Yep. Since some people need "logic," here is some to add to the argument...
If there is a god of nature, that god will have an alignment. Whether that god is a personification of nature or nature is a personification of that god, there will be alignment attached.
The "evil forest" is a common trope in fantasy. And in many cases, the forest was truly evil, not just its denizens.
The evil forest is also an exception, not the norm.
I can't believe you really just said "some people need 'logic'".
If you really don't value logic at all, then you're absolutely right. We should not interact.
Debate without logic is 100%, unequivocally useless. Your statement is the direct equivelent of dismissing math while trying to engineer a mechanical device.
Obviously, "logic" was intentionally put in quotes because what you call logic, someone else may not call logic, and vice versa. It's not that he doesn't value logic, just that he doesn't necessarily agree that your logic is aligned with his logic.
The fact that he provided you some "logic" is apparent and your final paragraph is, thus, completely off base and irrelevant.
Yep. Since some people need "logic," here is some to add to the argument...If there is a god of nature, that god will have an alignment. Whether that god is a personification of nature or nature is a personification of that god, there will be align
There is also always the possibility that they take alignments off of deities. No deity has an alignment but they all have tenets. so if the deities have no alignment then what defense do you have that your paladin shouldn't be lawful.
There is also always the possibility that they take alignments off of deities. No deity has an alignment but they all have tenets. so if the deities have no alignment then what defense do you have that your paladin shouldn't be lawful.
I'm willing to discuss what Neutral Paladin's could have as far as abiltiies go(Smite Target/Detect Threat), with a sidebar noting that the DM may have require/suggets your abilities target certain alignments/things depending on your alignment, deity, belief, etc.
Like a Lawful Good Paladin may have Smote Evil/Detect Evil, a Lawful Evil Paladin(or Blackguard if you prefer) might have Smite Enemy/Detect Good, while a Chaotic Stupid Paladin(or Crazy Lenny...idk, shut up) might have Smite Beaver/Detect Tree.
I'm willing to discuss what Neutral Paladin's could have as far as abiltiies go(Smite Target/Detect Threat), with a sidebar noting that the DM may have require/suggets your abilities target certain alignments/things depending on your alignment, deity
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
On thanksgiving are you going to eat ham or turkey. Both are in the fridge, and both are thawed, you can only make and eat one of them. Which do you choose?
Both, especially if my family is being traditional. I'll only be eating the turkey, though. see below.
I don't like ham, but let us, for the moment, assume that I generally prefer it to turkey (even though I think it's kinda gross.) If the decision is left to me, the turkey sits in the fridge. Because I'm not going to eat something I enjoy less than the other option just because it's traditional.
However, your counter misses the point a bit. You see, tradition is not bad, either. It's just neutral.
In the case of thanksgiving, most families don't eat that large a meal very often. Because it costs more than the nutritional benefit justifies, it is left as a treat, and thus only done on special occasions. All of that is perfectly logical. It's enjoyable to eat large meals, but picking special times to have those meals helps keep the family from either never having those enjoyable experiences, or having them too often.
Because there is no harm in celebrating thanksgiving , and having a nice feast with family, and it is enjoyable, the tradition lives on. If there was any reason to stop, it would be logical to do so.
If a debate was started as to whether or not we should keep celebrating turkey day, the fact that it's a traditional would be an unfortunate distraction, not a valid point in favour of keeping it.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
On thanksgiving are you going to eat ham or turkey. Both are in the fridge, and both are thawed, you can only make and eat one of them. Which do you choose?
Both, especially if my family is being traditional. I'll only be eating the turkey, though. see below.
I don't like ham, but let us, for the moment, assume that I generally prefer it to turkey (even though I think it's kinda gross.) If the decision is left to me, the turkey sits in the fridge. Because I'm not going to eat something I enjoy less than the other option just because it's traditional.
However, your counter misses the point a bit. You see, tradition is not bad, either. It's just neutral.
In the case of thanksgiving, most families don't eat that large a meal very often. Because it costs more than the nutritional benefit justifies, it is left as a treat, and thus only done on special occasions. All of that is perfectly logical. It's enjoyable to eat large meals, but picking special times to have those meals helps keep the family from either never having those enjoyable experiences, or having them too often.
Because there is no harm in celebrating thanksgiving , and having a nice feast with family, and it is enjoyable, the tradition lives on. If there was any reason to stop, it would be logical to do so.
If a debate was started as to whether or not we should keep celebrating turkey day, the fact that it's a traditional would be an unfortunate distraction, not a valid point in favour of keeping it.
tl/dr Tradition is relevant, just not necessarily for you.
And wait, nature can't have an alignment, but tradition can? Interesting logic.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
I've proven that tradition has value and you ignored it. It has the value of $$$ in WoTCs pockets. That alone is enough relevance to warrants its inclusion in discussions of WoTC products. If enough people like something based solely on tradition, then it should be included, even if you yourself don't like it or tradition.
That isn't an argument toward the point that keeping it will be good for the game itself, or is a good idea in terms of game design.
If you were having a discussion about market strategy, you should have informed me, because that's a different debate than "Is X a good game element, that adds to the game."
If Wotc decides to bring back thac0, to appeal to the illogical traditionalism of some gamers, that doesn't make it a good move, in terms of game design, and has nothing to do with a game design discussion about thac0.
They also, hopefully, aren't doing it out of a sense of tradition, but because of a knowledge that others value it. It's a market decision based on customer perception. Companies often have to make otherwise illogical decisions because of the illogical natures of their customers. That doesn't change how logic works.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
On thanksgiving are you going to eat ham or turkey. Both are in the fridge, and both are thawed, you can only make and eat one of them. Which do you choose?
Both, especially if my family is being traditional. I'll only be eating the turkey, though. see below.
I don't like ham, but let us, for the moment, assume that I generally prefer it to turkey (even though I think it's kinda gross.) If the decision is left to me, the turkey sits in the fridge. Because I'm not going to eat something I enjoy less than the other option just because it's traditional.
However, your counter misses the point a bit. You see, tradition is not bad, either. It's just neutral.
In the case of thanksgiving, most families don't eat that large a meal very often. Because it costs more than the nutritional benefit justifies, it is left as a treat, and thus only done on special occasions. All of that is perfectly logical. It's enjoyable to eat large meals, but picking special times to have those meals helps keep the family from either never having those enjoyable experiences, or having them too often.
Because there is no harm in celebrating thanksgiving , and having a nice feast with family, and it is enjoyable, the tradition lives on. If there was any reason to stop, it would be logical to do so.
If a debate was started as to whether or not we should keep celebrating turkey day, the fact that it's a traditional would be an unfortunate distraction, not a valid point in favour of keeping it.
Except that is the only reason to have thanksgiving. Also nice job dodging the question. I said make one, both is not an option in this example. I'm not drawing any paralels. It is a simple question of which one do you make. Both is not an option. Which do you make?
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
Well, that wasn't long before the thread went back to the alignment trash heap it was.
If the 5e Paladin is another mechanical disaster, I'm blaming so many of the people in this thread.
Yeah, you missed the window. In any topic where alignment is in there, there is generally a 4 or 5 page window right at the beginning for productive discussion. Anything after that is usually just an ideaology war.
Yeah, you missed the window. In any topic where alignment is in there, there is generally a 4 or 5 page window right at the beginning for productive discussion. Anything after that is usually just an ideaology war.
Because it is traditional, does not mean that it is good. Appeal to tradition is never anything but a fallacy.
Appeals to Tradition are not the only ways to view tradition and its use. Tradition to Appeal only applies when it is assumed that something is BETTER because it is tradition, not merely good......or relevant. You are misusing the fallacy. I have given reasons for why tradition is relevant. They are valid reasons.
Appeals to Tradition are not the only ways to view tradition and its use. Tradition to Appeal only applies when it is assumed that something is BETTER because it is tradition, not merely good......or relevant. You are misusing the fallacy. I have
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
On thanksgiving are you going to eat ham or turkey. Both are in the fridge, and both are thawed, you can only make and eat one of them. Which do you choose?
Both, especially if my family is being traditional. I'll only be eating the turkey, though. see below.
I don't like ham, but let us, for the moment, assume that I generally prefer it to turkey (even though I think it's kinda gross.) If the decision is left to me, the turkey sits in the fridge. Because I'm not going to eat something I enjoy less than the other option just because it's traditional.
However, your counter misses the point a bit. You see, tradition is not bad, either. It's just neutral.
In the case of thanksgiving, most families don't eat that large a meal very often. Because it costs more than the nutritional benefit justifies, it is left as a treat, and thus only done on special occasions. All of that is perfectly logical. It's enjoyable to eat large meals, but picking special times to have those meals helps keep the family from either never having those enjoyable experiences, or having them too often.
Because there is no harm in celebrating thanksgiving , and having a nice feast with family, and it is enjoyable, the tradition lives on. If there was any reason to stop, it would be logical to do so.
If a debate was started as to whether or not we should keep celebrating turkey day, the fact that it's a traditional would be an unfortunate distraction, not a valid point in favour of keeping it.
Except that is the only reason to have thanksgiving. Also nice job dodging the question. I said make one, both is not an option in this example. I'm not drawing any paralels. It is a simple question of which one do you make. Both is not an option. Which do you make?
Reading comprehension. I bolded the relevent text.
I did, in fact, answer your question.
The irrelevance of tradition in determining the value of something does not mean that all traditions get dropped immediately. I showed you why keeping the thanksgiving tradition is useful, and it has nothing to do with it being traditional. It would have precisely the same value on a different day, renamed Family Feast Day.
Because it is traditional, does not mean that it is good. Appeal to tradition is never anything but a fallacy.
Appeals to Tradition are not the only ways to view tradition and its use. Tradition to Appeal only applies when it is assumed that something is BETTER because it is tradition, not merely good......or relevant. You are misusing the fallacy. I have given reasons for why tradition is relevant. They are valid reasons.
Any argument that uses tradition as a factor in determining the value of something is an Appeal to Tradition. Any such argument is fallacious.
It's not a matter of opinion.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
On thanksgiving are you going to eat ham or turkey. Both are in the fridge, and both are thawed, you can only make and eat one of them. Which do you choose?
Both, especially if my family is being traditional. I'll only be eating the turkey, though. see below.
I don't like ham, but let us, for the moment, assume that I generally prefer it to turkey (even though I think it's kinda gross.) If the decision is left to me, the turkey sits in the fridge. Because I'm not going to eat something I enjoy less than the other option just because it's traditional.
However, your counter misses the point a bit. You see, tradition is not bad, either. It's just neutral.
In the case of thanksgiving, most families don't eat that large a meal very often. Because it costs more than the nutritional benefit justifies, it is left as a treat, and thus only done on special occasions. All of that is perfectly logical. It's enjoyable to eat large meals, but picking special times to have those meals helps keep the family from either never having those enjoyable experiences, or having them too often.
Because there is no harm in celebrating thanksgiving , and having a nice feast with family, and it is enjoyable, the tradition lives on. If there was any reason to stop, it would be logical to do so.
If a debate was started as to whether or not we should keep celebrating turkey day, the fact that it's a traditional would be an unfortunate distraction, not a valid point in favour of keeping it.
Except that is the only reason to have thanksgiving. Also nice job dodging the question. I said make one, both is not an option in this example. I'm not drawing any paralels. It is a simple question of which one do you make. Both is not an option. Which do you make?
Reading comprehension. I bolded the relevent text.
I did, in fact, answer your question.
The irrelevance of tradition in determining the value of something does not mean that all traditions get dropped immediately. I showed you why keeping the thanksgiving tradition is useful, and it has nothing to do with it being traditional. It would have precisely the same value on a different day, renamed Family Feast Day.
Except it wouldn't. Not at all. That's family feast day not Thanksgiving. Why do you eat the certain foods you eat on those family feast days. My girlfriends family basically defines portions of their holidays on what food they eat. It isn't easter without sausage. It isn't christmas without perogies. To me Christmas eve requires Chinese food or else it just isn't the same. It doesn't feel like Christmas eve without a Chinese food. The tradition sets the value of the food. For some it doesn't feel like D&D without it's traditional elements. Thus tradition is providing the value. If they are equal in all ways but one is the traditional way it intrinsically has more value because it means more to those that love the tradition. As such tradition can even be used to even out the value of something with something that is not traditional. It can't be the entire basis of the reasoning but it can be a factor.
Also argument from fallacy. Currently your only argument is that the oppositions argument is a fallacy therfore making your argument a fallacy. Even if the argument is a fallacy you must prove why it's conclusion is wrong in some other way than saying your argument is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong.
If I say, "You can only have LG Paladins because that is the way it has always been", your argument can't be, "You're using the apeal to tradition fallacy". you still have to prove why that shouldn't be the case. Also try to stay away from the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy in your argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
On thanksgiving are you going to eat ham or turkey. Both are in the fridge, and both are thawed, you can only make and eat one of them. Which do you choose?
Both, especially if my family is being traditional. I'll only be eating the turkey, though. see below.
I don't like ham, but let us, for the moment, assume that I generally prefer it to turkey (even though I think it's kinda gross.) If the decision is left to me, the turkey sits in the fridge. Because I'm not going to eat something I enjoy less than the other option just because it's traditional.
However, your counter misses the point a bit. You see, tradition is not bad, either. It's just neutral.
