Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tequila Sunrise" data-source="post: 5861341" data-attributes="member: 40398">Drowbane's post reminds me of a great option for DMs who associate paladins with the [albeit misunderstood] chivalric ideal: even in 4e (or 5e, if the trend continues), there's nothing to stop a DM from calling the PHB class "holy warrior," and reserving paladinhood for characters who actually earn it. Whether as an actual prestige class or whatever, or simply an in-game title, earning paladinhood makes a lot more sense than being handed it at level 1.And that's usually the big problem, IME. Most DMs don't visit ENworld or any other game forum. Most DMs don't think much about the rules, and if a class has certain restrictions well, "There must be a good reason." (I.e., other than misunderstood tradition.)For DMs like us, it's easy to just say "Ignore alignment restrictions." But I've found that as a player, it's hard to find a DM willing to make even minor house rules like that.I'm confused. Your game has no alignments; you'd be fine with a "just G paladin" type character in your game, and you say that your game is better for it.But that same concept isn't acceptable in D&D? That's one doozy of a double standard! Is this one of those "Because Dave and Gary thought it was cool" things? I'm also curious why you went to all the trouble to write your own game rather than play D&D?I don't think this is a bad way to handle paladinhood at all.</blockquote>