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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6078121" data-attributes="member: 87792">No.  What you are literally arguing is that having things work better when you play them the way you planned to and the way you visualised is a punishment (despite the fact that every single class in any class based game that doesn't end up as Pun-Pun has strengths and weaknesses), and being turned into an inferior version of a fighter under conditions under the DM's control is a reward.  Your argument about Paladins being punished by working better is precisely the same argument as says "Wizards are punished by not being able to stand on the front lines wearing their robes and wielding a staff and trading blows with an ogre without casting spells."Is the wizard being punished by this?  Or is picking what you want to be good at, and being good at that part of any class based game?And your argument that Paladins aren't punished by having mechanics to turn them into a strictly inferior version of a fighter is something I can't get my head round.Which edition?The 1e Paladin's code  contains the charming restriction "paladins can join a company of adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single expedition basis, and only if some end which will favour the cause of lawful good is purposed."In other words, unless the entire party is good, the Paladin needs to be talked into every single expedition.  Having a paladin in the party controls what other players are allowed to be - you can not, for example have either an assassin or an evil thief in the party.  I'd call dictating what everyone else at the table is allowed to play, and having to be argued into every single adventure a huge deal, myself.This.  Especially with the 1e restrictions (a 2e paladin will explicitely tolerate evil thieves as long as they are trying to reform).</blockquote>

Verification