Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4232599" data-attributes="member: 65637">&quot;Joke that will surely be misinterpreted aside...&quot;Holy crap, I called it so hard.Because I'm not playing Merriam-Webster the game.Also, stop using the word &quot;straitjacketing.&quot;&nbsp; It's turning into one of those words that's just parroted while not really meaning anything.&nbsp; Like &quot;epic.&quot;&nbsp; Or &quot;innovative.&quot;Well, I think they work just fine.&nbsp; The thing is, as Cleric-based PrCs, get this?&nbsp; They are variations of the Cleric class.&quot;Oh hey, my diety and character matches PERFECTLY with this PrC that's supposed to represent a closer bond between myself and my god.&quot;&quot;Pfh, how superfluous.&nbsp; You should just change an entire class instead.&quot;No.&nbsp; But uh...you're proving my point for me.&nbsp; When paladin IS used, it's used with specific connotations: namely, Lawful Good (or its equivilant).&nbsp; Saying it isn't used often really isn't an argument against that.Simple:So your argument is &quot;Paladins should be any alignment because in 3.5 clerics were too powerful.&quot;...Uh...?Sure there is.&nbsp; Because that's how the class works.&nbsp; The class is meant to be Lawful Good, or at least it was until 4e.No, it's homebrewing mechanics.&nbsp; If I say X Class must be X Alignment or have X Code of Conduct, I'm very literally affecting the game mechanics.All that said, I cannot believe I'm - well, no, I can EASILY believe this.&nbsp; But I find it hilariously dumb that this entire argument is revolving around someone going &quot;NO CIRNO, SHUT UP, YOUR OPINION IS WRONG.&nbsp; WRONG, DAMMIT.&nbsp; MY IDEA FOR PALADINS ARE AWESOME, YOU YOU MUST, BY HOLY MANDATE, ADMIT THAT THEY ARE BETTER THEN YOURS.&nbsp; NOW I MUST UNITE THE INTERNET TO PROVE IT!&quot;&nbsp; Take a chill pill.&nbsp; Relax.&nbsp; Just because I don't like something doesn't mean you have to dislike it too.&nbsp; We're allowed to have a difference of opinions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 4232599, member: 65637"] "Joke that will surely be misinterpreted aside..." Holy crap, I called it so hard. Because I'm not playing Merriam-Webster [b]the game[/b]. Also, stop using the word "straitjacketing." It's turning into one of those words that's just parroted while not really meaning anything. Like "epic." Or "innovative." Well, I think they work just fine. The thing is, as Cleric-based PrCs, get this? They [i]are[/i] variations of the Cleric class. "Oh hey, my diety and character matches PERFECTLY with this PrC that's supposed to represent a closer bond between myself and my god." "Pfh, how superfluous. You should just [b]change an entire class[/b] instead." No. But uh...you're proving my point for me. When paladin IS used, it's used with specific connotations: namely, Lawful Good (or its equivilant). Saying it isn't used often really isn't an argument against that. Simple: So your argument is "Paladins should be any alignment because in 3.5 clerics were too powerful." ...Uh...? Sure there is. Because [i]that's how the class works. The class is meant to be Lawful Good, or at least it was until 4e.[/i] No, it's homebrewing mechanics. If I say X Class must be X Alignment or have X Code of Conduct, I'm very literally affecting the game mechanics. All that said, I cannot believe I'm - well, no, I can EASILY believe this. But I find it hilariously [b]dumb[/b] that this entire argument is revolving around someone going "NO CIRNO, SHUT UP, YOUR OPINION IS WRONG. WRONG, DAMMIT. MY IDEA FOR PALADINS ARE AWESOME, YOU YOU [b]MUST[/b], BY HOLY MANDATE, ADMIT THAT THEY ARE BETTER THEN YOURS. NOW I MUST UNITE THE INTERNET TO PROVE IT!" Take a chill pill. Relax. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean you have to dislike it too. We're allowed to have a difference of opinions. [/QUOTE]

Verification