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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4239616" data-attributes="member: 42582">Excellent points.More excellent points.Still more excellent points.What's wrong with wanting CHA to saves without wanting to be a walking philosophy argument?It's arguable that, in 1st ed AD&D, Paladin's having to be LG was a type of disadvanatage system. Given that, in contemporary D&D gaming, most modules are written under the assumption that PCs are good and many GMs forbid evil players, LG is not much of a disadvantage. Furthermore, to the extent that LG is a disadvantage it's often a disadvantage for the other PCs in the party rather than for the Paladin whom, if s/he is to be viable, must have the other PCs bring their behaviour into conformity with the Paladin's requirements.Thus LG as a disadvantage has been shown to be mechanically unsound. So if CHA to saves is not broken for LG Paladins, it's not broken for other PC holy warriors either.The reasons to have classes is to permit the exploration and deployment of different character roles. Lawful Good is not a role in the relevant sense. There is no sound mechanical reason to permit only a certain sort of moral and political orientation to enjoy the class role of being a combined defender/leader whose flavour text is that of holy warrior.It might be different if D&D was a game of romantic chivalrous roleplaying, and there were various Knight classes available which were designed, in mechanics and flavour, to permit players to explore the different varieties of Knighthood available in that genre. But D&D is not such a game. Each class needs to occupy a niche at least as broad as that of the Warlock or Warlord. The alignment-free Paladin does that. And at the same time it removes yet one more of the traditional features of D&D that have made it prone to abusive GMing.</blockquote>

Verification