|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:28AM
#391
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Eh - they should have kept it, and given alternatives to people who didn't like it. Then maybe all those people who did like it wouldn't have been annoyed by its exclusion.
Why keep it? Why? What is so wrong about it being removed? You can still play the character you want, and I can play the one I want. Why should it only exist in the way you want? I don't want to be forced into a little box by playing the class. I shouldn't have to be. What is so wrong about both of us getting what we want?
If you don't want to play a non-good Paladin, then play a good paladin. It's just that simple. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play something different, though.
I can tell you why I don't like it. The LG paladin was a role that created an automatic relationship with the NPCs in a given setting. When a Paladin came into a village the NPCs knew exactly what the character was about and there was pre-defined relationship. "A Paladin is here! we are saved from the Ogre!". The Paladin would selflessly aid people from evil wherever they went. In a world where Paladins are any alignment this classic role/relationship is erased, a chaotic neutral paladin isn't necessarily going to help a village from an evil menace. There is no reason other classes with different objectives can't be created, D&D is a big tent and there is room for variations that aren’t specifically called “Paladin”. There is no reason to replace world building with homogeny.
So play that type of Paladin. I shouldn't be forced to, however. That character can still exist. It just don't have to be the only option. Creating a whole new class just because of an alignment difference is a waste of design space. The entire range of paladin concepts should be covered under the paladin class.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:30AM
#392
|
|
|
Alignment is an optional module for 5E. Thus, restricting the paladin to be of LG alignment is also optional.
The problem lies with what is core, though. Core, the Paladin will have to be lawful, unless the DM uses the optional lack of alignments module. This leaves us with a few issues.
Issue #1: People like to use rules and especially when new to a game, and not go mucking about with those rules. If they enact the optional rule for alignments, then Paladins must be lawful and many people (especially new ones) won't change that rule, forcing people to play lawful or nothing with regards to Paladins.
Issue #2: It's harder to get someone to add to the rules than it is to take away from the rules. DMs are going to be far more inclined to change Paladins from being of every alignment and making them only LG, than they are to take a LG only Paladin class and allow them for every alignment. Inclusiveness is far better than exclusiveness.
Potential Issue #1: Paladins may not even be available except as part of the optional alignment module. That leads us back to issue #1 where people who don't like mucking about with rules won't allow non-lawful Paladins.
All they need to do is keep the alignment related material in an "Optional" block, informing the player to "Disregard the following if not playing with alignment."
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:33AM
#393
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2001
|
Eh - they should have kept it, and given alternatives to people who didn't like it. Then maybe all those people who did like it wouldn't have been annoyed by its exclusion.
Why keep it? Why? What is so wrong about it being removed? You can still play the character you want, and I can play the one I want. Why should it only exist in the way you want? I don't want to be forced into a little box by playing the class. I shouldn't have to be. What is so wrong about both of us getting what we want?
If you don't want to play a non-good Paladin, then play a good paladin. It's just that simple. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play something different, though.
I can tell you why I don't like it. The LG paladin was a role that created an automatic relationship with the NPCs in a given setting. When a Paladin came into a village the NPCs knew exactly what the character was about and there was pre-defined relationship. "A Paladin is here! we are saved from the Ogre!". The Paladin would selflessly aid people from evil wherever they went. In a world where Paladins are any alignment this classic role/relationship is erased, a chaotic neutral paladin isn't necessarily going to help a village from an evil menace. There is no reason other classes with different objectives can't be created, D&D is a big tent and there is room for variations that aren’t specifically called “Paladin”. There is no reason to replace world building with homogeny.
So play that type of Paladin. I shouldn't be forced to, however. That character can still exist. It just don't have to be the only option. Creating a whole new class just because of an alignment difference is a waste of design space. The entire range of paladin concepts should be covered under the paladin class.
I agree, with different names, and different powers in the name of world building.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:35AM
#394
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Eh - they should have kept it, and given alternatives to people who didn't like it. Then maybe all those people who did like it wouldn't have been annoyed by its exclusion.
Why keep it? Why? What is so wrong about it being removed? You can still play the character you want, and I can play the one I want. Why should it only exist in the way you want? I don't want to be forced into a little box by playing the class. I shouldn't have to be. What is so wrong about both of us getting what we want?
If you don't want to play a non-good Paladin, then play a good paladin. It's just that simple. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play something different, though.
I can tell you why I don't like it. The LG paladin was a role that created an automatic relationship with the NPCs in a given setting. When a Paladin came into a village the NPCs knew exactly what the character was about and there was pre-defined relationship. "A Paladin is here! we are saved from the Ogre!". The Paladin would selflessly aid people from evil wherever they went. In a world where Paladins are any alignment this classic role/relationship is erased, a chaotic neutral paladin isn't necessarily going to help a village from an evil menace. There is no reason other classes with different objectives can't be created, D&D is a big tent and there is room for variations that aren’t specifically called “Paladin”. There is no reason to replace world building with homogeny.
