Why is it that whenever I decide to play a Paladin, everyone at the table gets pissy?

I don't play paladins, only shitbirds do, because they are in love with killing their party members. It's all they live for, the fucking braindead murderhobos.

Because paladins are borring and actually one of cancer of fantasy genre.

Because paladins require strict adherence to a shitty alignment system which causes more problems than it solves.

I like playing as a paladin.

I can't tell if everyone in this thread is memeing or I'm the only person on Veeky Forums without crippling autism and a group of friends who also all have crippling autism

I've never encountered this problem. I play Paladins a lot, but I play them as highly serious, ideologically motivated people with strict principles and no compunctions against violence, not whinging moralists.

If we're fighting something, it's because it's fucking with the realm or with the gods or with regular people. That's evil. If you do evil things, you die. Literally all you have to do NOT to die is not do evil shit. Maybe it's just my group, but none of us lolrandom kill people out of the blue or rob regular folks for their two copper pieces or whatever. The rewards of honest adventuring are enormous, the rewards of petty banditry are pretty pathetic. If you're having problems with the party's Paladin and he isn't a total sperging retard, it's because you think it's fun to kill people at random like you're in Looking for Group or some other gay comic about random violence.

You don't have to do the right thing all the time--you just have to avoid doing the capital W Wrong thing.

I think that people forget that you can have genuine heroes even if you're running a world of ultimate suck.

I know it may not be the best example, but even in W40k, a setting that brings suck to a ridiculous level, you have Salamanders who may as well have their own G.I.Joe-style animated series, with moral lessons and all.

>I am ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED to killing my party members!
Yep, that's a paladin.

>I like to play D&D to win
The Paladin restricts you to only chivalrous, deeply unoptimal strategies. He stops you from looting things. He makes you take prisoners, a liability to your eyes. He makes you spend loot on the local poorhouse. He's not a Tier 1 class. You hate him.
>I play for the deep story aspects
The Paladin has a black-and-white view of the world that forces you to take one side of any ambiguous situation, or makes it all about him. He's one-note, he's predictable, and the DM usually doesn't want to split a player off or appear to be playing against one person (the forced fall meme). In the event the DM has a spine, the Paladin is a magnet for unexpected consequences to all actions, making a mockery of your roleplaying. You hate him.
>I just want beer and pretzels gaming
The Paladin sermonises the whole fucking time, and adds a note of morality to your goblin slaying. You hate him.
>I'm playing a dickbutt rogue
The Paladin polices the shit out of your character and you'll self-destruct the group if you do too much in defence of your actions. He wears heavy armour and denies you any advantage from sneaking. You hate him.
>You're playing a cleric.
The Paladin gets all the glory, while you're now pointless as a secondary combatant and throwing the heals at him. Alternatively, you're using your Tier 1 power to outshine him and the fucker whines constantly. You hate him.
>You're playing a wizard.
Half your summons are fiendish and therefore off-limits. You can't exactly use any morally-grey but powerful casting either. The fucker's high saves mean you can throw pie-plate debuffs around him much more safely, but he refuses to use much of the advantage given by them. You're dependant on your gold income and he keeps spending it on indulgences and orphans. You hate him.
>You're the DM and you wanted a unique-feeling world
Too fucking bad, we knightly Middle Ages now. You hate him.

It's a class that's designed to be a stick in the mud and that gets in the way of adventuring duties.

The average paladin player plays paladins as a walking rulebook, or at least they supposedly did in the old days. As a result, most players have an immediate dislike for paladins as they expect a walking rulebook.

In my experience, the issue is much less prevalent in people who get into the hobby young and manage to avoid asshole paladin players. None of my current group have an issue with paladins, for example.

>The Paladin restricts you to only chivalrous, deeply unoptimal strategies. He stops you from looting things. He makes you take prisoners, a liability to your eyes. He makes you spend loot on the local poorhouse. He's not a Tier 1 class. You hate him.

Wrong and retarded.

