouldn't be identical versions. And the ones associated with LG deities could fill the archetypal Paladin role.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

[Arssanguinus]

You could have the standard paladin as the base class, and then have archrtypes filling other roles from that. Which contain some significant mechanical changes to better reflect the differences.

[willuwontu]

Arssanguinus wrote:

knightnday wrote:

A small group of people who are granted powers by their ideals does not have to be Lawful Good. That is the crux of the argument. For that matter, not all the LG deities on Golarion are that hung up on truth, justice and the American way given their individual write ups for codes.

The lore of the universe is set up by the Gm and players. If the world exists and each God and Goddess have their holy champions then that familiar feeling you crave is right their baked into the game.

Expanding the lore and legends of a world do not lessen what the game has, but only strengthens it.

Neither does that small group of people have to be a paladin.

Neither does paladin need to be a base class if it's so heavily restricted.

If they really want to keep the paladin as LG only it should be moved to a prestige class or archetype and have something similar to the following line from tradition added to it's code:

AD&D Paladin wrote:

"Should the paladin knowingly performs a chaotic act, he must perform an act of penance prescribed by a cleric of at least level 7."

This line was lost later on, but with something like this in the code it makes sense for the paladin to be LG.

[GRuzom]

ARRRRGH!!
>another paladin thread<
aaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
take it away mama, phuleeeezeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[willuwontu]

Arssanguinus wrote:

You could have the standard paladin as the base class, and then have archrtypes filling other roles from that. Which contain some significant mechanical changes to better reflect the differences.

I'd have no objections to that as long as the mechanical changes are of the same power as the base class. (In fact IIRC, a lot of people have expressed the fact that they'd be okay with this.)

Edit: And as Malk_Content said below, they'd need to be available from the start.

[Malk_Content]

Arssanguinus wrote:

You could have the standard paladin as the base class, and then have archrtypes filling other roles from that. Which contain some significant mechanical changes to better reflect the differences.

So long as those things were available at launch I would be totally fine with that solution as well.

[Mbertorch]

What about something like this:

Base Class: Champion (or something)
Then, just like a Cleric chooses a Deity, the "Champion" chooses a code like one of the following (the names don't matter except the first)
Code of the Paladin: You must be LG
Code of the Chevalier: You must be NG
Code of the (Knight)Errant: You must be CG
Code of the Enforcer: You must be LN
Code of the Arbiter: You must be N
Code of the Cavalier: You must be CN

The alignments wouldn't be the only part of the codes, it's just the only part I'm highlighting right now.
And then we'd worry about evil alignments later, although I'm sure people would have problems with that...

EDIT: And obviously each code would grant distinct features and abilities from the other codes.

[MuddyVolcano]

Re: I want the mechanics of paladin, because the PF1 class was just that awesome! I don't want to play a paladin though, or maybe I just don't want to wait until more classes come out?

This is pretty common response. The PF1e paladin IS pretty awesome! So let's address that.

'Warlord' is a commonly requested class type, but I think it'd make a great archetype. It could offer recovery, party buff mechanics, and a few other awesome, awesome things.

This is a class that on its own, has been requested A LOT.

But it'd make a great archetype, and as an archetype? It multiplies possibilities, because...

* Paizo has suggested that archetypes will offer many options, not just a predefined path. This makes a warlord archetype potentially both amazing and highly flexible.
* It means that archetype features--especially if that archetype is in Core, likely expand over time.
* Warlord archetype enables features like a war cleric, a warlord fighter, or even a warlord ranger, rogue, and so on.

This concept as a flexible, awesome archetype adds more possibilities to more classes.

Oh! Oh! And, we can say Paizo: We want more classes as awesome as the PF1 paladin because we loved those mechanics.

Plus, we get to playtest those classes and options, and that is just that awesome.

Re: Alignment!

I know, I know. Druids, paladins, monks, barbarians. Alignment is and has been everywhere and needs to be a topic on its own.

However, it's been suggested that Ordered Good could be listed alongside Lawful Good, and that alignment overall will be existent but less impacting overall.

Alignment needs to be its own thing and discussion. Let's not try to fix alignment via a class; it's putting the cart before the horse.

Re: Code

This is fairly easily fixed, and the developers have said they'll address it.

[Kalindlara]

...or: fun is subjective, and often not something one can consciously choose to have or not have, even if someone on the Internet calls them names over it.

