Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4359903" data-attributes="member: 52839">The Paladin needed the thunder back, and I'm glad 4e did it. In 1e, EVERYONE wanted the Paladin. My group was fond of singing the song from the old western "Paladin. He's the mighty Paladin!" Of course, back then, we kids didn't understand what the paladin really represented.There were some severe problems with the Paladin that endured. 3e fixed the male-centric racism, but 4e completed the fix in removing the lawful good-only restriction (which was a biggy for me) and returning the distinctiveness, might, and glory of the Paladin. No longer does a Paladin represent the lawful good honky fighting for a Christian-style faith in the vain of the falsely represented Knights of the Templar as if some sort of Jedi knight. First, the Knights of the Templar, and later the Rosecutionists were anything but good. Secondly, couldn't a Paladin serve with the same zeal no matter who his god is? No matter whether his god is good or evil? I think 4e got it right. It was the serving their god, divine might, and healing ability that defined the Paladin; not their being white, not being male, not being human, not being sickeningly good, but being a holy warrior with a mission and a free ticket to ride and the might to back it up. If you're against his god or in opposition to his mission, then you're on his s---list.An evil Dragonborn Paladin? That's awesome. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification