Nox Aeterna wrote: The funny part is that this discussion has been going on since before the playtest, the people in it are mostly the same even and literally nobody changed an inch from where we started.
To me paladins also remain LG on a must basis.
Disagree? Fine, i know many do. Go to the surveys like everyone is doing.
Honestly, this is one pointless thread at this point. People got their opinions, nobody is willing to change them based on threads, it will be what the devs decide at the end, cause the community clearly remains divided and it will remain so even after the release most likely, the difference is that then there will be rules one way or the other.
This discussion has probably been going on since before the internet....
Vidmaster7 wrote: Nox Aeterna wrote: The funny part is that this discussion has been going on since before the playtest, the people in it are mostly the same even and literally nobody changed an inch from where we started.
To me paladins also remain LG on a must basis.
Disagree? Fine, i know many do. Go to the surveys like everyone is doing.
Honestly, this is one pointless thread at this point. People got their opinions, nobody is willing to change them based on threads, it will be what the devs decide at the end, cause the community clearly remains divided and it will remain so even after the release most likely, the difference is that then there will be rules one way or the other.
This discussion has probably been going on since before the internet.... Pretty much.
There are 4 sub groups:
1. Those who want LG only.
This is the second largest sub-group. They have a strong attachment to the LG Paladin.
2. Those who want open Paladins.
This group is a smaller sub-group. They want all alignment Paladins.
3. Those who want *any good* Paladins.
This is probably the largest sub-group.
4. Those who want "four corners"
This is probably the third largest sub-group.
Above all of these is the majority... Who don't care.
-----
This argument is pretty old. In the 80's it wasn't a big deal. I never heard it much until 3.0 and message boards. I'm sure it existed before then but it was isolated.
Like any ancient conflict the sides are entrenched. The extremes cannot compromise by the nature of their arguments.
Seriously: If you're "LG Only" then you *can't* compromise. If you do, then you lose the only thing of value in the fight for you. It doesn't matter if they are "only good" because that still isn't LG only.
Those in that position are ok with other classes for different alignments with different powers. Though they will see it as a slap in the face if they make "Champion" with the LG one being called Paladin.
For some, myself included, this is a big deal.
I will, personally, be sad if the open the class or make "Paladin" the name of the LG champion as I really like PF2, but I can't ignore my feelings on the matter.
So, personally, I am watching these events carefully.
My compromise (and i'm like in a weird spot officially where as long as I have my LG paladin I'm ok with most other things) that people seemed to like was something like what you said with a champion option. so It wouldn't be a paladin by name or alignment but would have a lot of the same abilities but themed more so around the alignment they end up as. sort of how the anti paladin is a CE or LE paladin but not at the same time.
Vidmaster7 wrote: My compromise (and i'm like in a weird spot officially where as long as I have my LG paladin I'm ok with most other things) that people seemed to like was something like what you said with a champion option. so It wouldn't be a paladin by name or alignment but would have a lot of the same abilities but themed more so around the alignment they end up as. sort of how the anti paladin is a CE or LE paladin but not at the same time. That just doesn't work for me.
For me the concept of the Paladin is a unique class. None of this "most good" rhetoric or anything, it simply is what it is, a unique special class that is created when someone with the inherent potential (originally called a spark), is a natural conduit for elemental law and a completely pure conduit for good. After that, a deific call can ignite it, or the Universe itself can, and if the individual accepts then they become a Paladin.
It is special because of its uniqueness and rarity.
It isn't something you could just choose to become, you didn't just go to an academy and study, you either were or were not a Paladin.
I'll get to Antipaladins in a minute...
If the class is opened, in any way, that uniqueness is lessened. Open it up? Well now it is just a class. I'm sure the idea of a divine warrior that isn't a cleric and has divine powers is a draw for many - But that isn't just what a Paladin is.
The setting loses something as well. It loses mystery.
Originally nobody knew why sparks existed. We only knew that they couldn't be created by Gods. We knew only Lawful and Good in a VERY specific ratio, with 0 margin for error, could make the powers appear, but no idea why nothing else did.
If we open the class, well, suddenly that is no longer a thing at all. Suddenly it would be that Gods create Paladins and alignment ratios don't make sense. It becomes just a Holy Warrior empowered by your God and well... Since that isn't what Paladins were... You lose something.
What about the two PF archetypes that allowed for non-LG Paladins?
Well they are super rare, for one, for two the Grey Paladin's powers are cannonically weaker than a full Paladin specifically because the energies are off. It even says that.
The other one? The Vindictive Bastard? It is specifically a fallen Paladin and not a Paladin.
That brings us to the Antipaladin.
The Antipaladin isn't a Paladin. The PF Antipaladin doesn't actually resemble the actual actual Antipaladin at all. It is a Blackguard. Even then they are a type of fallen Paladin.
So what is it that makes LG the only source for a full true Paladin? What makes it the actual source of a Paladin's powers?
Is it that LG is the "most good" alignment? No.
None of the actual LG only posters have claimed that. That is a often told by people who want to open the Paladin to get people on their side. It is sort of a grade school stunt, "Joey said you're stupid. Vote for Billy as playground president!"
LG does it because LG does it. It is part of the lore and an interesting bit of fluff. It is a good story hook for people investigating the secret.
That goes away if others get the same powers without the alignment. It goes back to, "Because the Gods do it."
Paizo's current version weakens the lore a little already by attaching anathema to the code. Previous versions literally had it set so the Gods could take spells away, but that was all they gave the Paladin.
That is about all the compromise I can give.
I'm fine if Paizo wants to take the current class and strip out Lay on Hands to call it Champion. Only if we get a LG only Paladin that has fully unique powers. Paladins need to be special... Or there is no point.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: My compromise (and i'm like in a weird spot officially where as long as I have my LG paladin I'm ok with most other things) that people seemed to like was something like what you said with a champion option. so It wouldn't be a paladin by name or alignment but would have a lot of the same abilities but themed more so around the alignment they end up as. sort of how the anti paladin is a CE or LE paladin but not at the same time. That just doesn't work for me.
For me the concept of the Paladin is a unique class. None of this "most good" rhetoric or anything, it simply is what it is, a unique special class that is created when someone with the inherent potential (originally called a spark), is a natural conduit for elemental law and a completely pure conduit for good. After that, a deific call can ignite it, or the Universe itself can, and if the individual accepts then they become a Paladin.
It is special because of its uniqueness and rarity.
It isn't something you could just choose to become, you didn't just go to an academy and study, you either were or were not a Paladin.
I'll get to Antipaladins in a minute...
If the class is opened, in any way, that uniqueness is lessened. Open it up? Well now it is just a class. I'm sure the idea of a divine warrior that isn't a cleric and has divine powers is a draw for many - But that isn't just what a Paladin is.
The setting loses something as well. It loses mystery.
Originally nobody knew why sparks existed. We only knew that they couldn't be created by Gods. We knew only Lawful and Good in a VERY specific ratio, with 0 margin for error, could make the powers appear, but no idea why nothing else did.
If we open the class, well, suddenly that is no longer a thing at all. Suddenly it would be that Gods create Paladins and alignment ratios don't make sense. It becomes just a Holy Warrior empowered by your God and well... Since that isn't what Paladins were... You lose something.
What about the two... you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it,
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't know if this has already been said or not, but in the Classes survey, there is a question asking what alignments Paladins should be allowed to have ;)
Edit :
Quote: It is special because of its uniqueness and rarity.
It isn't something you could just choose to become, you didn't just go to an academy and study, you either were or were not a Paladin.
I'll get to Antipaladins in a minute...
If the class is opened, in any way, that uniqueness is lessened. Open it up? Well now it is just a class.
You.... do know the Paladin is supposed to be just a class every player can take, right ? And now with the rarity system, they are supposed to be a choice as common as wizards and fighters ?
I feel like you are mistaking the Paladin for some sort of Prestige class... =/
And even without alignment restriction, Paladins are still pretty special thanks to their class abilities and their class feats. They're the only ones with Retributive Strike and the Ally abilities, for exemple.
Edit 2 : And Paladins get their powers from gods in Pathfinder. You are thinking about D&D there.
I myself am a fan of every alignment getting a special class like a paladin, but keeping the paladin LG term and making the other classes unique in other ways. I do understand this would make a rulebook of its own, of course... If we do it four-corners wise, it could be Paladin, Antipaladin, possibly some specific Hellknight for LE only? And one other champion for CG.
Druids were once Neutral-only, and Monks Lawful-only, and Barbarians not-Lawful only. Most alignment-based classes are gone now, and unless we see some of that come back, I'm not sure why we bother with alignment any more instead of slapping on some other system that lets communicate to others easily how this character will approximately behave in different situations - there were multitude of those in different RPGs...
HWalsh:
Honestly, no offense, but its not all about you. What you choose to give or not doesnt matter. Its about what sounds reasonable and what PAIZO chooses to give.
Paladins of variant alignments have been around since 1986's Dragon #106. I don't see any setting losing anything (mystique or otherwise) by gaining them - this is especially true of Golarian that already has special knightly orders of various alignments (Hellknights, etc) who have special powers and the like. So, whether or not Paizo calls them out as PC classes, they already exist in the world.
Sorry buddy but your arguments hold no water.
HWalsh wrote:
For me the concept of the Paladin is a unique class.
I've a (genuine) question for you. One you've probably answered before :-(.
Where does your concept of the paladin originate from? You seem to have a VERY particular vision (one that isn't remotely like mine) and I'm genuinely curious as to its origin.
Personally (despite playing D&D when the paladin was first created, despite having read the romance of Roland, despite having read much Arthurian lore) the absolutely perfect incarnation of the Paladin is in Elizabeth Moon's Paksenarion book (or, at least, as I remember a book I haven't read for 30 years :-))
pauljathome wrote: HWalsh wrote:
For me the concept of the Paladin is a unique class.
I've a (genuine) question for you. One you've probably answered before :-(.
Where does your concept of the paladin originate from? You seem to have a VERY particular vision (one that isn't remotely like mine) and I'm genuinely curious as to its origin.
Personally (despite playing D&D when the paladin was first created, despite having read the romance of Roland, despite having read much Arthurian lore) the absolutely perfect incarnation of the Paladin is in Elizabeth Moon's Paksenarion book (or, at least, as I remember a book I haven't read for 30 years :-)) That was the extended lore around the class from 2nd edition AD&D. The explanation for the "something special" came from numerous articles and interviews and books.
This was mechanically represented by the original requirement of a Paladin needing a minimum 17 charisma to take the class (in a day when that meant rolling a minimum 6, 6, 5 on 3d6).
The "having to answer the call" came from numerous parts of the lore (see AD&D 2nd Edition Paladin's Handbook) and was mechanically represented by the fact that original Paladins couldn't ever return to the class if they left it, nor could they join it if they did not start there (see human dual class rules AD&D 2nd edition).
This was all later expounded on in the Mystara Novel Series which went a little more in depth with one of the only novel depictions of an AD&D Paladin.
Rob Godfrey wrote: you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it, Maybe you should read what I wrote Rob.
I have never said that LG was the best good. Just that they were the alignment that got the Paladin. Go back and check my post history. You will find I have never said those words and have, in fact, refuted the claim over a dozen times (14 to be exact).
Data Lore wrote: HWalsh:
Honestly, no offense, but its not all about you. What you choose to give or not doesnt matter. Its about what sounds reasonable and what PAIZO chooses to give.
Paladins of variant alignments have been around since 1986's Dragon #106. I don't see any setting losing anything (mystique or otherwise) by gaining them - this is especially true of Golarian that already has special knightly orders of various alignments (Hellknights, etc) who have special powers and the like. So, whether or not Paizo calls them out as PC classes, they already exist in the world.
Sorry buddy but your arguments hold no water.