In the case of thanksgiving, most families don't eat that large a meal very often. Because it costs more than the nutritional benefit justifies, it is left as a treat, and thus only done on special occasions. All of that is perfectly logical. It's enjoyable to eat large meals, but picking special times to have those meals helps keep the family from either never having those enjoyable experiences, or having them too often.
Because there is no harm in celebrating thanksgiving , and having a nice feast with family, and it is enjoyable, the tradition lives on. If there was any reason to stop, it would be logical to do so.
If a debate was started as to whether or not we should keep celebrating turkey day, the fact that it's a traditional would be an unfortunate distraction, not a valid point in favour of keeping it.
Except that is the only reason to have thanksgiving. Also nice job dodging the question. I said make one, both is not an option in this example. I'm not drawing any paralels. It is a simple question of which one do you make. Both is not an option. Which do you make?
Reading comprehension. I bolded the relevent text.
I did, in fact, answer your question.
The irrelevance of tradition in determining the value of something does not mean that all traditions get dropped immediately. I showed you why keeping the thanksgiving tradition is useful, and it has nothing to do with it being traditional. It would have precisely the same value on a different day, renamed Family Feast Day.
Except it wouldn't. Not at all. That's family feast day not Thanksgiving. Why do you eat the certain foods you eat on those family feast days. My girlfriends family basically defines portions of their holidays on what food they eat. It isn't easter without sausage. It isn't christmas without perogies. To me Christmas eve requires Chinese food or else it just isn't the same. It doesn't feel like Christmas eve without a Chinese food. The tradition sets the value of the food. For some it doesn't feel like D&D without it's traditional elements. Thus tradition is providing the value. If they are equal in all ways but one is the traditional way it intrinsically has more value because it means more to those that love the tradition. As such tradition can even be used to even out the value of something with something that is not traditional.
None of which is logical. There isn't actually anything about christmas or chinese food that draws them together, but for you they are enhanced by being enjoyed together. That's fine, for you, but it does not present a logically valid argument for making chinese food part of christmas, in general. It only exists as an explanation to someone that wonders why you each chinese food on christmas eve.
Now, there are times where it's perfectly fine to just do the illogical thing, because it's enjoyable and harms no one, but that doesn't interact with the fact that tradition is not a logically valid factor in determining value.
Some people only eat "breakfast foods" in the morning. Whatever, no one cares. It doesn't impact anyone else, so it doesn't matter.
If two things are equal in all ways, and one is more traditional, then those two things are still equal in all ways. An individual might place more personal value on one or the other, but not everyone will even place extra value on the traditional option, by default.
Good traditions should be kept. Not because they are traditions, but because they are good.
Thanksgiving is enjoyable, and healthy in a social/family sense. It's a good time to have a feast and family day, for many it's a family reunion. All of those things are beneficial. They would not be less so if the holiday had a different name, was a week sooner, and had different seasonally appropriate food associated with it, or the associated food varied widely. (which it does, to some extent. I've never eaten a perogie, for instance.)
There's no reason to change it, and no one has proposed an alternative holiday that serves a similar purpose, so it's just left alone. And that's fine.
Thanksgiving is good because of things that have nothing to do with tradition. If tradition were the only good thing about it, it would have disappeared by now.
But if you pick turkey instead of ham (assuming for some reason you can't have both, which would seriously make my family unhappy) in spite of a preference for ham in your family, because turkey is more traditional, then you're being illogical.
Also, dammit, now I want turkey. I wonder if fresh and easy has any at a decent price...
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
Any argument that uses tradition as a factor in determining the value of something is an Appeal to Tradition. Any such argument is fallacious.
It's not a matter of opinion.
And you are wrong. Simply having to do with or claiming relevnce of tradition does not meet the form for the fallacy. Sorry bud.
Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
And you are wrong. Simply having to do with or claiming relevnce of tradition does not meet the form for the fallacy. Sorry bud.
Everything we discuss here is subjective. Trying to dismiss an argument because it is subjective is useless, and dishonest. Stop it. Address the actual argument, or don't respond.
Tradition is never relevant. Tradition is never a valid argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense to everyone else.
Tradition is still relevant. Just because you say something is not relevant does not make so. If two things are comparatively equal, tradition is certainly the logical choice to side with, thus it's inclusion in a discussion is warranted.
Enough. I'm done with this line of conversation. Your practice of lacing your responses with insults grows tiring.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
If I say that something makes sense, and you disagree, either counter that statement with an argument, or ignore it.
"That's subjective!" isn't an argument.
On thanksgiving are you going to eat ham or turkey. Both are in the fridge, and both are thawed, you can only make and eat one of them. Which do you choose?
Both, especially if my family is being traditional. I'll only be eating the turkey, though. see below.
I don't like ham, but let us, for the moment, assume that I generally prefer it to turkey (even though I think it's kinda gross.) If the decision is left to me, the turkey sits in the fridge. Because I'm not going to eat something I enjoy less than the other option just because it's traditional.
However, your counter misses the point a bit. You see, tradition is not bad, either. It's just neutral.
In the case of thanksgiving, most families don't eat that large a meal very often. Because it costs more than the nutritional benefit justifies, it is left as a treat, and thus only done on special occasions. All of that is perfectly logical. It's enjoyable to eat large meals, but picking special times to have those meals helps keep the family from either never having those enjoyable experiences, or having them too often.
Because there is no harm in celebrating thanksgiving , and having a nice feast with family, and it is enjoyable, the tradition lives on. If there was any reason to stop, it would be logical to do so.
If a debate was started as to whether or not we should keep celebrating turkey day, the fact that it's a traditional would be an unfortunate distraction, not a valid point in favour of keeping it.
Except that is the only reason to have thanksgiving. Also nice job dodging the question. I said make one, both is not an option in this example. I'm not drawing any paralels. It is a simple question of which one do you make. Both is not an option. Which do you make?
Reading comprehension. I bolded the relevent text.
I did, in fact, answer your question.
The irrelevance of tradition in determining the value of something does not mean that all traditions get dropped immediately. I showed you why keeping the thanksgiving tradition is useful, and it has nothing to do with it being traditional. It would have precisely the same value on a different day, renamed Family Feast Day.
Except it wouldn't. Not at all. That's family feast day not Thanksgiving. Why do you eat the certain foods you eat on those family feast days. My girlfriends family basically defines portions of their holidays on what food they eat. It isn't easter without sausage. It isn't christmas without perogies. To me Christmas eve requires Chinese food or else it just isn't the same. It doesn't feel like Christmas eve without a Chinese food. The tradition sets the value of the food. For some it doesn't feel like D&D without it's traditional elements. Thus tradition is providing the value. If they are equal in all ways but one is the traditional way it intrinsically has more value because it means more to those that love the tradition. As such tradition can even be used to even out the value of something with something that is not traditional.
None of which is logical. There isn't actually anything about christmas or chinese food that draws them together, but for you they are enhanced by being enjoyed together. That's fine, for you, but it does not present a logically valid argument for making chinese food part of christmas, in general. It only exists as an explanation to someone that wonders why you each chinese food on christmas eve.
Now, there are times where it's perfectly fine to just do the illogical thing, because it's enjoyable and harms no one, but that doesn't interact with the fact that tradition is not a logically valid factor in determining value.
Some people only eat "breakfast foods" in the morning. Whatever, no one cares. It doesn't impact anyone else, so it doesn't matter.
If two things are equal in all ways, and one is more traditional, then those two things are still equal in all ways. An individual might place more personal value on one or the other, but not everyone will even place extra value on the traditional option, by default.
Good traditions should be kept. Not because they are traditions, but because they are good.
Thanksgiving is enjoyable, and healthy in a social/family sense. It's a good time to have a feast and family day, for many it's a family reunion. All of those things are beneficial. They would not be less so if the holiday had a different name, was a week sooner, and had different seasonally appropriate food associated with it, or the associated food varied widely. (which it does, to some extent. I've never eaten a perogie, for instance.)
There's no reason to change it, and no one has proposed an alternative holiday that serves a similar purpose, so it's just left alone. And that's fine.
Thanksgiving is good because of things that have nothing to do with tradition. If tradition were the only good thing about it, it would have disappeared by now.
But if you pick turkey instead of ham (assuming for some reason you can't have both, which would seriously make my family unhappy) in spite of a preference for ham in your family, because turkey is more traditional, then you're being illogical.
Also, dammit, now I want turkey. I wonder if fresh and easy has any at a decent price...
Also argument from fallacy. Currently your only argument is that the oppositions argument is a fallacy therfore making your argument a fallacy. Even if the argument is a fallacy you must prove why it's conclusion is wrong in some other way than saying your argument is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong.
If I say, "You can only have LG Paladins because that is the way it has always been", your argument can't be, "You're using the apeal to tradition fallacy". you still have to prove why that shouldn't be the case. Also try to stay away from the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy in your argument.
Because you continually use terms like "it makes sense" as your argument. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument. If you stop saying "because it makes sense" I will stop telling you that phrase is a subjective phrase. Just because something make
"You're wrong because it's not relevant." "You're wrong because it's fallacy." "You're wrong because that doesn't make sense." "You're wrong because that's not logical."
Those are not arguments, not matter how you fluff them up.
All I see is "You're wrong because I am right.""You're wrong because it's not relevant.""You're wrong because it's fallacy.""You're wrong because that doesn't make sense.""You're wrong because that's not logical."Those are not arguments, not matter h
"You're wrong because it's not relevant." "You're wrong because it's fallacy." "You're wrong because that doesn't make sense." "You're wrong because that's not logical."
Those are not arguments, not matter how you fluff them up.
That's because DoctorBadWolf has no real argument to refute us.
That's because DoctorBadWolf has no real argument to refute us.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">If I say, "You can only have LG Paladins because that is the way it has always been", your argument can't be, "You're using the apeal to tradition fallacy". you still have to prove why that shouldn't be the case. Also try to stay away from the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy in your argument.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to tradition and therefore invalid.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to trad
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">If I say, "You can only have LG Paladins because that is the way it has always been", your argument can't be, "You're using the apeal to tradition fallacy". you still have to prove why that shouldn't be the case. Also try to stay away from the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy in your argument.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to tradition and therefore invalid.
You can ignore the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to trad
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">If I say, "You can only have LG Paladins because that is the way it has always been", your argument can't be, "You're using the apeal to tradition fallacy". you still have to prove why that shouldn't be the case. Also try to stay away from the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy in your argument.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to tradition and therefore invalid.
You can ignore the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
You can add the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
You can ignore the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
If they can continually ignore this point, you would think it would be easy ignoring alignment. Think of all the practice they're getting.
And your reason for ignoring the option of just adding alignment restrictions? The only argument I can remember is that the Paladin has always been Lawful Good, therefore it should stay that way and the people who disagree can just change it. DBW, and I, believe that is not a logical assumption. So, were there any other arguments against the option for you to add alignment restrictions?
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to trad
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
there we go:If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">If I say, "You can only have LG Paladins because that is the way it has always been", your argument can't be, "You're using the apeal to tradition fallacy". you still have to prove why that shouldn't be the case. Also try to stay away from the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy in your argument.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to tradition and therefore invalid.
No. He's talking to me and my assertion that tradition is relevant to the discussion. He doesn't understand that Appeal to Tradition requires an argument to assume that tradition is the better than all other reasons simply due to it being tradition. He thinks that the mere mention that tradition is meaningful, is enough to apply the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to trad
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">If I say, "You can only have LG Paladins because that is the way it has always been", your argument can't be, "You're using the apeal to tradition fallacy". you still have to prove why that shouldn't be the case. Also try to stay away from the Appeal to Novelty Fallacy in your argument.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to tradition and therefore invalid.
You can ignore the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
You can add the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
You can ignore the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
If they can continually ignore this point, you would think it would be easy ignoring alignment. Think of all the practice they're getting.
And your reason for ignoring the option of just adding alignment restrictions? The only argument I can remember is that the Paladin has always been Lawful Good, therefore it should stay that way and the people who disagree can just change it. DBW, and I, believe that is not a logical assumption. So, were there any other arguments against the option for you to add alignment restrictions?
Alignment restrictions and their punishment are something that should be set by the game rule so as to inhibit the actions of DMs and to normalize consequences across tables. Putting them in is harder than taking them out. What is better? for a player to show up to a game and find out the alignment restriction is lifted, or to show up and find out there is an alignment restriction. Especially if they are new to the game and don't even understand what an alignment restriction is, or how it effects play. Putting it in the rule books lets people know that some might play like this, and if they do play like this these are the rules you can expect. That's ultimately why the Alignment restrictions should be in the book. All of us who know better, or think differently, can house rule to our hearts content.
Essentially tradition is in fact the reason we should include it. No matter what we say here some people will include alignment restrictions because it has always been that way. Having rules to show how those restrictions should effect play is important.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to trad
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it?
The same can be said for not including it.
If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you?
The same can be said about not including it.
Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons. That's where you run afoul of the fallacy.
You need to come up with a reason other than tradition to warrant the exclusion of all people other than those who want Paladins to be LG. We have provided actual reasons for the inclusion of Paladins of all alignments. So far you've only toted tradition.
The same can be said for not including it. The same can be said about not including it. Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons.
Well, that wasn't long before the thread went back to the alignment trash heap it was.
If the 5e Paladin is another mechanical disaster, I'm blaming so many of the people in this thread.
