Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4232590" data-attributes="member: 65637">Hey, I'm only going by the example that was given to me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Strangely, I don't often have those conflicts.  They can be fun when you do have them, or rather they AREN'T fun, but it's good to have them rather then let the player or DM just sort of sit and fester with resentment.And I'm not neccisarily disagreeing.  My point is, though, that the answer ISN'T just to completely alter the paladin class, but to change the ideas behind cleric or to make a new class.The freakish thing here is that, really, I would think the 3.x version of paladin would fit wonderfully in 4e's desire for epic good vs evil fantasy.Well, yeah, they are redesigning all the classes.  Redesigning a class isn't always a BAD thing.  Sometimes change is needed.  Fighters prove this the most.  My argument is, I don't think the change in paladins is needed.That last one is a matter of opinion, which is what this whole bizarro argument is about.And paladins have a roll.  They're the knight in shining armor.  They're the lawful good knight errant who travels the land, righting wrongs, saving maidens in distress while alarmingly keeping them as maidens, and other general romanticism styled things.  No, not THAT type of romanticism, I did state the maidens remained maidens.Because he's only a walking Philosophy argument with 1) DMs that have an irrational hate for paladins and live to see them fall, laughing maliciously on the inside while coldly telling their crestfallen players that there really was no way to solve the situation WITHOUT falling, or 2) players who don't want to play a paladin, but want charisma to saves.The first thing that caught my eye here was "What the heck does kludgeamication mean?"  I'm no english major!  Secondly, that bit still had nothing to do with the discussion."I think paladins should have to be lawful good.""I think they should follow a god and be any alignment.""I disagree, I think that is what clerics should be for.""BUT CLERICS ARE ALL POWERFUL IN THIRD EDITION!"Do you see how that last line has nothing to do with the first three?And again, I disagree.  I think the game should have freedom - lots of it.  I think I'm vaguely growing infamous around here for running around the forums, ringing a bell, and shouting "FREEEDOOOOOOOOOM!"  But I think classes need restrictions.  Freedom should pertain to the option to choose classes, not the option to make a class into whatever you want.  Because again, if classes have no restrictions, there's no reason to have those classes in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification