Search results

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

D&D... I can't ragequit you! /ragequit

I like both the 4e Tiefling and the 2e Tiefling. So no problem for me on this. The art is OK. I don't have a problem with the visible brush strokes. I do have a problem with the super model pose. That tells me nothing about a character, unless that character is someone that walks the runway...

Traditionally, when I say tradition, I mean the tradition of eschewing tradition. B-)

My 4e DM is moving cross country in a couple weeks. I'll happily play any version of D&D... But without a DM I might have to run a game. Something I haven't done in 30 years. Gulp

I don't think the point is whether it is 100% official or not. The point is that this concept is old... And that people that rely on the "tradition" crutch don't have a leg to stand on. ;)

I based a paper on water pollution on that article. Not the content, of course, but the style. Got an A, and won a writing contest... Also shook the mayor's hand as he handed me a plaque. :)

You can't fire me. I ragequit!

Then there is my old character Sigrid Sildhamar (a commission I had done). It's a shame she died in a TPK. http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/137/0/c/sigrid_sildhamar_color_sketch_by_jebriodo-d503e7o.jpg

So... Is killing evil or good? And if it's evil, how does that synch with the paladin? And if it's good, then how does that synch with the paladin? Is killing lawful? Or chaotic? Or is it neutral?

Interesting take on alignment. So... if an evil NPC never actually commits an evil act in order to become the king, then by your definition, that person is not actually evil? That's some next level philosophy stuff that I'm not qualified to speak on. As for what differentiates the two...

I think you really need to re-read the alignment sections of various editions of D&D. Nothing I said is outside the scope of a Chaotic Good character. Heck, it's not even outside the scope of a Neutral character. Do you honestly believe that only LG people do things like depose tyrants and...

I can't answer for TS, but I can answer for myself. A paladin is a type knight who is sent by a church or king to kill the church's or king's enemies (and to loot their bodies). Now... that's my definition of a paladin. As for how I would translate that to a D&D class? Well, to be honest...

A CG Paladin makes a lot of sense. A champion of freedom. A hero of the oppressed. A scourge of slavers and tyrants. Her CG aligned god(dess) grants powers in order to promote those things she cares about.

I like this list. Lots of options... and since PHB is technically optional... any table can decide to remove anything they object to. Also, too, more leaks, Morrus! We demand more leaks! How am I supposed to get through my work day without leaks? I'm (figuratively) dying over here. ;)

Well that escalated quickly. Xodis and Halivar... calling an edition of D&D a card game is going to sound very edition warlike to many people. I suggest you refrain from doing so, and try to keep your arguments to Paladins. If you read upthread, I mention the Dragon article (A Plethora of...

It's funny, I always used rituals in 4e... I usually found DMs to be the bottleneck. Another interesting thing... I never, NEVER, encountered an NPC caster of any stripe that had ritual scrolls or a ritual book. It was a running joke in one campaign. Especially in cases where we were...

Philosophically speaking, why would a good deity want to punish a follower? It doesn't make sense. Why are there militaristic good deities? It doesn't make sense. Again, I think you've argued that the paladin is so niche that it shouldn't even be a class. It should just be a feat chain. An...

That's just it though. That's too niche to be a class. Why not just play a religious Fighter? If you want to play a holy warrior, there is nothing stopping you from playing any martial class as a holy warrior. Why does this one need to be LG only? Tradition isn't a good explanation...