Can Cerilia handle: The plethora of paladins revisited!! [Archive]

MatanThunder

05-31-2007, 02:49 AM

:rolleyes:

The plethora of paladins revisited!!

In a recent thread I read some DM’s have taken a view that only the L/G deities (oh and they mention L/N) can have the Paladin Holy Warriors. I am afraid I can’t support that viewpoint. In the game there is room for Paladin/Holy Warriors for every alignment and diety. It makes the class much more available for those who don’t like the alignment based restrictions that the L/G Paladin imposes.

In the games I have run I have allowed PC’s to chose from all alignments to find a Paladin/Holy Warrior (of 1 Faith) to play. The background material comes from the Dragon Magazine July 1980 for the Anti Paladin. (The first to introduce the non L/G type of paladin). It was carried on further in the Dragon Magazine February 1986 with the “A Plethora of Paladins” which supplied a nice set of those Paladin/Holy Warriors of the Faith that I mentioned. (I reworked some of the material to have them capable of using some of the arch typical Paladin Skills like healing touch, holy swords, and special mounts.

Those other paladins are: (L/N Lyan; L/E Illrigger; N/G Myrikhan; T/N Paramander; N/E Arrikhan; C/G Garath; C/N Fantra). Now the forces of the Druids and nature can have a Paladin of their own to defend their belief set.

The idea offers a certain flavor of adventure hooks for the Paladin conflicts that are bound to arise as the Holy Warriors of one deity square off against their nemesis deity’s forces. I has all sorts of campaign implications too if you place the alignment/deity chosen portfolio into play. What will the forces of bane with their Illrigger Paladins come into contact with the forces of Chanteau and her Myikhan Paladins meet. Maybe while the Banites are pillaging a simple farming community!!! (The outrage!!!).

It would be a slugfest and should our party run willy nilly into such a fray the consequences could well embroil them into the situation…..oooooooooo……the painnnnn……the hurting!!!!!

Not a bad idea really. Keeps those goody two shoe paladins in the place, and the next time the paladin sees that glowing blade that seems to resist magic detection that ol’ L/G Paladin might not be so eager to just go over and pick it up. (They always get that mine, mine, mine…..look in their eyes too).

So can your game handle this idea???

Later

:rolleyes:

Thelandrin

05-31-2007, 09:10 AM

A Druid is a paladin of nature, really. Paladins need extremes to espouse - the four radical alignments are conceivable, but not the four non-True neutral ones though.

irdeggman

05-31-2007, 09:49 AM

Would this be like the variant paladins contained in the revised Chap 1 of the BRCS?

Avani (LN)
Cuircean (CG)
Nesirie (NG)

Each paladin now has a specific code of conduct that is more alignement (and deity philosophy based) then the generic one in the PHB.

3.5 UA also has paladins of different alignments as a variant too.

Thelandrin

05-31-2007, 11:45 AM

Well, I meant just standard paladins with a slight alignment and ethos change don't really work. Obviously, the paladins of Nesirie and Cuiraécen work much better as customised "special agents" of their respective gods, than just ripped-off paladins (hence the custom classes in the BRCS).

That's why I'm in favour of the Unearthed Arcana variants, although I refer to them as the Paladin (LG), Liberator (CG), Infernal (LE) and Havok (CE).

ryancaveney

05-31-2007, 01:28 PM

I'm in favour of the Unearthed Arcana variants, although I refer to them as the Paladin (LG), Liberator (CG), Infernal (LE) and Havok (CE).

Personally, I don't use paladins in my games -- they're multiclassed fighter/clerics (or cleric/rogues for Eloele or cleric/bards for Laerme or cleric/rangers for Erik or...) -- or the alignment system, for that matter. However, for the sake of discussion, it seems to me that paladins' extreme commitment to a particular moral code lends itself much better to the other four (non-TN) alignments: LN, CN, NG and NE. The reason is that much of the endless wrangling over "is my paladin allowed to do this?" arises from instances where the two alignment halves lead to opposite conclusions -- for example, when the good thing to do and the lawful thing to do are different. However, a paladin of one of the other alignment combinations doesn't have to worry about this: a LN paladin always does the lawful thing, and a NG paladin always does the good thing. That's why I think of those four as more extreme than the mixed four in the corners.

Ryan

Jaleela

06-01-2007, 08:01 PM

I see pleny of space for paladins in most BR campaigns, and in most religions. To make sense of it, one must see religions as embodying theologies, and not look at the construct of alignment, and as has ably been pointed out, one can readily have "lawfull good" religions at odds, and even different sects of the same religion at odds. To give a historical example, the aggressive actions of the Teutonic knights against their fellow catholic Poles from the mid to late 14th century onward.

As to only one palladin per a religion, I don't think this makes much sense in a campaign setting devoted to politics - sure, a galahad is sensible in the artificial construct of Arthurian tales, but had no place in any real medieval kingdom. As to the question of whether there would be enough people to have paladins in any numbers - historically, thousands of European knights and gentlemen, gifted with land, and being on the top of the social structure, set aside their rank and privilege to become Templars, Hospitalers, Schwertbruder, Knights of Santiago, knights of Catelevera (sp?), as well as numbers of other oders of what were essentially monk-knights, under very rigid discipline, and giving up their accustomed comforts.

The game envisions units of paladins of Haelyn, etc, available, on the order of companies of 200 men. Perhaps this can represent 1 knight and 2 brother-seargents, if you are comfortable with lower numbers of actual paladins, but it still allows for hundreds of them. Personally, I am more comfortable with this, as are our players, and it gives a sense of depth to our campaign to have in essence military orders modeled on the same general idea of actual military orders - in the case of the Hospitalers, that survived into the Early MOdern era as a military order, and in their function of running hospitals, to this very day.

kgauck

06-01-2007, 10:07 PM

ryancaveney

06-02-2007, 12:12 AM

I'm inclined to see more paladins than Ryan (perhaps this depends what a paladin is)

I admit that my perceptions are shaped strongly by the 1st and 2nd edition rules, in which paladins required such high ability scores that only about one person in a thousand (rolling 3d6 six times) could qualify. If we toss that, then sure, they can be everywhere. However, since I find them both insufferable roleplaying headaches and mechanically unnecessary given free multiclassing, I see no reason at all to keep them in 3rd ed.

Ryan

ryancaveney

06-02-2007, 12:13 AM

And why did no one prefer Geoffrey?

He's certainly the most appealing one of the sons in the Lion In Winter portrayal...

MatanThunder

06-02-2007, 12:53 AM

Jaleela

06-02-2007, 12:56 AM

I'm inclined to see more paladins than Ryan (perhaps this depends what a paladin is), but even I don't see whole units of paladins. (Frankly I generally don't see whole units of fighters either, so that may be telling).

