Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8694644" data-attributes="member: 6855114">This is the scarecrow of old 1ed when a paladin would lose its status because the class was too powerful and with the UA rolling method, they had become more common than fighters. So with such a powerful class, DM were seeking a way to expunge the interest about paladins and came up with: &quot;Lawful Stupid&quot;. The gate to restrict this powerful class had been broken and thus, from rare, they became the norm... I never had to enforce Lawful Stupid, but I have witnessed it in a few games. Heck, I saw a 1ed with 3 paladins, 1 cleric, 1 wizard and 1 wizard/thief. And paladins were supposed to be rare...And since paladins were so powerful, some DM found that alignment was the &quot;perfect&quot; tool to remove them from the game and enforced stupid requirements that were not even there or if present not meant to be used that way. UA did a lot of damage to the alignment system and to the paladin. Heck some DM were not even aware of the spell Atonement! There is no fun in being gated behind stupid requirement. It is to the DM and players to reach an understanding and common ground on what is good and what isn't. Many of the players of that DM decided to flock to my game because I was not doing Lawful Stupid. But, I did only use the 4d6 in order and that made some of them turn back. Alignment still suffers from that period and to a lesser extent the 2ed era where the remnants of Lawful Stupid were still enforced by some. But now, alignment is exactly where it should be. A small set of guidelines on how to play. If you want more, Ideals and Bonds are right there for that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helldritch, post: 8694644, member: 6855114"] This is the scarecrow of old 1ed when a paladin would lose its status because the class was too powerful and with the UA rolling method, they had become more common than fighters. So with such a powerful class, DM were seeking a way to expunge the interest about paladins and came up with: "Lawful Stupid". The gate to restrict this powerful class had been broken and thus, from rare, they became the norm... I never had to enforce Lawful Stupid, but I have witnessed it in a few games. Heck, I saw a 1ed with 3 paladins, 1 cleric, 1 wizard and 1 wizard/thief. And paladins were supposed to be rare... And since paladins were so powerful, some DM found that alignment was the "perfect" tool to remove them from the game and enforced stupid requirements that were not even there or if present not meant to be used that way. UA did a lot of damage to the alignment system and to the paladin. Heck some DM were not even aware of the spell Atonement! There is no fun in being gated behind stupid requirement. It is to the DM and players to reach an understanding and common ground on what is good and what isn't. Many of the players of that DM decided to flock to my game because I was not doing Lawful Stupid. But, I did only use the 4d6 in order and that made some of them turn back. Alignment still suffers from that period and to a lesser extent the 2ed era where the remnants of Lawful Stupid were still enforced by some. But now, alignment is exactly where it should be. A small set of guidelines on how to play. If you want more, Ideals and Bonds are right there for that. [/QUOTE]

Verification