~shrugs~ then it comes down to a simple difference in taste. and as I said I like a lot of the flavour in the core rules...I just dont like it being part of the core rules....for a player it makes it harder to break out of unless you have an openminded DM.
OK, let's do a list. Things you'd have to remove or alter to make a "flavorless" core rules.
- Palladins - Authurian
- Monks - Eastern
- Druids - Celtic, with new-age hippie influences.
- Barbarians - Nordic
- Elves - Celtic/Tolkien
- Dwarves - Nordic/Tolkein
- Halflings - Tolkien
- Gnomes - Western
- Clerics - Crusades-ish (very different from, say, Eastern holy warriors!)
- Dragons - most D&D dragons are Western - those that aren't are Eastern
- Orcs - Tolkien
- Goblins - Tolkien
- Illithids - Lovecraft
- Wizard - Vance
I could keep listing stuff too. There's a very very strong implied setting in the core rulebooks, and lots of flavor. If you don't like the uber-hero of the Paladin, then that's fine. Ditch him in your campaigns. But making a case for ditching him in
all campaigns is like me saying that I think we should dump the wizard because I don't like the Vancian fire-and-forget magic system.
But the truth is, if I don't want Vancian magic in my campaign, then I should disallow or change the Wizard class, not try and impose that on everyone else, on the basis that the Wizard has too much flavor and makes strong implications on how magic works in
my campaign.
If you don't want Holy Warriors to work like the paladin in yoru campaign, then more power to you. But that doesn't mean the paladin as he stands is wrong. If I don't like Vancian magic, then it's not that the wizard is too flavorful, it's just that the wizard is different then the flavor
I like.
As you said, it comes down to a difference of opinion. But what you fail to note is that your opinion, that Paladins should be changed, is not valid based on a flavor argument, because it's no more flavorful than many other classes. In the end, any given opinion on flavor is no more valid than any other.
But the paladin is based on the super do-gooder idealized Authurian knight. As of me writing this, 33 people voted for making him "any good," and nine for "any." Fifty-eight voted for no changes, so it seems that keeping him LG is the majority.
I think your problem isn't with "too much flavor in the core rules," because you seem to accept most of the core rules flavor, you even admit that you like it yourself. What you dislike is the
paladin's flavor in specific. Now, that's a perfectly fine opinion to take. It's purely subjective and your opinion is as valid as any others. But don't try and justify it by saying you think the core rules should be flavorless. Justify it by saying the paladin has sucky flavor.
Because if you take the "no flavor" stance, you're going to have to come down on everything that I listed above, and lots more.
