AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

WinterBlaze wrote:

That way of reasoning sort of defeats itself... in that there can be a new paladin code created for evil deities, just as with the first paladins code, prior to the codes being created there were no paladins. So theoretically there can be an evil paladins code written up and followed. Just with that it could be built around the first code, meeting the main structure and guidelines.

But that would no longer be a paladin. What you're describing would be like saying, "There can be a new ability created for wizards, that has nothing to do with magic. Prior to magic, there were no wizards, so theoretically there could be non-magic-using wizards, just as easily as there could be magic-using wizards."

Being LG is the definition of the word "paladin." Once you've strayed from LG, you're no longer a paladin. You're something else. Not necessarily inferior, or silly, or undesirable, or less valid as a character concept. It's just not a paladin.

I don't think you understand. A new code could be written, but it wouldn't be an Evil Paladin's Code. It would be a set of rules or guidelines that, if followed, would bestow none of the powers of a Paladin. They wouldn't be a paladin. They would just be a person following a code inspired by the code of a paladin. If there were to be a new "evil paladin's code" written, it wouldn't be a PC doing so. That would be under the purview of the deities themselves (controlled by the DMs, as you say). Thats not to say a PC can't write a code and play a character that follows it, they just wouldn't gain any of the benefits of a paladin from doing so.

Personally as someone who played a prominent paladin for years and interacted with a bunch of Kelemvorite and Helmite paladin who were pretty much well played, I can hardly understand the point of this thread.
...and Alamut...you are playing paladins since you started playing on this server, so I'm pretty sure that you actually know the answer of this question, especially since you asked the very same question sometimes ago and both of us found the answer for the very same question IG

Last edited by IronAngel on Fri, Oct 19 2012, 8:34 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I'm having a hard time following this topic. There seems to be two levels of discussion intertwining here: what paladins are as a given, and what they could/should be. Those two have nothing to do with eachother. You can answer a question like "why are paladins like that" or "should paladins be like that" by stating paladins are like that (by definition, if you will). That's not a rational answer. I doubt anyone of sound mind can say they would make the paladin class what it is now if they could start from scratch. But at the same time it's the status quo we have to adapt to for practical and conservative reasons.

In a world where divine power comes from gods, it's hard to calcify a class. If an evil god wanted to sponsor paladins, there's absolutely no metaphysical reason he shouldn't be able to. And to a more realistic and commonly acknowledged extent, it's awkward and bad design that many gods have to impose expectations and values they don't themselves share or care about, on their paladins. Then there's the fact that it's a base class, while the more generic Divine Champion is a Prestige Class; an unforgivable oversight. This is all part of the commonsensical, undeniable part of what's wrong about paladin design. It's a different, equally obvious but more contested problem, that the alignment system itself is garbage and does nothing but harm to role-playing and storytelling.

It's pretty clear we're not going to change classes drastically on Amia. Primarily it has to do with conservatism and a respect for the game the way it was designed. But you need to acknowledge the difference between accepting the status quo and mistaking that resignation for a good justification. Eurgiga and WinterBlaze are very close to a sensible position here, so it's kind of silly to argue with them. No, it's not what the game pigeonholes us into accepting, but it's much closer to how it should be.

[/gospel]

Sometimes I wonder if IronAngel thinks he's playing a completely different game than D&D.

Last edited by IronAngel on Fri, Oct 19 2012, 8:40 AM, edited 1 time in total.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if IronAngel thinks he's playing a completely different game than D&D.

Aren't I? The last I checked, I connect to Amia. Not PHB. Beyond the material lore of the setting and its function as a source of inspiration, D&D should have no relevance here.

To elaborate in an edit, as is my custom! Sure, we can use D&D as the default position to fall back to when we don't have a better answer. And we should, because it's what we have. But inherently, it has no authoritative value to us. None whatsoever. If we see something we don't like or if we get a good idea, we should change it. What matters is what our players and DMs think is the best argued alternative to improve the game. One option's status as in keeping with D&D should give it no additional value. At the very most, a healthy conservatism should prevent us from changing the basis of the game every week, but even that weighs very lightly when you really start to evaluate some issue.

That's ridiculously silly. Amia -is- D&D. You're just arguing semantics.

IronAngel wrote:

In a world where divine power comes from gods, it's hard to calcify a class. If an evil god wanted to sponsor paladins, there's absolutely no metaphysical reason he shouldn't be able to. And to a more realistic and commonly acknowledged extent, it's awkward and bad design that many gods have to impose expectations and values they don't themselves share or care about, on their paladins.