I think we have to determine what we want a Divine Champion to be first before worrying about the mechanics.
Should all Divine Champions get some kind of smite ability or do we want to make them a bit more customisable aka the Cleric?
I think we have to determine what we want a Divine Champion to be first before worrying about the mechanics.Should all Divine Champions get some kind of smite ability or do we want to make them a bit more customisable aka the Cleric?
You can ignore the alignment restriction or change it as you see fit.
If they can continually ignore this point, you would think it would be easy ignoring alignment. Think of all the practice they're getting.
And your reason for ignoring the option of just adding alignment restrictions? The only argument I can remember is that the Paladin has always been Lawful Good, therefore it should stay that way and the people who disagree can just change it. DBW, and I, believe that is not a logical assumption. So, were there any other arguments against the option for you to add alignment restrictions?
If it's as easy to ignore alignment as it is to add alignment (in other words, it is equal) than tradition certainly is relevant.
If the argument is that tradition is not relevant, excluding it simply to buck tradition is equally irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.
As for other arguments, yes. It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
If they can continually ignore this point, you would think it would be easy ignoring alignment. Think of all the practice they're getting.[/quote]And your reason for ignoring the option of just adding alignment restrictions? The only argument I can
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
There we go:
If you can easily add your own alignment restriction, to whatever you think it should be, then why include it?
If it is so easily added why is its absence so offensive to you?
Why cant they appeal to all those who prize player choice above all other things by leaving out this highly contentious facet?
There we go: If you can easily add your own alignment restriction, to whatever you think it should be, then why include it?If it is so easily added why is its absence so offensive to you?Why cant they appeal to all those who prize player choice abo
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
If its so easily added to whatever a group thinks then why does it need to be stated in the book? If its so easily added why is the lack of its explicit mention so offesive? Why does the game have to reaffirm their opinion of the class?
I think they'll get their way on this because tradition is going to have stronger inertia than change in this edition. WotC wants their business more then it wants mine. But the argument that I can easily ignore it is... I can't think of a way to express my opinion of it without sounding insulting which I don't want to do. But telling me to ignore it is no better than telling them to add it.
As to why I'm not big on the notion of appealing to their tradition on this matter, I believe it is the same reason that they want the base class to be restrictive: because then that way is the 'official' way, and anything else is a variation. Quite petty on my part, but I acknowledge that's one of the reasons it bothers me. Plus, I think my way is better because it accomdates their Paladin and mine without significant variation. The supplelmental material also ties into this, I'll have to fiddle with every bit of content that comes out for the Paladin to fit my homegame. Its altogether a very irritating compromise on my part.
If its so easily added to whatever a group thinks then why does it need to be stated in the book? If its so easily added why is the lack of its explicit mention so offesive? Why does the game have to reaffirm their opinion of the class?I think they'l
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it?
The same can be said for not including it.
If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you?
The same can be said about not including it.
Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons. That's where you run afoul of the fallacy.
You need to come up with a reason other than tradition to warrant the exclusion of all people other than those who want Paladins to be LG. We have provided actual reasons for the inclusion of Paladins of all alignments. So far you've only toted tradition.
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
There we go:
If you can easily add your own alignment restriction, to whatever you think it should be, then why include it?
If it is so easily added why is its absence so offensive to you?
Why cant they appeal to all those who prize player choice above all other things by leaving out this highly contentious facet?
Alignment restrictions and their punishment are something that should be set by the game rule so as to inhibit the actions of DMs and to normalize consequences across tables. Putting them in is harder than taking them out. What is better? for a player to show up to a game and find out the alignment restriction is lifted, or to show up and find out there is an alignment restriction. Especially if they are new to the game and don't even understand what an alignment restriction is, or how it effects play. Putting it in the rule books lets people know that some might play like this, and if they do play like this these are the rules you can expect. That's ultimately why the Alignment restrictions should be in the book. All of us who know better, or think differently, can house rule to our hearts content.
Essentially tradition is in fact the reason we should include it. No matter what we say here some people will include alignment restrictions because it has always been that way. Having rules to show how those restrictions should effect play is important.
The same can be said for not including it. The same can be said about not including it. Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons.
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
If its so easily added to whatever a group thinks then why does it need to be stated in the book? If its so easily added why is the lack of its explicit mention so offesive? Why does the game have to reaffirm their opinion of the class?
I think they'll get their way on this because tradition is going to have stronger inertia than change in this edition. WotC wants their business more then it wants mine. But the argument that I can easily ignore it is... I can't think of a way to express my opinion of it without sounding insulting which I don't want to do. But telling me to ignore it is no better than telling them to add it.
As to why I'm not big on the notion of appealing to their tradition on this matter, I believe it is the same reason that they want the base class to be restrictive: because then that way is the 'official' way, and anything else is a variation. Quite petty on my part, but I acknowledge that's one of the reasons it bothers me. Plus, I think my way is better because it accomdates their Paladin and mine without significant variation. The supplelmental material also ties into this, I'll have to fiddle with every bit of content that comes out for the Paladin to fit my homegame. Its altogether a very irritating compromise on my part.
Alignment restrictions and their punishment are something that should be set by the game rule so as to inhibit the actions of DMs and to normalize consequences across tables. Putting them in is harder than taking them out. What is better? for a player to show up to a game and find out the alignment restriction is lifted, or to show up and find out there is an alignment restriction. Especially if they are new to the game and don't even understand what an alignment restriction is, or how it effects play. Putting it in the rule books lets people know that some might play like this, and if they do play like this these are the rules you can expect. That's ultimately why the Alignment restrictions should be in the book. All of us who know better, or think differently, can house rule to our hearts content.
Essentially tradition is in fact the reason we should include it. No matter what we say here some people will include alignment restrictions because it has always been that way. Having rules to show how those restrictions should effect play is important.
If its so easily added to whatever a group thinks then why does it need to be stated in the book? If its so easily added why is the lack of its explicit mention so offesive? Why does the game have to reaffirm their opinion of the class?I think they'l
Alignment restrictions and their punishment are something that should be set by the game rule so as to inhibit the actions of DMs and to normalize consequences across tables.
You don't need alignment to restrict the class, it's punishment, and to normalize consequences.
Putting them in is harder than taking them out.
I disagree.
What is better? for a player to show up to a game and find out the alignment restriction is lifted, or to show up and find out there is an alignment restriction. Especially if they are new to the game and don't even understand what an alignment restriction is, or how it effects play.
It's irrelevant. If they are new, they either will or won't understand whether the game puts the restriction there or you do.
putting it in the rule books lets people know that some might play like this, and if they do play like this these are the rules you can expect.
So does it being in the rulebook as an optional rule.
You don't need alignment to restrict the class, it's punishment, and to normalize consequences.I disagree. It's irrelevant. If they are new, they either will or won't understand whether the game puts the restriction there or you do.So does it being
If it's as easy to ignore alignment as it is to add alignment (in other words, it is equal) than tradition certainly is relevant.
If the argument is that tradition is not relevant, excluding it simply to buck tradition is equally irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.
My preferred implementation of Paladins accomodates both of us. If your group is onboard with your idea of Paladins then no one will play any non-Lawful Good Paladins and they'll lose their powers when they go against their code anyway. If I have to remove alignment from the Paladin then I have to ensure that it doesn't mess with their feats, abilities, and equipment in the core books and future supplemental material.
I honestly believe it will be harder to remove it than it will be to add it, and that it won't affect your games in the slightest, outside your perception of the class. And that perception will be enough to stop some people from buying the game so WotC will restrict the class for your gamer camp and I'll be forced to carry the Wizard's tea for the rest of time.
My preferred implementation of Paladins accomodates both of us. If your group is onboard with your idea of Paladins then no one will play any non-Lawful Good Paladins and they'll lose their powers when they go against their code anyway. If I have to
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point. It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a si
Basically by including alignment restrictions they confirm the penalties that exist. If people are made to include their own alignment restrictions and penalties they can make up any kind of terrible thing. If the rules cover what happens when a Paladin breaks alignment then concequences are normalized. I can change the alignment restrictions to how I see fit. However I have defined rules on what happens when a paladin breaks that alignment restriction and the player has grounds for an objection if I should do something outside of those rules that I had yet to discuss with the players. Basically all this does is give the players the power to not get screwed by a DM that wants alignment restrictions with consequences.
Also if I go from one group with alignment restrictions to another the rules will be relatively the same unless noted otherwise. If they are never included then the rules would differ wildly from table to table. Basically It is a rule they cannot remove from the class. Because traditionalists will play the new edition the Pally will in fact have an alignment restriction on many tables no matter what they do. Putting it in the books makes it so that every table using alignment restrictions has a similar rules set, and those removing alignment will also have a similar rules set.
Your pessimistic argument that they can't hit their goal of making alignment easily removed doesn't matter. I trust that they can.
Basically by including alignment restrictions they confirm the penalties that exist. If people are made to include their own alignment restrictions and penalties they can make up any kind of terrible thing. If the rules cover what happens when a Pa
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Alignment restrictions and their punishment are something that should be set by the game rule so as to inhibit the actions of DMs and to normalize consequences across tables. Putting them in is harder than taking them out. What is better? for a player to show up to a game and find out the alignment restriction is lifted, or to show up and find out there is an alignment restriction. Especially if they are new to the game and don't even understand what an alignment restriction is, or how it effects play. Putting it in the rule books lets people know that some might play like this, and if they do play like this these are the rules you can expect. That's ultimately why the Alignment restrictions should be in the book. All of us who know better, or think differently, can house rule to our hearts content.
Essentially tradition is in fact the reason we should include it. No matter what we say here some people will include alignment restrictions because it has always been that way. Having rules to show how those restrictions should effect play is important.
I think its better for the new player not to be shackled by the limited view some people have of the Paladin. Putting in the rulebooks, even with the option to change it, will enforce the notion, especially to new players, that the Paladin is meant to be Lawful Good. Anything else and you aren't playing the class as it was intended to be played which will cause new players to shy away from trying to play their Paladins the way they want instead of the way some people who aren't even at their table think the Paladin should be played.
Also, if a new player is invited to a group and finds that the Paladin is now restricted then it will give that player a better idea of how that group plays the game. If that Player prefers to play non-restricted Paladins then they're going to have a hard time trying to swing that idea with the new group and its better to get that out in the open right away so they can decide if they actually want to play together.
Tradition, in this case, is only important because some people refuse to allow other players to play a class the way they want without changing the rules of the game. I think that's probably a biased wording that makes the pro-restriction camp seem intentionally malevolent, which isn't true, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it.
I think its better for the new player not to be shackled by the limited view some people have of the Paladin. Putting in the rulebooks, even with the option to change it, will enforce the notion, especially to new players, that the Paladin is meant t
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average D&D player and potential D&D player.
I am fairly certain that when ordering a burger, people know how to say "hold the onions" even though the picture of the burger has onions on it.
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average D&D player and potential D&D player.I am fairly certain that when ordering a burger, people know how to say "hold the onions" even though the picture of the burger has onions on it.
Basically by including alignment restrictions they confirm the penalties that exist. If people are made to include their own alignment restrictions and penalties they can make up any kind of terrible thing. If the rules cover what happens when a Paladin breaks alignment then concequences are normalized. I can change the alignment restrictions to how I see fit. However I have defined rules on what happens when a paladin breaks that alignment restriction and the player has grounds for an objection if I should do something outside of those rules that I had yet to discuss with the players. Basically all this does is give the players the power to not get screwed by a DM that wants alignment restrictions with consequences.
Also if I go from one group with alignment restrictions to another the rules will be relatively the same unless noted otherwise. If they are never included then the rules would differ wildly from table to table. Basically It is a rule they cannot remove from the class. Because traditionalists will play the new edition the Pally will in fact have an alignment restriction on many tables no matter what they do. Putting it in the books makes it so that every table using alignment restrictions has a similar rules set, and those removing alignment will also have a similar rules set.
Your pessimistic argument that they can't hit their goal of making alignment easily removed doesn't matter. I trust that they can.
Who is going to add alignment restrictions outside the traditionalists? They already have a fairly standardized method for working the Paladin's alignment, I doubt there will be significant variation. You do something not good/lawful, you lose your powers. Bam. What counts as a violation will vary considerably, but that's a consequence of alignment that will exist anyway.
And my argument just assumes that since they're keeping alignment and making a class that it restricted by alignment, then they will add other options that are tied to alignment. Alignment will still be easily removed, I just think that it will assume you remove those alignment focused options too. So if I want a Paladin with full access to options, I will have to change those.
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Who is going to add alignment restrictions outside the traditionalists? They already have a fairly standardized method for working the Paladin's alignment, I doubt there will be significant variation. You do something not good/lawful, you lose your p
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
Alignment will be in a separate place and listed as optional. In the Paladin section, though, should be the alignment options for the class, listed at the end or in boxes along the way.
Alignment will be in a separate place and listed as optional. In the Paladin section, though, should be the alignment options for the class, listed at the end or in boxes along the way.
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
I don't know what you mean by this.
You propose to have the optional alignment information for the paladin separate from the paladin. This is inefficient, potentially confusing.
Having it all in the same section, with the optional material highlighted (in a tan background, for instance) as optional, keeps everything together, yet visibly different and separate.
