Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6335315" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>But, your argument basically boils down to saying that because a given player doesn't like any other interpretation other than the one true interpretation of a given archetype (and you can equally apply this to druids - the ability to make non-true neutral druids came about in 3e after all - a pretty radical change in archetype, and you can apply this to Rangers (no non-good rangers until 3e), then no other interpretation should be allowed by the rules. </p><p></p><p>Sure, we could house rule non-LG paladins, the same way you can house rule anything. But, you're basically telling anyone who disagrees with you, too bad, core will include the one true version of a given class and tough noogies to anyone else. Despite the fact that including a broader archetype class makes it easier for everyone to get what they want. With open alignment paladins, there is absolutely no rule preventing you from playing a classic paladin. There is absolutely no 3e rule that prevents you from playing a classic Druid or Ranger either. </p><p></p><p>But now, those who don't want to play a classic class, can also get to sit at the table too. How is that not more inclusive? The only way in which it is not inclusive is if a player absolutely wants to dictate to the entire group what they can and cannot play. Sorry, I really don't think the rules should do that. I don't want rules that say, "Sorry, your interpretation is WRONG and you can't play that." I want the rules to say, "Hey, if you want to play this interpretation, here's how you do that. If you want to play a different interpretation, here's how you do that too."</p><p></p><p>I want inclusive, not exclusive rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6335315, member: 22779"] But, your argument basically boils down to saying that because a given player doesn't like any other interpretation other than the one true interpretation of a given archetype (and you can equally apply this to druids - the ability to make non-true neutral druids came about in 3e after all - a pretty radical change in archetype, and you can apply this to Rangers (no non-good rangers until 3e), then no other interpretation should be allowed by the rules. Sure, we could house rule non-LG paladins, the same way you can house rule anything. But, you're basically telling anyone who disagrees with you, too bad, core will include the one true version of a given class and tough noogies to anyone else. Despite the fact that including a broader archetype class makes it easier for everyone to get what they want. With open alignment paladins, there is absolutely no rule preventing you from playing a classic paladin. There is absolutely no 3e rule that prevents you from playing a classic Druid or Ranger either. But now, those who don't want to play a classic class, can also get to sit at the table too. How is that not more inclusive? The only way in which it is not inclusive is if a player absolutely wants to dictate to the entire group what they can and cannot play. Sorry, I really don't think the rules should do that. I don't want rules that say, "Sorry, your interpretation is WRONG and you can't play that." I want the rules to say, "Hey, if you want to play this interpretation, here's how you do that. If you want to play a different interpretation, here's how you do that too." I want inclusive, not exclusive rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?
Top