This is what I was getting at ultimately, just didn't have the words for it

IronAngel wrote:

...it's awkward and bad design that many gods have to impose expectations and values they don't themselves share or care about, on their paladins.

I don't understand why there's this belief that paladins have to act at all different than his god's dogma. That Paladin's code book you get when you make a paladin is a guideline. Really, any good aligned character should consider all of those items. A paladin only has to uphold his god's dogma, nothing more.

Last edited by Liz on Fri, Oct 19 2012, 8:47 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I thoroughly disagree, Iron. Yes, if I were designing a game like D&D from scratch, I'd include something very like a paladin. The shiny noble hero is a classical trope in gaming, it's been with us since the beginning, and it deserves a defined place in the world.

You use words like "commonsensical" and "undeniable," but neither is applicable. I don't find anything about paladins to be less than commonsensical, and I think your argument is fundamentally deniable. You're just asserting a position and declaring it to be proven by virtue of the declaration itself.

I'll agree that the alignment system is utterly absurd, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. You don't need an alignment system to have paladins. You just need the IC requirement that paladins behave according to the ideals of goodness and honor. Those concepts exist with or without the letters "LG" on your character sheet.

Made sense to me.

Lizzie wrote:

I'll agree that the alignment system is utterly absurd, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. You don't need an alignment system to have paladins. You just need the IC requirement that paladins behave according to the ideals of goodness and honor. Those concepts exist with or without the letters "LG" on your character sheet.

Except that it's a metaphysical restriction nobody actually wants to enforce IC. That's the issue in our setting. There are a precious few gods and churches who embody the ideals of paladinhood. Probably only Torm, Tyr and Ilmater. Whatever the rulebook says, Mystra or Hoar and their churches couldn't give a rat's ass about half the paladin rules, and there's no reason, from their perspective, that they should enforce these external values on what is essentially the ultimate champion of their faith. Sure, there can be paladins of the current style in a setting without alignment (restrictions), but they wouldn't have those inexplicable exclusive rights to the class. It really boils down to the question of Divine Champion vs Paladin, I guess. There's just no way it can be good design to make the more specific, exclusive and problematic one a base class, and the generalist choice a weaker Prestige Class. There's no IC reason the paladin powers are exclusive to paladins, and no IC reason most churches and gods that do in fact sponsor paladins should choose to sponsor them rather than Divine Champions who serve their cause better.

There are two alternatives: either the gods want to invest a lot of energy into their most powerful mortal champions and then impose restrictions that hamper them from doing their duty as the god and church sees fit, or there is a higher restriction imposed by the alignment system. The former doesn't make sense, so it must be the latter; the gods are somehow metaphysically prevented from sponsoring base class champions if they don't adhere to a specific set of values. But that's arbitrary and silly, and therefore in an ideal, improved setting it would be ignored.

Sure we can work around this. The Paladins of the Realms series was started to address this problem precisely. But the fact that we have to make an effort in the first place suggests the class is not a seamless, unproblematic part of the setting.

I agree with everything you just wrote, Iron. But I consider all of it to be an argument in favor of making paladins *more* exclusive, not less. You're perfectly correct that there's no logical reason that most LN and NG gods should make a habit of supporting paladins. So the logical solution: don't let them. Scrap the one-step rule for paladins, and restrict the class to dogmas that make sense. I'd include a few more dieties on the list than just the three you named (Arvoreen, several of the dwarven gods), but the list should be way shorter than merely "all LG, NG, and LN gods, and a few CG ones too, just because." (Paladins of Eldath? Preposterous.)

Last edited by IronAngel on Fri, Oct 19 2012, 9:33 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, but at the same time it's a base class and a very powerful one at that. There's no reason any deity wouldn't want a mortal servant who shrugs off spells and poisons by the sheer force of their charisma, knows no fear, imbues his weapon with divine force and smacks enemies of the faith around. What's keeping any deity from sponsoring servants with paladin powers? (Obviously, Smite Evil should be Smite Infidel and certain abilities would be faith-dependant.) Looking from the perspective of the gods and churches, there's no reason they wouldn't want someone with paladin powers serving them. Why would only a handful of honorable, chivalric gods have exclusive rights to sponsor them? (And yeah, I was only thinking of the Faerûnian pantheon; there are more candidates in the demihuman and other pantheons.)

