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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ObsidianCrane" data-source="post: 4232689" data-attributes="member: 54918">Curse those pesky people who expect words to hold meaning and that meaning to be relevant to the discussion at hand. Lets all just forget about those pesky words that are used a lot, after all words that are used a lot loose their meaning and stuff. <img src="http://thecraneclan.net/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />The idea that the only way to be chivalrous is to be Lawful and Good is silly, consider that Lancelot, Gawain, and Galahad are all considered chivalrous, and at least one of them isn't going to cut it in the LG stakes. Its about time DnD abandoned that notion.Further to that its clear that 4E is moving the definition of Paladin to "Warrior in the name of a God/Cause" and Cleric to "Leader in the name of a God/Cause". I'm very much at a loss as to why a "Warrior in the name of X" has to be restricted to 1 alignment. Just because a word has been incorrectly tied to 1 alignment in the past, doesn't mean that cannot be repaired, and I'm pleased 4E has done so.I've played characters dedicated to the idea of Justice, who couldn't be Paladins because they were not concerned with doing good (by the PHB definition of good), despite being chivalrous. 4E says I can play a Paladin of Justice and it really doesn't care what alignment they are - for me that is a lot less restrained.But then I'm not hung up on alignment, and the fact its been removed from mechanical importance means it can finally be pretty much ignored (ie Unaligned) unless the character concept specifically calls for a tighter definition such as Good or Lawful Good (or even Evil or CE).</blockquote>

Verification