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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kavon" data-source="post: 5861839" data-attributes="member: 9822">I understand the sentiment of PALADIN = LG only, though I am personally against restrictions of this kind. If only because it would require a seperate class (or several, if they are each as restrictive) to fill in the blanks for the non-LG holy warriors (that are not the same as Clerics).I would say, like was mentioned elsewhere, make the LG restricted Paladin a theme, not a class in and of itself.I can see it in a similar way as, say, a Samurai. You can make a wonderful class, with special abilities and restrictions built in based on all sorts of (maybe unfounded) clichés and the like (which is basically true for the Paladin class).At the end of the day, a Samurai is an honorable Fighter with training in certain things (he sure know how to serve a cup of tea!) and oaths to his lord to bind him. A Fighter with the Samurai theme.I can see a Ranger being an awesome Samurai as well (either dual wielding or archery), or the 4E Warlord, or whatever class you like (some fit better than others, naturally).A Paladin can be an awesome theme, and could be added to several classes and still be very suitable. Add it to a Fighter to have a divine-light honorable knight, or to a Cleric to have a more divine-heavy warrior of virtue...But then, there will probably be people that INSIST that it should be a class ^^Consider this: What if I INSIST that the Dwarf is a class as well?Does it make more sense as a race that can be different classes?Does this break what a dwarf is?Does making Paladin a theme (or whatever you want to call these) break them?I guess it depends on what a theme actually would do in Next.. How flexible the class features/powers/etc are to substitution, that sort of thing (the typical Paladin features need to be present, of course).</blockquote>

Verification