What I, as a consumer, chooses to give does matter. I have no obligation to support Paizo financially. If they do something I don't like, such as open the Paladin, I can choose to not buy Pathfinder 2.
Dragon magazine, even the article in question, was unofficial optional material. Meaning it didn't count. In no official material was there a non-LG Paladin until 3.X.
Hellknights are not Paladins. Though some Paladins become Hellknights the two are not interchangible.
Almarane wrote: I don't know if this has already been said or not, but in the Classes survey, there is a question asking what alignments Paladins should be allowed to have ;)
Edit :
Quote: It is special because of its uniqueness and rarity.
It isn't something you could just choose to become, you didn't just go to an academy and study, you either were or were not a Paladin.
I'll get to Antipaladins in a minute...
If the class is opened, in any way, that uniqueness is lessened. Open it up? Well now it is just a class.
You.... do know the Paladin is supposed to be just a class every player can take, right ? And now with the rarity system, they are supposed to be a choice as common as wizards and fighters ?
I feel like you are mistaking the Paladin for some sort of Prestige class... =/
And even without alignment restriction, Paladins are still pretty special thanks to their class abilities and their class feats. They're the only ones with Retributive Strike and the Ally abilities, for exemple.
Edit 2 : And Paladins get their powers from gods in Pathfinder. You are thinking about D&D there.
1. Pathfinder is a D&D derivative legacy product.
2. Paladins in PF were rare by the lore and by dint of having alignment restrictions were, by mechanics, not available to everyone.
3. We have not seen any part of PF2 that says they are more common now or that they are intended to be available to everyone. In fact since (at present) only lawful good characters of specific gods can be Paladins that shows they aren't available to everyone.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Dragon magazine, even the article in question, was unofficial optional material. Meaning it didn't count. In no official material was there a non-LG Paladin until 3.X. Optional, yes it was (as all rules are technically). It was also official, as in published by TSR/WoTC.
But you don't care, you've chosen your (ant)hill and you're going to die on it.
HWalsh wrote:
That was the extended lore around the class from 2nd edition AD&D. The explanation for the "something special" came from numerous articles and interviews and books
... (cutting for brevity)
Thank you for the answer.
That explains why our visions are so different. I never played 2nd edition AD&D (I'd moved on from D&D at that time, only returning with 3rd edition) nor have I read the novels.
Edit: By the way, if you haven't read it I highly recommend The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon. The story involves a Paladin chosen in what I think is very similar to the way that you describe it. In world, however, most Paladins are just trained by their Church. Not surprisingly, she turns out to be "better" in some significant ways
Quote: I can choose to not buy Pathfinder 2. Then don't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CommanderCoyler wrote: HWalsh wrote: Dragon magazine, even the article in question, was unofficial optional material. Meaning it didn't count. In no official material was there a non-LG Paladin until 3.X. Optional, yes it was (as all rules are technically). It was also official, as in published by TSR/WoTC.
But you don't care, you've chosen your (ant)hill and you're going to die on it. Actually - Even Dragon Magazine, back in the day, made the distinction that none of the content in it was official as much of it was not officially approved by WotC. Many articles, such as the original Antipaladin and the non-LG Paladins you referenced, were fan submitted.
Dragon was awesome, I have the CD and everything, but it was never official content.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it, Maybe you should read what I wrote Rob.
I have never said that LG was the best good. Just that they were the alignment that got the Paladin. Go back and check my post history. You will find I have never said those words and have, in fact, refuted the claim over a dozen times (14 to be exact). You never use the exact words, just make the implicit claim over, and over and over, that the ultimate champion of good, and in fact the only divinely empowered champion we have has to be LG...if that is not a claim of superiority, what exactly is it?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Almarane wrote: I don't know if this has already been said or not, but in the Classes survey, there is a question asking what alignments Paladins should be allowed to have ;)
Edit :
Quote: It is special because of its uniqueness and rarity.
It isn't something you could just choose to become, you didn't just go to an academy and study, you either were or were not a Paladin.
I'll get to Antipaladins in a minute...
If the class is opened, in any way, that uniqueness is lessened. Open it up? Well now it is just a class.
You.... do know the Paladin is supposed to be just a class every player can take, right ? And now with the rarity system, they are supposed to be a choice as common as wizards and fighters ?
I feel like you are mistaking the Paladin for some sort of Prestige class... =/
And even without alignment restriction, Paladins are still pretty special thanks to their class abilities and their class feats. They're the only ones with Retributive Strike and the Ally abilities, for exemple.
Edit 2 : And Paladins get their powers from gods in Pathfinder. You are thinking about D&D there.
1. Pathfinder is a D&D derivative legacy product. Yeah, "derivative". Pathfinder is NOT D&D. Nor a spin off. Nor a fanfic. Or we would be fighting beholders.
It's like saying Digimon has to follow Pokemon's lore because you have approximatevely the same gameplay. Or, for a better comparison, System Shock 2 and Bioshock, the latter being the spiritual ancestor of the former.
HWalsh wrote: 2. Paladins in PF were rare by the lore and by dint of having alignment restrictions were, by mechanics, not available to everyone. They never seemed rare "by the lore" to me. It's one of the classes I see most comonly in play. There is litteraly 3 countries in Golarion filled with Paladins (Mendev, Lastwall and the Worldwound).
HWalsh wrote: 3. We have not seen any part of PF2 that says they are more common now or that they are intended to be available to everyone. In fact since (at present) only lawful good characters of specific gods can be Paladins that shows they aren't available to everyone. From the "Common Ground" blog post :
Quote: Common
Something is common if it's ubiquitous in its category, like any of the core races and core classes, longswords, fireball, bracers of armor, and the like. All characters can select common options without restriction.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Even Dragon Magazine, back in the day, made the distinction that none of the content in it was official as much of it was not officially approved by WotC. So? It still shows that the idea had traction 30 years ago. Your retort about Hellknights is kinda silly too. Even this thing about Paladins being special doesn't jive with Paizo themselves calling them common.
Honestly, your argument is on poor footing here.