I don't know what you mean by this.[/quote]You propose to have the optional alignment information for the paladin separate from the paladin. This is inefficient, potentially confusing.Having it all in the same section, with the optional material hig
It's better to list a single Paladin class, with Alignment as optional, than to create a class each for an aligned and unaligned (or even each alignment) Paladin.
It's better to list a single Paladin class, with Alignment as optional, than to create a class each for an aligned and unaligned (or even each alignment) Paladin.
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
Alignment will be in a separate place and listed as optional. In the Paladin section, though, should be the alignment options for the class, listed at the end or in boxes along the way.
Yes, a happy compromise. Normal paladin stuff on the normal page background. Optional material on a slightly darker but noticeable background. Probably a background that has been previously annotated as optional material.
Alignment will be in a separate place and listed as optional. In the Paladin section, though, should be the alignment options for the class, listed at the end or in boxes along the way.[/quote]Yes, a happy compromise. Normal paladin stuff on the no
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average D&D player and potential D&D player.
I am fairly certain that when ordering a burger, people know how to say "hold the onions" even though the picture of the burger has onions on it.
We're talking about my argument that players will be less likely to attempt to play a Paladin with a non-lawful alignment because that's not the 'official' rule, right? Because I base that on my own experience trying to make a Lawful Barbarian in 3.5. It was seriously no big deal, it didn't affect a damn thing, but every DM I asked about it said no because it went against their notion of what a Barbarian was. I tried to play a Neutral Good Paladin who only cared about what was ultimately the 'Good' thing to do, and I got shouted down everytime.
Hell, trying to make a Barbarian who grew up in a city instead of the wilderness caught flak too. I'm not saying that its going to be that bad for everyone who wants to play a Paladin with a different alignment, or atleast I really hope not, but it will constrict what new players consider viable options for their characters. Which I think is bad.
We're talking about my argument that players will be less likely to attempt to play a Paladin with a non-lawful alignment because that's not the 'official' rule, right? Because I base that on my own experience trying to make a Lawful Barbarian in 3.5
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average D&D player and potential D&D player.
I am fairly certain that when ordering a burger, people know how to say "hold the onions" even though the picture of the burger has onions on it.
We're talking about my argument that players will be less likely to attempt to play a Paladin with a non-lawful alignment because that's not the 'official' rule, right? Because I base that on my own experience trying to make a Lawful Barbarian in 3.5. It was seriously no big deal, it didn't affect a damn thing, but every DM I asked about it said no because it went against their notion of what a Barbarian was. I tried to play a Neutral Good Paladin who only cared about what was ultimately the 'Good' thing to do, and I got shouted down everytime.
Hell, trying to make a Barbarian who grew up in a city instead of the wilderness caught flak too. I'm not saying that its going to be that bad for everyone who wants to play a Paladin with a different alignment, or atleast I really hope not, but it will constrict what new players consider viable options for their characters. Which I think is bad.
That doesn't prove anything. What you are describing wasn't previously supported (outside of supplements). That doesn't make those DM's unintelligent, just going by RAW. If the information is all there, clearly annotated as core and as optional, then they are definitely more likely to be able to accommodate you.
If your DMs are just being d-bags, no amount of rules consolidation will help you.
Speaking as a DM, I want all the rules together as much as possible, not spread throughout the book. Especially player material.
We're talking about my argument that players will be less likely to attempt to play a Paladin with a non-lawful alignment because that's not the 'official' rule, right? Because I base that on my own experience trying to make a Lawful Barbarian in 3.5
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
Alignment will be in a separate place and listed as optional. In the Paladin section, though, should be the alignment options for the class, listed at the end or in boxes along the way.
Yes, a happy compromise. Normal paladin stuff on the normal page background. Optional material on a slightly darker but noticeable background. Probably a background that has been previously annotated as optional material.
Yeah, I agree strongly about optional material being visually self-contained, discrete, and removable. Kept in actual boxes.
For much of the 4e players, the alignment material will be visually deleted.
Most players of any edition wll need to block out setting material.
It is annoying to disentangle alignments (or deities or orders) from the class content itself.
Alignment will be in a separate place and listed as optional. In the Paladin section, though, should be the alignment options for the class, listed at the end or in boxes along the way.[/quote]Yes, a happy compromise. Normal paladin stuff on the no
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
With respect, I have to disagree with your premise that tradition is never relevant. Unless there is a clear advantage in an option that would trump tradition that option has less worth than the traditional option. Thing is, things become traditions because people are in favor of (or simply comfortable with) them--any change that has no clear advantage will just displease those that like their tradition. Change, simply for the sake of change is just stupid (like say, replacing the color red in a nation's flag with the color mauve). Change that has a solid, positive reason is going to win out (compare graphing calculators to slide rules--graphing calulators are clearling superior). If there is no appearent reward for a proposed change, then you're just trying to annoy people that have an emotional attachment to whatever you're trying to change.
Mind you, I'm not enirely sure of the context in which you made your statement was made, I'm just sick of seeing statements like that that are dismissive of tradition out of hand.
I think we have to determine what we want a Divine Champion to be first before worrying about the mechanics.
Should all Divine Champions get some kind of smite ability or do we want to make them a bit more customisable aka the Cleric?
If there are going to be any abilities that are universal to the class regardless of alignment, I believe the detect/smite suite should be it--it seems to be fitting with the concept of a divine champion as the "sword of its diety". Past that, I think many of the other abilities should vary by the god's domains.
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
There we go:
If you can easily add your own alignment restriction, to whatever you think it should be, then why include it?
If it is so easily added why is its absence so offensive to you?
Why cant they appeal to all those who prize player choice above all other things by leaving out this highly contentious facet?
While I'm not arguing that the divine champion class shouldn't be inclusive of all alignments, myself (see above), I can see an easy justification for including an alignment restriction and noting that those that don't play with (or downplay) alignments can ignore it... It's like the races in 4e's PHB1: it wasn't the inclusion of tieflings and dragonborn that upset most traditionalists, it was the exclusion of races that had been in previous editions' PHBs. Some people like things how they've been, and throwing that to the wind can cause a feeling of alienation in some people. If the possibility exists to include the restriction while also clearly showing that the restriction doesn't have to be used, if assauges those that like their tradition while still maintaining options for non-traditionalists. Again, I'm not personally arguing for such alignment restrictions, I'm just presenting a case for why that would be a viable option.
Personally, I have a strong emotional investment in D&D (I grew up with it, met close friends because of it, etc.) so I'm pretty biased heree (and admit it). What I would like to see, personally, is the paladin class renamed to something more generic like "divine champion" or "templar" and opened up to all alignments. Else it would be retaining the title "paladin" and having a LG alignment restriction (that can be removed if the group prefers), however I think that this option is subpar because it'd harder to encode the option of variable abilities based on domain this way. Yes, there's also the option of just calling the class "paladin" and keeping it open to all alignments (which, I peesimistically feel is how it's going to be), but I loathe that option based on my strong emotional investment in some of D&D's traditions. Again, I admit my bias here.
With respect, I have to disagree with your premise that tradition is never relevant. Unless there is a clear advantage in an option that would trump tradition that option has less worth than the traditional option. Thing is, things become traditions
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it?
The same can be said for not including it.
If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you?
The same can be said about not including it.
Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons. That's where you run afoul of the fallacy.
You need to come up with a reason other than tradition to warrant the exclusion of all people other than those who want Paladins to be LG. We have provided actual reasons for the inclusion of Paladins of all alignments. So far you've only toted tradition.
Indeed. Could you remind us all what the non tradtion based arguements are, though, because I don't remember them.
seriously. not being an ass, I don't remember, and this thread is 31 pages long.
The same can be said for not including it. The same can be said about not including it. Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons.
Any argument that uses tradition as a factor in determining the value of something is an Appeal to Tradition. Any such argument is fallacious.
It's not a matter of opinion.
And you are wrong. Simply having to do with or claiming relevnce of tradition does not meet the form for the fallacy. Sorry bud.
Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
If you say that if two things are otherwise equal, the traditional one is better, then you are employing the fallacy. Read what you just posted.
All reasoning that is used to give a factor value in determining the value of the larger thing takes the above form.
X benefits the vast majority, while doing no real harm to anyone. Therefor X is good/correct/better.
That is how determining the effect of a factor on a value determination works. If you try to do that with tradition as the factor, you are wrong.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to tradition and therefore invalid.
Exactly.
The only argument for including the LG only restriction is tradition. If a blatant fallacy is the only reason given for doing something, and other reasons that aren't fallacious have been given for not doing that thing, the logical thing to do is to not do that thing.
And there's no reason for me to repeat the reasoning that has already been established. If max and I were arguing alone, perhaps I'd need to reiterate all the reason to not have the restriction, but we aren't, so I don't.
No. He's talking to me and my assertion that tradition is relevant to the discussion. He doesn't understand that Appeal to Tradition requires an argument to assume that tradition is the better than all other reasons simply due to it being tradition. He thinks that the mere mention that tradition is meaningful, is enough to apply the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Nope. I've been doing exactly what Areleth describes.
Now, the extremely clear best way to go is to have a sidebar that talks about how in some campaigns, paladins might be required to be a given alignment, while in others they may not.
and then leave it at that.
mabye give some advice for mechanical consequence stuff if you use the restrictions. Do a lot of people want that?
Anyway, the most important argument against it, to me, is that it limits perfectly reasonable character concepts, to no real gain, and I consider inclusiveness to be inherently better than exclusiveness.
LG only pallies are completely possible in a game that doesn't make that restriction hard coded. The opposite state does not allow non LG pallies. To me, that makes one option very clearly superior.
Essentially tradition is in fact the reason we should include it. No matter what we say here some people will include alignment restrictions because it has always been that way. Having rules to show how those restrictions should effect play is important.
Just a nitpick. Assuming you are otherwise correct, this is an argument for the idea that it should be included because people are likely to use it, not because it's traditional.
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
That point has been made numerous times, in most threads about the paladin.
The main write up shouldn't even touch the subject, but on the same page should be a sidebar, showing both sides, with guidelines and/or hard rules for how to handle varying levels of restriction and consequence.
It should be separate in some sense, like a sidebar, because otherwise it messes with the flow of the page, and create more confusion than a sidebar would. The main write up could have a simple one or two sentences on how paladins interact with alignment in special ways in some worlds and games, and how that should be a group discussion, etc.
And you are wrong. Simply having to do with or claiming relevnce of tradition does not meet the form for the fallacy. Sorry bud. [/quote]If you say that if two things are otherwise equal, the traditional one is better, then you are employing the f
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
With respect, I have to disagree with your premise that tradition is never relevant. Unless there is a clear advantage in an option that would trump tradition that option has less worth than the traditional option. Thing is, things become traditions because people are in favor of (or simply comfortable with) them--any change that has no clear advantage will just displease those that like their tradition. Change, simply for the sake of change is just stupid (like say, replacing the color red in a nation's flag with the color mauve). Change that has a solid, positive reason is going to win out (compare graphing calculators to slide rules--graphing calulators are clearling superior). If there is no appearent reward for a proposed change, then you're just trying to annoy people that have an emotional attachment to whatever you're trying to change.
Mind you, I'm not enirely sure of the context in which you made your statement was made, I'm just sick of seeing statements like that that are dismissive of tradition out of hand.
I will admit that I despise traditionalism as much as I despise fundementalism, so some bias may exist. :P
Seriously, there's real loathing there. I believe strongly that it is a completely vile thing that is incredibly detrimental to our species.
That doesn't mean that all traditions are bad, of course. I love christmas, birthdays, various other things. But those things aren't good because they're traditional. They're generally traditional because they're good, and if that ceases to be the case, they should be instantly dropped without even a momentary glance backward.
If two things are otherwise equal (almost never the case), then the decision comes down to whatever nebulous emotional or instinctive thing makes you reach for one over the other without thinking. Or a coin toss. Doesn't matter, because they're equal.
But it shouldn't take a signifigent advantage of the non tradtional option. literally any advantage whatsoever should immediately lead to the other option being chosen. Likewise, if that slight advantage is with the tradition, without counting traditionalism, it should be kept/chosen.
If two choices are mostly equal, but one is more inclusive, and the other more traditional, the inclusive option should be chosen. doing otherwise requires deciding that tradition is important enough to make the decision, which requires the use of the reasoning that tradition makes it good, and that is fallacious.
anyway, sorry all for the multi posts. long posts were long.
With respect, I have to disagree with your premise that tradition is never relevant. Unless there is a clear advantage in an option that would trump tradition that option has less worth than the traditional option. Thing is, things become traditions
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it?
The same can be said for not including it.
If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you?
The same can be said about not including it.
Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons. That's where you run afoul of the fallacy.
You need to come up with a reason other than tradition to warrant the exclusion of all people other than those who want Paladins to be LG. We have provided actual reasons for the inclusion of Paladins of all alignments. So far you've only toted tradition.
Indeed. Could you remind us all what the non tradtion based arguements are, though, because I don't remember them.
seriously. not being an ass, I don't remember, and this thread is 31 pages long.
Unfortunately it is impossible to make those points because we run back into that whole subjective thing. Where I see the paladin a specific way and others see it differently. I am going with the new reasoning of it being included to provide rules on something that will apear as a rule on many tables. Essentially the only argument for removing it is that only traditionalists would play with it. Unfortunately that is exactly why the rules must be included. If one of their most basic rules is not represented in some way then they are instantly alienated. For those that are not angered by this alienation and decide to keep on playing they must now take time to figure out a balanced punishment for their own personal alignment rules. These rules will exist nowhere but in their own game and any other alignment restrictions on someone else's table will possibly be wildly different. This further alienates the traditionalist to only play in their own games and never reach out to new groups and to never include new players. This doesn't sound like a good path to go down for the whole bring everyone together vibe that the edition is going for.
Face facts Alignment will be in the new edition. Not only that but the devs have said many times that it is going back to the big 9 as core. With those things known it is very assumable that one of the first things traditionalists will include is some kind of alignment restriction. If those things are already included then the traditionalists are happy, and the alignment rules across their tables are somewhat uniform so that traditionalists can jump from table to table and not have to have the big worry of how will this group use alignment. Even if they jump onto a table full of non rtraditionalists they can bring their own alignment baggage with them. By representing it as optional within the core a traditionalist knows ahead of time that even though they play with alignment these people might not, and they should keep their baggage to themselves. It accomplishes so many things to leave it in while leaving it out does nothing but cast a giant middle finger against traditionalists.
Also This is the last time I use the word traditionalist for someone that wants alignment rules. From here on out I am just going to call them alignment lovers. Frankly with the alignment rules being in the edition, with the big 9 being core, it is very assumable that even players entirely new to the game will enjoy the alignment system. I know it is one of the things about the system I enjoy, and that it was one of the first things that really got me hooked when I got into the nitty gritty of it. From there they might wish for something like these rules and have no basis for how to make it work or that it is even an option. There is a clear need for the rules to exist and no reason not to put them in other than, "I don't want them in", or, "I think the whole alignment system is crap so I don't think new players should be polluted by it".
Now including all of it and letting people know that it is optional is far more preferable than just flipping the bird at anyone that wants the rules. It is far easier to say I want this meatlovers pizza but leave off the peperoni than it is to order a meatlovers pizza and find out you need to make peperoni and add it to the pizza after you get it. By their own admission anything based on alignment will be easily removed so the alignment restrictions will be easy to remove. Anyone that says otherwise, that removing the alignment based things would be hard, is basing their argument on an assumption of failure by the devs. That's not an acceptable reason not to do it.
Also stop using the it's a fallacy argument that is not an argument and is in and of itself a fallacy. Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance. Al you are doing is detracting from actual reasons to not have the alignment restriction.
I would like a reason other than, "because I don't think it should be there".
The same can be said for not including it. The same can be said about not including it. Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons.
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
That point has been made numerous times, in most threads about the paladin.
The main write up shouldn't even touch the subject, but on the same page should be a sidebar, showing both sides, with guidelines and/or hard rules for how to handle varying levels of restriction and consequence.
It should be separate in some sense, like a sidebar, because otherwise it messes with the flow of the page, and create more confusion than a sidebar would. The main write up could have a simple one or two sentences on how paladins interact with alignment in special ways in some worlds and games, and how that should be a group discussion, etc.
So you agree that it should be both together and separate. Okay, cool.
That point has been made numerous times, in most threads about the paladin. The main write up shouldn't even touch the subject, but on the same page should be a sidebar, showing both sides, with guidelines and/or hard rules for how to handle varyin
I will admit that I despise traditionalism as much as I despise fundementalism, so some bias may exist. :P
Seriously, there's real loathing there. I believe strongly that it is a completely vile thing that is incredibly detrimental to our species.
That doesn't mean that all traditions are bad, of course. I love christmas, birthdays, various other things. But those things aren't good because they're traditional. They're generally traditional because they're good, and if that ceases to be the case, they should be instantly dropped without even a momentary glance backward.
If two things are otherwise equal (almost never the case), then the decision comes down to whatever nebulous emotional or instinctive thing makes you reach for one over the other without thinking. Or a coin toss. Doesn't matter, because they're equal.
But it shouldn't take a signifigent advantage of the non tradtional option. literally any advantage whatsoever should immediately lead to the other option being chosen. Likewise, if that slight advantage is with the tradition, without counting traditionalism, it should be kept/chosen.
If two choices are mostly equal, but one is more inclusive, and the other more traditional, the inclusive option should be chosen. doing otherwise requires deciding that tradition is important enough to make the decision, which requires the use of the reasoning that tradition makes it good, and that is fallacious.
anyway, sorry all for the multi posts. long posts were long.
Despising tradition solely because it is a tradition is no different than liking a tradition solely because it is a tradition. If you think one is fallacious, then both are fallacious. If you think one is not fallacious, then both are not fallacious.
Thus, your argument of "tradition is not relevant" is essentially self-defeating. If someone finds tradition relevant, then it is relevant to them. It doesn't need to be relevant to you to be relevant.
Despising tradition solely because it is a tradition is no different than liking a tradition solely because it is a tradition. If you think one is fallacious, then both are fallacious. If you think one is not fallacious, then both are not fallaciou
Indeed. Could you remind us all what the non tradtion based arguements are, though, because I don't remember them.
seriously. not being an ass, I don't remember, and this thread is 31 pages long.
Also not being an ass, but I don't remember which sub-discussion we were talking about when the tradition debate arose. :P
Just like Azzy, I don't like tradition being dismissed out of hand. It has a place and relevance in discussions, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the fallacy.
Also not being an ass, but I don't remember which sub-discussion we were talking about when the tradition debate arose. :PJust like Azzy, I don't like tradition being dismissed out of hand. It has a place and relevance in discussions, as long as it
If you say that if two things are otherwise equal, the traditional one is better, then you are employing the fallacy. Read what you just posted.
I posted that tradition was relevant. I posted that tradition had value if WoTC lost $$$ from breaking with tradition. None of that ran afoul of the fallacy.
All reasoning that is used to give a factor value in determining the value of the larger thing takes the above form.
No. Assigning value to tradition does not run afoul of the form.
X benefits the vast majority, while doing no real harm to anyone. Therefor X is good/correct/better.
It's the Paladin traditionalists like Sleeps that are saying that, not me
The only argument for including the LG only restriction is tradition.
It's not the only argument, though. If changing tradition causes WoTC to lose more $$$ than if they kept it, that loss of revenue is a reason to keep it, even if that loss of revenue is based solely off of tradition.
Personally, I don't believe that would occur, though.
LG only pallies are completely possible in a game that doesn't make that restriction hard coded. The opposite state does not allow non LG pallies. To me, that makes one option very clearly superior.
I agree.
I posted that tradition was relevant. I posted that tradition had value if WoTC lost $$$ from breaking with tradition. None of that ran afoul of the fallacy.No. Assigning value to tradition does not run afoul of the form.It's the Paladin tradition
Unfortunately it is impossible to make those points because we run back into that whole subjective thing.
Subjectivity does not make my points impossible.
Where I see the paladin a specific way and others see it differently. I am going with the new reasoning of it being included to provide rules on something that will apear as a rule on many tables. Essentially the only argument for removing it is that only traditionalists would play with it. Unfortunately that is exactly why the rules must be included.
This makes no sense. You need to clarify. It's also false with regard to it being the only argument. Multiple arguments have been given.
If one of their most basic rules is not represented in some way then they are instantly alienated.
Paladins are NOT one of the most basic rules.
For those that are not angered by this alienation and decide to keep on playing they must now take time to figure out a balanced punishment for their own personal alignment rules.
Nope. They would be given in the optional rules section. Nothing to figure out.
These rules will exist nowhere but in their own game and any other alignment restrictions on someone else's table will possibly be wildly different. This further alienates the traditionalist to only play in their own games and never reach out to new groups and to never include new players. This doesn't sound like a good path to go down for the whole bring everyone together vibe that the edition is going for.
It's also a slipperly slope that won't exist. The optional alignments for Paladins section would nip that worry in the bud.
Face facts Alignment will be in the new edition.
As an optional module. Since alignment will be an optional module, alignments for Paladins should be in the optional section as well.
Also This is the last time I use the word traditionalist for someone that wants alignment rules. From here on out I am just going to call them alignment lovers.
If the shoe fits...
Seriously, though, some love alignment. Some are traditionalists. Neither position in and of itself is enough to warrant the inclusion of LG only Paladins. There needs to be an actual REASON that is superior to the reasons given by the other side.
It is far easier to say I want this meatlovers pizza but leave off the peperoni than it is to order a meatlovers pizza and find out you need to make peperoni and add it to the pizza after you get it.
It's even easier to just order the pizza with all alignments and remove the ones you don't like.
By their own admission anything based on alignment will be easily removed so the alignment restrictions will be easy to remove. Anyone that says otherwise, that removing the alignment based things would be hard, is basing their argument on an assumption of failure by the devs. That's not an acceptable reason not to do it.
The problem is that they are not removing alignment restrictions. They are ADDING the alignments for all Paladins to the rules.
If Paladins are inclusive of all alignments, all alignments are in the rules and EVERYBODY can play the Paladin that they like. If your group wants only LG Paladins, they need make ZERO changes to the rules. Your group just playes only the LG type.
If Paladins are only LG, then there are no rules at all anywhere for anyone who wants to play a Paladin of a type other than LG. They have to create the rules from scratch, which is something that many people are loathe to do. Especially new DMs. They are afraid to change the rules.
It's only the second option that creates problems and issues for people wanting to play Paladins.
I would like a reason other than, "because I don't think it should be there".
You have been given several that you have read and dismissed out of hand.
Subjectivity does not make my points impossible.This makes no sense. You need to clarify. It's also false with regard to it being the only argument. Multiple arguments have been given.Paladins are NOT one of the most basic rules. Nope. They woul
Really, if Paladin's description says something even close to "Always lawful (but you can ignore this, unless your DM is an ass)" I'll drop any and all objections immediately.
Really, if Paladin's description says something even close to "Always lawful (but you can ignore this, unless your DM is an ass)" I'll drop any and all objections immediately.
Really, if Paladin's description says something even close to "Always lawful (but you can ignore this, unless your DM is an ass)" I'll drop any and all objections immediately.
Maybe neither option should be presented as the default. Part of the class description could just note that alignment restrictions are very common for this class, Lawful Good being the most prominent, and you should ask your DM if alignment restrictions are going to be implemented. Make up a partial code for Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Neutral alignments, and whatever combination of alignments you use you combine those codes. Also note that the player should ask the DM if they will suffer penalties for breaking the code.
Don't imply that anything is the default and that one or the other is what should be the 'module'. Just note that you ask your DM how Paladins work in his/her campaign.
Maybe neither option should be presented as the default. Part of the class description could just note that alignment restrictions are very common for this class, Lawful Good being the most prominent, and you should ask your DM if alignment restricti
I will admit that I despise traditionalism as much as I despise fundementalism, so some bias may exist. :P
A someone who has spent many hours over the last few days trying to combat bigotry and ingnorance based in real-world fundamentaism , I can empathize greatly.
I just ask you to please try not to conflate all traditionalism with fundamentalism.
Seriously, there's real loathing there. I believe strongly that it is a completely vile thing that is incredibly detrimental to our species.
That doesn't mean that all traditions are bad, of course. I love christmas, birthdays, various other things. But those things aren't good because they're traditional. They're generally traditional because they're good, and if that ceases to be the case, they should be instantly dropped without even a momentary glance backward.
If two things are otherwise equal (almost never the case), then the decision comes down to whatever nebulous emotional or instinctive thing makes you reach for one over the other without thinking. Or a coin toss. Doesn't matter, because they're equal.
But it shouldn't take a signifigent advantage of the non tradtional option. literally any advantage whatsoever should immediately lead to the other option being chosen. Likewise, if that slight advantage is with the tradition, without counting traditionalism, it should be kept/chosen.
While I agree that an advantage needn't be huge, any potential advantage must be more than just slight--a slight advantage may not be worth pulling the rug out from the expectations of those that are used to one thing but are given another. Of course, if that itself is weighed as part of the determination of advantageousness then we may be talking about the same thing and just disagreeing on the semantics of "slight".
For me, an advantage is significant when there's a noticeable benefit for someone to abandon the way they're used to and to adapt and learn a new way. For example, let's take software design: if an aplication has had the same general layout and commands for many versions and years--enough for end-use to learn and adapt to--then a new version comes out with a new layout. If the new layout allows for more efficient usage by grouping features together that are typically used in tandem (or some such), then learning the new layout is worthwhile. On the other hand, if the new layout has some new bells and whistles, but doesn't noticeably enhance user performance, then it probably isn't worthwhile to learn a whole new layout.
If two choices are mostly equal, but one is more inclusive, and the other more traditional, the inclusive option should be chosen. doing otherwise requires deciding that tradition is important enough to make the decision, which requires the use of the reasoning that tradition makes it good, and that is fallacious.
I'm inclined to agree--if a choice allows for inclusiveness, it's a superior choice as it speaks to more than one viewpoint. One of the biggest obstacles left after that is presentation--if the presentation clearly shows that the option does speaks to and represents the multiple viewpoints, it's golden. If the presentation does a poor job of that, it can damned the entire thing--and then you have people with multiple viewpoints agreeing only to get the pitchforks and torches.
Here's to helping them get both aspects right through the playtest and through feedback.
anyway, sorry all for the multi posts. long posts were long.
No worries, I won't be casting any stones from my glass house: I do the same thing a lot, too.