So play that type of Paladin. I shouldn't be forced to, however. That character can still exist. It just don't have to be the only option. Creating a whole new class just because of an alignment difference is a waste of design space. The entire range of paladin concepts should be covered under the paladin class.
I agree, with different names, and different powers in the name of world building.
Nope. Your desire to have only LG Paladins is not greater than our desire to have Paladins of every alignment. Inclusiveness is better than exclusiveness, so you should be the one to compromise, not us.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:36AM
#395
|
|
|
Wizards is discussing the creation of the paladin. OF COURSE they will be discussing the alignment component of paladins. They need to discuss the things they will include with the class, whether those components are optional or not.
What they have not said about the paladin is which components will be optional. Since alignment is an optional module, it is most logical that the alignment components of the paladin will also be optional.
I think it's best to be patient and state your preference rather than condemning WotC and then needlessly arguing about it.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:37AM
#396
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2001
|
Eh - they should have kept it, and given alternatives to people who didn't like it. Then maybe all those people who did like it wouldn't have been annoyed by its exclusion.
Why keep it? Why? What is so wrong about it being removed? You can still play the character you want, and I can play the one I want. Why should it only exist in the way you want? I don't want to be forced into a little box by playing the class. I shouldn't have to be. What is so wrong about both of us getting what we want?
If you don't want to play a non-good Paladin, then play a good paladin. It's just that simple. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play something different, though.
I can tell you why I don't like it. The LG paladin was a role that created an automatic relationship with the NPCs in a given setting. When a Paladin came into a village the NPCs knew exactly what the character was about and there was pre-defined relationship. "A Paladin is here! we are saved from the Ogre!". The Paladin would selflessly aid people from evil wherever they went. In a world where Paladins are any alignment this classic role/relationship is erased, a chaotic neutral paladin isn't necessarily going to help a village from an evil menace. There is no reason other classes with different objectives can't be created, D&D is a big tent and there is room for variations that aren’t specifically called “Paladin”. There is no reason to replace world building with homogeny.
So play that type of Paladin. I shouldn't be forced to, however. That character can still exist. It just don't have to be the only option. Creating a whole new class just because of an alignment difference is a waste of design space. The entire range of paladin concepts should be covered under the paladin class.
I agree, with different names, and different powers in the name of world building.
Nope. Your desire to have only LG Paladins is not greater than our desire to have Paladins of every alignment. Inclusiveness is better than exclusiveness, so you should be the one to compromise, not us.
I have history and world building on my side, you have homogeny on yours.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:40AM
#397
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Eh - they should have kept it, and given alternatives to people who didn't like it. Then maybe all those people who did like it wouldn't have been annoyed by its exclusion.
Why keep it? Why? What is so wrong about it being removed? You can still play the character you want, and I can play the one I want. Why should it only exist in the way you want? I don't want to be forced into a little box by playing the class. I shouldn't have to be. What is so wrong about both of us getting what we want?
If you don't want to play a non-good Paladin, then play a good paladin. It's just that simple. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play something different, though.
I can tell you why I don't like it. The LG paladin was a role that created an automatic relationship with the NPCs in a given setting. When a Paladin came into a village the NPCs knew exactly what the character was about and there was pre-defined relationship. "A Paladin is here! we are saved from the Ogre!". The Paladin would selflessly aid people from evil wherever they went. In a world where Paladins are any alignment this classic role/relationship is erased, a chaotic neutral paladin isn't necessarily going to help a village from an evil menace. There is no reason other classes with different objectives can't be created, D&D is a big tent and there is room for variations that aren’t specifically called “Paladin”. There is no reason to replace world building with homogeny.
So play that type of Paladin. I shouldn't be forced to, however. That character can still exist. It just don't have to be the only option. Creating a whole new class just because of an alignment difference is a waste of design space. The entire range of paladin concepts should be covered under the paladin class.
I agree, with different names, and different powers in the name of world building.
Nope. Your desire to have only LG Paladins is not greater than our desire to have Paladins of every alignment. Inclusiveness is better than exclusiveness, so you should be the one to compromise, not us.
I have history and world building on my side, you have homogeny on yours.
World building is the same both ways. I fail to see how that is relevant. You're saying that you can't create a world if the rules say that every Paladin doesn't have to shake hands and kiss babies?
We also have history on our side, as non LG paladins have existed for a long time now. 3.5 and 4e had them. Your way is not the only way to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:42AM
#398
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
Eh - they should have kept it, and given alternatives to people who didn't like it. Then maybe all those people who did like it wouldn't have been annoyed by its exclusion.