I'm not sure how HWalsh feels about paladins themselves being the LG path for a generic knight class, but it seems none of those concepts should be allotted or permitted.
That's wrong. It's wrong because of the setting and it's wrong because of the mechanics.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rob Godfrey wrote: HWalsh wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it, Maybe you should read what I wrote Rob.
I have never said that LG was the best good. Just that they were the alignment that got the Paladin. Go back and check my post history. You will find I have never said those words and have, in fact, refuted the claim over a dozen times (14 to be exact). You never use the exact words, just make the implicit claim over, and over and over, that the ultimate champion of good has to be LG...if that is not a claim of superiority, what exactly is it? I have never said that they are the ultimate champion of good. I have never insinuated that. I have insinuated that the Paladin is a champion of good, which it indeed is, and that it is an archetypal kind of hero, which it also is, but that doesn't make it the only champion of good or the ultimate champion of good.
The Paladin is unique in its lore and what it represents.
If you ever played the original Paladin then you'd also know that they weren't even all that good mechanically. (Your average AD&D 2nd Ed Paladin would get its teeth kicked in by a Fighter for example, mostly because the ability score requirements meant you had to put at least a 17 in Charisma which did absolutely nothing for you. Literally, Charisma didn't fuel your abilities, your spells were wisdom based, and your combat was straight strength, dex, and con - Even your original LoH was 100% dependent on your level rather than your Charisma.)
You seem to take offense at the idea that the Paladin had a special place in the lore. I'm sorry that you feel that way, I truly am, but I don't want to give that up because I feel to do so would lessen not only the class, but the lore, and the world flavor.
Here are (some of) the narrative advantages (and disadvantages) that a Paladin had:
1. A Paladin was a known factor.
This is *huge* if you play the game with the lore in mind. Classes are an in-universe thing. Paladins specifically are an in-universe thing. Paladins are known factors.
Namely people know what a Paladin is, and more importantly what a Paladin means. This can help the Paladin (a Paladin cannot lie. Not does not. Cannot.) or it can hurt the Paladin (a Paladin helps people because it is the right thing to do, thus we shouldn't have to pay him to help us.).
2. A Paladin cannot be bribed.
Again, this is just a thing, a local crime boss or corrupt character might try to bribe a non-Paladin. They aren't going to pull that on someone they know is a Paladin. This means that the Paladin might find a knife in the back where someone else could get a decent payday for looking the other way. This also means a virtuous Fighter who is Neutral Good could be approached by a person offering said bribe and pretend to take it only to turn on them. At least they'll know someone is offering bribes. The Paladin doesn't get those options.
3. A Paladin cannot cheat.
This is another big one. Paladins can't fight dirty. If you follow the code they are bound to fight and act honorably. This means that there are certain combat tactics that they simply cannot reasonably employ. This includes, but is not limited to, potentially being unable to coup de grace, being forced to accept a surrender, etc. That second one can also lead NPCs who are innocent, but who believe they have been set up, being willing to surrender to a Paladin who might not surrender to someone else. This can be a great storytelling opportunity.
4...
I could go on all day... The end result is... With a Paladin the characters in the world have a reason to make certain assumptions based solely on the knowledge that a person is a Paladin. This changes how the characters in the world interact with a Paladin. Paladins, by their nature, don't have to be "checked out" as to if they are good and honorable... They simply are... They are Paladins...
Does this mean that non-Paladins can't be just as good? No, of course not. Non-Paladins can indeed be just as good as a Paladin. They just aren't necessarily assumed such as the default. There is no price for them if they slip up and the world knows that.
Does this mean that non-Paladins can't be just as honorable? No, of course not. Non-Paladins can be just as honorable as a Paladin. They just aren't necessarily assumed such as the default. There is no price for them if they slip up and as such each non-Paladin must be taken on their merit, whereas Paladins are taken on simply what they are.
The Paladin is the mythical "Chosen Hero" archetype. The person who is noble and good by default who is aligned with the forces of Order and Good. They are (to some) a more boring character because of that. They are not simply ordinary people who rise to be heroes, they had something special from the start. They are incorruptible.
Does this mean that they are the only kind of archetypal hero? No, of course not. There are tons of characters who are amazing heroes who don't fit with the archetype of the Paladin. Any character who comes from beginnings and rises to become a hero through simple hard work is not the Paladin. They, in many ways, are much more nuanced and interesting characters.
Now - You note that I said the Paladin (above) is incorruptible? That isn't actually true, and we all know that. That is the in-universe perception of the Paladin. This is why there is an antipaladin. When a Paladin falls it is not a common thing. It is not something people shrug off. The Paladin who falls is instantly judged horribly, a minor slip up and that is it, everyone who sees your grace disappear knows that you are scum, even if you aren't scum, even if you just made a small error. Why? That perception. A Paladin is (in-universe perception) supposed to be better than normal people. So when they fall it is much worse.
A non-Paladin doesn't have that to worry about. For one, if they screw up with a small mistake, unless people know about it, no harm no foul. The phrase, "Everyone makes mistakes." Is likely to come up especially if it is a small infraction. Paladins do NOT get that same luxury, so a Paladin is under more pressure from society, which is a great roleplaying angle that is actually backed up mechanically in that they lose their powers if they step one tow out of line even once.
So again - It isn't that the Paladin is the Most Good - It isn't even that they are the Ultimate Good - It is just that they are a different type of character. Different things and themes to explore. If they are opened, if Paizo goes that route, then those avenues largely close.
(Note: Yes, a GM can still allow those avenues if the Paladin is opened via house ruling, but a GM can also house rule that Paladins can be of any alignment. For the purposes of this discussion we are talking about the setting as presented.)
Even in Pathfinder 1, where Gods had individual Paladin codes, according to the rules those codes were additions, not replacements. Meaning that the Paladin still was beholden to the core code. So while a Paladin of Torag could deceive, for example, they still couldn't actually lie as the core code was still there. So there were reasonable in-universe assumptions that could (and should be) made regarding them.