A someone who has spent many hours over the last few days trying to combat bigotry and ingnorance based in real-world fundamentaism :banghead:, I can empathize greatly. I just ask you to please try not to conflate all traditionalism with fundamentali
Really, if Paladin's description says something even close to "Always lawful (but you can ignore this, unless your DM is an ass)" I'll drop any and all objections immediately.
Maybe neither option should be presented as the default. Part of the class description could just note that alignment restrictions are very common for this class, Lawful Good being the most prominent, and you should ask your DM if alignment restrictions are going to be implemented. Make up a partial code for Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Neutral alignments, and whatever combination of alignments you use you combine those codes. Also note that the player should ask the DM if they will suffer penalties for breaking the code.
Don't imply that anything is the default and that one or the other is what should be the 'module'. Just note that you ask your DM how Paladins work in his/her campaign.
This sounds great. But even this should be on the page as a separate “Optional: Using Alignments” box with a darker color background.
Maybe neither option should be presented as the default. Part of the class description could just note that alignment restrictions are very common for this class, Lawful Good being the most prominent, and you should ask your DM if alignment restricti
If Paladins are inclusive of all alignments, all alignments are in the rules and EVERYBODY can play the Paladin that they like. If your group wants only LG Paladins, they need make ZERO changes to the rules. Your group just playes only the LG type.
If Paladins are only LG, then there are no rules at all anywhere for anyone who wants to play a Paladin of a type other than LG. They have to create the rules from scratch, which is something that many people are loathe to do. Especially new DMs. They are afraid to change the rules.
Assumes failure of system. It assumes that:
1 alignment and all of it's effects won't be easily removed or modified and that 2 the system won't outline how to do this for people new to the game.
Assuming failure to meet the goals is not valid as a argument as to why the rules shouldn't be included.
I have detailed why adding an alignment restriction is harder than removing it. Mainly that it would cause many tables to have very different rules about a thing they all agree should be a part of the game. Everyone ignoring alignment would have no problem removing the alignment dependancies (of wich there will be few) from the class. Assuming it would not be easy to remove assumes failure to reach stated goals.
Also under the no alignment restriction paladin people trying to play only LG paladins would have to make massive changes to the rules. Namely they would have to write in rules for the punishment an alignment break incurs. Is it the ex-paladin status of 3rd edition and prior? Is it the in story punishments of 4e? Is it something else entirely? The devs must include the rules on how to run this portion of the story or else it is left entirely to DM fiat. Then you also have people that have no idea what to expect when they hit a table and find out there are alignment restrictions and penalties for breaking them. By putting it in the Base Rule Book, you normalize these things across tables. Will there be variations? yes. However the variations are generally normalized to be somewhat close to the rules. Basically what you are saying is that rather than writting both sets of rules in a clear and consise way where they are both represented in the same spot the rules should be divided so as to make an option available to the alignment lovers, but hidden to anyone else.
Presenting the rules for how to handle these things with notes that those things are entirely optional yet again gives you exactly what you want, an easy way to play paladins of any alignment:
seriously if they write it, and present it properly you should either be able to ignore the alignment restrictions entirely, and/or modify the alignment restriction to include any alignment you wish it to. Like it should work in such a way that replacing "L_" with "alignment of your deity" should take no freaking effort. All you do is replace less than a sentence within the section. Heck providing a sidebar detailing a few these different alternatives is more than likely going to happen.
In addition to giving you what you want it also gives the Alignment lovers exactly what they want.
don't give me your, "it doesn't give me exactly what I want", quote like you normally would. This would in fact give you what you want. Unless you assume failure of the devs to meet their goals all of these things would be easily modified, to be restrictions placed on paladins of every alignment, or removed entirely (thus allowing paladins of any alignment) so it's inclusion doesn't hurt your game in the slightest, and allows you to play exactly how you wish to play. Especially when they will more than likely include a sidebar representing other alignment restriction options (I'd actually consider the inclusion of this sidebar as part of the whole meeting their goals thing that I assume).
Unless what your proposing is that they have all of these rules defined just with there not actually being any kind of restriction or the same alignment as your deity restriction from 4e. If that is your assertion then we are basically down to opinion.
You think it is better because it is inclusive I think is is exclusionary and breeds discontent between alignment lover DMs and new players that aren't expecting to run into any kind of L_ only or LG only restrictions. If the norm is L_ and alleviated restrictions are a represented option then people more acceptably walk into the L_ only restriction and gladly accept when the restrictions are alleviated. Representing the rules like this tricks people into not arguing as much when old school players mix with new school players. If they are represented your way new school players will inherently resent the old school players and the way they play saying they are using a stupid variant. If base rules represent the most stringent and precise of restrictions available then any relaxation of those restrictions is appreciated. Where as if the most broad and nonrestrictive restrictions are put in place in the base people will do nothing but resent any change to them. Essentially by putting it in your way you remove mine as an option because many people, especially new players, would not accept it without some form of resentment. Putting it in the proposed way makes both options acceptable options when found on a table by new players. Your way represented as the base removes mine as an option because new players would always harbor some form of resentment towards alignment lover DMs that want tighter restrictions. Mine as the base allows both to be viable options. As always removing restrictions or relaxing them is always easier than introducing new restrictions. Not just as a form of rules or house ruling but on a social level relaxing or removing restrictions is always more acceptable than introducing new ones.
Also as I have said before I personally think they will be changing the alignment definitions and implementations as compared to previous editions. It's not as though they are just going to reprint an alignment section from a previous edition. I fully expect them to revisit and better define the alignments. If I had to guess on anything in the 5e alignment system I would guess that in 5e having a code will make you lawful, or neutral at best if you regularly break that code to accomplish something else. However that is currently just speculation at best. Determined mainly by looking at the paladin description itself.
Assumes failure of system. It assumes that: 1 alignment and all of it's effects won't be easily removed or modified and that 2 the system won't outline how to do this for people new to the game. Assuming failure to meet the goals is not valid as a
Don't suggest either way is the default that has to be altered. Neither one needs to be put in a sidebar either. In the class description just note that many groups enjoy having alignment restrictions on Paladins, the most common restriction being Lawful Good. Before playing the class the Player should ask the DM if there are any alignment restrictions on the class, and whether or not there will be penalties if the character does not hold to that alignment. There should be some Code templates for DMs to use, and suggestions for possible repercussions for violating your Code/Alignment, and perhaps bonuses for sticking to your alignment exceptionally well.
Then the issue of DMs having to make up their own Codes and Punishments is greatly lessened, you have a few light and heavy Code/Punishments that you can alter if you want and players have a better idea of what to expect in a game with a new group.
Everybody gets their option, no one is left out, and no side has to worry about going against the 'Core' mechanic.
Note: it should specifically say that groups enjoy restrictions to avoid the idea that the books condemn the idea and to encourage new players to experiment with alignment and restrictions.
Don't suggest either way is the default that has to be altered. Neither one needs to be put in a sidebar either. In the class description just note that many groups enjoy having alignment restrictions on Paladins, the most common restriction being La
Unfortunately it is impossible to make those points because we run back into that whole subjective thing. Where I see the paladin a specific way and others see it differently. I am going with the new reasoning of it being included to provide rules on something that will apear as a rule on many tables. Essentially the only argument for removing it is that only traditionalists would play with it. Unfortunately that is exactly why the rules must be included. If one of their most basic rules is not represented in some way then they are instantly alienated.
Also stop using the it's a fallacy argument that is not an argument and is in and of itself a fallacy. Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance. Al you are doing is detracting from actual reasons to not have the alignment restriction.
I would like a reason other than, "because I don't think it should be there".
The first is nothing more than a reason to include both, with equal weight, in a sidebar. That's it.
And that's not something anyone here has really argued against.
The last is not something I've done. I haven't been able to get past getting anyone using the appeal to tradition fallacy to admit that they are doing so. In that whole string of argument, I made no new arguments, but only doggedly refuted an argument that kept getting used and then my refutation of it argued with. I've never said the following:
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. You used said fallacy to support the idea that restrictions should be included. Therefor, restrictions should not be included.
In order for me to be employing the fallacy you accuse me of, I would have had to have done the above.
Instead, what has happened is:
Others: It should be in, because it's traditional. Me: That's ridiculous, and fallacious. Others: No, it's not. Me: You're joking, right? Yes, it very much is. You are joking, right? Guys? Dammit.
Nowhere in there do I even address the conclusion. I do that elsewhere in the thread, in posts wherein I'm not debating traditionalism and it's insidious evil, but not in my posts wherein I am bashing my head against the wall of fallacious traditionalism. That selfsame wall upon which all men of progress must test their mettle.
Anyway, I've given my thoughts on in what form it should be included. That is, a sidebar on the first page of the paladin write up in the phb. Discussing the multiple layers of alignment interaction with the paladin, with rules for falling and such. If it takes up too much space, it can have the basics there, with a note to read further on another page, to make sure that each level of involvement is satisfactory for those who want to use it, from the no alignment in the whole system (very short section, obviously) to the full on stay LG or fall and lose all pally goodies until or unless you atone, sucka! and including stages like, L-whatever only, but no falling mechanic, or alignment is in the game, and paladins must follow the dogma of their god/order within the church of their god, and some gods might demand matching alignments.
It's a contentious issue, and thus should be noted in the PHB, with neither side "winning", in terms of their preference being anything one could call the default.
Despising tradition solely because it is a tradition is no different than liking a tradition solely because it is a tradition. If you think one is fallacious, then both are fallacious. If you think one is not fallacious, then both are not fallacious.
Thus, your argument of "tradition is not relevant" is essentially self-defeating. If someone finds tradition relevant, then it is relevant to them. It doesn't need to be relevant to you to be relevant.
That's not my argument. The word I used, that you even quoted, is traditionalism. I don't despise traditions. I even went out of my way to point that out, and give examples of ones I like.
I despise the mindset that tradition is good, by default. I believe that it is one of the very worst/most harmful ideological concepts that exists in the human conciousness.
That it is one of the few concepts that I can take seriously in terms of calling a concept Evil.
If a tradition is good, in an analysis that doesnt not count tradition as a factor, then I have no issue with it.
If you say that if two things are otherwise equal, the traditional one is better, then you are employing the fallacy. Read what you just posted.
I posted that tradition was relevant. I posted that tradition had value if WoTC lost $$$ from breaking with tradition. None of that ran afoul of the fallacy.
All reasoning that is used to give a factor value in determining the value of the larger thing takes the above form.
No. Assigning value to tradition does not run afoul of the form.
X benefits the vast majority, while doing no real harm to anyone. Therefor X is good/correct/better.
It's the Paladin traditionalists like Sleeps that are saying that, not me
The only argument for including the LG only restriction is tradition.
It's not the only argument, though. If changing tradition causes WoTC to lose more $$$ than if they kept it, that loss of revenue is a reason to keep it, even if that loss of revenue is based solely off of tradition.
Personally, I don't believe that would occur, though.
LG only pallies are completely possible in a game that doesn't make that restriction hard coded. The opposite state does not allow non LG pallies. To me, that makes one option very clearly superior.
I agree.
The first part is a matter for debate, and even more off topic than we already are. That is, whether tradition can logically be refered to as the reason for doing something, or if we must instead refer to the will of the consumer, regardless of what drives that will. It's a very, very nitpicky, lawyery argument, from either side. So let's just leave that one alone. At this stage, I don't care at all about the market considerations. I intend to focus solely on the good of the game as a game for as long as our feedback is theoretically impacting design.
The rest, we don't actually disagree with eachother really.
I think we've derailed long enough, though. Unfortunately, in these forums, we aren't free to just go off on tangents forever, and this thread is already extremely long. :P
In a rare moment for me, I'll just drop it here, at least with you. we're basicaly picking at nits while eyeing eachother warily at this point, anyway.
Also, I can't remember what exactly we were on about when traditionalism came up, either. Probably a sign that it's time to move on. :D
Areleth: You are far more willing to compromise than most on "our side" of the debate. Well done.
I really think the whole thing should be in a sidebar, though. I also think that sidebars should be done so that they aren't thought of as offshoot rules that are best ignored, though. Just a good place to handle things that have no default state, are contentious, etc.
The first is nothing more than a reason to include both, with equal weight, in a sidebar. That's it. And that's not something anyone here has really argued against. The last is not something I've done. I haven't been able to get past getting anyone u
Really, if Paladin's description says something even close to "Always lawful (but you can ignore this, unless your DM is an ass)" I'll drop any and all objections immediately.
would this version do ? Paladins are always lawfull, if you want to play a non lawfull paladin check with your DM if this is alouwed.
would this version do ?Paladins are always lawfull, if you want to play a non lawfull paladin check with your DM if this is alouwed.
1 alignment and all of it's effects won't be easily removed or modified and that 2 the system won't outline how to do this for people new to the game.
Assuming failure to meet the goals is not valid as a argument as to why the rules shouldn't be included.
It does no such thing. First, I'm not talking about removal. I'm talking about addition. I'm also not talking about alignment in general, which WILL be explained to new people how to add it to the game. I'm talking about the Paladin class which will be limited in the scope of the alignments allowed. The game as it has been explained so far, will not have rules for adding all alignments to Paladins. Therefore, at this time, it is as I said.
Hopefully, the designers have read this thread and see that Paladins should be inclusive, rather than exclusive and the above will change.
I have detailed why adding an alignment restriction is harder than removing it.
And I'm agreeing with you. That's why Paladins of every alignment should be included with their restrictions already in place.