Let's assume the Western Imperial Temple raises an elite unit called Knights of Haelyn. I would imagine perhaps 50 infantry with and average level of 4, or 25 horsemen with an average level of 4. So given the assumption of 25 or 50 men, I'd see maybe 2x Warrior 4, 2x Fighter 4, and one paladin or cleric in an informal leadership role, for groups of five that I would replicate five times for the mounted knights and ten times for the unmounted knights. Two of the informal leaders would instead be formal leaders, perhaps a 6th and a 7th level paladin or cleric (one of each?).

I figure the major temples of Haelyn could each field one unit like this.

Well, your mileage clearly varies. I merely point out that we have examples of thousands of dedicated people from privleged classes who gave away every advantage their social class afforded them to become militant monks with rigid discipline - both in their daily life, and on the battlefield, and that they clearly were an elite warrior class, who outperformed their counterparts in what was considered already to be a military elite (knights).

Since his objection as first posed was based primarily on there not being enough dedicated warriors to a religious ideal to have more than *one* palladin per religion or sect, I pointed out an actual example from European History. Let's not forget the warrior monks of Japan, while we are looking to actual examples that existed as well. :)

From my point of view, a lot of peoples campaigns as described underplay the importance of clerics, temples, and religions, by a serious margin, and go by a more modern model, of religions, while overplaying the impact and commonality of magic (which takes away from it's wonder and power, in my mind), using it as a commonplace science and technology substitute. To me, this ruins the medivalesque feel I and my players crave in a campaign, but the best thing about D&D is that it is many things to many people, and people can design their own campaigns, and pick and chose rules to suit, while ignoring others that don't.

kgauck

06-02-2007, 01:00 AM

However, since I find them both insufferable roleplaying headaches and mechanically unnecessary given free multiclassing, I see no reason at all to keep them in 3rd ed.
What I really like about free multi-classing is that you can build the "paladin" you want precisely. The ratio of fighter to cleric, or ranger to druid, or barbarian to druid, rogue to cleric, and on and on. And if you think a paladin of Ruornil has wizard levels, go for it. While I have no problem with the paladin per se, it seems more like a hold-over from single classing 1st and 2nd edition than a class that makes sense in 3rd edition. If a player wanted to play a paladin or a paladin varient, I wouldn't object. The concept of the holy warrior dedicated to his cause I think has a lot going for it.

ryancaveney

06-02-2007, 01:20 AM

there would be NO turning for T/N, and all others neutrals must not be part of a nature patheon as Undead are beyond their understanding to control or affect (druids can't turn undead)

This is my single biggest objection to the way the cleric-undead interaction is handled. To my mind, druids should be much better at turning undead than any other religion, since undead are first and foremost unnatural (especially as, for example, skeletons and zombies don't even have enough willpower to qualify as Evil). In Cerilia, I see opposition to and power to harm the undead, in order from greatest to least, as Erik, Ruornil, Avani, Laerme, Nesirie, Cuiraecen, Sera, Haelyn, Belinik, Eloele, Kriesha. In fact, I allow priests of Haelyn to choose to *command*, rather than turn, undead, if they wish -- it expresses loyalty to the state even after death.

Ryan

kgauck

06-02-2007, 02:53 AM

Since his objection as first posed was based primarily on there not being enough dedicated warriors to a religious ideal to have more than *one* paladin per religion or sect, I pointed out an actual example from European History.

Well, the basis of the limitatation was that paladins used to require an incredible charisma, based on a standard 3d6 method of character generation. Other requirements would further limit this already small pool of potential paladins. Add the rigorous ethical constraints and the pool deminishes further.

I have no doubt that a very large group of people would adhear to rigorous ethical constraints and join a religious knightly order. If that is your only requirement to call people paladins, then they no doubt exist in very large numbers. If they must exibit special qualities in addition (see discussions on how many clerical spellcasters there are starting say,
here.

If I were modeling Knights Templar, Hospitilars, Teutonic Knights, or other religious knightly orders, my own choice would to make them warriors and fighters lead by paladins and clerics. Paladins have too much going on as a class to represent these guys.

MatanThunder

06-02-2007, 06:55 AM

:D

This is my single biggest objection to the way the cleric-undead interaction is handled. To my mind, druids should be much better at turning undead than any other religion, since undead are first and foremost unnatural (especially as, for example, skeletons and zombies don't even have enough willpower to qualify as Evil). In Cerilia, I see opposition to and power to harm the undead, in order from greatest to least, as Erik, Ruornil, Avani, Laerme, Nesirie, Cuiraecen, Sera, Haelyn, Belinik, Eloele, Kriesha. In fact, I allow priests of Haelyn to choose to *command*, rather than turn, undead, if they wish -- it expresses loyalty to the state even after death.

I have to agree with you on this Ryan!!!!

I never agreed that druids should be unable to turn undead. I didn't house rule it in though....I do that a lot for ideas which need to be worked into the game because of good logic.

Their gods would be just as much against the undead forces, and another note you might want to make is that not all neutral deities are not nature oriented, so they are capable of turning or controlling undead as they wish. Of course they are not druids either.

I believe this was one of the many attempts to weaken more powerful classes in some vain attempt to make it seem more even steven......I hate issues like these where someone is trying to establish a equality based on their personal beliefs in a game where all the classes are and never were equal.

I would house rule it in myself......maybe with a +2 turn bonus for the forces of life discorporating undead and returning them to the land.

Later

;)

AndrewTall

06-02-2007, 12:22 PM

Druids and undead.
A counter argument to druidic turning is that druids have power over natural things, clerics over supernatural; as undead are inherently supernatural - and moreover absolutely opposed the nature, the druid has no power over them.

Of course I allowed priests to turn other 'otherworldly beings' such as elves and (if they were very lucky) awnshegh and hostile scions too, so I know I played the turn undead ability very differently to most...

Game balance
To love or loathe it, consider it vital or irrelevant is player preference. I am a monomanic for it, I've played palladium and other games with no concern for balance and have seen it ruin game after game. If one PC can pulverise the others with ease - even all of the others together - complete any taks on their own without the others, then unless the player of that character is very mature, and quite possibly even then, the game rapidly ceases to be fun for the other players who become tag-along's rather than heroes.

More than anything else whether or not a game is to be balanced needs to be agreed up front as otherwise it is deeply unfair to the players with the 'crap PC's'.

Although the granted powers of clerics have been toned down for 3.5e (no more turn at will...) adding an ability to druids should be balanced elsewhere. So if you give Druids the power to turn undead then either restrict wildshape or reduce it in some way - Ken's suggestion to allow druids to use wildshape as either wildshape or turn undead seems fine as overall they still have the same power level albeit with wider usage. I however would by the same logic allow all cleric-types to swap their great granted power for another appropriate to the god much as allowing sponteaneous healing for one priest, and spontaneous smiting for a more militant priest. So perhaps priests of Nesirie could either turn undead or lay on hands, priests of Haelyn turn undead or let out a rallying cry...

Of course this view means that I hate the loss of Skills and powers in 3.5e, and consider most prestige classes broken - if a prestige class gives something the main class doesn't then its overpowered without a compensating adjustment.... And the wonderful spellcasting prestige classes that basically act as gestalt classes are simply a bad joke. Let's not even mention the 'npc' classes in the DMG which are woefully under-strength...