[MuddyVolcano]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Paladins are the only class in PF2 core that will have anything to interact with heavy armor and tanking. They've already said that's not a Fighter thing, it won't be a Ranger or Barbarian thing, it certainly doesn't make sense with any other class. That alone is mechanical reason enough, besides all the myriad other reasons, for paladins to not be LG only anymore. Because only LG divine servants getting heavy armor is weird AF.

This and quotes like it are one of the many reasons I'd really want to see the Warlord archetype in Core.

Warlord has been requested, and requested... I've got three separate folks plotting to make a version in 1e right now--or had been, before this announcement came out.

[graystone]

Weather Report wrote:

graystone wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Ah, gotcha, you're going way back, seemingly into silly-buggers pedantry

I'm not the one that said "every edition of D&D". ;)

Oh, come on now, it's getting embarrassing with the disingenuous pedantic garbage, I mean, I thought we had something special, ya know, bonded over critical tables that result in your butt getting torn off, you don't need to play this game with me.

Once again, I am not advocating for including any class due to legacy, but the fact that the paladin has been in the PHB for AD&D, AD&D second edition, 3rd Ed, 4th Ed, and 5th Ed, is plenty enough for an appeal to legacy, if one wanted to play that game.

Or to really play the game, we only need Fighting Man and Magic-User, the Cleric is some weird Van Helsing type thing designed back in the day to specifically counter Vampires, and Thieves were added later, and could fold into Fighting Man, so really, D&D only needs 2 classes; well, it doesn't need anything, but I guess it could work with one class: Hero.

You seem to have missed part of the conversation. Someone was arguing that paladin [or druid or ranger] MUST BE IN THE GAME FROM DAY ONE because... tradition. I simply pointed out that that doesn't pan out if you actually go through and look at the classes throughout the editions. I was NEVER arguing that shouldn't be in the edition, just that they had no NEED to first book.

[Cuttlefist]

Kalindlara wrote:

...or: fun is subjective, and often not something one can consciously choose to have or not have, even if someone on the Internet calls them names over it.

I dunno, the fact that the fun being defended is “Other people can’t have this” which to me is not a fun to be concerned with to the degree it is being defended. People want a narrow and restrictive class to be opened up to allow more players to enjoy the concept, and the response from the opposition is “I won’t enjoy that, sure I could still play the way i want to, but other people being able to play in a different way ruins my fun.” This is not a definition of fun that i care to respect, as by going against it you create more fun for more people than you ruin t for.

[Weather Report]

graystone wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

graystone wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Ah, gotcha, you're going way back, seemingly into silly-buggers pedantry

I'm not the one that said "every edition of D&D". ;)

Oh, come on now, it's getting embarrassing with the disingenuous pedantic garbage, I mean, I thought we had something special, ya know, bonded over critical tables that result in your butt getting torn off, you don't need to play this game with me.

Once again, I am not advocating for including any class due to legacy, but the fact that the paladin has been in the PHB for AD&D, AD&D second edition, 3rd Ed, 4th Ed, and 5th Ed, is plenty enough for an appeal to legacy, if one wanted to play that game.

Or to really play the game, we only need Fighting Man and Magic-User, the Cleric is some weird Van Helsing type thing designed back in the day to specifically counter Vampires, and Thieves were added later, and could fold into Fighting Man, so really, D&D only needs 2 classes; well, it doesn't need anything, but I guess it could work with one class: Hero.

You seem to have missed part of the conversation. Someone was arguing that paladin [or druid or ranger] MUST BE IN THE GAME FROM DAY ONE because... tradition. I simply pointed out that that doesn't pan out if you actually go through and look at the classes throughout the editions. I was NEVER arguing that shouldn't be in the edition, just that they had no NEED to first book.

I think being in the game for 40-years is enough to plead the legacy case (I am not), I don't think not being in OD&D/Chainmail is grounds for something having no legacy in the game. Otherwise it's a slippery slope of only things that Gygax and Arneson wrote down on the original napkin have legacy.

[Neo2151]

Arssanguinus wrote:

knightnday wrote:

A small group of people who are granted powers by their ideals does not have to be Lawful Good. That is the crux of the argument. For that matter, not all the LG deities on Golarion are that hung up on truth, justice and the American way given their individual write ups for codes.

The lore of the universe is set up by the Gm and players. If the world exists and each God and Goddess have their holy champions then that familiar feeling you crave is right their baked into the game.

Expanding the lore and legends of a world do not lessen what the game has, but only strengthens it.