Also under the no alignment restriction paladin people trying to play only LG paladins would have to make massive changes to the rules.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. First, I'm not arguing for no alignment restrictions. Every Paladin should be restricted to the alignment of their God. Second, there would be no "massive" change to make to the rules for those who want LG only. The one, simple, change that would have to be made, and it takes 1 second (basically as long as it takes to speak it), is to tell the group that you are only using those Paladins that are LG. The LG Paladins will have their typicall LG code already built into the game, so no other work on your part needs to be done.
Namely they would have to write in rules for the punishment an alignment break incurs. Is it the ex-paladin status of 3rd edition and prior? Is it the in story punishments of 4e? Is it something else entirely?
Dunno, but it will ALREADY BE IN THE BOOK. You won't have to write anything. The penalty for violating the alignment restriction, whether you are LG or CN will be the same. A violation is a violation is a violation.
Then you also have people that have no idea what to expect when they hit a table and find out there are alignment restrictions and penalties for breaking them.
Sure they do. They expect to find out from the DM which Paladins are allowed, and if alignment is being used for Paladins at all (remember, alignment will be an optional module). Since alignment is going to be an optional module, even if you got your way and there were LG only Paladins, people would still have no idea what to expect before they got to the table. LG Paladins can't exist in a game with the alignment module not being used.
seriously if they write it, and present it properly you should either be able to ignore the alignment restrictions entirely, and/or modify the alignment restriction to include any alignment you wish it to. Like it should work in such a way that replacing "L_" with "alignment of your deity" should take no freaking effort. All you do is replace less than a sentence within the section. Heck providing a sidebar detailing a few these different alternatives is more than likely going to happen.
The reverse is is even easier. While it may be easy for the DM to create the rules for Paladins of all alignments. It is much harder to get a DM to create new rules than it is to remove or modify them. Especially new DMs. New DMs are not nearly as likely to want to mess with the rules, so if a player in the group of a new DM wants to play a CN Paladin, the DM is likely to say no. However, if the players say, we would rather play in a world where we and the NPC Paladins are only LG, the new DM is far more likely to agree. It takes no rules change to accomplish. They just don't bother to make Paladins of other alignments.
In addition to giving you what you want it also gives the Alignment lovers exactly what they want.
It clearly doesn't give me what I want, or I wouldn't be arguing with you.
don't give me your, "it doesn't give me exactly what I want", quote like you normally would. This would in fact give you what you want.
So, it gives me Paladins of all aligmments in the book? My mistake. It sounded as if you were arguing against that.
Especially when they will more than likely include a sidebar representing other alignment restriction options (I'd actually consider the inclusion of this sidebar as part of the whole meeting their goals thing that I assume).
I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying that the alignment restriction to LG would be in a sidebar as an option? Are you saying that Paladins of all alignments would be in a sidebar as an option? Are you saying something else?
You think it is better because it is inclusive I think is is exclusionary and breeds discontent between alignment lover DMs and new players that aren't expecting to run into any kind of L_ only or LG only restrictions.
I've never said this.
base rules represent the most stringent and precise of restrictions available then any relaxation of those restrictions is appreciated. Where as if the most broad and nonrestrictive restrictions are put in place in the base people will do nothing but resent any change to them.
So what you are saying is that if they make Paladins of all alignments part of core, YOU will resent it when your DM says "In this campaign we only have LG Paladins."
Essentially by putting it in your way you remove mine as an option because many people, especially new players, would not accept it without some form of resentment.
Dude. Most people don't even play Paladins. I've seen maybe 1% of the characters played be Paladins over the years. 29 years, hundreds of players, and thousands of characters. Maybe20 total Paladins. The reason for this? The restriction to only LG. The early codes, as lots of people actually wanted to keep the treasure and magic items they found. And how easy it was to lose your Paladinhood.
Bring it back to those days and new players won't want to play Paladins. You might, but it's not worth the space to print the class if 1% of players are going to use it. Make Paladins of all alignments, include a code, but not one as onerous as in the old days, and include punishments that are not as severe and you will see a lot more people actually wanting to play the class.
I fully expect them to revisit and better define the alignments. If I had to guess on anything in the 5e alignment system I would guess that in 5e having a code will make you lawful, or neutral at best if you regularly break that code to accomplish something else. However that is currently just speculation at best. Determined mainly by looking at the paladin description itself.
You would need an entire book for each alignment to better define alignments. The problem is, the better you define alignments, the more problems you create. You'll end up with DMs saying, sorry, but you can't do that action. It says right here that if you jaywalk, even to save the lady being trampled, you are violating your LN alignment and you must be punished. You have to let her die or lose your Paladinhood.
Alignment has to be left vague in order to leave PC actions in the hands of the players, but then you run afoul of differing ideas on what lawful or good means. There is no really good way to do alignment, other than divorcing it from mechanics like 4e did.
It does no such thing. First, I'm not talking about removal. I'm talking about addition. I'm also not talking about alignment in general, which WILL be explained to new people how to add it to the game. I'm talking about the Paladin class which w
[ I think we've derailed long enough, though. Unfortunately, in these forums, we aren't free to just go off on tangents forever, and this thread is already extremely long. :P
In a rare moment for me, I'll just drop it here, at least with you. we're basicaly picking at nits while eyeing eachother warily at this point, anyway.
Also, I can't remember what exactly we were on about when traditionalism came up, either. Probably a sign that it's time to move on. :D
[ I think we've derailed long enough, though. Unfortunately, in these forums, we aren't free to just go off on tangents forever, and this thread is already extremely long. :P
In a rare moment for me, I'll just drop it here, at least with you. we're basicaly picking at nits while eyeing eachother warily at this point, anyway.
Also, I can't remember what exactly we were on about when traditionalism came up, either. Probably a sign that it's time to move on. :D
Fair enough
BTW, what are the benefits, in your opinion, of having each alignment of paladin detailed in the book, rather than just pointing out that in some campaigns paladins will be LG only, in others they might be Lx only, in still others they might be the alignment of their god, and if you're not using alignment or not having alignment restrictions, they would have no alignment restriction at all?
Obviously this would come with a sidebar detailed different rules for fallen paladins, etc.
Fair enough :)[/quote]BTW, what are the benefits, in your opinion, of having each alignment of paladin detailed in the book, rather than just pointing out that in some campaigns paladins will be LG only, in others they might be Lx only, in still othe
BTW, what are the benefits, in your opinion, of having each alignment of paladin detailed in the book, rather than just pointing out that in some campaigns paladins will be LG only, in others they might be Lx only, in still others they might be the alignment of their god, and if you're not using alignment or not having alignment restrictions, they would have no alignment restriction at all?
Obviously this would come with a sidebar detailed different rules for fallen paladins, etc.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitrary knightly code. That said, they could set out the traditional Paladin code as an example of a LG code. I also don't have an issue with a sidebar setting forth what you listed above being there as well.
The only issue I see is Paladin powers for all alignments, but if smite works on everyone, regardless of alignment as they said in the article, and if the detect can easily be applied to all alignments, then I don't really see a need to detail different Paladin classes in the PHB. How to handle the various alignments would be in the individual power sections that would need some modification based on alignment.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitr
BTW, what are the benefits, in your opinion, of having each alignment of paladin detailed in the book, rather than just pointing out that in some campaigns paladins will be LG only, in others they might be Lx only, in still others they might be the alignment of their god, and if you're not using alignment or not having alignment restrictions, they would have no alignment restriction at all?
Obviously this would come with a sidebar detailed different rules for fallen paladins, etc.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitrary knightly code. That said, they could set out the traditional Paladin code as an example of a LG code. I also don't have an issue with a sidebar setting forth what you listed above being there as well.
The only issue I see is Paladin powers for all alignments, but if smite works on everyone, regardless of alignment as they said in the article, and if the detect can easily be applied to all alignments, then I don't really see a need to detail different Paladin classes in the PHB. How to handle the various alignments would be in the individual power sections that would need some modification based on alignment.
I rather like Holy Smite and Dread Smite in 4th edition. Add to an attack and give an extra effect (dazed or ongoing damage, respectively).
Perhaps instead of saying "here's your alignment based smite" instead say "Here's a selection of smite powers, pick the one that makes sense for your Paladin," and make it so that some of them have the flavor of darker gods, etc.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitr
BTW, what are the benefits, in your opinion, of having each alignment of paladin detailed in the book, rather than just pointing out that in some campaigns paladins will be LG only, in others they might be Lx only, in still others they might be the alignment of their god, and if you're not using alignment or not having alignment restrictions, they would have no alignment restriction at all?
Obviously this would come with a sidebar detailed different rules for fallen paladins, etc.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitrary knightly code. That said, they could set out the traditional Paladin code as an example of a LG code. I also don't have an issue with a sidebar setting forth what you listed above being there as well.
The only issue I see is Paladin powers for all alignments, but if smite works on everyone, regardless of alignment as they said in the article, and if the detect can easily be applied to all alignments, then I don't really see a need to detail different Paladin classes in the PHB. How to handle the various alignments would be in the individual power sections that would need some modification based on alignment.
I rather like Holy Smite and Dread Smite in 4th edition. Add to an attack and give an extra effect (dazed or ongoing damage, respectively).
Perhaps instead of saying "here's your alignment based smite" instead say "Here's a selection of smite powers, pick the one that makes sense for your Paladin," and make it so that some of them have the flavor of darker gods, etc.
I could live with that for sure. That said, if you look at the article that opens this thread, Smite Evil is not actually Smite Evil. It works regardless of the moral outlook of who you are smiting. That means you could call it Smite Snails if your God had them for hated enemies and it would still work on those pesky demons you run across.
A paladin can see and smite evil. A paladin knows when something supernaturally adverse to the deity or calling he or she champions is nearby. For instance, although a good paladin cannot unerringly zero in on a specific threat merely by walking past a structure infested with evil, the paladin knows something is wrong. Regardless of a given creature’s actual nature, a paladin can judge it unworthy and smite it with divine power that energizes his or her sword blow.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitr
BTW, what are the benefits, in your opinion, of having each alignment of paladin detailed in the book, rather than just pointing out that in some campaigns paladins will be LG only, in others they might be Lx only, in still others they might be the alignment of their god, and if you're not using alignment or not having alignment restrictions, they would have no alignment restriction at all?
Obviously this would come with a sidebar detailed different rules for fallen paladins, etc.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitrary knightly code. That said, they could set out the traditional Paladin code as an example of a LG code. I also don't have an issue with a sidebar setting forth what you listed above being there as well.
The only issue I see is Paladin powers for all alignments, but if smite works on everyone, regardless of alignment as they said in the article, and if the detect can easily be applied to all alignments, then I don't really see a need to detail different Paladin classes in the PHB. How to handle the various alignments would be in the individual power sections that would need some modification based on alignment.
I rather like Holy Smite and Dread Smite in 4th edition. Add to an attack and give an extra effect (dazed or ongoing damage, respectively).
Perhaps instead of saying "here's your alignment based smite" instead say "Here's a selection of smite powers, pick the one that makes sense for your Paladin," and make it so that some of them have the flavor of darker gods, etc.
I could live with that for sure. That said, if you look at the article that opens this thread, Smite Evil is not actually Smite Evil. It works regardless of the moral outlook of who you are smiting. That means you could call it Smite Snails if your God had them for hated enemies and it would still work on those pesky demons you run across.
A paladin can see and smite evil. A paladin knows when something supernaturally adverse to the deity or calling he or she champions is nearby. For instance, although a good paladin cannot unerringly zero in on a specific threat merely by walking past a structure infested with evil, the paladin knows something is wrong. Regardless of a given creature’s actual nature, a paladin can judge it unworthy and smite it with divine power that energizes his or her sword blow.
I know that, I was just thinking of a way to give more options without saying "this is your power and it is holy," if you happen to be not so holy.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitr
I know that, I was just thinking of a way to give more options without saying "this is your power and it is holy," if you happen to be not so holy.
Are you talking about power source?
No, using holy as a synonym that's not really a synonym for good.
They could do that I suppose. A sidebar that contains a list of possible words to use for smiting. But I question if it's really necessary to take up space that might be better suited for other things.
Are you talking about power source?[/quote]No, using holy as a synonym that's not really a synonym for good.[/quote]They could do that I suppose. A sidebar that contains a list of possible words to use for smiting. But I question if it's really nec
BTW, what are the benefits, in your opinion, of having each alignment of paladin detailed in the book, rather than just pointing out that in some campaigns paladins will be LG only, in others they might be Lx only, in still others they might be the alignment of their god, and if you're not using alignment or not having alignment restrictions, they would have no alignment restriction at all?
Obviously this would come with a sidebar detailed different rules for fallen paladins, etc.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitrary knightly code. That said, they could set out the traditional Paladin code as an example of a LG code. I also don't have an issue with a sidebar setting forth what you listed above being there as well.
The only issue I see is Paladin powers for all alignments, but if smite works on everyone, regardless of alignment as they said in the article, and if the detect can easily be applied to all alignments, then I don't really see a need to detail different Paladin classes in the PHB. How to handle the various alignments would be in the individual power sections that would need some modification based on alignment.
Fair enough. I think the knightly nature, in some measure, is more defining of the paladin than anything to do with alignment, or even gods, though. I suppose I'd be ok if they presented example codes that aren't necessarily of a god. I also want paladins to be able to champion an ideal or a pantheon, rather than just a god.