(Side note: This also was an advantage for Grey Paladins because they were able to bend the rules which could really surprise enemies who could, if they knew there was a Paladin coming, try to manipulate or put the Paladin at a disadvantageous position simply by knowing who the Paladin is.)
Anyway - That is the way I have always approached the Paladin, as a specific fantasy archetype that I think deserves to be preserved and that I feel strongly about. I have never said that you aren't allowed to have your own opinion. I have only said that I don't want what you want. That doesn't mean I don't understand or respect your opinion, only that if your opinion becomes the reality then I lose something that I don't want to lose, so of course I am opposed to your opinion becoming the official rule of the land.
You want X instead of Y.
I want Y instead of X.
That doesn't mean I don't understand why you want X, but it does mean though that I have to oppose you getting X if I want to keep Y. That doesn't mean I disrespect *you* I just oppose (strongly) what you want.
Rambling. Adding 300 words with little to no substance does not make the argument better.
+1 Multiple Alignment Champions
HWalsh wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: HWalsh wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: you just claimed LG as best good, and then also claimed you didn't. make up your mind, either LG is best good, has this 'spark'you speak of to make paladins..ones that you claim HAVE to remain the most powerful martial class, and still be linked to LG, with your compromise being: these inferior alignments can have an inferior class, because they are scrub peasants unworthy of respect, given your lack of respect for everyone elses views, and your lying about claiming LG as best good, why on earth should we show you anything but the condescension and contempt you show us? Also the hyperbolic lies about 'what a paladin is' is self serving dishonesty and propaganda, please stop being so arrogant to assume we all have head injuries extreme enough to fall for it, Maybe you should read what I wrote Rob.
I have never said that LG was the best good. Just that they were the alignment that got the Paladin. Go back and check my post history. You will find I have never said those words and have, in fact, refuted the claim over a dozen times (14 to be exact). You never use the exact words, just make the implicit claim over, and over and over, that the ultimate champion of good has to be LG...if that is not a claim of superiority, what exactly is it? I have never said that they are the ultimate champion of good. I have never insinuated that. I have insinuated that the Paladin is a champion of good, which it indeed is, and that it is an archetypal kind of hero, which it also is, but that doesn't make it the only champion of good or the ultimate champion of good.
The Paladin is unique in its lore and what it represents.
If you ever played the original Paladin then you'd also know that they weren't even all that good mechanically. (Your average AD&D 2nd Ed Paladin would get its teeth kicked in by a Fighter for example, mostly because the ability score requirements meant you had to put at least a 17 in Charisma which did... What you said is absolute right...for Faerun in ADnD 2e. It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster? That is the problem, this is not TSRs game, and we should cast of the last aspects of that (especially with Paladins being regarded as 'common' seen as often as bards, or clerics or sorcerers) and your utter insistence that no other empowered champions can be allowed to exist, that the Paladin has to remain the way it was decades ago in a game by a different company, and remain as it was in that fluff, the ultimate champion (and it was in ADnD the ultimate champion, all others where explicitly less worthy) and that any other champion existing is a fundamental threat to you enjoying the game,leads me to the conclusion that the only possible way forward for the class is it's removal, if, as you claim, it has to cling to lore owned by another company, and become less common than the other classes, it should be removed, or made a prestige class, and the space saved by doing so used to expand the other classes
Almarane wrote: HWalsh wrote: Almarane wrote: I don't know if this has already been said or not, but in the Classes survey, there is a question asking what alignments Paladins should be allowed to have ;)
Edit :
Quote: It is special because of its uniqueness and rarity.
It isn't something you could just choose to become, you didn't just go to an academy and study, you either were or were not a Paladin.
I'll get to Antipaladins in a minute...
If the class is opened, in any way, that uniqueness is lessened. Open it up? Well now it is just a class.
You.... do know the Paladin is supposed to be just a class every player can take, right ? And now with the rarity system, they are supposed to be a choice as common as wizards and fighters ?
I feel like you are mistaking the Paladin for some sort of Prestige class... =/
And even without alignment restriction, Paladins are still pretty special thanks to their class abilities and their class feats. They're the only ones with Retributive Strike and the Ally abilities, for exemple.
Edit 2 : And Paladins get their powers from gods in Pathfinder. You are thinking about D&D there.
1. Pathfinder is a D&D derivative legacy product. Yeah, "derivative". Pathfinder is NOT D&D. Nor a spin off. Nor a fanfic. Or we would be fighting beholders.
It's like saying Digimon has to follow Pokemon's lore because you have approximatevely the same gameplay. Or, for a better comparison, System Shock 2 and Bioshock, the latter being the spiritual ancestor of the former.
HWalsh wrote: 2. Paladins in PF were rare by the lore and by dint of having alignment restrictions were, by mechanics, not available to everyone. They never seemed rare "by the lore" to me. It's one of the classes I see most comonly in play. There is litteraly 3 countries in Golarion filled with Paladins (Mendev, Lastwall and the Worldwound).
HWalsh wrote: 3. We have not seen any part of PF2 that says they ... Okay, again, you point to the words, "All can choose without restriction" but then we *know* that there is a restriction with Paladins. That makes Paladins the exception to the rule.
Here is where Paladins are said to be rare:
'Pathfinder Core Rulebook page 60' wrote: Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. "Select, worthy few" directly means that Paladins are rare. That is the very first sentence for what a Paladin is in Pathfinder.
In PF2 we see the following restrictions:
1. Paladins must be Lawful Good - Meaning that you can't be NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, or CE. That is a restriction.
2. Paladins must worship a deity - Meaning that you can't be a non-believer (I am not actually a fan of this personally). That is another restriction.
3. There are 21 deities in the Pathfinder 2 Playtest, of those only 7 (1/3) have Paladins. This is again another restriction and another indication of rarity. By default if only 1/3 of the Gods can even have them, and then if only 1/3 of the potential followers of that god can be Paladins that really makes them less likely to be common.
There was an interesting thought experiment we did one day in the PFS discord where we math'ed out how many Paladins there actually would be in a city like Magnimar in Golarion.