Neither does that small group of people have to be a paladin.

Just gonna jump right into this one...

I don't want them to be Paladins.
I want the CG ones to be Liberators.
I want the LN ones to be Justiciars.
I want the LE ones to be Blackguards.
And I want the LG ones to be Paladins.
...
But here's the thing - all of that is about lore.
I want them all working off the same chassis (with differences the same way specialist wizards are all very different but also the same) from a mechanical standpoint. Because it's reasonable, easier on the developers, and because there's no reason to have multiple full classes for every different version of "alignment/code-based divine warrior."

[graystone]

Weather Report wrote:

I think being in the game for 40-years is enough to plead the legacy case

For me, it's the picking and choosing of which legacy matters that bother me: none of the classes where ALWAYS in the first books. Or paladins used to require human. Or bards used to require levels of fighter and thief. "Legacy is the whole package of its history, so it's the narrow focus I pointed out. You don't get to hang your hat on "40-years" of gaming without taking the good with the bad.

So it's not that there isn't a legacy but a disagreement on what it entails. I don't think I'm a horrible person for pointing out your argument was factually false when you said "every edition of D&D" started off with paladins, rangers and druids... That and paladins deserving to be in the new game are different issues.

[Elegos]

Neo2151 wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

knightnday wrote:

A small group of people who are granted powers by their ideals does not have to be Lawful Good. That is the crux of the argument. For that matter, not all the LG deities on Golarion are that hung up on truth, justice and the American way given their individual write ups for codes.

The lore of the universe is set up by the Gm and players. If the world exists and each God and Goddess have their holy champions then that familiar feeling you crave is right their baked into the game.

Expanding the lore and legends of a world do not lessen what the game has, but only strengthens it.

Neither does that small group of people have to be a paladin.

Just gonna jump right into this one...

I don't want them to be Paladins.
I want the CG ones to be Liberators.
I want the LN ones to be Justiciars.
I want the LE ones to be Blackguards.
And I want the LG ones to be Paladins.
...
But here's the thing - all of that is about lore.
I want them all working off the same chassis (with differences the same way specialist wizards are all very different but also the same) from a mechanical standpoint. Because it's reasonable, easier on the developers, and because there's no reason to have multiple full classes for every different version of "alignment/code-based divine warrior."

A better comparison might be Cavalier orders

[Neo2151]

Elegos wrote:

A better comparison might be Cavalier orders

Probably, but the point gets across all the same. ;)

[Weather Report]

graystone wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

I think being in the game for 40-years is enough to plead the legacy case

For me, it's the picking and choosing of which legacy matters that bother me: none of the classes where ALWAYS in the first books. Or paladins used to require human. Or bards used to require levels of fighter and thief. "Legacy is the whole package of its history, so it's the narrow focus I pointed out. You don't get to hang your hat on "40-years" of gaming without taking the good with the bad.

So it's not that there isn't a legacy but a disagreement on what it entails. I don't think I'm a horrible person for pointing out your argument was factually false when you said "every edition of D&D" started off with paladins, rangers and druids... That and paladins deserving to be in the new game are different issues.

Ha, no one said, "horrible person", again, let's not get hysterical, it was just playing pedantic silly buggers. I guess I should have added "AD&D and all later editions", like I said, going back to OD&D/Chainmail, is rather special.

I agree about picking and choosing, but some of those examples of legacy don't make sense, bards being a PrC in 1 edition does not change the fact that they have been in the last 5 editions of the game.

Legacy is not anything that has ever appeared in at at least 1 edition.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

I like this mental idea that Cayden Cailean got drunk one night and the next morning had this spiritual follower going "So, like, boss, I'm kinda tied to you after all that drinking and daring last night, whatcha want me to work on?"

CC: "..." Wut.

NewPseudoChampion: "I said, whatcha want me to work on?"

CC: "Um. Don't be an ass. Respect other people but never bend to tyranny. Enjoy the good things in life, but don't limit other people's enjoyment. And get me a beer, it's wayyyyyy too early to talk about this."

Automagic Translation!

Respect other people as you'd expect to be treated.
Enjoy life, but never to the point of limiting others enjoyment.
Tyranny is not the only option, spread freedom where you can.
Try new things, because you never know what you like until you do.

Poof! Caydenite PseudoChampion! HUZZAH! A round on the Drunken Hero!