>The Paladin has a black-and-white view of the world that forces you to take one side of any ambiguous situation, or makes it all about him. He's one-note, he's predictable, and the DM usually doesn't want to split a player off or appear to be playing against one person (the forced fall meme). In the event the DM has a spine, the Paladin is a magnet for unexpected consequences to all actions, making a mockery of your roleplaying. You hate him.

Even more wrong and retarded. You sound like the type who have had retarded GMs confuse Paladin with a Constable/Magistrate. He's the fucking arm of god, not the judge of man. At the worst paladins and clerics may need to atone for making a bad decision in an "ambiguous situation" while everyone else can just move on.

>The Paladin sermonises the whole fucking time, and adds a note of morality to your goblin slaying. You hate him.
Personal problem teach your shitty player how to actually play a fucking paladin then.

>The Paladin polices the shit out of your character and you'll self-destruct the group if you do too much in defense of your actions. He wears heavy armour and denies you any advantage from sneaking. You hate him.
If you were remotely good at your job the Paladin would never know, obviously you go off on your own when sneaking/scouting what kind of noob brings a large group of people that are going to be easily spotted with him?

>The Paladin gets all the glory, while you're now pointless as a secondary combatant and throwing the heals at him. Alternatively, you're using your Tier 1 power to outshine him and the fucker whines constantly. You hate him.

Either way you're a secondary combatant to him with 3/4 BAB.

>Half your summons are fiendish and therefore off-limits. You can't exactly use any morally-grey but powerful casting either. The fucker's high saves mean you can throw pie-plate debuffs around him much more safely, but he refuses to use much of the advantage given by them. You're dependent on your gold income and he keeps spending it on indulgences and orphans. You hate him.

There's no reason a Wizard has to give his share to the Paladin, you must have the shittiest group ever. Summons are shit, and you using morally-grey but powerful casting dosen't have anything to do with his moral code.
And refusing to attack an enemy because you "debuffed" them? Holy shit kill your GM. Then yourselves.

>Too fucking bad, we knightly Middle Ages now. You hate him.

>GM is so shit he can't re-purpose the role and general concept of the paladin outside of the typical middle age fantasy setting.

Paladins may not be the worst class, but they have immense potential to be the worst - as comments in this thread already prove, it's really easy (and easily justifiable) to be a huge dick as a Paladin - by introducing yourself to a group that doesn't know you well with a character with that much potential to be a drag on the party I'm not surprised they don't like you - how would you feel if a new player said their character was Kender?

Also, the fact that you love subverting tropes and playing "rather unique" versions of things would make me wary as fuck

Sigh. Sadly, most of Veeky Forums doesn't know how to play a Paladin, or played with assholes who modded the Code of Conduct to become fucking sticks in the mud.

A paladin isn't supposed to be stupid. If the enemy is stronger than you, nobody is going to slap your deity-blessed arse if you throw sand in his eyes. Fuck! It's a giant fucking demon! You're not supposed to give yourself handicaps!
You have no obligation to oaths like "oath of poverty" or "oath of chastity" or whatever else. You can fuck, drink, and whatever you like. Spending your gold in a better armor or in a magical sword may be more useful for the "greater good" than throwing it all away to some orphans, anyway they're going to die by the hand of the fucking Lich, in the case you didn't win against him.
Don't be an ass to the backstabbing rogue, to the demon-summoning wizard, or to the necromancer. Be an example. This is how you paladin.

This.

What the fuck is wrong with some of you

I feel sorry for you - you've only ever played with That Guys and they've turned you into them.

>He's not a Tier 1 class.

I'm just saying, a whole gamut of different player types have reasons to hate the Paladin. I'm not a powergamer, but I know why powergamers don't like paladins.

My personal reason? Been playing RPGs since 1999 and I have never seen a good paladin in person.

Ive heard this reason so many times but I always wonder have you tried paladins yourself? I know its not your job etc etc but it hardly seems logical to dismiss a class because of other people.

On the other hand, if you have and didnt like it then carry on. Paladins aint for everyone after all.

Playing as a Hell Knight can be just as bad. Players just like playing as chaotic shit bags without any rules to follow.

>trope subversion
Fuck you

It's mostly because in most settings, you don't really get recognized for being Good. Your standard D&D campaign has players being wandering adventurers.

I've run games where the players get a lot of status for being holy knights (There are literally only thirteen in the entire world) and everyone fawns over them whenever possible.

Get out

Dude what fucking Paladins have you played with

Is roleplay dead?

You're That Guy aren't you?

>as comments in this thread already prove
Just because you say it doesn't make it so

Why is subversion and being unique terrible? Do you always play cookie cutter "dashing rogue" and "heroic knight" stereotypes?

Attacking OP just becasue you're a shitty player...has tg come to this?

Veeky Forumss been like this for at least a year m8

Veeky Forums I'm fucking disappointed.

God fucking damnit, man. Have you all come from 9gag?

There is nothing in the Paladin code that commands that they must constrain their allies.

The Paladin is more than just 'a walking rulebook' the Paladin is interesting, they have a reason to fight beyond themselves or beyond mortality,
The Paladin does not force you to do anything, if he does, he's playing a Paladin of the Catholic Church. Any decent roleplayer will ask other party members to donate and be kind, but will not force them. Yes, a Paladin may tell someone "No, we are not murdering innocent people", but that's any actually good character.

Paladins are not black and white, they simply have their ideals and are committed to them. There are emotional times that can try a Paladin, questions they must answer, 'I am a Paladin of X, and I must turn away from the fight because this is wrong." The Paladin offers a unique aspect to roleplaying that isn't just 'Let's supermurder anything" Especially since the entire argument otherwise for your bullshit is "The Paladin is a killjoy who doesn't let me murder innocent people"

What's wrong with adding morality to Goblin slaying? Usually that morality expands to simply "They're evil, murder them"

If you're being a dickbutt Rogue, you should get out of D&D

By that logic, a fighter hates the Barbarian for dealing far more damage than him.

Again, no Paladin forces anyone to use their money for anything they don't want to. Secondly, what's the issue with morally-grey casting? And what is 'he refuses to use much of the advantage given by them?'

You can play a Paladin who isn't knightly or middle-ages.

In short, I think you're an idiot. And I hate you, and everyone who looks at shit like you. Get the fuck out of D&D and play some Skyrim, mod the game so you can murder children or something, maybe that'll help.

So the Rogue that decides to TPK the entire party isn't the worst?

The Barbarian who just wants to kill every important NPC for being 'annoying' isn't the worst?

The Wizard who decides he really doesn't like you so he casts a spell that just sends you to another plane isn't the worst?

The Bard who literally fucks everything in sight isn't the worst? He's most certainly not, because that's how all the half-breed templates of D&D exist, you should thank him while playing your half-giant.

Every class has a way to be abused and make the entire game annoying and stupid. If anything, I've run into far more annoying Barbarians than I have Paladins.

But hey, maybe it's just because I'm not an asshole who only play D&D like a typical hack&slash video game.

>The Paladin has a black-and-white view of the world
I object, it's a common misconception that Paladins can only see in black and white, but in all actuality, they are capable of seeing every color that anyone else of their race can see.

Paladins are fun police at best, intent on stopping their party members from actually doing what they want to do at all costs and gleefully engaging in fratricidal slaughter when they don't bend the knee, and actively homicidal fanatics at worst. In either case, they are there to cause, participate in, and actively provoke party conflict, and in either case they will be the ones who destroy the group.

Paladins are alignment given form, and alignment is by far the worst part about D&D.

You get a party without a paladin, it can have anyone from any alignment getting along. CE rogue wants to sell drugs to children, the CG bard isn't going to stop them, but neither will the NE sorceress care that the LG fighter is helping out at an orphanage.

A paladin gets in that mess and he's highly likely to straight up kill the non-good PCs as soon as he detects evil on them, and at the very least he's going to put a sword in someone's face for doing things he doesn't like them doing.

Seriously man. What happened to this place?

If what you want to do is just kill everything in sight, you aren't playing D&D, you're hack&slashing it up.