Using a comment by James Jacobs that only roughly 20% of the population had player class levels and going off of the idea that there were 44 classes, and assuming that those classes had equal numeric distribution in desire (as in X number of people wanted to be Y class) and then factoring that the majority of people in Golarion (50%) were neutral we then divided the remaining numbers up and came up with this:
Magnimar has a population of 16428.
So we get 20% of that - 3285.6 (rounding to 3286)
There are 3286 people in Magnimar who have adventuring class levels.
Then we divide that by the number of people evenly who want to be each class (so 3286/44=74.6 - round to 75)
Now we divide that by 50% to remove the number who are neutral. Leaving 37.5 or rounding to 38.
Then we divide that 38 by 8, to find out how many people who want to be Paladins would actually be viable to be one, IE are Lawful Good and we get 4.75.
We assume that the other 33 who wanted to be Paladins but weren't viable have to go elsewhere (Hellknights, Fighters, Clerics, Warpriests, etc). This is supported by lore by the way as we have characters who wanted to be Paladins but didn't have that which would allow it.
So, in one of the largest cities of Varisia, you'll find, giving a high estimate, 5 Paladins.
You'll find reduced numbers of other classes as well. Monks, Barbarians, etc, based on alignment restrictions and other factors, but that still makes Fighters, who will have 38+ members more than seven times more common than Paladins.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I vote for paladins of any alignment, and I indicated as much on my survey. I would be okay with any good, but LG only is a no-go for my group.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rob Godfrey wrote: What you said is absolute right...for Faerun in ADnD 2e. It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster? That is the problem, this is not TSRs game, and we should cast of the last aspects of that (especially with Paladins being regarded as 'common' seen as often as bards, or clerics or sorcerers) and your utter insistence that no other empowered champions can be allowed to exist, that the Paladin has to remain the way it was decades ago in a game by a different company, and remain as it was in that fluff, the ultimate champion (and it was in ADnD the ultimate champion, all others where explicitly less worthy) and that any other champion existing is a fundamental threat to you enjoying the game,leads me to the conclusion that the only possible way forward for the class is it's removal, if, as you claim, it has to cling to lore owned by another company, and become less common than the other classes, it should be removed, or made a prestige class, and the space saved by doing so used to expand the other classes I have to talk about specific aspects of this reply:
It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster?
No, it isn't false for Golarion, because Golarion is built off of D&D 3.5. This specifically is the case in that 3.5 material still exists in Golarion officially. Pathfinder is tied to D&D we can't, and shouldn't deny it. Thus it is completely fair to make a comparison to the source material for Golarion rather than CoC or Hackmaster.
It is fair for you to say that you think Paizo should cast off all of that, which you do here, but that (and the other parts of your reply as well) is an opinion and not a fact.
And I respect your belief to that, I respect that you feel that Paladin shouldn't be an exception, but the fact that we do have restrictions on it, which make it less common than the others, makes it even in PF2 playtest more rare than other classes.
You are completely within your right to argue that you feel that they should either change or be removed. That is your right. I strongly disagree with you, but I don't deny that you have the right to ask for that.
I do, however, oppose that the idea is factual or that it is universally true or accepted.
If you want to urge that Paizo completely divorce from the PF1 lore in PF2 that is your prerogative. However since Paizo has said, specifically, that they are not changing the lore from PF1 to PF2 this doesn't make any sense for the changes to Paladin to occur as you request.
If you are requesting that Paladins be removed as player classes and left as special NPCs... I would be... Sad... But that would be more acceptable to me personally than changing the lore of the class.
HWalsh wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: What you said is absolute right...for Faerun in ADnD 2e. It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster? That is the problem, this is not TSRs game, and we should cast of the last aspects of that (especially with Paladins being regarded as 'common' seen as often as bards, or clerics or sorcerers) and your utter insistence that no other empowered champions can be allowed to exist, that the Paladin has to remain the way it was decades ago in a game by a different company, and remain as it was in that fluff, the ultimate champion (and it was in ADnD the ultimate champion, all others where explicitly less worthy) and that any other champion existing is a fundamental threat to you enjoying the game,leads me to the conclusion that the only possible way forward for the class is it's removal, if, as you claim, it has to cling to lore owned by another company, and become less common than the other classes, it should be removed, or made a prestige class, and the space saved by doing so used to expand the other classes I have to talk about specific aspects of this reply:
It is absolute false for Golarion, you hark back to a game by a different company for support, can I then call on Call of Cthulhu? Or Hackmaster?
No, it isn't false for Golarion, because Golarion is built off of D&D 3.5. This specifically is the case in that 3.5 material still exists in Golarion officially. Pathfinder is tied to D&D we can't, and shouldn't deny it. Thus it is completely fair to make a comparison to the source material for Golarion rather than CoC or Hackmaster.
It is fair for you to say that you think Paizo should cast off all of that, which you do here, but that (and the other parts of your reply as well) is an opinion and not a fact.
And I respect your belief to that, I respect that you feel that Paladin shouldn't be an exception, but the fact that we do have restrictions on it, which make... hang on, your stance is just an opinion as well, that being that all non-LG deities are to weak and stupid to empower champions (because you have argued against that compromise as well, paladin being the LG champion of a sanctified/empowered class bracket at least makes sense, keeping a class based on genocidal lunatics and pedophiles as a hero does not, at all.)
HWalsh wrote: Okay, again, you point to the words, "All can choose without restriction" but then we *know* that there is a restriction with Paladins. That makes Paladins the exception to the rule.
Here is where Paladins are said to be rare:
'Pathfinder Core Rulebook page 60' wrote:
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine.
"Select, worthy few" directly means that Paladins are rare. That is the very first sentence for what a Paladin is in Pathfinder.
In PF2 we see the following restrictions:
1. Paladins must be Lawful Good - Meaning that you can't be NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, or CE. That is a restriction.