I would suggest that in the conversion from 2e to 3.5e in addition to dropping paladin and ranger (and not bothering to add barbarian - make rage a feat series already), priest should have dropped to D4 HD with people who want to play militant priests then taking some fighter levels.

I would note incidentally that D&D was are biased to try and make classes 'even steven' - if not during combat than elsewhere. Familiarity with other systems highlights this approach which was designed to encurage a mix of classes in a party. D&D doesn't go as far as herosystem, but in general all classes are balanced across the game, although 2e in particularly often tried to balance a strength in one area with a weakness in another, so a priest got great spells, good combat, but was restricted by their gods moral code for example, which rarely worked.

I'm curious Matan - would you be happy playing a character 5-6 levels lower than everyone else in the party? Higher? Would you be happy playing a standard class if the other players got gestalt classes? If not, then why be happy with an unbalanced class?

Balance between classes is designed to ensure that all characters of equivalent level (in 2e equivalent xp) are roughly as useful across the game and is very necessary in most games I've played.

<snip - post text moved to new thread on alignment>

Plentiful paladins
Hmm, I'd say it depends on how you see a paladin. If they are simply another type of agent employed by a deity then they should be as common, indeed since they need physical strength not a glib tongue or insightful nature probably more common. If they are a paragon of the deity's beliefs then they should be rarer as even priests are permitted their human frailties more than paladins...

And historically the laws on inheritance often meant that many who were borne into privilege wouldn't stay there unless they either joined the army or the priesthood, so becoming a priest wasn't giving up everything, but often instead a way to keep it - medieval churches were vastly wealthy in many parts and often dominated by the nobility.

I get the impression that the paladins Ryan has met and mine would be very different animals - several paladins in D&D literature to me sound LE or even CE with their rigid intolerance, brutal methods and lack of consideration for good...

AndrewTall

06-02-2007, 12:31 PM

Part two as I waffled on too long...

Chosen of the gods
Back to the main thread.

When deciding if a god should have a champion, you need to decide whether a god needs them, and what effect being a champion has.

Why bother?
If a standard class can fit the bill, why create a new one? So if a paladin of Ruornil can satisfy the gods needs, you don't need to add anything for Ruonril to have a champion. Similarly if Belinik's champion can be reflected with a berseker, or Erik's with a druid, they have no need for a separate 'champion class'.

I would add a champion only if I wanted to add something unusual to the character, otherwise keep it as a title with no attached game mechanics.

What effect?
Looking at Faerun, which is where Matan seems to be coming from, the main game effect of being a chosen of Mystra is that:

Immortality. So the designers don't need to design a series of champions when making backstory, they can just have immortal McGuffins. This actually is a cheap power to throw around, even though in reality it would be highly sought after, immortality is great but has no real effect on game play beyond people's responses and the types of plans they make. 'The human insulted my friend, a century after he is dust in his grave I will desecrate his memory and make his people scorn his name'.

Silver fire. To be honest this always sounded like 'Elminster is the bestest mage so he needs to be able to do everything magic' to me, but whatever. It's a powerful visually effective ability although the relative lack of usage indicates it was an afterthought after someone asked why old El couldn't do spellfire...

Invulnerability to some spells. I don't really see the point aside from getting an author out of a hole in writing or show a trick, if a hostile spell is that bad fix the spell, not the character...

Spontaneous spells. Now this is a major power given the spell slot system in most D&D games which does fit in very well with the idea of a closer understanding of magic.

I would say that when converting to 3.5e the chosen should have been given a prestige class, 'chosen of mystra' and got the above as powers in place of spells (they don't need more spell levels anyway after L20 which is low for them) as it is simply giving them for free is unbalancing.

The balance issue isn't a problem for M-T, but it is a problem for me - if Mystra can power up her folk without cost, why wouldn't the other gods do likewise? With lots of super-troopers around why would anyone not ally with a god for the power-up? Pretty soon everyone is superman, fine if you like the style but otherwise just a pain for the DM.

Champion prestige class.
The champion would therefore have a few unusual feats, possibly a shift from spells to granted powers or special abilities.

New limitations could be social (hard to balance with crunch bonus's), weaknesses (Ruornil's chosen share a vulnerability of the god, are weaker in areas with low source potential, etc), loss of range in previous abilities, etc.

So for example the champion of Belink:
Could gain physical abilities like strength, constitution, regeneration, natural armour, rage, reputation. But lose intelligence, wisdom, charisma, dexterity, feats (who need skill when you've got strength, weaklings practice to overcome deficiencies, the mighty simply reach out their hands and take their prize...)

A champion of Ruornil:
Could cast either priest or wizard spells (not extra spells, but a wider selection), spontaneously cast from a tight list, gain intelligence, etc. But be vulnerable to cold iron (mythically a sovereign against much magic), unable to use 'shadow' implicated magic, be readily marked out as inherently magical, etc.

A champion of Avani:
Gain speed, intelligence, wisdom, charisma, light based powers, but lose strength when not in sunlight, be vulnerable to necromancy, or cold.

A champion of Eloele
Might be able to shadow walk, be inhumanly swift, but vulnerable to light, unable to effectively use heavy armour.

A champion of Haelyn
Gain rallying abilities akin to bardic music, inhuman insight into motivations, charisma bonuses, but be weakened by loss of faith by followers, perhaps not quite as tough as they would otherwise be.

Etc, etc.

Obviously if you don't want balance in your game, just ignore the losses, but don't be surprised when other players complain about favouritism or demand to be the chosen of their pet god...

Dcolby

06-02-2007, 12:36 PM

Should I pass this along to Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II? ;-)

And why did no one prefer Geoffrey?

It seems that most royals have rough and strained relationships with their offspring. (Especialy English Monarchs) I suspect the whole rival for the throne and not wishing to be suplanted thing is involved.

The normal desire is to see your offspring do better than you, many Royals however do not wish to be remembered as the Parent of the great ruler and so they seem to undermine if not outright sabotage their children somtimes.

Add a healthy dose of offspring wanting to oust you and sibling rivalry and you have a more disfunctional bunch than ever dared to appear on Jerry Springer... ;)

MatanThunder

06-02-2007, 03:22 PM

:cool:

One item at a time, I will come back for another nip later!!

Druids and undead.
A counter argument to druidic turning is that druids have power over natural things, clerics over supernatural; as undead are inherently supernatural - and moreover absolutely opposed the nature, the druid has no power over them.

Of course I allowed priests to turn other 'otherworldly beings' such as elves and (if they were very lucky) awnshegh and hostile scions too, so I know I played the turn undead ability very differently to most...

The abomination against nature of the undead should be the key here. Deities of the nature portfolios would be heck bent on destroying this abomination to the life and nature forces, and to handcuff them with some arbitrary balance issue put their viewpoint out on an undefensible limb in LOGIC!!!

Game balance has no place in the argument. I also see your supernatural viewpoint on it to be inherently flawed...as all deity affecting the real world could well be classified as supernatural, and not just the cleric skill set/alignments that you are trying to represent them as.

The druid should have power over undead to DESTROY them......it is only logical from a forces of life/nature vs the forces of undeath/afterlife.

Each to their own of course.

Later

:rolleyes:

BTW...If your rebuttal could find a way to be a little more concise I would appreciate it. I hate having to hike through a lot of material to find what your point is, but of course I will if you feel it is necessary to validate your point of view.....which I am not sure you can with the points I listed above.

ryancaveney

06-02-2007, 04:22 PM

The abomination against nature of the undead should be the key here. Deities of the nature portfolios would be heck bent on destroying this abomination to the life and nature forces... The druid should have power over undead to DESTROY them......it is only logical from a forces of life/nature vs the forces of undeath/afterlife.

Yes, that has always been my position.

On a related note, my favorite RPG pantheon is the Orlanthi gods from Glorantha. In that system, unlike many D&D worlds, the God of Death is the primary *opponent* of the undead, because they violate his cardinal rule: after you die, you're supposed to stay that way. =)

Ryan

ryancaveney

06-02-2007, 04:25 PM

... A champion of Avani: Gain speed, intelligence, wisdom, charisma, light based powers, but lose strength when not in sunlight, be vulnerable to necromancy, or cold... Etc, etc.

This is really excellent stuff! Powers this thematically appropriate might even defeat my ancient opposition to paladins!

Ryan

kgauck

06-02-2007, 04:36 PM

The comments by AndrewTall are very interesting, and I'll offer my thoughts in the same format.

Druids and Undead
Andrew observes that "druids have power over natural things, clerics over supernatural." I agree with that approach and will add that D&D is built with a strong Manichean component. There is a manifest struggle between Good and Evil, Light and Dark, assumed in D&D. Historically, the forces of evil and darkness were assumed to summon demons and dark spirits. Undead is another thing altogether, but undead are cool, and they fit into this model of a dark source of power very nicely. Of course Manicheanism is normally monotheist, so D&D postulates a uniform force of good and evil, positive and negative energy, and overlays polytheism on top of that by asking dieties and their priesthoods to pick sides, light or dark. I don't object to a certain amount of Manicheanism because the setting supports it (war against the shadow, taint of Azrai, and the rest). I think that the druids's power is, as Andrew describes it, a natural force, and that has been typically described as elemental, even to the point that the most powerful druids can shape change into elementals. Setting the life unlife dichotomy up makes plenty of sense, as a natural unnatural source of power, but we already have the Shadow World as the source/home/power of undead. If as the ancient Spirit World, it was always the home to the spirits of the dead, it might support the idea of natural spirits, even of the dead, and unnatural death spirits as summoned, constrained, or bound, unlike the free-willed undead who haunt with a purpose. Both make sense and could be used, and my own preference is probably some combination of both theories.

Game Balance
I am not a fan of game balance where the mechanics try to make everyone differently good at the same stuff. Such as Fighters bash down doors, Rogues pick locks, and wizards knock. Rather my preference is for each class to have its own sphere of dominance, and for the DM to include opportunities for each sphere to play a role in the game. Fighters should dominate combat, and clerics, wizards, and rogues (and derived PrC's) should support the combat classes, not simply combat differently. Rogues should have skills, techniques, and abilities to do other kinds of stuff that fighters can't muscle through and spellcasters can't replicate. There should be one or two magical realms that spellcasters dominate and other classes take a notable secondary role.

In such a model, balance is irrelevant. All that matters is that the guy from any sphere gets his time to do what he does and the others can only support. The fighter doesn't have to be as good in combat as the cleric is at identifying a profane altar and neutralizing its dread curse. In a good setup, you might have many small challenges of one kind and a few great challenges of another kind, to achieve a mutual satisfaction of the several players.

<snip by AndrewTall - text in alignment thread>

AndrewTall

06-02-2007, 06:53 PM

The abomination against nature of the undead should be the key here. Deities of the nature portfolios would be heck bent on destroying this abomination to the life and nature forces...I also see your supernatural viewpoint on it to be inherently flawed...as all deity affecting the real world could well be classified as supernatural, and not just the cleric skill set/alignments that you are trying to represent them as. ...The druid should have power over undead to DESTROY them......it is only logical from a forces of life/nature vs the forces of undeath/afterlife.

Oppose yes, of course a druid will oppose undead, demons, etc. Whether they have any power over such unnatural monstrosities is an entirely different position. If you gain power from the natural world around you, can control natural forces, talk to or even become plants, animals, etc then to say that the outright unnatural becomes completely beyond your sphere of influence is at least as natural a progression as to say that your powers are more effective against it.

The 'turning power' of a druid would therefore either be a complete rejection of the unnatural as you describe, or the canon AD&D view of impotence against it, either possibility being equally valid. The question of which view should be utilised in a game then moves to which method more accurately reflects the setting and needs of the DM, and of course, to the game balance point you seem to deride.

Whether another god is natural or supernatural depends imho on portfolio and perspective, traditionally most deities were based in the outerplanes and inherently supernatural, supporting my view that a cleric has more supernatural powers than a druid - not undermining it as you suggest. I am unclear why you argue that a clerics powers should be less effective over supernatural beings, because being outerplanar in source the clerics power is supernatural itself. Sympathy and contagion are classic magical methods of effect that permeate a number of game systems including AD&D, sympathy more than justifies the clerics greater ability to turn undead, demons etc.

My view is that the druid is a priest that is very deliberately rooted in the 'real' world and standard four primary elemental planes, with few of the powers over the outerplanes, positive and negative quasi elemental planes that are the core of the powers of the more classic clerics. As the druid has far less power over the supernatural than a normal cleric, in this case specifically less power over the positive elemental plane, then their ability to channel that power against undead should be weaker than a clerics.

This argument is of course inverted if you say use a shamanic system of spirits to empower undead such as the one Ken has described, instead of the classic negative plane empowerment system, but I do not see that such a change was part of your argument.

and to handcuff them with some arbitrary balance issue put their viewpoint out on an undefensible limb in LOGIC!!!

Game balance has no place in the argument.

Handcuff is a bizarre term - unless undead predominate then the issue is hardly crippling to the class and they have advantages over the cleric elsewhere.

The balance issue is a secondary argument yes, but hardly arbitrary. The purpose of any RPG system is to allow a group to adventure together - as such each player needs a chance to shine, and needs to have at least a chance to measure up to the others. If one character class is clearly superior to others, then those other classes become scorned and ultimately ignored impoverishing the system. As such balance is the core of both the dungeon masters art and the game designers skill - failure is the easiest way to break the system barring flawed mechanics.

Would you be happy playing in a game where your characters power is substantially different to the rest of the parties? If the answer is no, then game balance is clearly a core feature of the system, since it is necessary for player enjoyment. In that case if a druid is a cleric+ extra's then the druid needs to be toned down or the cleric toned up. 2e admittedly has the varying xp mechanic to balance out classes of different power, but that simply means you have to increase the druids xp requirements, which reduces level-up opportunities and therefore is a negative change from a power-gamer perspective (as they like rapid level ups and new powers).