Also, a Lawful Good fighter will absolutely stop a CE Rogue from selling drugs to children, so will the CG Bard, you know why? Because that's fucking evil and if I was playing either class I wouldn't want to travel with someone who did that. I played a Neutral Good Brawler once before and I snapped the neck of one of our party members for trying to kill Civilians, yo know why? Because I was a fucking good guy and he was evil. If you want a party to get together, don't play CE. Holy shit, it's almost like Good and Evil characters don't get along.

And if a Paladin puts a sword in someone's face for doing something they don't like them doing they're not playing a Paladin right, or that thing you're doing is brutally evil and you deserve to be killed by it.

haven't seen anyone this delusional for a while, now

>the CG bard

Naw, son.

3e or 5e CG: "As his conscience dictates." He may very well sell alongside him. CG = wishy washy ANYTHING.
AD&D CG: "Laws, tradition and social norms are wrong, and threats to freedom are as serious as threats to life." CG = libertarian etc, as in "boo anyone who says we shouldn't be free to sell heroin to kids."

Chaotic is a hell of an alignment.

I've literally never seen party conflict by a Paladin except for the time our Chaotic Evil wizard decided to murder a family of three and our Paladin killed him for it. We all agreed it was only fair - a Good Fighter would have done the same thing.

No, Chaotic means you disregard the social norms, it doesn't mean you sell drugs to kids. Most people would agree that is evil as fuck. Chaotic Good is Batman. Selling drugs to children is at best, chaotic neutral.

You cannot be chaotic good while breaking the law simply because they're social norms. Or simply because your conscience says it's ok. By that logic, Joker's conscience says killing civilians is good so Joker is Chaotic Good.

>If what you want to do is just kill everything in sight, you aren't playing D&D, you're hack&slashing it up.
I didn't suggest that at all. The example I gave was dealing drugs to children. That's very far removed from a hack and slash mindset. The one operating with that thought process is you.

This is literally how you think: [THING I DON'T LIKE SPOTTED] -> [ENGAGE MURDERMODE]

And the reason an LG fighter or CG bard won't threaten to kill the CE rogue for dealing drugs is that they are not batshit crazy murderers, so when they see something they don't like, they have a lot of avenues to address it, including ignoring it altogether. You have a conflict about morality between a regular class and another regular class, that conflict will be resolved in a sensible fashion - one party compromises to the other party and there's no way in hell it escalates into a deathmatch.

With paladins in the equation, however, you can expect an immediate smite attack and relentless chase to hunt down and kill everything that hurts his widdle fee-fees.

Why is that? Because paladins cannot compromise. If they do, they lose their class features, they stop being able to play the game at the same level of competency. For them, giving any ground to evil party members is basically the same thing as being killed in battle, so they react the same way they otherwise would - by pulling out their sword and hacking everything that "pings" incorrectly to bits.

Just so you know, you're wrong on the internet.

>opens thread
>sees all of the Paladin haters in this thread
>mfw

Paladins don't randomly kill people who don't deserve it.

If you're mad that a Paladin is killing you, you deserve it.

This is of course assuming the Paladin isn't That Guy.

If your CE Rogue is dealing drugs to children, he deserves to be murdered. That's not sensible behavior now, and it never was.
I'd murder the shit out of your Rogue on any character.

>you're selling drugs to children!
>you deserve summary execution!

So you think that a good person wouldn't at all object to selling drugs to children?-Pic Related

Yeah, it won't escalate into a deathmatch, the Fighter just asks the Rogue to stop, Rogue rolls bluff, and then just slices the Fighter's throat later.

There's also the fact that Paladins don't just attack anything, they attack evil things. You know what the word evil means right? It means that you do terrible things such as, but not limited to; murder, rape, pillaging, genocide, etc...

If you're evil, then a Paladin has every right to kill you, unless there's some serious reason for a Paladin to work with you, like when Doctor Doom works with the Avengers against some Earth-destroying event. Neither of them like it, but there's a bigger problem that will kill them both if they don't.

Even defending people playing evil characters and saying a Paladin is 'ruining their fun' means you condone people playing evil characters, that alone means your opinion probably comes from someone who loves to play D&D so he can be a sociopath without getting arrested and gets butthurt when someone with a conscious actually steps in and stops your bullshit.

Execution is probably the answer, since you're not likely to turn yourself in or surrender quietly.

>it doesn't mean you sell drugs to kids.

For example, it means you might be fine selling drugs to kids.

>Most people would agree that is evil as fuck.

That's because humans generally are lawful as fuck.

>Chaotic Good is Batman.

Pretty terrible example considering he's firmly on the side of the police, likes law and order and fights criminals all day. The one time a D&D product stated Batman's alignment, it was lawful good.

>You cannot be chaotic good while breaking the law simply because they're social norms.

Yes you can. That's chaotic good's whole schtick.

>Or simply because your conscience says it's ok.

If you're going to have a discussion on D&D concepts like alignment, familiarize yourself with the fucking section on alignment.

>By that logic, Joker's conscience says killing civilians is good so Joker is Chaotic Good.

Joker does more than break the law, and he impinges upon other's freedom to do it.

You're still thinking of lawful good, by the way, when you say "you can't break the law just because your conscience says its okay."

If chaotic good sounds like its pretty villainous, good, because chaos was largely designed to be antagonistic. The soulless elves and fey in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions were largely a straight translation and they were Chaotic Good, and Zeus was also cited by Gary Gygax as Chaotic Good.

CG doesn't mean "he obeys the law, except when the just must become outlaws xD" it means the best of a very bad lot. They largely do whatever they feel like it, and selling drugs to kids falls squarely into the territory of what a CG character is capable of approving.

They won't *necessarily* improve but hard core libertarians etc. are probably primarily CG.

Yeah, selling drugs to children is one of the things you should be executed for.
Selling drugs to adults is fine. But children? No. You don't get to ruin someone's life before they're capable of ruining it on their own.

Yes.

In this thread: People accuse Good characters of murder for killing evil characters.

What the fuck, Veeky Forums

Yes, killing people arbitrarily may very well be unlawful killing, hence murder, where the PCs are.

If you're fine selling drugs to kids, then you're neutral at best.

Humans are not at all lawful, they're chaotic.

Except Batman is also a vigilante, you don't need to say "Fuck da police" to be chaotic. He uses fear and constantly plots against his allies in case they ever turn, sounds pretty chaotic to me.

No, breaking the law for the lolz is not chaotic good's whole shtick. It means you do what's right, but you don't care whether or not rules stop you from it. You're treating alignments like a straightjacket.

Allowing shitty things to go down through inaction is no better than partaking in it yourself.

Something tells me you're That Guy.

>actually defending being CE in a fully good party without having a good reason

Trope subversion is a step up from strict adherence to the trope, but it's better to build a character independent of tropes entirely. You will, by happenstance, end up fitting some tropes and subverting others, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that your character is someone you are interested in and want to roleplay not because of some meta "it's a commentary on paladins" bullshit, but because the character itself is interesting to you.

>If you're going to have a discussion on D&D concepts like alignment, familiarize yourself with the fucking section on alignment.

The section on alignment is contradictory between and sometimes within editions.

I think that's what he meant, user

>So you think that a good person wouldn't at all object to selling drugs to children?
They will object in the sense that they will find it unpleasant, may complain about it, may even call the cops on it, but the chances that they go up to the dealer and shoot him, and that I still consider them a good person for having done it? Pretty fucking slim.

You see, sensible people don't play games of instant escalation into binary violence. Even good people - even good people who respect the law - don't actively try to stop criminals, and certainly don't actively try to kill or wish death on those criminals.

What they do instead, is they live their own lives and do good where they actually can do good. They might confront the problem, but they aren't going to confront the problem with summary execution. No, they're going to use the system, they're going to reason with the other party, they're going to try to stop what's happening, or remedy the negative consequences of what's happening.

But paladins are psychopathic killers, and the only thing they know is how to put people in the ground, so the only response they ever have is to escalate all situations, no matter how nuanced or multifaceted, into life and death struggles where they act as judge, jury, and executioner. Because if they don't, they lose their magic powers that let them kill, and lose the entire purpose of their being in the process as well. They live only to kill, and especially to kill their closest allies, who fall under their most severe scrutiny.

