|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 2:23PM
#341
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
For a full half of the editions, there have been PALADINS with alignments other than LG. There is no tradition where only the LG alignment holy warriors are called paladins.
In setting-specific supplements.
Incorrect. The Paladins of other alignments from 3e and 4e were not setting specific at all.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 2:27PM
#342
|
|
|
OTOH One of the things that I enjoyed about 4e was that it was a big change for D&D. The felt fresh and new again, not just the same ol', same ol'.
I really liked the 4E approach to the Paladin, but I think they would have retained at least some of the nostalgic factor if they'd simply named their mark "smite heretic" or something similar. As I understand it that is the path they're planning on taking in 5E.
Do you mean there will be paladins of all alignments (like 4e)? Will the feature names be more evocative of what the paly typically does?
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 2:29PM
#343
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
OTOH One of the things that I enjoyed about 4e was that it was a big change for D&D. The felt fresh and new again, not just the same ol', same ol'.
I really liked the 4E approach to the Paladin, but I think they would have retained at least some of the nostalgic factor if they'd simply named their mark "smite heretic" or something similar. As I understand it that is the path they're planning on taking in 5E.
Do you mean there will be paladins of all alignments (like 4e)? Will the feature names be more evocative of what the paly typically does?
Just reflavor things if you need a Smite X. Like, reflavor a Paladin's damage feature as Smite Enemy.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 2:55PM
#344
|
|
|
The paly used to be my favorite class (pre-4e). I agree completely with you here.
OTOH One of the things that I enjoyed about 4e was that it was a big change for D&D. The felt fresh and new again, not just the same ol', same ol'. Also, 4e gave me the warlord as compensation for loss of the paladin. So it evened out in the end for me  .
It's funny how two people sometimes, can agree on one thing and completely disagree on another .
Don't get me wrong, I personally prefer the flavor of the 4th edition paladins. I'm not alergic to changes, I'm alergic to so many changes that I don't recognize the game I grew up with. I don't want any class to have alignment-based mechanics because so many people don't like alignments and I don't want to impose a playstyle to others if that can be avoided.
I'd rather keep the term Paladin for a specialty that focuses on defeating evil creatures though. This specialty would have feats such as protection from evil, smite evil, detect evil, etc... Making it a specialty would make it easy to remove from the game without removing the divine warrior archetype.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 3:16PM
#345
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2007
|
Do you mean there will be paladins of all alignments (like 4e)? Will the feature names be more evocative of what the paly typically does?
Sorry, I meant to say that the 5E paladins are supposed to have smite abilities again, but not ones tied specifically to alignment. The idea (I suppose) is to make them more generally useful.
As I understand it they're planning on restricting Paladins to any Lawful alignment, allowing for at least Neutral and Evil Paladins on the alignment scale. I'd rather see them available as any alignment personally.
Keep in mind that this is just based off an article that was published a few months ago, and may end up bearing no resemblance to the final product.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 3:32PM
#346
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
Don't get me wrong, I personally prefer the flavor of the 4th edition paladins. I'm not alergic to changes, I'm alergic to so many changes that I don't recognize the game I grew up with. I don't want any class to have alignment-based mechanics because so many people don't like alignments and I don't want to impose a playstyle to others if that can be avoided.
I'd rather keep the term Paladin for a specialty that focuses on defeating evil creatures though. This specialty would have feats such as protection from evil, smite evil, detect evil, etc... Making it a specialty would make it easy to remove from the game without removing the divine warrior archetype.
I think I understand what you're saying and if I do I like it.
A class that is not paladin but some "holy" warrior type has specialties that cover the various kinds of "paladins" we've had in previous editions. The LG smiting evil one actually called Paladin.
Interesting. I see that as very cool.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 3:33PM
#347
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2007
|
For a full half of the editions, there have been PALADINS with alignments other than LG. There is no tradition where only the LG alignment holy warriors are called paladins.
In setting-specific supplements.
Incorrect. The Paladins of other alignments from 3e and 4e were not setting specific at all.
I can only think of one PrC off the top of my head that shared a lot of the mechanics of the Paladin and was setting specific. It was something like the Soldier of Light, but I never owned the book it was in so I can't look it up for you sorry.
Otherwise, all the PrC's that were obvious Paladin clones were generic. Likewise the full base classes that were eventually published.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 3:37PM
#348
|
|
|
I mentioned this earlier in the thread (somewhere ): If the paladin in DDN can be of any alignment (like in 4e), then I'd like to see each alignment get its own version; a 'holy warrior' if you will, a group of divine champions. Paladin would get to be the poster boy of course . Dragon Magazine had a couple of articles that explored this idea, early in the v3.5 days.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 6:22PM
#349
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
No you can't. No unit that is regimented and organized is out for themselves. A unit of people out for themselves cannot work cohesively. Period.
I can't believe you really believe this. Wow. I offer it as exhibit A as to why your wrong.
Do you really believe every effective soldier in the U.S. army is lawful? really?
Well have fun with your way. I don't think it would work for me. The information you track is also kind of boring. Not sure why I even care. It's far more dramatic and interesting to know what really motivates a character based upon his associates and his causes.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 8:52PM
#350
|
|
|
Do you really believe every effective soldier in the U.S. army is lawful? really?
This might come as a real shock to you, so be seated when you read this: Alignment does not exist in real life. You cannot easily categorize every living human being into nine tiny boxes, no matter how you twist or turn it. Sorry I had to burst your bubble.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell! I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
