TrashMan

Yes, but that is a horrible Biowarian way of making distincion by saying: No, your class cannot wield two weapons at once, or wield this type of weapon at all. That's idiotic. On the other hand I don't find idiotic to imagine that rogues are more trained to be sneaky and strike at vital points on the body than warriors are, therefore receiving a bigger bonus for it. Just a fantasy trope. You don't find it idiotic? Well, I do. Because it is. Who trained that rouge? Why wouldn't a fighter know that? You have some strange notion of fighters fighting like it's some "honorable" duel. That trope needs to die in a fire. read below Here's a thing - striking where it hurts the most IS conventional. If you ever read a fencing/swordfighting manual it's full of dirty tricks. Striking at vital points is in every manual out there. You think people WANT to be skewerd by the enemy? You think they want to die? When you job is clsoe combat, you won't stay alive for long if you don't use every advantage you can possibly get. There is nothing "unconventional" about backstabbing.

High exploitabiltiy and some very slogicly silliy situations are not a weakness?

The problem with "good" evil characters is that tehy are almsot always of the Mastermind variety. And that requires long-term planing and goals. How could the develoeprs put that in, then the player is the PC and he determines the goals? In other words, they'd have to make plans for you.

Also, simply walking away should be a valid option. (unless of course the squirrels insist on killing you) I don't want to turn them in, I don't want to help them, nor do I want to fight them.

Ironicly, the VAST majority of poeple who say that have no idea how aligment actually works.

Actually, you don't need an aligment system. You can easily punish a paladin for clearly evil actions. Grey remain grey.

There's a difference between logical distinction and aritfical distinction who purpose is just to make sure things are different. For example: Only rouges can dual-wield. You can put that restriction in. It would make rouges unique, wouldn't it? But we all know it's just stupid.

If your party is completely drained - yes, they should be able to rest and sleep. Wounded is not the same as drained mind you. Drained = dead tired. RESTING (basicly encompases taking a breather, mantaining items/armor, mending wounds, etc..) would speed up health recovery and restone a small amount of fatigue SLEEPING restores full fatigue and speeds up resting even more. Sleeping pre-desposes that regenerative magic has been cast to speed up the recovery. So if you prepared badly, wasted your healing spells and didn't bring healing items - then yes, you should really turn around and get back to town. A town would offer man benefits - including even faster healing with no limitations to it (since you can hire a dozen healers to take care of you 24/7) In other words - the deeper into enemy territory you go, the worse for you. Your resting/sleeping would be less efficient.

This shudn't be a problem. Provided you stocked up properly you should be able to press on. No single encoutner should drain your fatigue anyway, and you always have the option to go back to camp. If only two hours passed since yoo last slept you really shouldnt' be able to sleep, but you can rest and mend wounds.

This. KILL IT WITH FIRE. With pleasure!

I only put things into "all can do" category that everyone LOGICLY should be able to do. You keep inventing artificial reasons why rogues should be the only ones to backstab or taunt, wiotu having any rational explanation or sutification other than "it would make rogues unique". You claim to read what I write and then ask me that?.... seriously? .... are you sure you're not just a troll? ... First of all, what makes you think that all the MASSIVE benefits a rogue gives ot the party out-ofcomabt are not worthy of a slot - especially since a rogue is FAR from worthless in combat. But you obviously are not reading and untill you do I see no reason to continue talking to you.

I think that's where the different levels of difficulty come into play. At the higher levels, these limits can be put in place. But at the lower levels of difficulty, I don't think developers should limit a player's ability to play "cheap", so to speak. IMO, it's about player choice. If I "choose" to have very strict limits placed upon me, I'll play at a higher level of difficulty. If I "choose" to rest for 40 hours straight or not have to worry about gold taking up space in my inventory's weight limit, I'll play at the lowest difficulty. If the developer decides to put restrictions, period, then the player no longer has as many choices about how to play the game. I think they shoud put limits. Playing cheap is an exploit. It is basicly cheating. As I said people are REALLY bad at controling their impulses and holding themselves back ESPECIALLY if they stand something to gain from it. Getting trough the encounter faster/easier IS a gain. We humans are evolutionary wired for efficiency. We optimize. The exploit is drawing us in, because we see efficiency. It's a basic loophole in human nature. Even those of us who hate such things still feel drawn to them.

No. No god-killing pelase. the palyer achieving those levels of power is stupid. The gods being so easily killable by any drok with a magical sword is even dumber. Have the player being able to challange a god. And then be immediately sticken by an uncurable explosive diarehea.

Who ever even said it has to be the classical paladin copy? Paladin-like? Yes. DAO Templars were kinda like that. You can technicly have an Order that trains you..and if you do things the Order deems as unworthy (and cannot adequatly defend your action) you are kicked out.

Good example of a ends-justify-means scenario. The Circels in Dragon Age. Morall it is repugnant to lock up people that haven't really done anything. Yet confining mages to Circles is necessary, given the whole blood magic and demonic possesion thing.

@Darth Trethon

If people want Bards in I don't really care one way or another. Let them have it. I would personally never use it, because I simply find the entire class conceptually stupid. While other guys fling spells and fight, he plays his lute during combat. The power of music comples you! Heck, it's like one of those crappy Macross sequels where the power of J-POP brainwashes everyone. I never could take bards seriously.

But they have of yet to decide upon a single paladin class have they not?? whiles they have for the barbarian so obviously they feel the need for it to have it's own specific class, whiles most agree that paladin is a cleric in heavy armor. so get over it! Who is this "most" you speak of? "most peopel agree" is an irrlevant attmept to try ot get some valdity to your claim by adding unconfirmed and non-representative numbers to your side. It doesn't interest me. Even if it were true that most people think that a paladin is a cleric in heavy armor it still wouldn't. Because I don't care what ignorants think.

The same holds true for a paladin. You have no idea how it would be designed NOR exactly what hte priest will have. Also, I think we already proven that the paladin and the priest are NOT mechanicly the same.

Only if it's restricted to fighter-types only and it unlocks a paladin sub-class. If a fighter can't become an archamge, then I don't want to see mages being called paladins. Not even as a title.

And aureas. AND mercies. AND divine bond. And so on. Take a look: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/paladin.html

Have oyu even looked at Pathfinder or similar rulebooks? Paladins do have unique powers and abilities that a priest does not. There's a bigger difference between a paladin and a priest than there is between a barbarian and a fighter.

And barbarians are useless when you have fighters And ciphers are useless when you have mages. Barbarians I don't much care for really but Cyphers at least use quite different kind of magic from wizards and in a very different way plus they have a very separate and rich lore than wizards. Paladins are just fighters with a bad attitude.....nothing really that interesting. Sez you. I say Cyphers are the most boring concpet in the history of forever....except maybe bards (seriously? The power of music? It's just so damn silly) . Paladins have a very rich and interesting lore compared tofighters and and have special skills abilities of their own. PALADINS >>>>>> CYPHERS >>>>>> BARDS >>>> you

And barbarians are useless when you have fighters And ciphers are useless when you have mages.