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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="evileeyore" data-source="post: 6335377" data-attributes="member: 1768"><p>Okay. I agree.</p><p></p><p>That said, it's a terrible place to write the rules from unless your goal is to make non-LG Paladins more difficult to houserule into games.* It is far better to go from the other direction, create rules that support Inclusive Alignment Paladins and then allow the individual DMs to toggle the Alignment switches on their end.**</p><p></p><p>Thus if a DM wants only LG Paladins, they simply state "Only LG Paladins in this game".</p><p></p><p>Done, the majority on both sides <em>should</em> now be satisfied.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>* Unless the class is written rather generically such that the only area Alignment truly comes into play is in the prerequisites and the Fall From 'Grace' mechanics, in which case it will be an easy toggle then as well.</p><p></p><p>** This is and has been my core position on Paladins vis-a-vis Alignments and this thread. The other discussions were side digressions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not my position. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></p><p></p><p>As I said, some people will be upset no matter how this falls out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is included in my position yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which has nothing to do with what makes for a better rules set. You are confusing "core" rules with your home game.</p><p></p><p>However if your home game requires that core rules be used without deviation... then yeah, I'm pretty sure your group will have a lot to suck up and get over if you wish to play on.</p><p></p><p></p><p>To look at this another way here's an analogy:</p><p></p><p>I'm saying 3 is a number included in the set of numbers from 1 to 9. Thus Inclusive Numbers Rules allows me to more easily run games in which 4, 5, 6, and 7 can come into play.</p><p></p><p>You are saying 3 is the only important number (and thus imply the rules should only support play for 3).</p><p></p><p>And every time any one tries to explain that this position is terrible from a rules standpoint your side shouts "3 is the only important number!" as though that has any relevance.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly.</p><p></p><p>However, 'Paladins Can be LG' includes the subset: 'Paladins MUST BE LG'.</p><p></p><p>I'd Venn diagram this thing but I'm lazy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="evileeyore, post: 6335377, member: 1768"] Okay. I agree. That said, it's a terrible place to write the rules from unless your goal is to make non-LG Paladins more difficult to houserule into games.* It is far better to go from the other direction, create rules that support Inclusive Alignment Paladins and then allow the individual DMs to toggle the Alignment switches on their end.** Thus if a DM wants only LG Paladins, they simply state "Only LG Paladins in this game". Done, the majority on both sides [I]should[/I] now be satisfied. * Unless the class is written rather generically such that the only area Alignment truly comes into play is in the prerequisites and the Fall From 'Grace' mechanics, in which case it will be an easy toggle then as well. ** This is and has been my core position on Paladins vis-a-vis Alignments and this thread. The other discussions were side digressions. That's not my position. :cool: As I said, some people will be upset no matter how this falls out. That is included in my position yes. Which has nothing to do with what makes for a better rules set. You are confusing "core" rules with your home game. However if your home game requires that core rules be used without deviation... then yeah, I'm pretty sure your group will have a lot to suck up and get over if you wish to play on. To look at this another way here's an analogy: I'm saying 3 is a number included in the set of numbers from 1 to 9. Thus Inclusive Numbers Rules allows me to more easily run games in which 4, 5, 6, and 7 can come into play. You are saying 3 is the only important number (and thus imply the rules should only support play for 3). And every time any one tries to explain that this position is terrible from a rules standpoint your side shouts "3 is the only important number!" as though that has any relevance. Exactly. However, 'Paladins Can be LG' includes the subset: 'Paladins MUST BE LG'. I'd Venn diagram this thing but I'm lazy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is Anyone Unhappy About Non-LG Paladins?
Top