There's always the interpretation that their power comes in part from their virtue itself. But I don't buy that. It's romantic IC propaganda, not a viable objective explanation of a real imbalance between gods. "I can give my servants spells to travel the planes and shake the earth, I can see across a thousand miles and undead around the world tremble at my name; but damn, I can't give a Saves Bonus to that one dude unless he takes his hat off indoors."

Another thought, to respond to your edits:

A game mechanic doesn't have to be "seamless and unproblematic" to have virtue as a game mechanic.

Being a paladin is meant to be hard. It's not only supposed to be harder than being a fighter or rogue or some class that has no code of conduct. It's also supposed to be harder even than being a normal servant of the divine. Harder even than being a LG cleric. Paladins are supposed to be (or at least, the rules and setting encourage them to try to be) shining beacons of hope and inspiration, stalwart and resolute in the face of even the most compelling temptation. They're supposed to be the people who other look to for their example. The fact that Amia doesn't often seem to do an especially great job of providing compelling temptations doesn't mean we should water down the class by loosening the dogma.

Those things don't translate well into non-good alignments. It's far more difficult to be profoundly good than it is to be profoundly neutral. Detachment and indifference are easy. Anyone can do them. People don't need a shining example of neutrality to look to; they can find that within their own hearts themselves.

Someone who can successfully pull off that high-wire act *deserves* a special category all their own. They deserve to have a set of abilities unique to them, unique to their mission as exemplars of goodness, as acknowledgement and encouragement from their gods. Being profoundly neutral (to say nothing of profoundly evil) is not challenging in the soul in the same way that being extremely good is. A person dedicated to neutrality is either one who has given up the fight, or one who has decided not to take sides. That's not deserving of the same sort of reward.

So, yes. Having a separate paladin class in the game for LG people only is clumsy and imbalanced, but its benefits far exceed its flaws.

It sounds to me like you just perfectly described the Divine Champion class, Iron. In fact, (as someone reminded me earlier tonight) the numbers show that Divine Champions are even better at shrugging off spells, gaining +1 saves for 2 class levels. They have the same BAB progression. They have Purge Infidel. The only thing they don't get is Divine Might and Divine Shield, but they get other things that a paladin doesn't, like more feats and Divine Wrath.

I sort of agree, Lizzie. I think it's a cool class in many ways, and I think you should impose restrictions and challenges on yourself no matter what kind of a divine servant you play. But that's kind of a storytelling perspective. Gods and churches don't sponsor champions of any class primarily or only as a reward. It has to arise from their own needs; they want a powerful warrior to fight for their cause. If you were, say, Oghma and you saw a Tyrran paladin defending churches and spreading the church's fame far and wide, wouldn't you want to sponsor a champion of your own to protect libraries and concert halls and spread the good word of education? You wouldn't think "Oh damn, my faith isn't challenging enough and I'm pretty lame myself, so I guess I shouldn't get myself a powerful champion."

I guess it's a matter of consistency over robust flavor. Though I think any god could demand a lot from their servants, even if it's harder to find the right angle for some faiths. But yes, your perspective is pretty good because the alignments really aren't symmetric. It's hard to be good. (And that brings us to how stupid a symmetric, mathematical alignment system is...)

DerkDerkistan wrote:

It sounds to me like you just perfectly described the Divine Champion class, Iron. In fact, (as someone reminded me earlier tonight) the numbers show that Divine Champions are even better at shrugging off spells, gaining +1 saves for 2 class levels. They have the same BAB progression. They have Purge Infidel. The only thing they don't get is Divine Might and Divine Shield, but they get other things that a paladin doesn't, like more feats and Divine Wrath.

Uh? Turn Undead. Immunity to Fear and Disease (and a freebie remove disease). Up to 4th level spellcasting with some pretty nice spells. Not that the two aren't comparable, but it's hardly the only thing missing.

IronAngel wrote:

But that's kind of a storytelling perspective.

The best kind.

Oh, and you'd have to be a 20th level Divine Champion before matching the saves of a charisma heavy paladin, assuming 10 paladin levels and a CHA mod of 10.

And it's the principle of the matter: a Prestige Class shouldn't be the primary generalist choice, when a Base Class is some obscure, asymmetrical, exclusive superhuman that doesn't really fit most faiths and people who meet the requirements.

Immunity to Fear and Disease is almost worthless on Amia due to Mindblank potions and Bubbly potions. Turn Undead is only useful for the aforementioned two feats I already said Divine Champions are missing. If anyone's using Turn Undead to, you know, turn undead...they're doing it wrong.

