<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=98195.msg4281408#msg4281408">Quote from: Hikari on 20-02-2011, 03:05:34</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">It's mostly an old stigma carried over from older, more restrictive versions of the paladin (AD&amp;D 2nd, mostly) who regularly and sometimes seemingly arbitrarily lost their powers (forever) for very minor things.  There's no longer a reason for people to pigeon-hole paladins into those same categories, but for people who <em>like</em> the "classic" paladin ideal they are somewhat preserved.  That's the way I like it, personally: remember the way they used to be but don't force it on people unnecessarily.<br/><br/>A 4E paladin doesn't have to fit into any discrete archetypes, really.  The number of options for one, like for most good classes, is "rapidly approaching infinity" or "effectively unlimited".  I was just listing the "classic" archetypes as a starting off point to see if there's anything there he liked the sound of, since trying to list all the possible "contemporary" archetypes is almost impossible.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Oh I know what you were meaning, it just brought me to the old idea from the AD&D and 3.5 era that was mainly an issue based on their alignment restriction. I was technically agreeing with you, just expanding on it as I like to socialize. :)