|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:52PM
#181
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
One last time I will say this: This is one reason why I feel the two visions should be seperated. It is possible to please both sides.
Which visions are you speaking about?
Gods vs. Non-Gods/Beliefs
OR
Alignment Specific (LG) vs. Multiple-Alignment/No-Alignment requirements?
And how does making multiple classes that just facilitate the same thing make the game better? Because you know that in a game with supported classes of non-alignment classes vs. alignment-restricted classes that the non-alignment classes will probably (my guess) be selected over alignment-required ones except for those DMs who restrict it to one version only. But then what did that just prove? That if a DM is going to enforce alignment elements in a game then he'll/she'll do so regardless of what some book says. And in games where the alignment-restricted class is the only one supported, you'll just have players make Figter/Cleric characters and call themselves "Paladins" in character.
Basically it's us wanting the rules to validate our perferred style of play (regardless of what side your on).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:53PM
#182
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
1) Paladins have existed in multiple alignments for two editions now.
2) You mean D&D?
1) Actually, before, and again, the same trite little variants
2) No, some other game some seem bent on distorting D&D into.
They've been bent on it for more than a decade. It's over and done with. Either D&D has not been D&D for 12+ years, or it is D&D and paladins of other alignments won't change it.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:54PM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
1) I thought (hoped) this thread wasn't going to go into the alignement sh!t-hole??
2) Your definition of Paladin isn't perfect and isn't shared by a portion of the community.
3) The #2 response is just plain edition-war bating. Sorta sloppy too. Shame.......
1) Well, that's just vulgar and uncalled for, but, considering the source...
2) I didn't define, and are you implicating that you type for a portion of the community?
3) Ha, amusing (and hypocritical), please explain (this should be good...).
For shame, major: "...you have brought shame on your houses!" *said like Hasslehoff in Dodgeball*
P.S. And please spell "alignment" properly if you want to have a discussion about it.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:55PM
#184
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
2) I didn't define, and are you implicating that you type for a portion of the community?
It's painfully obvious that a large portion of the community likes paladins with multiple alignments.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:57PM
#185
|
|
|
One last time I will say this: This is one reason why I feel the two visions should be seperated. It is possible to please both sides.
Or they could make one Paladin class that can easily cater to both visions. The 4e Paladin did it fine.
This.
At least in 4E one DM can say "Because Paladins are the champions of goodness, I will not have any Paladins on my table that are not Lawful Good," while another DM can say "As long as the Paladin's alignment is similar to that of their deity and their religion, they can be any alignment they want to be," and another DM can say "There are no divine classes in my campaign, but considering you're playing that Paladin as a magical knight, let's go with that." No mechanical tweaking needed, just campaign/table-based restrictions as agreed upon by the group.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:57PM
#186
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
They've been bent on it for more than a decade. It's over and done with. Either D&D has not been D&D for 12+ years, or it is D&D and paladins of other alignments won't change it.
D&D has been D&D, to a lesser or greater degree, making Seaworld pally-friends is not.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:58PM
#187
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
They've been bent on it for more than a decade. It's over and done with. Either D&D has not been D&D for 12+ years, or it is D&D and paladins of other alignments won't change it.
D&D has been D&D, to a lesser or greater degree, making Seaworld pally-friends is not.
What?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 9:59PM
#188
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
It's painfully obvious that a large portion of the community likes paladins with multiple alignments.
I feel no pain, or see any obviousness.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 10:06PM
#189
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
It's painfully obvious that a large portion of the community likes paladins with multiple alignments.
I feel no pain, or see any obviousness.
Then pull your head out of the sand. It's clear to anyone who is paying attention that both sides have large followings. They only way to satisfy both is to put paladins of all alignments into the game and then give the option to play only LG if you want to. Either that or put the paladins of other alignments into the PHB as an option for those that want to use them. However WoTC wants to do it, paladins of all alignments must be in the PHB.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 10:09PM
#190
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
1) Well, that's just vulgar and uncalled for, but, considering the source...
Not really, the OP's request for it not to devolve into an Alignment debate ended sometime around page 14 or so. I had hoped it would remain until now. It's a shame that it hasn't.
2) I didn't define, and are you implicating that you type for a portion of the community?
No, you stated your desire for what Paladins are (that they're the epitome of Law and Good, blah blah) and calling it anything else isn't really a "paladin" and thus, ripping the guts from the game *rolle eyes*. I'm implicating that there is a portion of the community that would like to see Paladins remain decoupled from Alignment-based requirements, restrictions, and mechanics (myself among them).
3) Ha, amusing (and hypocritical), please explain (this should be good...).
Basically this:
Steely_Dan: "But, ya know, screw it, lets rip the guts out of this game and turn into something else...?"
Maxperson: "You mean D&D?"
Steely_Dan: "No, some other game some seem bent on distorting D&D into"
I took that as a reference to 4E since paladin's don't have any Alignment restrictions. Perhaps I was wrong and I apologize for that infraction.
P.S. And please spell "alignment" properly if you want to have a discussion about it.
Um...........sorry for spelling it wrong once in multiple thread? Do I get points deducted or something for this infraction??
|
|
|