[Arssanguinus]

Neo2151 wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

knightnday wrote:

A small group of people who are granted powers by their ideals does not have to be Lawful Good. That is the crux of the argument. For that matter, not all the LG deities on Golarion are that hung up on truth, justice and the American way given their individual write ups for codes.

The lore of the universe is set up by the Gm and players. If the world exists and each God and Goddess have their holy champions then that familiar feeling you crave is right their baked into the game.

Expanding the lore and legends of a world do not lessen what the game has, but only strengthens it.

Neither does that small group of people have to be a paladin.

Just gonna jump right into this one...

I don't want them to be Paladins.
I want the CG ones to be Liberators.
I want the LN ones to be Justiciars.
I want the LE ones to be Blackguards.
And I want the LG ones to be Paladins.
...
But here's the thing - all of that is about lore.
I want them all working off the same chassis (with differences the same way specialist wizards are all very different but also the same) from a mechanical standpoint. Because it's reasonable, easier on the developers, and because there's no reason to have multiple full classes for every different version of "alignment/code-based divine warrior."

So different except not any different.

[graystone]

Weather Report wrote:

I guess I should have added "AD&D and all later editions", like I said, going back to OD&D/Chainmail, is rather special.

When you're talking to someone that PLAYED OD&D/Chainmail, it would be odd if it was excluded, not "special". ;)

Weather Report wrote:

Legacy is not anything that has ever appeared in at at least 1 edition.

How is it not? Who gets to pick and choose which is the 'true' legacy and which isn't? It's ALL part of the history. Where is the cutoff? 2 books? 3? Ones past a certain undefined date? Or is it JUST ones that bolster your point of view?

I mean I can say 'paladin has a tradition of having non-LG options' with 3.5e, pathfinder, 4e and 5e as examples. Is the 4 most recent editions enough? Would others agree? Again, if you're going to pick and choose you're just talking what's a tradition TO YOU and not what the overall tradition is.

[graystone]

Arssanguinus wrote:

So different except not any different.

IMO, a basic chassis with a bolt on set of abilities for alignment [I'd prefer deity though]. Much like sorcerers, wizard schools ect use the same base and get different abilities. No reason to reinvent the wheel 8 times having 9 different classes [at the associated page count] when a block of abilities/code/ect can be made to attach to the starting class.

[Mbertorch]

graystone wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

So different except not any different.

IMO, a basic chassis with a bolt on set of abilities for alignment [I'd prefer deity though]. Much like sorcerers, wizard schools ect use the same base and get different abilities. No reason to reinvent the wheel 8 times having 9 different classes [at the associated page count] when a block of abilities/code/ect can be made to attach to the starting class.

I like this, except I'm kinda against it being based on deity. I'm not sure why, but that just seems like so much more of a cleric thing, and I always associate paladins with specific codes. So I guess, not alignment or Deity, but rather a Code.

[Weather Report]

graystone wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

I guess I should have added "AD&D and all later editions", like I said, going back to OD&D/Chainmail, is rather special.

When you're talking to someone that PLAYED OD&D/Chainmail, it would be odd if it was excluded, not "special". ;)

Weather Report wrote:

Legacy is not anything that has ever appeared in at at least 1 edition.

How is it not? Who gets to pick and choose which is the 'true' legacy and which isn't? It's ALL part of the history. Where is the cutoff? 2 books? 3? Ones past a certain undefined date? Or is it JUST ones that bolster your point of view?

I mean I can say 'paladin has a tradition of having non-LG options' with 3.5e, pathfinder, 4e and 5e as examples. Is the 4 most recent editions enough? Would others agree? Again, if you're going to pick and choose you're just talking what's a tradition TO YOU and not what the overall tradition is.

Oh, the humanity, this is getting tedious, I'm not sure at this point if it's some sort of last word deal, or a spectrum issue going on, but I guess we disagree about what legacy means in D&D.

I do not think a class needs to have been in OD&D, Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Ed in order to be considered a legacy; some people consider the Warlord to have legacy because it appears in a PHB 1 for the game, I do not subscribe to that.

P.S. Please stop with the uppercase action, it comes across as yelling, gar!

[Steelfiredragon]

and again, as it stands in pf1, there is nothing in the paladin's power list that can not be treated as coming from nirvana, eylsium as well as the LG heavens.

something else it does say on nethys.
"law-bringers" should be left out in pf2 and repelaced with Justice Bringers....

and if a LG paladin will act on the side of good more than the side of law, what makes anyone think that a CG paladin wont act on the side of good more than chaos?

