Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 6130541" data-attributes="member: 50895">Who says that a given 'tradition' was the best idea in the first place, it might have actually been a design mistake. Just because something is accepted based on pre-existing notions doesn't mean that had more thought been given the concept, a more versatile design might not have been created instead.I loved Gygax's work in bringing us this roleplaying game experience that it is, yet even I consider some of his concepts were too limiting or not completely thought through, though the majority was fantastic. When designing the paladin class the first time in 1e, Gary did not have the nearly 50 years experience of the existence of the game. If he'd known that there would be endless arguments in the handling of paladins, their alignment and edicts, and the chance to 'fall' - he might have gone a different way.Consider that the anti-paladin was in the game in 1e, meaning there was a perception that the paladin class concept could serve another alignment instead of just LG. This should have been a clue that paladins for any specific alignment could have included in the game.It wasn't, so here we are today...</blockquote>