NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MechaTarrasque" data-source="post: 7745812" data-attributes="member: 6801226">I lurk on the Paizo forums, and one of the things I enjoy is when the devs respond to posts on the forums (especially because it almost always goes something like this:  Poster A-we need a dev to clarify this issue.  Dev B-feature Y is built to do X.  Poster A-you are totally wrong; who asked you anyway?).  Alignment questions get asked and the devs generally defend it (I can't think of a case where they didn't, but maybe someone else can).  My impression is that they lean more towards law being important for paladins (because they are disciplined enough to stick to an oath) more so than good.  I think they could end with paladins being lawful and having anti-paladins being conceptually more like the 5e oath breaker paladins.Most of the stories D&D and Pathfinder draw from are morality tales, entertaining yes, but still morality tales (yes, that includes Conan, where the moral is "don't trust those slick big city types").  Many classes have a virtue at their core (although not necessarily a classic virtue).  For paladins, I think the virtue is "duty."  I have never DM'd a paladin fall in any system (fair amount of paladins getting severely chastised by angels when they acted like murderhobos, but no falling....), so I am indifferent to that part of the debate, but it seems to me that anything that moves the paladin away from something that represents duty is design failure.</blockquote>

Verification