I'll grant you the spells, but really, you get GMW and Divine Favor. Those are your two big spells. Holy Sword is okay but nobody uses it with any regularity, even after it got fixed.

How heavy do you think the requirements are for that prestige class? I'll give you a hint: It's not nearly as hard to get into as being a paladin is.

Weapon Focus + BAB 7. That's it.

Strictly speaking, the only mechanical requirement for paladin is an alignment one. You don't even need BAB and the weapon focus. It's a BASE class. You might argue that the "difficult" RP requirements are what justifies the extra effectiveness...and sure, I can buy that, except that I see a whole lot pretty mediocre paladins that don't fall. Which is the whole problem and most of the argument. When the balancing factor is DM enforcement and RP quality, the system breaks. That shining paladin I believe Liz describes certainly doesn't match most of the paladins I've ran into.

IronAngel wrote:

If you were, say, Oghma and you saw a Tyrran paladin defending churches and spreading the church's fame far and wide, wouldn't you want to sponsor a champion of your own to protect libraries and concert halls and spread the good word of education? You wouldn't think "Oh damn, my faith isn't challenging enough and I'm pretty lame myself, so I guess I shouldn't get myself a powerful champion."

I absolutely would, yes. But why would that champion look like a paladin? Why would a library guardian need to be able to turn undead? Why would an educator need to be able to cast Holy Sword? Is there really a lot of need for smiting evil in a museum? The abilities of a "paladin of Oghma" would include things like truesight, divinations, spells of communication and knowledge.

The tools given to a paladin are fitting for someone whose mission is "go out into the world and be an exemplar of honor and goodness and compassion and righteousness," not one whose mission is "go out into the world and protect knowledge and art." Unfortunately, NWN doesn't currently give us the option of having a customized "paladin" class for every god in the game. But that's not a reason to water down paladins: their tools are specific to their unique mission.

Thinking out loud here. If someone wanted to see how a paladin would work out for them, what's the best way for them to do that in-game without committing to playing one right now? LG divine champion maybe? Or something else?

NinjaClarinet wrote:

... I see a whole lot pretty mediocre paladins that don't fall. Which is the whole problem and most of the argument. When the balancing factor is DM enforcement and RP quality, the system breaks. That shining paladin I believe Liz describes certainly doesn't match most of the paladins I've ran into.

I agree, but I'd argue (again) that making the paladin class less restrictive would be fixing the wrong side of the problem. Leave the paladin class as restrictive as it is (or even more so), but restore the RP portion of the class's requirements to the prominence it deserves.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

Strictly speaking, the only mechanical requirement for paladin is an alignment one. You don't even need BAB and the weapon focus. It's a BASE class. You might argue that the "difficult" RP requirements are what justifies the extra effectiveness...and sure, I can buy that, except that I see a whole lot pretty mediocre paladins that don't fall. Which is the whole problem and most of the argument. When the balancing factor is DM enforcement and RP quality, the system breaks. That shining paladin I believe Liz describes certainly doesn't match most of the paladins I've ran into.

I like the idea of Divine Champion as a standard class and a Paladin as a prestige class.

And by the way... should you strictly follow your patron's Dogma as a paladin, I dare to say that you'd be in 80% in direct conflict with the Paladin's codex. Because most dieties, even good ones, have something little there and there that violates the codex. A little "uphold the good of others above law" or "be merciless to those that blah blah blah... " - sounds good in a dogma, a bit no no in the codex.

Paladin class is a hardcore and it should be play that way. The fact it is being taken "lightly" here does not change a thing. I have also saw many a paladin in action and should I be in charge, there would be some serious alignment shifting (a side note, DM's were not present during these "meetings". Maybe they would agree if they were, but that's a different question).

I do not say Iron is 100% right, but I agree with his point of view mostly.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

You might argue that the "difficult" RP requirements are what justifies the extra effectiveness...

That is exactly what I was getting at. You have quite a lot more freedom with a DC than a paladin.

And Guardian, name me one paladin that ever became Fallen for following his god's dogma over the silly book you get at level 2. The god's dogma should always override the book. I should also ask you to give me instances where the book differs from what any particular paladin-granting god is anyway.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

And Guardian, name me one paladin that ever became Fallen for following his god's dogma over the silly book you get at level 2. The god's dogma should always override the book. I should also ask you to give me instances where the book differs from what any particular paladin-granting god is anyway.

Okay, I will try to say a little more clear.

I think that God's dogma overrules everything in a life of a true devout. But how can you play a LG paladin and follow a dogma of LN deity? It is easy... you cannot. Sooner or later you'd violate the Paladin's codex. Therefore you cannot play a paladin. You should be playing a DC.