I'd added NG paladins, but lets face it, that sect would act more on good over either law or chaos...

[Claxon]

Mbertorch wrote:

graystone wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

So different except not any different.

IMO, a basic chassis with a bolt on set of abilities for alignment [I'd prefer deity though]. Much like sorcerers, wizard schools ect use the same base and get different abilities. No reason to reinvent the wheel 8 times having 9 different classes [at the associated page count] when a block of abilities/code/ect can be made to attach to the starting class.

I like this, except I'm kinda against it being based on deity. I'm not sure why, but that just seems like so much more of a cleric thing, and I always associate paladins with specific codes. So I guess, not alignment or Deity, but rather a Code.

Why not both?

I think all the major deities should have their specific holy warriors, and probably orders dedicated to specific ideals (which would encompass alignments).

[graystone]

Weather Report wrote:

I guess we disagree about what legacy means in D&D.

I think it's more about no one using the same criteria for what they think of as legacy: IMO, it's the entirety of the the history of the game while some narrow it down to specific editions.

Weather Report wrote:

I do not think a class needs to have been in OD&D, Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Ed in order to be considered a legacy

Anything that's been in any edition has a legacy: it's all a matter of how much weight you put on that legacy, especially when it's not a consistent legacy and changes over time.

Weather Report wrote:

P.S. Please stop with the uppercase action, it comes across as yelling, gar!

I do it for emphasis. I can't stop people from taking it for yelling but that's not the intent. I'd bold/italicize but its a pain to format each word/phrase and super easy to uppercase.

[Cuttlefist]

I would totally be down with Paladin being a sublclass to a chassis with a greater amount of flexibility. Call it the Crusader, to go with Inquisitor when that is introduced.

Like Graystone, I think most of the mechanics should be based on god chosen. Your smite and what it targets, your Lay on Hands effect (Heal, or drain health, or boost an attribute or something like that), their armor type they specialize in (Class abilities that defend but only work in your set armor type maybe), aura type, and also the code with anathema for each god. Then of course class feats that add more abilities to your base powers. And each alignment combo has a different title, like LG being Paladin, that has it’s own base set of anathema that cost you your abilities.

[Weather Report]

graystone wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

I guess we disagree about what legacy means in D&D.

I think it's more about no one using the same criteria for what they think of as legacy: IMO, it's the entirety of the the history of the game while some narrow it down to specific editions.

Weather Report wrote:

I do not think a class needs to have been in OD&D, Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Ed in order to be considered a legacy

Anything that's been in any edition has a legacy: it's all a matter of how much weight you put on that legacy, especially when it's not a consistent legacy and changes over time.

Weather Report wrote:

P.S. Please stop with the uppercase action, it comes across as yelling, gar!

I do it for emphasis. I can't stop people from taking it for yelling but that's not the intent. I'd bold/italicize but its a pain to format each word/phrase and super easy to uppercase.

Right on, I guess I should have known better than to dip into a paladin thread, ha, I think we should go back to discussing critical tables and the tearing off of buttocks, it was more productive!

I am still thinking about just Fighting Man and Magic-User, everything else really could be a subclass or archetype what-have you of those two classes, when you get down to it.

[Sara Marie]

Locking thread.

[Sam Phelan]

Removed posts and replies to those posts.

The discussion of different points of view and game experiences are enlightening and show the breadth of playstyles available, but when we encounter these differences, we must remember to always respect each other, even if we disagree or have difficulty seeing another's points of view. The removed posts violate this respect in different forms, and perpetuated a baiting, argumentative style of conversation, which did nothing to further the points of the people using these tactics to dichotomize the argument.

Firstly, dismantling another’s argument by insulting their intelligence, or otherwise insinuating that some trait of them as a person invalidates their argument is a personal attack and ineffective in addressing that person’s points. The moment you default to addressing the person making the argument and their characteristics, you have stepped beyond acceptable debate. Harsh language used to describe or insult a member of our community, or a group of people with whom you don’t agree, is not tolerated.

Avoid generalizations about groups of people even if that generalization is not inherently negative, as these are usually over-generalizations and are misleading and can be quite harmful.

Quippy comebacks do not contribute to the discussion and only feed the fast-paced and emotional side of the argument. If you see a vein of argument which you do not like, or you feel violates community guidelines, simply do not respond to it to avoid perpetuating the situation. As a general rule, if your post is not a constructive contribution to the content of the discussion, don’t post.

This thread will remain locked.