2. Paladins must worship a deity - Meaning that you can't be a non-believer (I am not actually a fan of this personally). That is another restriction.
3. There are 21 deities in the Pathfinder 2 Playtest, of those only 7 (1/3) have Paladins. This is again another restriction and another indication of rarity. By default if only 1/3 of the Gods can even have them, and then if only 1/3 of the potential followers of that god can be Paladins that really makes them less likely to be common.
There was an interesting thought experiment we did one day in the PFS discord where we math'ed out how many Paladins there actually would be in a city like Magnimar in Golarion.
Using a comment by James Jacobs that only roughly 20% of the population had player class levels and going off of the idea that there were 44 classes, and assuming that those classes had equal numeric distribution in desire (as in X number of people wanted to be Y class) and then factoring that the majority of people in Golarion (50%) were neutral we then divided the remaining numbers up and came up with this:
Magnimar has a population of 16428.
So we get 20% of that - 3285.6 (rounding to 3286)
There are 3286 people in Magnimar who have adventuring class levels.
Then we divide that by the number of people evenly who want to be each class (so 3286/44=74.6 - round to 75)
Now we divide that by 50% to remove the number who are neutral. Leaving 37.5 or rounding to 38.
Then we divide that 38 by 8, to find out how many people who want to be Paladins would actually be viable to be one, IE are Lawful Good and we get 4.75.
We assume that the other 33 who wanted to be Paladins but weren't viable have to go elsewhere (Hellknights, Fighters, Clerics, Warpriests, etc). This is supported by lore by the way as we have characters who wanted to be Paladins but didn't have that which would allow it.
So, in one of the largest cities of Varisia, you'll find, giving a high estimate, 5 Paladins.
You'll find reduced numbers of other classes as well. Monks, Barbarians, etc, based on alignment restrictions and other factors, but that still makes Fighters, who will have 38+ members more than seven times more common than Paladins.
I think you just made the case for Paladins being a prestige archetype.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The point is, we are discussing if this alignment restriction should go or not. Using the fact that it is currently alignment restricted to justify it being alignment restricted in a discution about removing the alignment restriction does not make sense in this debate.
Also, I was not pointing at "All can choose without restriction", just at the fact that they are common, and thus you have the same chances to meet a paladin, a fighter and a wizard...
On the topic of "number of paladins in a city" : did you know there actually is a 100-paladin army in the Worldwound ? Yeah... Mendevian cities have bigger numbers of paladins than Magnimar. Because Magnimar does not need Paladins. And I would not be surprised if Lastwall was 100% paladins. You forgot to include geopolitical factors in your calculation.
Plus, you made assumptions without any proof to base them on. First by dividing the number of people with a class evenly (which would not have been a problem if you did not count restrictions later on your calculation, reducing the number of potential paladins). Then by, once again, invoking the alignment restriction to remove a total of 33.25 + 37 = 70.25 characters. And finally by saying there are an equal number of people of each alignment - which is definitely not true - after saying 50% of the population is neutral - which is contradictory with what is said after.
I'm sorry, but your math doesn't make sense.
And Golarion is not built off D&D3.5 lore-wise. It is a completely different setting. I'll reiterate my example : Bioshock does not have the same lore than System Shock 2.
Almarane wrote: The point is, we are discussing if this alignment restriction should go or not. Using the fact that it is currently alignment restricted to justify it being alignment restricted in a discution about removing the alignment restriction does not make sense in this debate.
Also, I was not pointing at "All can choose without restriction", just at the fact that they are common, and thus you have the same chances to meet a paladin, a fighter and a wizard...
On the topic of "number of paladins in a city" : did you know there actually is a 100-paladin army in the Worldwound ? Yeah... Mendevian cities have bigger numbers of paladins than Magnimar. Because Magnimar does not need Paladins. And I would not be surprised if Lastwall was 100% paladins. You forgot to include geopolitical factors in your calculation.
Plus, you made assumptions without any proof to base them on. First by dividing the number of people with a class evenly (which would not have been a problem if you did not count restrictions later on your calculation, reducing the number of potential paladins). Then by, once again, invoking the alignment restriction to remove a total of 33.25 + 37 = 70.25 characters. And finally by saying there are an equal number of people of each alignment - which is definitely not true - after saying 50% of the population is neutral - which is contradictory with what is said after.
I'm sorry, but your math doesn't make sense.
And Golarion is not built off D&D3.5 lore-wise. It is a completely different setting. I'll reiterate my example : Bioshock does not have the same lore than System Shock 2.
The math does make sense.
Now, you can try to take a different formula, and disregard alignment and then try to divide completely on class which would be another way to get a much higher number of Paladins, especially if you disregard the comments that half the people in Golarion are neutral but then we end up with weirdness like, by that math, there are almost no Lawful Good members of any other class.
Now, the reason why I divided the remaining numbers up evenly is because we have no statements to determine what the percentage of any number other than Neutral is. That is an assumption going off of as much information as we actually have.
(I know, I ran those numbers and it didn't work out based on the published material Paizo has given us to work with.)
You cannot, however, say the math doesn't make sense.
Also there isn't a ton of Paladins in the Worldwound either. If you go off of the numbers given in Wrath of the Righteous while there are a larger than normal number of Paladins there it actually says in the PG that Paladins are still rare there.
Also, just a note, there are something like 50,000 crusaders, so even if there are 100 Paladins (I would like to know where you get that figure from - As I know there is a temporary army formed of Paladins that appear in WotR but that was a special case) that is still only like .5%
So even in the most Paladin heavy place in the world Paladins are still rare.
Unfortunately with Golarion lore not being built off of 3.5 lore - It still is, as elements of 3.5 lore that Paizo created are still present in Golarion with references to people, places, and events.
-----
As to your statement of if the alignment restriction should go or not - My statement on that has not changed... I think it should stay for the lore, story, storytelling, flavor and setting reasons I cited.
I mean, if all we are supposed to do here is discuss if we think it should stay or go... Then we are limited to responses of "Stay" or "Go" and we can't discuss why we feel it is important.