As for the : give me an example. C'mon... be a doll and look yourself. I recommend you this

Linking to a sourcebook does you no good. Link from within it.

I'll quote Helm's (LN) dogma to you:

"Never betray your trust. Be vigilant. Stand, wait, and watch carefully. Be fair and diligent in the conduct of your orders. Protect the weak, poor, injured, and young, and do not sacrifice them for others or yourself. Anticipate attacks and be ready. Know your foes. Care for your weapons so they may perform their duties when called upon. Careful planning always defeats rushed actions in the end. Always obey orders, providing those orders follow the dictates of Helm. Demonstrate excellence and purity of loyalty in your role as a guardian and protector."

Sounds like a paladin to me.

Or what about Hoar? Also LN:

"Uphold true and fitting justice and maintain the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Fitting recompense will always accrue for one's actions. Violence will meet violence and evil pay back evil, but good will also come to those who do good. Walk the line of the Doombringer's teachings, seeking retribution, but do not fall into the trap of pursuing evil acts for evil's sake, for that way is seductive and leads only to one's downfall. Vengeance must be sought for all injustices, and all punishments must fit the crime. Revenge is sweetest when it is sharpened with irony. All attacks must be avenged. Those who do not respond to attacks against their person or that which they hold dear only invite future attacks."

It's a little dicier, but that is also a very paladin-friendly dogma.

I find it amusing that someone is quoting dogma of Helm to me, but nevermind. Sure it does sound easy to follow and almost like a missing part from Paladin's codex, but trust me, there are situations that brings you to the verge of betraying either the dogma, or the codex.

I'll quote something a little more evident, since you asked for it :

"Uphold true and fitting justice and maintain the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Fitting recompense will always accrue for one's actions. Violence will meet violence and evil pay back evil, but good will also come to those who do good. Walk the line of the Doombringer's teachings, seeking retribution, but do not fall into the trap of pursuing evil acts for evil's sake, for that way is seductive and leads only to one's downfall. Vengeance must be sought for all injustices, and all punishments must fit the crime. Revenge is sweetest when it is sharpened with irony. All attacks must be avenged. Those who do not respond to attacks against their person or that which they hold dear only invite future attacks."

I already quoted that one. Read it. Actually read it.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

I already quoted that one. Read it. Actually read it.

Yeah, you quoted it whilst I was typing my post. And it was not in your original post, you edited it.

If you are truly of that opinion that paladin should remain a paladin whilst following a "evil pay back evil" and "Violence will meet violence" type of dogma, we have nothing to discuss as you are a "lost" case. :roll:

"Uphold true and fitting justice and maintain the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. "

Self-explanatory.

"Fitting recompense will always accrue for one's actions. Violence will meet violence ..."

Also self-explanatory.

"...and evil pay back evil..."

The dicey part I mentioned.

"...but good will also come to those who do good."

The encouragement of a paladin not to do evil.

"Walk the line of the Doombringer's teachings, seeking retribution, but do not fall into the trap of pursuing evil acts for evil's sake, for that way is seductive and leads only to one's downfall. "

Self-explanatory.

"Vengeance must be sought for all injustices, and all punishments must fit the crime."

Self-explanatory.

"Revenge is sweetest when it is sharpened with irony."

Dicey, maybe. But there's no rule against poetic justice.

"All attacks must be avenged. Those who do not respond to attacks against their person or that which they hold dear only invite future attacks."

Nothing wrong with this as a paladin, either.

In summary, Hoar is paladin-friendly, just a great deal more violent about it than a Helm or Ilmater. Which is fine since all of a paladin's skills and spells is to aid in violence, right?

Quote:

Immunity to Fear and Disease is almost worthless on Amia

Sorry, but you're flat out wrong. Getting dispel fear bombed is a very good way to destroy people in PvP, and even PvM. Being immune to it altogether is incredible.

There is no argument from any rational person who understands balance that Paladins have been (and now are even more so after the balance changes) one of the the best (if not the best) base class.

I like how you throw in PvM. Where are you getting dispelled and feared in PvM?

I think you're both too extreme. Guardian is mistaken about what paladins are in the setting, because evidently there are paladins of Hoar and Baravar Cloakshadow, and a whole bunch of LN or NG deities. (And, I would maintain, some TN deities who accept all alignments.) If that doesn't sit well with your idea of what a paladin should be, join the club: I don't like the class either (though for opposite reasons), but it's what we have. But Derk, I think you're way too naively optimistic: on a good day, I'm sure you can reconcile your paladin values and religious affiliation. But sooner or later there's bound to be conflicts.

