I think the word "paladin" has too much history associated with it and I cringe at the thought of a chaotic good paladin. I have no problem, however, with a chaotic good holy warrior with similar abilities. But paladins should remain lawful good, even if the justicar or somesuch is mechanically identical save alignment.
Very good way to put it. There are deities of different alignments, so it follows they could grant powers to followers of appropriate alignment.
But the paladin's code is part of the concept of the paladin. You take away the image of a character who obeys certain strictures and believes in them--a characteristic of lawful good--you aren't talking about a paladin anymore.
This would be found at montecook.com, yes? I'd like to read it.It should be noted that Monte Cook posted a blog where he said that he came up with the idea so that DMs could introduce unique groups into their world and they could be mechanically different. He goes on to say that he thought prestige classes ended up being way overdone and he wasn't sure that was a good thing.
This would be found at montecook.com, yes? I'd like to read it.
TS
I really like the idea of prestige classes when I read it in the 3.0 DMG. I liked the idea of campaign-specific organizational themes.
But I think the idea went off the rails from there, partly for WOTC business reasons: Players bought them as power-ups. They took up more page count than a few little feats (thus bulking up the books). They stopped trying to tie them to specific campaign settings in a structured way (thus making every player part of the market). So yeah, they basically became wordy power-ups from what I could tell.
My primary annoyance is that the sheer number of them escalates the opportunity cost of every decision massively.