Uh what? I've never heard that a "knee jerk" reaction was something that is derogatory.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
Uh what? I've never heard that a "knee jerk" reaction was something that is derogatory.
Obryn
Hero
If you're implying that your conclusions are thought out, while people who disagree with you are making knee-jerk judgments, then yeah, that's pretty derogatory.
Anyway, I don't want this hard-coded into the rules because I think D&D alignment is terrible in nearly every way. The more it's hard-coded into the rules, the harder it is for me to ignore. You said yourself that this is a conversation a player should have with their DM. I'd rather leave it there.
-O
Fair enough. It came across as dismissive to me, in that anyone who disagrees wit you must be having a knee jerk reaction; but if you say otherwise I'll believe you. In that case, the asnwer to your question is no, I am not "having a knee jerk reaction or what".
It seemed to me like it might have been a sensitive issue because no explanation was given, it was just a nevermind.
Being restrictive is what makes some classes like the paladin and ranger special. I don't want a paladin identified as a fighter/cleric who just smites everyone they deem an enemy, it dilutes the concept of the class.
"Never mind" meant re-phrasing it was more effort than I was interested in investing in a conversation which, paradoxically, I seem to have now posted several times in.
I see, no worries.
Obryn
Hero
Jamming alignment restrictions into the game and incorporating it into mechanics in any way cheapens the entire system for me, rather than just one class, so...
I'm down with oaths of some sort; those can be cool roleplaying tools. But D&D alignment is nonsensical, and a poor substitute for role-playing.
-O
I'm down with oaths of some sort; those can be cool roleplaying tools. But D&D alignment is nonsensical, and a poor substitute for role-playing.
-O
jonesy
A Wicked Kendragon
This right here. I've always had a problem with the way alignment has been handled in D&D and yet it keeps being tied to the crunchy part of the rules, which makes it hard to alter or avoid. I'd rather it be 100% fluff, and not this mechanical thing that keep bumping against the sides of the rules system.
The easiest solution is to make alignment restrictions into an optional modual, that way people canbopt out and the modual can explore in detail the best way to do this.
Once thing I really like is that one of the major thematic focuses of the Paladin is that she's a holy knight, not simply a fighter/cleric.
I like the mount for example. I'd like to see them exand on this more. Like a bonus to smite when mounted.
The blackguard feels like a Black Knight, not a dark priest.
The Paladin only has one thing in common with the fighter, Deadly Strike, get rid of that and it feels nothing like the fighter.
Don't get me wrong the idea of the Paladin having a code isn't s bad idea, personally I see it more as a personal thing then a rules thing.
Once thing I really like is that one of the major thematic focuses of the Paladin is that she's a holy knight, not simply a fighter/cleric.
I like the mount for example. I'd like to see them exand on this more. Like a bonus to smite when mounted.
The blackguard feels like a Black Knight, not a dark priest.
The Paladin only has one thing in common with the fighter, Deadly Strike, get rid of that and it feels nothing like the fighter.
Don't get me wrong the idea of the Paladin having a code isn't s bad idea, personally I see it more as a personal thing then a rules thing.
Similar Threads