I won't go into detail about Hoar since I've already covered him in an Amia-canon article, but the general point I would like to state about all paladins is this: it will always be a balancing act, and if you think you have it all figured out you're probably wrong and sooner or later will stumble on your hubris. There's supposed to be conflict, and it can be authentic only if you don't know the outcome. That's why, despite everything, I wouldn't say whether ultimately universal paladin values or religious affiliation take precedence. That would resolve the RP before it ever happens.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

I like how you throw in PvM. Where are you getting dispelled and feared in PvM?

That statement was poorly executed. What I meant to imply is that not having fear immunity lets a barbarian kill almost every single type of monster without anyone fighting back.

But I'll bite. Windreaper, Pirate, ABS all have fear or fear weapon properties. It's certainly not annoying to have to forget what timer your mindblank is on before accidentally getting disabled for 5 minutes while being attacked by an epic boss.

Anyways, I don't wish to derail the discussion, I do, however think Paladins are very overpowered from a mechanical perspective.

Edit: Actually, I just remembered that the Loot box dispels you, and the pirate has a fear aura. So, yes, some boss does do that.

Perhaps I am being naively optimistic. But why is that a bad thing? Why does it have to be wrong? I like paladins exactly the way they are, so naturally I'm optimistic about how they work now.

Unfortunately my experience roleplaying with the majority of the paladins on Amia has led me to believe that many of them have not read the Paladin Code, and thus, don't deserve any special privileges mechanically for being a champion of good.

I've been told, and always read that roleplay shouldn't give you mechanical advantages. It's quite obvious with the way clerics (which have equal or same RP burden if done properly) have been modified that they aren't supposed to be powerful (to put it lightly), so why are paladins special?

IronAngel wrote:

What I would like to state about all paladins is this: it will always be a balancing act, and if you think you have it all figured out you're probably wrong and sooner or later will stumble on your hubris. There's supposed to be conflict, and it can be authentic only if you don't know the outcome. That's why, despite everything, I wouldn't say whether ultimately universal paladin values or religious affiliation take precedence. That would resolve the RP before it ever happens.

Exactly what I was trying to say... Apart from a fact that I still think that Dogma > Codex. Which leads to the inevitable conflict. And it takes both incredible player and a suitable deity to maintain the balance between dogma and codex. Which leads to ...

Needled247 wrote:

Unfortunately my experience roleplaying with the majority of the paladins on Amia has led me to believe that many of them have not read the Paladin Code, and thus, don't deserve any special privileges mechanically for being a champion of good.

... this. I believe that paladin players should be "under the scope" more than any other class. Especially because, as Needled said, the class itself is vastly overpowered. And is often being abused and therefore casting bad light on the class itself. Many a player is frowning upon Paladin class and for valid reasons.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

Dicey

Using words like "dicey" where it is clearly stated that you have to precisly follow both dogma and the codex to maintain the basic nature of the class is ... well... dicey at least.

I am standing behind Iron on the Paladin subject.

Well, dicey in the sense that his dogma specifically makes room for evil characters. The very next phrase is for paladins.

Question for those who have been following the thread: if I read through it, will I see anything different or more interesting that what I have seen in the dozens of previous iterations of this thread over the years? Just don't want to set myself up for disappointment, you know.

It's a decent discussion, but stuff that has already been discussed before. And the concerns were already answered earlier in the thread.

Yossarin wrote:

Question for those who have been following the thread: if I read through it, will I see anything different or more interesting that what I have seen in the dozens of previous iterations of this thread over the years? Just don't want to set myself up for disappointment, you know.

I've been following it, sure. It's pretty much summed up as a bunch of people who would really rather not be playing D&D, like most threads of its ilk.

Paladins are under the scope and the DM team watches them closely, those that deserve a fall are given one. To me, you're all coming across as dicks because you don't think paladins are matching up with your percieved view of what a paladin should be. I also find it slightly amusing that most of you criticising paladins roleplay seem to consistently play evil chaps who are only (or should be) given brief snippets of a paladins roleplay. I've sat on the client watching paladins in Kohligen, and abroad roleplaying paladins as they should be but if you think a paladin isn't meeting the roleplay requirements of the class then you better start sending the DM team PMs with screenshots instead of dissing folks roleplay on the forums.

Paladin: Lawful Neutral

Who is online