Hmm. I want them to be the alignment of their God, which will mean that there are Paladins of all alignments out there simply because there will be Gods of all alignments. I want their Code to be the tenets/dogma of their God, rather than an arbitr
I hope all of the campaign setting materials stay in sidebar-boxes
- with alternate color backgrounds and titles that say “Optional”.
I want “alignment” in boxes. I want the “codes of behavior” in boxes. I want the “outer planes” in boxes. I want all of the “gods” in boxes. And so on.
Some official campaign settings dont even have “gods” or have Clerics and Paladins who dont worship gods even if the setting have them.
Im sure other people would rather have the “power sources” in boxes, the 4e “cosmology” in boxes, the “racial origins” like Fey or Shadow in boxes and so on.
Nothing wrong with boxes. They protect good stuff and keep things tidy.
I hope all of the campaign setting materials stay in sidebar-boxes - with alternate color backgrounds and titles that say “Optional”.I want “alignment” in boxes. I want the “codes of behavior” in boxes. I want the
I hope all of the campaign setting materials stay in sidebar-boxes
- with alternate color backgrounds and titles that say “Optional”.
I want “alignment” in boxes. I want the “codes of behavior” in boxes. I want the “outer planes” in boxes. I want all of the “gods” in boxes. And so on.
Some official campaign settings dont even have “gods” or have Clerics and Paladins who dont worship gods even if the setting have them.
Im sure other people would rather have the “power sources” in boxes, the 4e “cosmology” in boxes, the “racial origins” like Fey or Shadow in boxes and so on.
Nothing wrong with boxes. They protect good stuff and keep things tidy.
Not trying to rag to hard on you dude but they are far far off from formatting. they probably haven't even figured out what standard formatting they will use. The existance of sidebars is assumeable but trying to speculate on their exact format is a little far off.
Also I'm fairly sure I have heard the devs say that power sources aren't making a reappearance.
Not trying to rag to hard on you dude but they are far far off from formatting. they probably haven't even figured out what standard formatting they will use. The existance of sidebars is assumeable but trying to speculate on their exact format is
I hope all of the campaign setting materials stay in sidebar-boxes
- with alternate color backgrounds and titles that say “Optional”.
I want “alignment” in boxes. I want the “codes of behavior” in boxes. I want the “outer planes” in boxes. I want all of the “gods” in boxes. And so on.
Some official campaign settings dont even have “gods” or have Clerics and Paladins who dont worship gods even if the setting have them.
Im sure other people would rather have the “power sources” in boxes, the 4e “cosmology” in boxes, the “racial origins” like Fey or Shadow in boxes and so on.
Nothing wrong with boxes. They protect good stuff and keep things tidy.
Not trying to rag to hard on you dude but they are far far off from formatting. they probably haven't even figured out what standard formatting they will use. The existance of sidebars is assumeable but trying to speculate on their exact format is a little far off.
Also I'm fairly sure I have heard the devs say that power sources aren't making a reappearance.
Heh, if setting material gets tangled up into the mechanical rules, I will cry.
The Cosmology will be making a reappearance and it is virtually identical to the power sources.
Not trying to rag to hard on you dude but they are far far off from formatting. they probably haven't even figured out what standard formatting they will use. The existance of sidebars is assumeable but trying to speculate on their exact format is
I hope all of the campaign setting materials stay in sidebar-boxes
- with alternate color backgrounds and titles that say “Optional”.
I want “alignment” in boxes. I want the “codes of behavior” in boxes. I want the “outer planes” in boxes. I want all of the “gods” in boxes. And so on.
Some official campaign settings dont even have “gods” or have Clerics and Paladins who dont worship gods even if the setting have them.
Im sure other people would rather have the “power sources” in boxes, the 4e “cosmology” in boxes, the “racial origins” like Fey or Shadow in boxes and so on.
Nothing wrong with boxes. They protect good stuff and keep things tidy.
Not trying to rag to hard on you dude but they are far far off from formatting. they probably haven't even figured out what standard formatting they will use. The existance of sidebars is assumeable but trying to speculate on their exact format is a little far off.
Also I'm fairly sure I have heard the devs say that power sources aren't making a reappearance.
Heh, if setting material gets tangled up into the mechanical rules, I will cry.
The Cosmology will be making a reappearance and it is virtually identical to the power sources.
the 6 plane cosmology may have some parts of it co-opted or some of the ideas for the feywild may be brought in but for the most part your assertions on where power comes from will not be the default presentation of the 5e Books.
Not trying to rag to hard on you dude but they are far far off from formatting. they probably haven't even figured out what standard formatting they will use. The existance of sidebars is assumeable but trying to speculate on their exact format is
I'm really glad the the Axis will be completely usable in Next no matter what they do.
There's no way in any of the hells I'm using the great wheel.
What if one of your players wants to use the wheel as part of their backstory?
I'll encorporate it into the Axis. It's easy.
But it won't come up, because no one in my group likes the wheel.
Because it's terrible. :P
What if one of your players wants to use the wheel as part of their backstory?[/quote]I'll encorporate it into the Axis. It's easy. But it won't come up, because no one in my group likes the wheel. Because it's terrible. :P
I'm really glad the the Axis will be completely usable in Next no matter what they do. There's no way in any of the hells I'm using the great wheel.
What if one of your players wants to use the wheel as part of their backstory?
Probably about the same as a player that wants to use the axis as part of their backstory in a group that's using the Great Wheel.
What if one of your players wants to use the wheel as part of their backstory?[/quote]Probably about the same as a player that wants to use the axis as part of their backstory in a group that's using the Great Wheel.
Just to be contrary - it would if alignment languages *ha* still existed.
Note: Humor. Alignment languages seem pointless and silly to me. But it's a mechanic that only works if you're using alignment, allowing communication between beings which would not normally be able to communicate. A player decided to roleplay as though they were LG in a game that doesn't use alignment, and thus no alignment languages, would not be able to use the correlative mechanic regardless of how hard they roleplayed - because just because a player roleplays something, doesn't magically make that something exist in the game world.
Just to be contrary - it would if alignment languages *ha* still existed. Note: Humor. Alignment languages seem pointless and silly to me. But it's a mechanic that only works if you're using alignment, allowing communication between beings which woul
The entire Wheel can fit inside a domain in the Astral Sea.
My cosmology is more infinite than your cosmology. And it'd totally win in a knife fight.
You tink that's a knife? No, that's a knife. Spoiler:Show
My cosmology is more infinite than your cosmology. And it'd totally win in a knife fight.[/quote]You tink that's a knife? No, that's a knife.Spoiler:
Show
I'm really glad the the Axis will be completely usable in Next no matter what they do.
There's no way in any of the hells I'm using the great wheel.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.
well on cosmolegy i only have 1 point.
Cosmolegy should be campaign based, the campaign should use the cosmolegy best suited for the story of that campaign.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.[/quote]well on cosmolegy i only have 1 point.Cosmolegy should be campaign based, the campaign should use the cosmolegy best suited for the
I'm really glad the the Axis will be completely usable in Next no matter what they do.
There's no way in any of the hells I'm using the great wheel.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.
Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother.
And the perfectly symmetrical circle grid just feels fake and forced to me, anyway.
I could use some variation of the world tree, the axis, or maybe something new, but no the wheel.
If one of the other DMs in my group went mad and decided they liked the wheel, and convinced the group to play with it, my character would be built to have nothing to do with the planes, whatsoever, in the hopes that I could just forget that we're using the wheel and enjoy the game.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.[/quote]Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother. And the perfectly symmetrical circle grid just feels fake and forced
I'm really glad the the Axis will be completely usable in Next no matter what they do.
There's no way in any of the hells I'm using the great wheel.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.
Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother.
Yes, I see you have been to the planes before.
And the perfectly symmetrical circle grid just feels fake and forced to me, anyway.
Its just an artistic rendering of an infinite idea - no more fake then planet hell for example.
I could use some variation of the world tree, the axis, or maybe something new, but no the wheel.
If one of the other DMs in my group went mad and decided they liked the wheel, and convinced the group to play with it, my character would be built to have nothing to do with the planes, whatsoever, in the hopes that I could just forget that we're using the wheel and enjoy the game.
Odd, but a barmy sod from the Prime is a Planescape trope afterall.
I like to imagine that the Wheel has enough room in it for all the new ideas, from Darksun, Eberron, the Elemental Chaos as well as the Primes of course.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.[/quote]Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother.[/quote]Yes, I see you have been to the planes before.Its just an art
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I posted that tradition was relevant. I posted that tradition had value if WoTC lost $$$ from breaking with tradition. None of that ran afoul of the fallacy.
No. Assigning value to tradition does not run afoul of the form.
It's not the only argument, though. If changing tradition causes WoTC to lose more $$$ than if they kept it, that loss of revenue is a reason to keep it, even if that loss of revenue is based solely off of tradition.
Personally, I don't believe that would occur, though.
I have to agree with most of this. Traditionalism is important. That is probably a good reason why WOTC need to rethink its strategy. If they don't keep enough of the tradition, I am going to give my money to places that do. It seems like WOTC learned not to turn away from the tradition that still makes a good game as seen by the market share.
I have to agree with most of this. Traditionalism is important. That is probably a good reason why WOTC need to rethink its strategy. If they don't keep enough of the tradition, I am going to give my money to places that do. It seems like WOTC le
Gah ... alignment restrictions and mechanics are back. I see my first houserules forming already ...
2. A paladin can see and smite evil.
A paladin knows when something supernaturally adverse to the deity or calling he or she champions is nearby. For instance, although a good paladin cannot unerringly zero in on a specific threat merely by walking past a structure infested with evil, the paladin knows something is wrong. Regardless of a given creature’s actual nature, a paladin can judge it unworthy and smite it with divine power that energizes his or her sword blow.
I'm against alignment restrictions and mechanics, but I'm not convinced that they're really used here. I interpret this as saying that a Paladin can sense evil, to satisfy the alignment folk, but that it is completely inconsequential to whether or not the object of the Paladin's attack is going to be smote or not.
Or this could be seen as a work around to bind the Paladin to alignment without stating it outright, by making him most effective against evil monsters (Demons and Undead and such). I'm not sure what I think about that idea yet, but I don't think there's anything explicit with alignment here.
OK, well, not going to read 66 pages, lol.
I agree. I think you can basically interpret this kind of language in a variety of ways. In games where formal alignments are largely ignored/not used you can simply clearly define the goals and strictures of whatever the paladin represents a champion of. You could also express this in terms of alignment. I doubt it really matters because nobody can agree on what alignment IS anyway, so either the DM is communicating his idea of what alignment means OR he's giving the player a description of the actual philosophy/cause that the character is expected to be constrained by.
I don't think it is a bad idea to have some sort of conceptual 'structure' in the rules that assists players and DMs in making the 'champion of ...' concept have some substance.
2. A paladin can see and smite evil.A paladin knows when something supernaturally adverse to the deity or calling he or she champions is nearby. For instance, although a good paladin cannot unerringly zero in on a specific threat merely by walking pa
I'm really glad the the Axis will be completely usable in Next no matter what they do.
There's no way in any of the hells I'm using the great wheel.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.
Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother.
And the perfectly symmetrical circle grid just feels fake and forced to me, anyway.
I could use some variation of the world tree, the axis, or maybe something new, but no the wheel.
If one of the other DMs in my group went mad and decided they liked the wheel, and convinced the group to play with it, my character would be built to have nothing to do with the planes, whatsoever, in the hopes that I could just forget that we're using the wheel and enjoy the game.
Yeah, I found the whole GW concept rather trite, amongst other things.
As a contrast to Shasarak's "you can do anything with the GW" I would point out that the 4e Cosmology is actually in effect a SUPERSET of the GW cosmology. You can have an Astral or Elemental domain representing any or all of the old outer planes. You can have regions or domains of the Elemental Chaos that reproduce all the characteristics of the old inner planes as well. The Feywild and Shadowfell don't exactly map to specific GW localities, but there was certainly a "plane of shadow" that pretty well matches with the Shadowfell, and there were various outer planes that correspond more-or-less with the Feywild. Playing out anything from pre-4e within the 4e cosmology is trivially easy. The GW can be portrayed as one way of visualizing the cosmos if you want.
4e cosmology is just MUCH more flexible overall. You can play it out as much like GW or as a very different and more classic mythological setup more along the lines that the 4e default setting has done.
Really the only one thing that the 4e cosmology has pretty much dropped is the Ethereal Plane, but how much is that going to be missed? You can travel in the Astral and Elemental planes, which gives the same effect. Being insubstantial and phasing produces pretty much the same mechanics as ethereal did in previous editions. Doesn't seem like anything useful is lost there.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.[/quote]Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother. And the perfectly symmetrical circle grid just feels fake and forced
I'm really glad the the Axis will be completely usable in Next no matter what they do.
There's no way in any of the hells I'm using the great wheel.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.
Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother.
Yes, I see you have been to the planes before.
And the perfectly symmetrical circle grid just feels fake and forced to me, anyway.
Its just an artistic rendering of an infinite idea - no more fake then planet hell for example.
The hells as a "planet" makes complete sense, imo.
Actually as the great wheel is supposed to be essentially infinite, there is probably enough room for the Axis.[/quote]Except that things would be doubled, and contradict eachother.[/quote]Yes, I see you have been to the planes before.Its just an art
, I can empathize greatly. 