Why keep it? Why? What is so wrong about it being removed? You can still play the character you want, and I can play the one I want. Why should it only exist in the way you want? I don't want to be forced into a little box by playing the class. I shouldn't have to be. What is so wrong about both of us getting what we want?
If you don't want to play a non-good Paladin, then play a good paladin. It's just that simple. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play something different, though.
I can tell you why I don't like it. The LG paladin was a role that created an automatic relationship with the NPCs in a given setting. When a Paladin came into a village the NPCs knew exactly what the character was about and there was pre-defined relationship. "A Paladin is here! we are saved from the Ogre!". The Paladin would selflessly aid people from evil wherever they went. In a world where Paladins are any alignment this classic role/relationship is erased, a chaotic neutral paladin isn't necessarily going to help a village from an evil menace. There is no reason other classes with different objectives can't be created, D&D is a big tent and there is room for variations that aren’t specifically called “Paladin”. There is no reason to replace world building with homogeny.
So play that type of Paladin. I shouldn't be forced to, however. That character can still exist. It just don't have to be the only option. Creating a whole new class just because of an alignment difference is a waste of design space. The entire range of paladin concepts should be covered under the paladin class.
Npc villagers thinking that a paladin shows up means they have a personal defender and savior I think is more world specific. is there a large and well known order of lg paladins in the area? If so then npcs will assume (whether wrongly or creectly) that a paladin that shows up is a goodguy on their side. Or, maybe paladins are rare and special heros of legend, meaning that npcs might not even recognize one if they showed up, or even not believe a person who claims to be a paladin. Maybe the local king is evil, and he has a following of dedicated dark knights, evil paladins, that are feared far and wide. The campaign setting should set the feel for what a typical npc reaction to a paladin showing up is, not the core rule books description of the paladin. Then the player can make a paladin that either fits the typical mould in that campaign, or something that goes against what is typical.
EDIT: when you say homogeny what do you mean? Are you saying lg paladin is same as le? Cause they're not, they are quite difference. Getting away from homogeny would mean having different themed paladins of different alignments, giving more options.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:45AM
#399
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Eh - they should have kept it, and given alternatives to people who didn't like it. Then maybe all those people who did like it wouldn't have been annoyed by its exclusion.
Why keep it? Why? What is so wrong about it being removed? You can still play the character you want, and I can play the one I want. Why should it only exist in the way you want? I don't want to be forced into a little box by playing the class. I shouldn't have to be. What is so wrong about both of us getting what we want?
If you don't want to play a non-good Paladin, then play a good paladin. It's just that simple. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play something different, though.
I can tell you why I don't like it. The LG paladin was a role that created an automatic relationship with the NPCs in a given setting. When a Paladin came into a village the NPCs knew exactly what the character was about and there was pre-defined relationship. "A Paladin is here! we are saved from the Ogre!". The Paladin would selflessly aid people from evil wherever they went. In a world where Paladins are any alignment this classic role/relationship is erased, a chaotic neutral paladin isn't necessarily going to help a village from an evil menace. There is no reason other classes with different objectives can't be created, D&D is a big tent and there is room for variations that aren’t specifically called “Paladin”. There is no reason to replace world building with homogeny.
So play that type of Paladin. I shouldn't be forced to, however. That character can still exist. It just don't have to be the only option. Creating a whole new class just because of an alignment difference is a waste of design space. The entire range of paladin concepts should be covered under the paladin class.
Npc villagers thinking that a paladin shows up means they have a personal defender and savior I think is more world specific. is there a large and well known order of lg paladins in the area? If so then npcs will assume (whether wrongly or creectly) that a paladin that shows up is a goodguy on their side. Or, maybe paladins are rare and special heros of legend, meaning that npcs might not even recognize one if they showed up, or even not believe a person who claims to be a paladin. Maybe the local king is evil, and he has a following of dedicated dark knights, evil paladins, that are feared far and wide. The campaign setting should set the feel for what a typical npc reaction to a paladin showing up is, not the core rule books description of the paladin. Then the player can make a paladin that either fits the typical mould in that campaign, or something that goes against what is typical.
He doesn't walk in saying "I'm a PALADIN!". They'd see nothing more than a knightly looking character possibly wearing a holy symbol. They're not going to assume the Paladin of Hextor wearing his black demonic armor is there to save them. What you describe is a metagame issue.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:50AM
#400
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I have history and world building on my side, you have homogeny on yours.
This is bunk. History and world building show Paladins of alignments other than LG in every edition from 1e-4e. In 1e, they were NPCs. In 2e-4e they were actual PC Paladins. You only have core on your side, not history and world building, and even then, 4e core is on my side.
|
|
|