Paladins are cancer, they are simply terrible, and they should be removed from the game.

>If you're fine selling drugs to kids, then you're neutral at best.
Neutral Good at best, you mean.
Remember, we're talking about alignments? Not your pwecious feelingz?

>Humans are not at all lawful, they're chaotic.

In the opinion of the guy who wrote the alignment system and has a more constrained view on CG, they're largely lawful. In the source material for alignments, they're absolutely prone to being lawful.

And if you want to go with WotC alignments, then you're going to have to argue how selling drugs to kids is necessarily against the conscience of all drug enthusiasts and libertarians.

>you don't need to say "Fuck da police" to be chaotic.

No, but alignment is what side of the cosmic conflict you're on, and he's unquestionably on the side of law. He fights criminals, he supports the police, and is necessary for Gotham to exist at all. The game is written with vigilantes in mind, not town guards and law men. In his very worst incarnations, Batman is Neutral Good.

>No, breaking the law for the lolz is not chaotic good's whole shtick.

Yes, the whole schtick of Chaos is that its in a primal conflict against Law. Any reason or no reason is fine.

>You're treating alignments like a straightjacket.

Are you serious? You're the one who is saying that the forces of Chaos would never do anything that hurt your feelings.

>Something tells me you're That Guy.

If you will not read the alignments themselves, read some of the source material for alignments.

Sure, but my point is that CG started with a VERY expansive mandate and became only more expansive over time.

Never defended being CE, try again.

>Paladins are cancer, they are simply terrible, and they should be removed from the game.

No, you should be removed from the game. Get the fuck out and get over yourself, maybe play an actually good character and the Paladin in the group won't try to murder you for being a dickhead.

By the same argument, Rogues have enormous potential to be the worst fucking class because they attract dickbags who like trying to force a CE character into a mostly-good group or steal from the party because "lol dickass rogue."

Or the barbarian, who is a siren song to players who want to solve every situation the party gets itself into with violence no matter how much shit it gets the group in.

Or the goddamn wizard, who at this point is taken as a license to have no sense of right and wrong. Every wizard I've ever encountered has been a self-centered, condescending prick because that's how people tend to roleplay the high-int class with magical powers.

I don't know, maybe it's just individual table experience, but the paladins I've played with have usually been the reasonable members of the party and the people who actually want to go on an adventure without the GM waving a bag of sweeties at them to bribe them into giving a shit about what's going on. I've never actually seen a wizard who wasn't True Neutral leaning heavily towards Neutral Evil or a non-CE rogue, but that's apparently just bad luck on my part.

>you can't play a character that isn't good!
>how dare you do that thing I don't like!
>stop hurting my fee-fees!

How the fuck do you not think selling drugs to kids is evil? Seriously, that alone just breaks down your entire argument.

Today Veeky Forums has shown me that they cannot play paladins.

I think the cocksucking faggot is disputing the chaotic part.

Don't you have a party to TPK, or innocent civilians to kill?

Its in line with TSR and WotC takes on CG, and sounds like something Andersonian fey or Zeus would do.

>How the fuck do you not think selling drugs to kids is evil?

Nothing about my view of alignments has to do with my real life views. No need to have your feelings hurt.

>Seriously, that alone just breaks down your entire argument.

The rules > your irrelevant feewingz.

And since in 5e, again, they went with the most expansive definition of Chaotic Good imaginable I don't think its going to change any time soon.

>How the fuck do you not think selling drugs to kids is evil?
Not him, but "selling drugs to kids" is a fairly broad thing (not to mention being a very emotionally charged topic, given how strongly people feel about drugs and kids)
I'd be perfectly fine selling a 17 year old (or even a 15 y/o, to get it firmly in the "kid" age range) a little bit of weed, but selling a 6 year old meth would be completely immoral

holy shit this thread is fucking cancer.

I'm not bringing feelings beyond "This guy is a retard" into this argument. All you're trying to do is twist the rules to your whims, the classic sign of a That Guy.

Please, get some common sense and come back.

It really, really fucking is.