If you would be happy playing, say, a L2 fighter in a party of L4 characters then your DM is a lucky guy, clearly the imbalance doesn't bother you or damage your enjoyment of the game, in which case having the classes unbalanced becomes a side issue, by contrast most of my players have complained bitterly when another player got an 'unfair' advantage. When designing/running a game however I find that those players able to play and enjoy an unbalanced game have no difficulty with a balanced game, however the reverse is not true - therefore game balance is a key design element for any competent game designer as it acts to widen the potential audience of the game and increase the enjoyment of those playing.

BTW...If your rebuttal could find a way to be a little more concise I would appreciate it. I hate having to hike through a lot of material to find what your point is, but of course I will if you feel it is necessary to validate your point of view.....which I am not sure you can with the points I listed above.

I was not rebutting your point, but rather commenting on a number of topics in the thread, only one of which was yours, indicating alternate views that could be taken. I used titles to make navigation between topics simple, apologies if the titles alone were insufficient for you to identify the topics in question, I thought them preferable to half a dozen posts...

AndrewTall

06-02-2007, 07:19 PM

Game Balance
...Rather my preference is for each class to have its own sphere of dominance, and for the DM to include opportunities for each sphere to play a role in the game... In such a model, balance is irrelevant. All that matters is that the guy from any spehere gets his time to do what he does and the others can only support.

To me the system you describe is one of balance - but it depends heavily on the DM weighting the game to suit the party mix.

Mechanics should be used, imho, within an area of the game to balance PC's in the same area, so two priests have similar magical influence overall, whether one shifts to granted powers and the other does not. Similarly if one wanted to be better in a second area of the game than the other, they would have to be poorer in the first as otherwise the other class would be redundant - why play a regular cleric if the 'war cleric' has just as good magic as you, but is better in combat and gets the chicks to boot?

<snip, text moved to alignment post>

Detect evil
And as a response to an earlier post I would always remove the paladins ability to detect evil - it makes it too easy for them. Give them a bonus on sense motive by all means but not a 100% lie detector. If they don't discover that sweet little daisy who has asked them to help her mother is actually a shapeshifting assassin by the series of unfortunate traps they trip over then they deserve to suffer. Alternatively making the power an absolute rather than relative test and then undermining their belief in it is a way of working. 'yes the merchant is good, but he's not stupid, you flashed your cash and said whatever it takes, so he decided it would cost everything... it's his job to make money by charging what the market, i.e. you, will bear' Justifying the removal of the power is relatively easy - a gods champion should be able to prove their insight after all, and there are so many other powers they can have instead...

kgauck

06-02-2007, 08:33 PM

Mechanics should be used, imho, within an area of the game to balance PC's in the same area, so two priests have similar magical influence overall.I agree in the same area. What vexes me is differently equal in all areas. Magic should be used to identify magic, counter magic, and do magical things. Magic should not replicate the abilities of other classes. Likewise, fighters should fight well, not use their physicality to solve problems that should require other classes just as easily as those other classes.

<snip - text moved to alignment thread>

MatanThunder

06-03-2007, 02:02 AM

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by MatanThunder
and to handcuff them with some arbitrary balance issue put their viewpoint out on an undefensible limb in LOGIC!!!

Game balance has no place in the argument.

Handcuff is a bizarre term - unless undead predominate then the issue is hardly crippling to the class and they have advantages over the cleric elsewhere.

It's not bizarre in the least....others clerics have the power to turn undead (even the neutral ones) but to Handcuff the Druid is simply a leap in NON Logic.....like only using blunt weapons was in 1st & 2nd ed. I always ruled that bow related deities clerics could use bows... There is even a cleric artilcle in the Dragon that detailed some of the early clerics who evolved past the blunt!!

The point is that druids are singled out........and I see no reason to allow it in my game.

<snip - text moved to alignment thread by AndrewTall>

Later

:cool:

Gman

06-07-2007, 06:51 AM

Hmm correct me if I'm wrong but in the original 2nd Ed Birthright Paladins of Cuiracean were Chaotic Good. - roaming champions of justice.

Personally I always saw Paks as a CG paladin.

The chaotic part being more relevant when church politics conflicted with what the Paladin see's as the "pure god inspired rightness" of the situation.

Having a paladin with no code to have moral conflicts about would sound like a waste of time to me - Yes I'm a CN Paladin - I must randomly roll to see if I kill help or just look after myself or I'm in violation of my personal and completely variable non code of ethics. pfffft.

I actually quite liked the descriptions of Alignment in the Baldurs gate game - but nearly every D&D game had new descriptions of alignment.

AndrewTall

06-08-2007, 07:13 PM

Gman - I see the evil alignment paladins as foes more than actual player characters, following one particularly disastrous campaign I wouldn't allow evil characters - it just doesn't suit my GM style, so allowing 'any alignment' paladins to me is about creating a rule set for paladins (i.e. HDie, spell/granted power advancement, size of honour code) and then using that to create a champion of whichever god happens to be appropriate.

kgauck

06-08-2007, 07:29 PM

Creating evil classes and powers generally means creating a rule set for gaining the power from evil. Eat the brains of your victims, gain 1d4 INT for 3d6+6 hours, and stuff like that. Then after a while you become scary and unnatural, and children flee from your presence. Its not just play without moral constraint, but a different ball of wax.

AndrewTall

06-09-2007, 07:23 AM

Creating evil classes and powers generally means creating a rule set for gaining the power from evil. Eat the brains of your victims, gain 1d4 INT for 3d6+6 hours, and stuff like that.

I was thinking more along the lines of '+1 priest spellcasting level every three levels, 1 major, 2 medium or 3 minor granted powers' that sort of thing... I'll leave the brain-eating to others - prion disorders are a pain to GM...

kgauck

06-09-2007, 07:53 AM

prion disorders are a pain to GM...

I thought that's why the included the insanity rules.

Gman

06-12-2007, 08:08 AM

irdeggman

06-12-2007, 11:05 AM

Hmm it occurs to me to question whether this thread is really about Paladins.

In my understanding Paladins were Holy warriors of Good. (Usually Lawful) who held to a special honour code of behaviour.

Other gods and alignments can have their specialty/prestige classes for their religious warriors and call them whatever they like - Blackguards, Warriors of Belinek, Beloved of Mystra blah blah.

GM's can create any Prestige or Class they like for their pet bad guys or players. After all - you - not the game system are in charge of " Game Balance" so do it - if you feel you can cope with those Power hungry munkin players.:)

If you want to alter a Paladin and change a few powers here and there and make a druid True Neutral version then go for it - but don't call it a paladin.