Because my reasoning has to do with the existing lore, exploring that lore is required for me to discuss it.
I mean, again, if we divorce it from that... I want it to stay.
I won't, and don't want to, play a Pathfinder game without core LG only Paladins. That is my opinion and stance. I really like PF2 - But I can't get over that.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Unfortunately with Golarion lore not being built off of 3.5 lore - It still is, as elements of 3.5 lore that Paizo created are still present in Golarion with references to people, places, and events. I was going to make a long answer to your post, but after re-reading it, this sentence made me change my mind. Pathfinder is not D&D. Golarion is not 3.5 lore. They created their own setting with 3.5 rules. That's all. As long as you don't understand this, nobody will be able to change your mind. Sorry if I seem harsh, but I'm tired of fighting windmills.
You want LG only paladins ? Make them be LG only in your game. Knowing other tables allow non-LG paladins is enough to make you want to stop playing Pathfinder ? I don't know what to say.
*bails out of this debate*
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's officially in the survey, let the polls decide.
HWalsh wrote: The other one? The Vindictive Bastard? It is specifically a fallen Paladin and not a Paladin. No, what the Vindictive Bastard was was a Paladin that put into practice what this Paladin said about enforced good sullying the very good it enforced.
HWalsh wrote: "I am opposed to this and shall not be directly involved in any such action, and I do not think that you should do it either. I, however, also cannot force you to act in a moral manner, because to force someone to do the right thing has no value. Your free will in this matter must be considered, and I shall not stop you, but know that I am disappointed in you and if I am asked I shall not speak false words to defend you either." He's only an Ex-Paladin because at one point (preferably before the campaign even starts), he has to tell the enforcing, sullying Code of Conduct and alignment restriction what orifice they're kindly invited to go shove themselves up. He otherwise fulfills the same role in the party, enjoys similar mechanics (though less worthwhile for the XP he's spending, and that's a problem), and can, except for the one necessary deviation, behave IDENTICALLY to any other Paladin (he isn't prevented from being LG or following the stock Code). It's not about being vindictive or a bastard. It's about correctly identifying the enforcement of the code and alignment restriction as something that makes the so-called "good" fundamentally hollow.
So says a Paladin that isn't one of my characters, anyway.
And two things to note:
1. This post is specifically not directed towards anyone in the thread that has asked me not to speak to them about Paladins.
2. This is the last time I'm putting that disclaimer in there. Whosoever it may pertain to is asked to consider it to go without saying.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Tectorman wrote: HWalsh wrote: The other one? The Vindictive Bastard? It is specifically a fallen Paladin and not a Paladin. No, what the Vindictive Bastard was was a Paladin that put into practice what this Paladin said about enforced good sullying the very good it enforced. But also, by the nature of the archetype in the context of the book it was printed in, very much a fallen paladin.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kalindlara wrote: Tectorman wrote: HWalsh wrote: The other one? The Vindictive Bastard? It is specifically a fallen Paladin and not a Paladin. No, what the Vindictive Bastard was was a Paladin that put into practice what this Paladin said about enforced good sullying the very good it enforced. But also, by the nature of the archetype in the context of the book it was printed in, very much a fallen paladin. Yup.
Vindictive Bastard wrote: Such a vindictive bastard, as these fallen paladins are known, strikes out for retribution and revenge, far more interested in tearing down those who have harmed her or her companions than furthering a distant deity’s cause. Emphasis mine.
Edit:
I think people have a weirdly skewed image of what a Vindictive Bastard is. They are former Paladins who abandoned their oaths and broke the promise they made to a deity they claimed to serve. This is not behavior to be applauded and cheered.
I think, also, that many people have a really skewed vision of what Lawful Good means.
Nox Aeterna wrote: I will point this out again as it was pointed out before during said hundreds long post threads regarding the paladin already.
Darkorin wrote: they showed with the second edition that they could keep the pure Paladin identity with a combination of Powers and Orders/Tradition/Anathema/Feats. To you and some others this was enough.
To me and some others, paladin are a core component of the game and one that MUST BE LG.
Ultimately, as this thread once more points out as people once again tossed the same thing around. There is no right way out of this lock.
I do also agree with time and more books down the line, new classes based on the other alignment should appear, none of them like the paladin ofc, but on their own niches.
Either way, with the current class system i imagine our old hybrid classes like hunter might not make the cut for this edition anyway, so there is already an open spot for where new classes can come from here.
so none of them the blessed and anointed holy warriors of a faith? Because their isn't much space to be 'nothing like the paladin ofc', I can't see Gorum's chosen being all that different, for instance,
HWalsh wrote: Kalindlara wrote: Tectorman wrote: HWalsh wrote: The other one? The Vindictive Bastard? It is specifically a fallen Paladin and not a Paladin. No, what the Vindictive Bastard was was a Paladin that put into practice what this Paladin said about enforced good sullying the very good it enforced. But also, by the nature of the archetype in the context of the book it was printed in, very much a fallen paladin. Yup.
Vindictive Bastard wrote: Such a vindictive bastard, as these fallen paladins are known, strikes out for retribution and revenge, far more interested in tearing down those who have harmed her or her companions than furthering a distant deity’s cause. Emphasis mine.
Edit:
I think people have a weirdly skewed image of what a Vindictive Bastard is. They are former Paladins who abandoned their oaths and broke the promise they made to a deity they claimed to serve. This is not behavior to be applauded and cheered.
I think, also, that many people have a really skewed vision of what Lawful Good means. was your Paladin who made that statement earlier Fallen btw? Because as far as I can tell LG Paladins cannot let it slide. At all.
yep yep uh huh yep yep yep.
so... still there and back again I see..
Any good for me.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
We've been over this subject numerous times. Whether people want there to be only LG paladins or more than just LG paladins is a subjective opinion. These threads never cease to start getting into personal insults or bickering and my tolerance for seeing these threads come up with the same arguing from the same people and overwhelming the flag queue is growing short. I'm closing this one out.
Recent threads in Classes
|
