Snowflakes

What's his name?

>his

It more or less was in OD&D as well, IIRC.

...

>my paladin is on a quest of vengeance against his own god, the god of mercy
This is the kind of concept where I'd wager against the player being able to pull it off, but I'd absolutely love to see it if they did.

Are we really doing this?

I would love that character.
For 5e, the Oath of Conquest UA would be perfect for it.
It'd be an awesome dark knight sort of objective--start with burning down churches, end with trying to kill the personified concept of mercy itself.

>My character is me, but with magic/psionics

>My Paladin survived because the fire inside burned brighter than the fire around him. He fell into that dark chasm, but the flame burned on and on.

We're doing it.

It's a catch 22 if you think about it.
>burns down local mercy church with the priests and clergy inside.
"Thank you paladin for your merciful act of sparing the rest of the town."
Paladin just sighs and picks up more torches
>one burned down town later
"At least he left us the livestock."
and it just snowballs out of control from there.

What's wrong with snowflakes?

We're here to play a game about unique and interesting characters, risking their lives for treasure, glory, the greater good, and just a little mayhem. By nature, they're going to be strange individuals.

So what if That Guy wants to be a half-elf, half-demon? Problems only come up if the player is a bad roleplayer.

No, we are playing Alimony and Accountants, we all have to be humans with normal childhoods and no discernible skills

...

stop evading your ban, virt

No wait is this one

...

>Joshua Graham
>Snowflake
mama mia

...

>in 5e dnd
I can't speak to 4th edition, but it was also a thing in 3rd.

>Shishio.jpg

>No name
>amnesia
>literally cannot die
>can level up in every class
>learns magic in hours when most peoole take years or decades
>body covered in scars

planescape torment.jpg

Oh here we go, two faggots entirely missing the point as usual.

A snowflake is defined by being an extreme. It's not just having a few unusual traits, it's having lots of them to the point of absurdity, and especially it involves not having any substantial characteristics beneath that superficial layer of gaudiness.

Not being a snowflake does not mean you have to go to the other extreme and play something entirely bland and unremarkable - BUT if you can't make a good character out of a simple, ordinary origin story then you suck as a player. Fact.

I'll give the first of you two the point that PCs often do have some unique and interesting characteristics, but there's a lot of clear space between being 'unique and interesting' and being a way out there snowflake.

That's actually how it goes. Paladins follow Lawful Good before they follow a God.

>My paladin worships an esoteric non-deific philosophical religious system based on the concept of a higher order of existence. Essentially meaning based on organization and intrinsic order.

But doesn't stoicism itself acknowledge divinities by the nature of it's philosophy?

>My character is an atheist and believes that clerics are charlatans.
But gods obviously exist in this setting.
>Then my character hates gods and wants to kill them.

So the majority of actual humans in my country are snowflakes?

Nordics are the opposite of perfect, chess-playing oil-rich autists.

The only contenders for perfect human being are pure nordics and japanese. The rest are average (rest of the whites and asians) to utter garbage (the rest, excepting...), to medical waste-tier (arabs, africans).

This tbqh

My character is a woman that dresses like a man
Asexual
extremely attractive

You can acknowledge a god without worshiping it; see The Old Testament, whereby YHWH tells his people to not worship any god but himself. The others EXIST, but they're lesser and probably evil (according to his rules).

I can do you one better.
> Setting where the gods regularly walk the earth in person to fight back demons.
> The patron one prays to is an obligatory component that every pc has listed.
> Ask player who his god is
> "I don't believe in the gods."

> I wanna playa [viking of that setting]
> GM (me): Okay, but then he has to be tall, blond and have blue eyes.

Sounds like you need more muslim refugees

Would you rather play at a table with someone who's full on 'I don't believe in gods' militant athiest or full on 'There are no gods in this setting besides Jesus Christ' militant Christian?

He specified actual humans

According to Darwin it seems like the muslims are more human that your blond bimbos. Survival of the fittest. Why not do something about it instead of crying like a typical cuck?

They don't thrive, lol. They populate the prisons and lowest classes of society.

>my paladin has the lawful unaligned alignment

That's a palladin of helm nigga

>he's just like the existing popular character Thor
>except he lives in space
>and he's a horse, just like my fursona

Excellent snowflake example

You shut your whore mouth, Beta Ray Bill is great.

>According to Darwin it seems like the muslims are more human

???

You wanna point me to where Charles Darwin defined 'more human' and 'less human'?

>hating based Beta
I am angered

Hey, look at all these mentions of worshiping deities in the original appearance of the Paladin class. It's almost like they were ORIGINALLY expressions of the knight-in-shining-armor ideal, and CLERICS were the holy warriors devoted to specific deities, and it was you kiddies with post-TSR editions who misinterpreted the class.

Just because within your limited purview of 20-somethings who started with 3rd edition or Pathfinder or whatever, sometimes an annoyingly militant atheist will play a paladin without a god doesn't make the character concept bad... just rolled by shit players.

>is a stated thing in the rulebook
>snowflake

>vengeful paladin confronts avatar of the God of mercy.
>The avatar of mercy forgives the paladin

The existence of gods being questionable and clerics and paladins being rather powered by their community's and their own faith and conviction is by default more interesting. The fucks wrong with you?