Personally I have these crazy cultists following the Cold rider... that have a bunch of really fun rituals involving baptising their followers in the "Blood" of anyone except for the Blooded of Azari.... (Templet and special prestige class available for bad guys)

It used to be that way in 2nd ed (except for BR which had the single except of paladins of Cuircean being CG) but with Unearthed Arcana and the paladin variants (pg 53 Paladin variants: Freedom, Slaughter and Tyranny). Which were CG (Freedom), LE (Tyranny) and CE (Slaughter) 3.5 has basically broadened the definition of what a paladin is. It is now more of a deeply religious warrior - someone who "epitomizes" an ideal or deity. There were also some other paladin variants in various Dragon magazines too.

AndrewTall

06-16-2007, 09:47 AM

:rolleyes:

Here is some added examples and information about the idea that I have used during the years.

First my personal experiences with the variation in my time as DM and PC.

I have played an Paramander of Hermes (Greek Mythos). He had a few thiefly powers in addition to the some of the paladin ones. I have also had two players chose to play these paladin variations. One played an Illrigger of Grumsh (Yes an orc Paladin) & the other played a Fantra of Dionyous....He didn't last long.....he liked to worship his god by drinking just a weeeeee bit too much.

Secondly here are how I percieve some of the variations that would occur in the use of the plethora of paladins ideas.

So lets go a step further here with the paladin powers. What powers would be universal, and which would be changed by alignment/faith. (and how).

1) All stats limitations remain the same.

2) Races Allowed could vary due to diety choice....such as the Illrigger of Grumush above.

3) Detect Evil....becomes detect opposite alignments for good/evils and for neutrals they can distinguish both.

4) Save bonus +2 remains

5) Immune to all diseases is a deity based power so they can keep it.

6) Aura's of protection remain vs alignments not their own.

7) Holy swords for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Turn undead, devils, demons.....the article addresses this, but this could also be where there is a little DM complication.

First the undead turning can be made into controlling by the Evil aligned paladins. For the neutrals there would be NO turning for T/N, and all others neutrals must not be part of a nature patheon as Undead are beyond their understanding to control or affect (druids can't turn undead). Finally with the devil/demon turning there will be a need to review the Outer Planes monster compendiums to find the correct type of creatures that may be turned. Anti paladins would affect some of the aasimar.....others would affect the guardinal, eladrin, rilmani, beatzu....

AS DM you will have to handle the details here.

9) Call on warhorse........this power could be more viably made into warmount....as some races and faiths would have their own version of the faithful mount.

10) Cast priest spells......this is taken care of by the original Dragon Magazine Article.

Now with these said I want to mention a small bit on the variations of personal beliefs....which it does appear that some wish to have limitations int he playing of alignment.

The ideas of faith/belief structures would be well and truely tied into the deity they chose and their alignment. Just because it isn't good or evil doesn't mean that is unswervingly follows a set of beliefs tied to its religious order.

Heck look at real world faiths, and all the varieties of belief systems, now multiply it by the varied levels of personal zeal one carries for such a belief system, and in my lowly opinion you can easilly integrate the militant orders of each faith and alignment to have their cadre of Paladins.

Also for my ol' Paramander....The Paramander above worshipped with a lot of very zealous stealing in the Name of Hermes......and he also enjoyed a game of cards from time to time.....lucky such and such.

Just some ideas on the subject.

Later

:cool:

Hmm, I managed to miss this post before!

My take:

1) Stat limits: The charisma limitation suggests one view of a paladin, I'd keep it reasonable (a champion should have a certain presence) but reduce it for a paladin of, say, Belinik in favour of a strength minimum. As another example a paladin of Avani should need to be smarter, so I'd add an int minimum for example.

2) Other races: Agree, although in BR other issues limit races - elves have no priests so no paladins... Belinik might accept the worship of orogs, the great goblins, etc and have paladins for them too.

3) Detect evil: Hmm, I dislike the power - it eliminates some role-playing opportunities and as the posts moved to an alignment show, alignment is too subjective to be useful. I'd replace it with a minor power giving the flavour of the god - for example a paladin of Avani could radiate light (as the spell) once per level per day instead.

4) All saves +2: hmm, I'd change this to best save of fighter/priest and be done with it... In 3e no change.

5) Immunity to disease comes from the idea of a paladin as incorruptible and pure, ok for the traditional western paladin but less so for other paladin who follow a different moral code.

I'd replace it with a different medium power (complete priest concept for you newbies, basically granted pwoers are high medium or low based on power, it gives several alternatives to turn undead, shapechange, lay on hands, etc).
I dislike absolute immunity powers, in the Avani example this could become 'purging light' - the paladin can draw upon the power of the holy sun during midday to purge themselves of disease, poison etc - they get to try another save/fort check at +1 level to the die roll, success eliminating the contamination to maintain power they could do this for themselves, or for one of the fiathful of Avani.

6) aura of protection - I'd make it aid those of the same / allied faith, and oppose those considered evil/unclean by the church in question, to continue the example Avani's paladin would weaken those whose powers are based on darkness or negative energy and aid Avani's truly faithful (DM fiat, not effective for those who just mouth the prayers without any real belief or ignore her dictates and moral code). Alternatively as it mucks up the book-keeping in combat I'd drop it...

7) holy swords - I don't see all gods as being anti-magic which the power to dispel suggests. I also dislike the 'you only get this power if you find a magic sword' approach and support the way it was dropped in 3e.

For the swords themselves, I'd say each faith should create special magic items for their faithful, I see no problem with holy spears/cudgels.... In the example I'd say the holy weapon should have power over fire/light not be the steroetypical magic-breaking holy avenger as Avani welcomes most magic and a flaming blade that burns with the touch of the sun is so much more thematic.

8) turn undead - this works ok for Avani, but I'd still consider replacing it with a light based power - say shining glory - emit light in a radius (base don level/cha) equivalent to sunray once per 3 levels / in 3e standard limits. That is a little less useful against undead but better against orogs and others who love darkness. I also love the idea of a paladin raising their sword high and calling on Avani to bring her light to a battlefield... I'd reduce the impact a little (reduce blindness to say -2 to hit for most, damage from 3d6 to 1d(level) as otherwise it's over-revved, but allow light in a large radius in addition. Alternatively immunity (i.e. auto save) against fire might be interesting (DR say 5+2/level in 3e)

9) call warhorse. This really works in a paladin - knight in shining armour system. For Avani I'd replace it with desertwalker - reduced movement penalties on sand, swifter movement, or such like or soothing word from the complete priest low power list (calm/sway a mob, dispel fear/berserker rage from 1 person, 3 times a day in total).

10) cast priest spells - indeed, although I'd swop the standard paladin progression for '+1 level of priest spellcasting every 3/4 levels' to bring it more into line with multiclassing for 3e... In 3e I'd also try to do a conversion from spell slots to granted powers to reflect the less 'bookish' approach to problem solving for a paladin.

Other.

Lay on hands - this again takes a particular archetype of paladins. I'd swop it where appropriate - why would a paladin of Belinik be able to heal? Avani might allow it, or swop it for a knowledge based power more in keeping with her tenets. From complete priest alternate medium granted powers would be prophecy, or immunity to energy drains.

Cure disease: ditto. Paladins of Nesierie, etc clearly yes, a paladin of Belinik or Kreisha would kill the fool if they allowed a mere illness to overwhelm them....