Well at least in Pathfinder you're an adult as soon as you hit 15. So 'children' would incorporate anyone 14 and under. Yeah, I was referring more to like, 10-11 year olds, and usually 'drugs' indicates something highly addictive and terrible for you.

>All you're trying to do is twist the rules to your whims

Pure projection, and there's no rule "twisting" going on.

Why not just have Good, Neutral, and Evil if the Law/Chaos axis hurts your feelings so much?

Yeah it really depends on the player.

To me nothing is as destructive to a party like the kleptomaniac rogue.

I do dislike paladins somewhat, but mostly because they're boring and predictable, like you're playing a predefined role rather than an unique character.

Yeah, true - like I said, not automatically the worst by any means, but there's seemingly an inclination to take the paladin's code as a "No Fun Allowed" licence and go around being Lawful Stupid.

You're absolutely right about other classes having similar potential - dickass rogue being the most obvious, but I guess "wizard, no sense of right or wrong lol" is also one.

Experience/anecdote-wise though, I don't know I've never played D&D, so that's purely down to the group

Literally everything you're doing is just twisting the idea of chaotic/law.

Seriously, you used a CE Rogue as an example for doing this, now you're trying to say it's not an evil thing to do. Selling drugs can ruin people's lives, and can kill you, especially if you are a child.

You're being rused here m8

>Literally everything you're doing is just twisting the idea of chaotic/law.

I already told you what the ideas of chaotic/law were, and your only argument is "no, chaos/law should be twisted to suit my feelings."

>Seriously, you used a CE Rogue as an example for doing this

Reading comprehension problems, friend? I used a CG Bard as an example for doing this.

>Selling drugs can ruin people's lives, and can kill you, especially if you are a child.

You know what can also ruin people's lives and kill them? Getting rid of social norms, tradition, law, and anything that restricts freedom.

Ugh, yeah I'm just an argumentative piece of shit, but I think I'm fairly done with his stupidity.

...nigga, read what I fucking actually said. I was agreeing with you that he's a fucking idiot.

Selling drugs to children is hardly the most evil thing you can do, it's actually very common. For one thing, you're not using violence or force to compel them into doing anything - they're buying the product of their own volition.

More importantly, there's no rule that says you have to do good deeds. You want to have your little safe space full of like-minded autistics, incapable of doing anything you wouldn't find on a Saturday morning cartoon, then run your own damn game and ban evil alignments.

But the vast majority of games have no restriction on alignment. There's not a need to even worry about alignment. Unless a paladin is playing. Then the issue of alignment becomes an issue of party cohesion, because as soon as the dense motherfucker playing SmiteBot 4000™ finds another character engaged in [THING I DON'T LIKE] there's going to be a deathmatch.

Because paladins are a stupid fucking class that is incapable of reason and compromise.

Oh my bad, I thought you were just talking in the 3rd person and calling //me// a cocksucking faggot. Apologies my friend.

You're a dumbass, braindead, attention whoring namefag. Please terminate yourself as soon as possible.

Sorry you got triggered, friend.

You cannot mention the following...

>Women
>D&D (3.PF especially)
>Paladins
>That Guy
>Alignment (and Morality)
>Politics
>Religion
>Roleplay
>Rollplay
>GURPS
>Dungeon World
>TCGs
>Indie Games
>Homebrews

Without the thread going to shit.

This place has gone to the dogs. I legitimately see more discussions on /v/ than I do on this place, not even kidding.

When /v/ stays on topic more than you, you know you've fucked up.

You do realize that mechanically speaking pretty much the only class better at talking people around to their point of view than the paladin is the bard?

's alright.

Also Clerics.

Paladins are amazingly terrible for what Veeky Forums wants them to be (Batman+Jesus who can redeem everyone and never have to resort to killing)

chaotic and lawful just mean how willing a person is to verstep outside boundaries to do what they want.

What they want to do is the good/evil part of alignment

AND IF WHAT THEY WANT IS SELL DRUGS TO CHILDREN THAT MEANS THEY'RE FUCKING EVIL

Clerics usually don't have very good charisma unless they're weirdos who focus on channeling.