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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lily Inverse" data-source="post: 269123" data-attributes="member: 4594">Yes, exclusion does insert an entirely different flavor into campaigns.  I never said that it didn't.  Both ways are limiting, in very different ways.He's not considering the FEAT irrelvant, he has explicitly stated that its effect on play style is irrelevant.  I have demonstrated that it's not irrelevant, it brings up all sorts of questions.  Whether he considers those questions interesting challenges or inane annoyances is the issue, not the power of the feat.  If he is simply ignoring the questions, then the feat goes beyond powerful and into munchkinism.This suits the campaign you've described rather well.  Good job on that.  I would argue, however, that SoaPM is favoring one Paladin archtype over all others.  This does a great disservice to many who would play alternate Paladin characters, and play them well.  A Paladin is not necessarily a great leader of men and armies.  A Paladin IS necessarily a holy warrior, dedicated to advancing the causes of his faith.I can think of at least one Paladin type that completely goes against his entire vision from the Forgotten Realms setting:  The Paladins of Firehair.  These champions are highly individualistic, seeking to find places and people of great beauty to defend.  They reject the company of large groups to find peace and love with a few chosen companions, often growing very close to these.  However, they are still Lawful Good, and still champions of their chosen patron.  (It should be noted that Sune IS somewhat more forgiving of transgression on the Law axis than normal, as she's an exception to the limitations that a Paladin cannot have a Chaotic patron diety.)  How would he propose to handle something like this?  Surely they must not be Paladins!</blockquote>

Verification