Hmm, I only really considered Avani but other paladin types should be do-able, any one want to consider a paladin of Kreisha? Of the Serpent?

ConjurerDragon

06-16-2007, 01:46 PM

AndrewTall schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3834
> AndrewTall wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
>
...
> I have played an Paramander of Hermes (Greek Mythos). He had a few thiefly powers in addition to the some of the paladin ones. I have also had two players chose to play these paladin variations. One played an Illrigger of Grumsh (Yes an orc Paladin) & the other played a Fantra of Dionyous....He didn`t last long.....he liked to worship his god by drinking just a weeeeee bit too much.
>
> Secondly here are how I percieve some of the variations that would occur in the use of the plethora of paladins ideas.
>
>
I would not call all of these "Paladins". A paladin is in the
imagination of many a very specific holy warrior, a knight on a quest
with links to Roland or arthurian quest for the grail. "Paramander" or
"Illrigger" are something different. Holy Warriors maybe or "Divine
Champions" like in the new Wizards book, but not Paladins.
> ...
> 7) holy swords - I don`t see all gods as being anti-magic which the power to dispel suggests. I also dislike the `you only get this power if you find a magic sword` approach and support the way it was dropped in 3e.
> For the swords themselves, I`d say each faith should create special magic items for their faithful, I see no problem with holy spears/cudgels.... In the example I`d say the holy weapon should have power over fire/light not be the steroetypical magic-breaking holy avenger as Avani welcomes most magic and a flaming blade that burns with the touch of the sun is so much more thematic.
>
Not necessarily. Avani might have a holy order of Paladins sworn to hunt
down those wizards who have not sworn or broken the oaths of Rilni - and
then something spellbreaking makes sense.

> Lay on hands - this again takes a particular archetype of paladins. I`d swop it where appropriate - why would a paladin of Belinik be able to heal?
And even thought furhter - even if a holy warrior of Belinik *could*
heal - why should he do so? Aiding the weak? Comforting those who can?t
stand some pain? ;-)

AndrewTall

06-16-2007, 02:39 PM

>
I would not call all of these "Paladins". A paladin is in the
imagination of many a very specific holy warrior, a knight on a quest
with links to Roland or arthurian quest for the grail. "Paramander" or
"Illrigger" are something different. Holy Warriors maybe or "Divine
Champions" like in the new Wizards book, but not Paladins.
> ...
> 7) I`d say the holy weapon should have power over fire/light not be the steroetypical magic-breaking holy avenger as Avani welcomes most magic and a flaming blade that burns with the touch of the sun is so much more thematic.
>
Not necessarily. Avani might have a holy order of Paladins sworn to hunt
down those wizards who have not sworn or broken the oaths of Rilni - and
then something spellbreaking makes sense.

> Lay on hands - this again takes a particular archetype of paladins. I`d swop it where appropriate - why would a paladin of Belinik be able to heal?
And even thought furhter - even if a holy warrior of Belinik *could*
heal - why should he do so? Aiding the weak? Comforting those who can?t
stand some pain? ;-)

I think the thread refers holy warriors - with paladins being a familiar shorthand and example of the stereotypical knight in shining armour type. So do you want a warrior/priest (or barbarian/druid) class combo, or a single class designed to fill the role...

Yes Avani could have an order of mage hunters, sworn to hunt down those who betray or fail to take the 5 oaths of Rilni, that would be a different paladin subclass - although I'd give them spell resistance not dispel - spell resistance is a passive defense that protects the chamion, dispel an active defense that acts after the fact to remove a condition - if you fight alone you probably want spell resistance.

The paladin of Belinik would, imho, be better with some form of regeneration than a healing power that can be used on others. As you note they are not overly burdened by pity, however healing warriors so that they can go back into the fray - and promising healing so that the warriors embrace an aggressive stance without fear that wounds won in glorious battle will cripple them - that's healing that Belinik would approve of!

ShadowMoon

06-16-2007, 03:23 PM

I still think that best option is to make Paladins Prestige Classes, instead of core class...

AndrewTall

06-16-2007, 09:48 PM

I still think that best option is to make Paladins Prestige Classes, instead of core class...

Quite possibly, start with fighter or priest and then go prestige when you have proved yourself worthy of being the gods champion... Have you designed a PrC for any of the BR deities?

Elton Robb

06-16-2007, 09:49 PM

Quite possibly, start with fighter or priest and then go prestige when you have proved yourself worthy of being the gods champion... Have you designed a PrC for any of the BR deities?

I'm afraid that I don't like this option.

MatanThunder

06-17-2007, 02:54 AM

:D

I think the thread refers holy warriors - with paladins being a familiar shorthand and example of the stereotypical knight in shining armour type. So do you want a warrior/priest (or barbarian/druid) class combo, or a single class designed to fill the role...

Holy warriors are something else entirely. The lack the stats to be the "Paladin" equivalent to their alignment/patheon/diety/portfolio.

They have different names, as the Paladin is the L/G version of the quintessential knight of goodness. Other alignments and deities have their own take on what is to serve as their most virtuous (in an alignment sense) protectors of the faith and faithful.

Paladins take it a step further by simply personifying the good side of the issue. Their lawfulness compels them to fight the forces of chaos and anarchy. Their goodness has them helping the less fortunate, or maybe that should be those less able to protect themselves from the predations of the other alignment forces & viewpoints.

No one has to like the idea, but there are other breeds of paladins out there that serve a deity with zeal and a manner that is forthright and true to their alignment and deitie's portfolio.

Now if you find that the Anti Paladin is helping a little ol' lady (his mums sister) across the street you can rip his anti paladiness away for commiting goods acts, instead of the oft repeated good doing evil issue.

Later

:cool:

irdeggman

06-17-2007, 01:52 PM

I admit that my perceptions are shaped strongly by the 1st and 2nd edition rules, in which paladins required such high ability scores that only about one person in a thousand (rolling 3d6 six times) could qualify. If we toss that, then sure, they can be everywhere. However, since I find them both insufferable roleplaying headaches and mechanically unnecessary given free multiclassing, I see no reason at all to keep them in 3rd ed.

Ryan

You must also remember the penalties for multiclassing.

It really isn't that "free".

Humans can have their highest level class as their favored class (which can change) but then their next 2 must be within 1 level of each other or suffer a 20% xp penalty. This is a cumulaive effect and the 20% is per class that deviates from the highest by more than 1.

Other races have it more difficult becaseu their favored class is spelcified. Dwarves are fighters, halflings are rogues. Half-elves do gain the benefit of not having a favored class either so they can work like humans.

MatanThunder

06-17-2007, 10:12 PM

:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryancaveney
I admit that my perceptions are shaped strongly by the 1st and 2nd edition rules, in which paladins required such high ability scores that only about one person in a thousand (rolling 3d6 six times) could qualify. If we toss that, then sure, they can be everywhere. However, since I find them both insufferable roleplaying headaches and mechanically unnecessary given free multiclassing, I see no reason at all to keep them in 3rd ed.

