Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6335890" data-attributes="member: 22779">Actually, I have no beef with the idea of having a class: Divine Warrior and then making the LG version the &quot;paladin&quot;.&nbsp; Fits with the old &quot;Plethora of Paladins&quot; article quite nicely where each paladin subtype got it's own name.&nbsp; Not a problem with that.So, essentially, that's the issue isn't it?&nbsp; Nomenclature.&nbsp; You just cannot have a non-LG &quot;paladin&quot; because all &quot;paladin&quot; must be LG.&nbsp; Divine Warriors can be any alignment.&nbsp; Divine Champions can be any alignment.&nbsp; But, nope, we must make sure that the word &quot;paladin&quot; retains its traditional meaning.It's a POV.&nbsp; Not one I really care that much about.&nbsp; Call the class rutabaga for all I care.&nbsp; I just want to be able to play a Divine Champion of Kord or any other god and have that right there, smack in the middle of core.&nbsp; If I have to compromise on a proper noun, fair enough.&nbsp; I've seen enough Eladrin and Tiefling wankery to last me a lifetime, so I know that people get really protective of their proper nouns.&nbsp; Me, I'd rather not waste that much energy on it.&nbsp; Ranger used to mean wandering good warrior who defended the borders between civilisation and the wild.&nbsp; Now, Ranger means hunter.&nbsp; Meh, not a big deal.&nbsp; I just wonder why it is that people seem to think that just because they like a change, that somehow justifies the change, but, because they don't like that other change, that other change is somehow objectively bad.Own up to your own preferences.&nbsp; The latter era ranger and druid is just different.&nbsp; Not better or worse.&nbsp; The latter era paladin is just different, again, not better or worse.&nbsp; Please stop trying to pretend your preferences are somehow objective value judgements.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6335890, member: 22779"] Actually, I have no beef with the idea of having a class: Divine Warrior and then making the LG version the "paladin". Fits with the old "Plethora of Paladins" article quite nicely where each paladin subtype got it's own name. Not a problem with that. So, essentially, that's the issue isn't it? Nomenclature. You just cannot have a non-LG "paladin" because all "paladin" must be LG. Divine Warriors can be any alignment. Divine Champions can be any alignment. But, nope, we must make sure that the word "paladin" retains its traditional meaning. It's a POV. Not one I really care that much about. Call the class rutabaga for all I care. I just want to be able to play a Divine Champion of Kord or any other god and have that right there, smack in the middle of core. If I have to compromise on a proper noun, fair enough. I've seen enough Eladrin and Tiefling wankery to last me a lifetime, so I know that people get really protective of their proper nouns. Me, I'd rather not waste that much energy on it. Ranger used to mean wandering good warrior who defended the borders between civilisation and the wild. Now, Ranger means hunter. Meh, not a big deal. I just wonder why it is that people seem to think that just because they like a change, that somehow justifies the change, but, because they don't like that other change, that other change is somehow objectively bad. Own up to your own preferences. The latter era ranger and druid is just different. Not better or worse. The latter era paladin is just different, again, not better or worse. Please stop trying to pretend your preferences are somehow objective value judgements. [/QUOTE]

Verification