Grakor456

1.05 beta removes fatigue from pets. Rejoice!

This. The lack of diminishing returns is really a big deal, I think, and this game proves why it's often a good idea. The problem is the same for DPS builds as well, due to the way that Might, Dexterity, and Intelligence effectively amplify one another. More than anything else, I wish this game offered less rewards for stacking a stat and punished you more for dumping a stat...some kind of mechanical advantage to spreading stats out more. Instead, you get the best mathematical advantages just going all out on either defense or offense. I think a lot of the balance issues involving melee classes (especially paladin, monk, and barbarian) are tied to this.

Only for you, the rest of us aren't bound by strict dichotomous relationships in regards to disposition. Also, what would be the "opposite" of Passionate and Clever? Comments like this are precisely why this sounds a lot like D&D alignment arguments. Despite the system defining and even enforcing alignment classifications though spells, you still get people proclaiming that good is a matter of perspective and people aren't bound by binary alignments. As I see it: Opposite of Passionate is Stoic: one is being emotional and hot-headed, the other is being reserved and cool-headed. Opposite of Clever is Rational: one is being irreverent and humorous, the other is being practical and humorless. Since I'm still dealing with the first five post restriction and your edit came after my last post, I'll also comment on your "Benevolent/Cruel" example here: I don't see that as Benevolent/Cruel. Actual examples from in-game: the benevolent guy is the one that lets the known murderer go free, because he is swayed by a sob story of past abuse. He is the one that lets a man whose treachery killed dozens go free on the promise of future reparations. Benevolence is being merciful and kind even to those that do not deserve it. If you're showing no mercy to your enemies, then you're not benevolent. That doesn't mean that you're not good, you're just not benevolent. You can't be the paragon of soft-heartedness while also being the paragon of hard-heartedness. You can't champion the ideal of resolving conflict through diplomacy while also championing the ideal of resolving conflict through force. As paladins are described in-game as being zealots to a cause, it would be bizarre to me to have their favored dispositions being two that are highly likely to pull them in opposite directions. Diplomatic/Rational sounds good to me.

I'd argue that just because reputations don't cancel each other out, doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally opposing. Deceptive and honest are obviously opposites in practice, but they don't cancel out because this is about reputation. It doesn't matter if you told ten people the truth, you told those four other people lies and so you're still going to be known as that guy that told those people lies. But that doesn't mean that they aren't opposing, it just means that you're closer to being neutral on that "axis". At their cores, diplomatic is still about avoiding conflict while aggressive is still about forcing conflict. That doesn't strike me as at all compatible for the main focus of a paladin order. Though, this is now starting to get suspiciously similar to D&D arguments about alignment.

They're supposed to be? Really? Where does it say that? What source material are you drawing on? In any case, Pallegina strongly approves of the Watcher if they're Diplomatic, but is personally hard-handed, hard-headed, and is honestly pretty violent. She's the essence of "walk softly, and carry a big stick." That's Diplomatic/Aggressive to a tee. I guess you could go Diplomatic/Passionate, since Passionate choices largely work out to "judgmental ass" in practice, but that seems kinda meta. On a meta level, I can't be the only one who's noticed that the ten dispositions are easily and neatly divided into five opposing pairs. But, beyond that, the mere definitions of aggressive and diplomatic put them into conflict, even how they're handled in the game itself. Diplomatic is all about negotiation, compromise, and avoiding tactlessness and hostility. Aggressive is forcing conflict to get what you want and refusing compromise. I'd never be able to reconcile those two as being at all compatible. Personal opinion, perhaps, but again this strikes me as suggesting a paladin order that is benevolent and cruel. Just doesn't compute.

Aggressive and diplomatic are supposed to be opposites. It'd be kind of like giving a paladin order both benevolent and cruel, or deceptive and honest. I don't know what would be more fitting as I never take her, but that combination would be very, very odd. I do like the idea of enabling these bonuses for adventurers, at the very least. It always feels like priests and paladins get taxed for not being the main character.

Posting here to confirm that this is a problem. Playing on Windows via Steam, using a fully custom party. Party was created post-patch. Noticed at some point that my paladin and cipher lost their weapons. Re-equipped them, thought how odd that was, then ended up going back to Gilded Vale only to notice that my monk lost his clothing. I'm not sure what triggers it exactly, but fear of losing actual important items is keeping me from playing right now.