Adventurers are pretty much by definition special snowflakes. That's the whole point.

He's right, you know. At least per D&D, having PC stats is being the 1% of the 1%. You're pretty much someone who accidentally broke their limiter on the way to the shops and is suddenly capable of growing and learning ridiculously fast compared to even the best of normal men.

4th is even less restricted than 3rd. 4th ed Paladins can be any alignment without having to use special variant classes.

Depending on a setting it actually could be a pretty understandable if suicidal and unreasonable stance. But PCs rarely get to where they are in life by being reasonable.

Actually, in 4th, if you were using the default flavor (why?) technically it was the first edition where a paladin HAD to worship a deity. Granted, much like many other things in 4th, the word "paladin" didn't really mean what it did in previous editions. While in previous editions "paladin" meant an exemplar of the noble knight-in-shining-armor archetype granted powers by living up to that archetype, in 4th, they were warriors invested with divine power from a deity...... then again in 4th the fluff and the crunch were so seperate that there was literally no obligation to use the written fluff.

4th was actually the first edition where the default fluff had Paladins getting their powers from deities. Before, the default was actually them getting it from ideals/idealism/archetypes.

Tieflings, Drow, and Dragonborn are all default player character options in 5e's core rule book too, but that doesn't mean I let anyone play them at my table.

>but in My setting...
you dont get to call others snoflakes for not knowing about your speshul setting and its intricacies

Only difference is, Tieflings and Dragonborn have only been "default" options since 4th, and Drow have only been "default" options since 5th. Whereas paladins who get their power primarily from ideals, and not directly from a particular deity, have been THE default since the first appearance of the class, with getting powers directly from a deity being either the sole purview of Clerics, or a variant option all the way until 4th edition.

>Only difference is, Tieflings and Dragonborn have only been "default" options since 4th

Mind you, in 4e that made sense. They were basically Carthage and Rome for the default 4e setting, with the setting being 'Dealing with the fallout of both major empires self destructing in a war'

I miss Nentir Vale... I appreciate a lot of what 5e did mechanically, but 4E's setting was such a nice new fresh slate for new players to jump into the game with and with 5E going to such extents to court new blood for the hobby I have no idea why we went back to Forgotten Realms' four decades of bloat as the default setting

>I appreciate a lot of what 5e did mechanically
Being a regressive throwback to 3e and 2e in a desperate attempt to win back the fans who hated 4e just for being new?

I'm a 4e fan but let's not start this fight. It doesn't really help anyone but people who like to argue and troll.

I have no interest in starting this argument up in this thread, please do something else with your time

>"And all ideals are releative!"

>bawww muh 4e is ded

it was a shit edition

Get on my level

>full on 'There are no gods in this setting besides Jesus Christ' militant Christian

Depending on how the latter one is played, it could be really interesting. I wish I could remember what the game was, but there was a book I used to have that was published back in the 90's that had a Delta Green/X-Files conceit of the players trying to cover up supernatural happenings on behalf of a vague yet menacing government agency. The big twist is that the Christian End Times were happening, and the players were actually interfering with angels trying to rapture people.

>paladin who models themselves after the ideals of diogenes
mite b cool

Seriously how much damage can a paladin do anyway?
Mages and hackers are the real game busters.

>Japanese
>perfect
Fuck off you worthless weeaboo. The japs were basically a third world country until the US occupation.

no seriously I don't care if it's hours later and you won't see this, fuck you for talking shit about Beta Ray Bill.

>Beta Ray Bill
>Just like Thor

You haven't actually read any of Beta Ray Bill's comics, have you.

>Hating on Based Ray Bill
I hope you stub your smallest toe on the doorframe.

t. Butthurt ponyfags

>straight, white, (human) male is actually a snowflake combination nowadays

>Literally in the PHB of almost every edition
>You're a snowflake if you do it
What does OP meant by this?
Also irl Paladins followed ideals, not Gods

>But muh setting
Spotted the snowflake

>>Then my character hates gods and wants to kill them.
Perfectly valid and legit goal, 99% of Gods in D&D are fucking cancerous faggots who cause 100% of all the problems

Actually in 3.PF they can also follow ideals. I think only 4e forced the following a God deal.

4e didn't, actually, not for paladins. THe only divine classes that HAD to follow a god were Avengers and Invokers.

Zone of Truth is going to make it easier to find an honest man at the least

Only because that part is more or less copy-pasted from 3.5 In Golarion they can't.

>The only contenders for perfect human being are pure nordics and japanese.

Uh. Neither are pure Homo Sapiens though?

BRB is literally THE monster-race paladin, thats the whole point- a monster who acts as the most upright hero

his only flaw is his retarded name

How is that relevant? Species are largely arbitrary anyway.

It's relevant because it means they're sub-human crossbreeds that need to be purged.

Superhuman, not subhuman.

but does it count as "finding" an honest man if a man's honesty is compelled instead of freely given?

> dual-wields tachi
> not wielding a katana and a dandao instead
Do you even bushido?

>American welfare states
>superhuman

kek.

>American
>pure anything
We're talking about nordics and the japanese, not mongrels.

A purebred dog is still a dog.