Ryan

You must also remember the penalties for multiclassing.

It really isn't that "free".

Humans can have their highest level class as their favored class (which can change) but then their next 2 must be within 1 level of each other or suffer a 20% xp penalty. This is a cumulaive effect and the 20% is per class that deviates from the highest by more than 1.

Other races have it more difficult because their favored class is spelcified. Dwarves are fighters, halflings are rogues. Half-elves do gain the benefit of not having a favored class either so they can work like humans.

It certainly was a lot more free wheeling in 2nd ed. Even though the multi classing was somewhat limited. Each DM had the right though to rule in multi classes that fit into their Homebrew campaigns, or even to fit into a racial skill set that matched up with the classes.

In 2nd ed the two prime problems were level limits by race and limited choices of multiclassing. I also see a third one which is the experience point splitting that often slowed up a PC's progress when compared with his fellow party members.

I removed the first two problems as follows.

1) Racial limits were altered to allow advancement into higher levels as long as double experience is paid for each level gained. (It hardly made sense to any of us to penalize the long lived races in level advancement then and now.) The PC also had to have extremely high primary STATs in order to be allowed to advance into higher levels.

2) I often allowed sub classes of the primary classes to make it into 2nd ed. When 2nd ed came out I made all subclasses (1st ed idea) completely integrated into the 2nd ed ideas of classes. What this accomplished is to allow a wider range of multiclassing to be available to PC's. Things like Dwarvish Oracles/Psionicists & Elvish Light Mage/Acrobat Thieves spiced things up nicely.

Also people like Gary Gygax & by extension their personal PC's rarely limited themselves to what they wanted the rest of us to play. If you were in with their group you could be almost any class or class variation in the late 1st and early 2nd ed. It is what can happen if the DM has an open mind and the necessary source material.

Class alterations and anomalies were allowed as far back as July 1979 (Dragon Magazine) there was mention of a Dwarvish Paladin (Durathror in a Novel by Alan Garner) there are a lot more in their Giants in the Earth articles. As with all such items it was a DM option to allow it of course.

The idea is that 2nd ed (which the poster noted he was influenced by) is a little more free wheeling than the 3.?? offers its players.

Later

:cool:

irdeggman

06-18-2007, 10:11 AM

:D

It certainly was a lot more free wheeling in 2nd ed. Even though the multi classing was somewhat limited. Each DM had the right though to rule in multi classes that fit into their Homebrew campaigns, or even to fit into a racial skill set that matched up with the classes.

The same rule for using house-rules still applies to 3.5.

The idea is that 2nd ed (which the poster noted he was influenced by) is a little more free wheeling than the 3.?? offers its players.

Later

:cool:

Actually I believe he was saying that 3.x is more freewheeling because of the lack of limit to multiclassing. Any race, any combination, no class level limit (in core rules - not necesarily setting specifc, like BR)

In 2nd ed humans had to dual class to gain additional classes (which was a very cumbersome and complicated way of getting things done, IMO) and other races had multiclass combinations that were defined (either by the RAW or by the DM to be game-specific, but regardless they didn't have unlimited combinations available). There was a also the class level limits for non-humans, either by the RAW or via game-specific rules, they still existed (and really needed to in order to make up for the power up that not having to dual class gave the humanoids). Also in 2nd ed there was one cardinal rule - no more than one class in a group.

So a character could only be a fighter, ranger or paladin in some combination with other groups but not a fighter/ranger for instance. Rogue group was; thieves and bards, priest group was druids and clerics (or specialty priests if they were used). Now they did make psions a part of the rogue group, but yet not, since they could be combined with thieves or bards in Dark Sun.

Thelandrin

06-18-2007, 11:24 AM

kgauck

06-18-2007, 12:53 PM

The same rule for using house-rules still applies to 3.5.
Funny thing about house rules, isn't it.

irdeggman

06-18-2007, 01:12 PM

I was under the impression that psionics were a seperate class, without being a subclass. After all, they could multiclass, something a subclass couldn't do, and their XP table started off between a fighter and a mage. They also didn't have Dex as a pre-preq.

I pointed out that they were under the rogue group but were different in the fact that, at least in Dark Sun (which was the standard for psionics), they could multiclass with other rogue group classes.

Technically they were "class groups" and "classes", although frequently they were referred to as "classes" and "subclasses".

I ran a 1/2 elf preserver/bard/psionicisit (metabolic) in Dark Sun.

There were varied xp tables in the same group.

Warrior group had two tables - fighter and ranger/paladin; Priest had 2 cleric and druid (and IIRC specialty priests were extremely varied in how they were handled so much that I'm not sure if they all followed the same xp table or not).

irdeggman

06-18-2007, 01:13 PM

Funny thing about house rules, isn't it.

Yup - we are all the same in our differences. :)

ryancaveney

06-18-2007, 04:14 PM

You must also remember the penalties for multiclassing. It really isn't that "free". Humans can have their highest level class as their favored class (which can change) but then their next 2 must be within 1 level of each other or suffer a 20% xp penalty.

So humans do have it free enough to do away with paladins, since if they have only two classes (cleric and something else), then they can divide them any way they want. So do dwarves, really, since fighter/priest is exactly what they ought to be. Those two are the only ones that matter, unless you count halfling cleric/rogues of Eloele, which also works just fine.

Ryan

kgauck

06-18-2007, 05:16 PM

Multi-classing is practically (not always theoretically) free for humans with three classes as well. Since of the three classes, any two need to be within two levels of each other, and the third, whether the highest or lowest, can be the "any" f of the favored class. Looking at builds that don't qualify in practice are unusual. The Priest 12/Fighter 5/Rogue 3 might be a problem only if you insisted on going up to Fighter 6. Any other option is not a problem, and for a variety of reasons, practical builds often never encounter these problems (like the fact that at least one of these classes end up being a dipping class, or that I had to construct a character of considerably high level to create gaps to present this problem. Since it takes 11 class levels (0/4/7) before you can create a situation where adding a third class must cause this problem, and 15 class levels (1/5/9) where every new level buy still leaves you with a penalty, and this assumes all core classes, and that play in Birthright works its way into levels that high.

Are this real limits for play in BR? It can be, but do finish this sentence we need to add a lot of conditional statements, high level play, three core classes, and only those cases where any two classes are not within 2 level of one another. By now limiting the group by stipulating red hair or blue eyes doesn't reduce the absolute numbers very much, they are already too small.

irdeggman

06-18-2007, 07:53 PM

irdeggman

06-18-2007, 07:59 PM

So humans do have it free enough to do away with paladins, since if they have only two classes (cleric and something else), then they can divide them any way they want. So do dwarves, really, since fighter/priest is exactly what they ought to be. Those two are the only ones that matter, unless you count halfling cleric/rogues of Eloele, which also works just fine.

Ryan

Now that works fine for humans and dwarves (assuming that a paladin of moradin is a fighter/cleric hybrid).

How about halfling cleric/rangers of Erik?

Or halfling cleric/fighter (and/or magician/wizard)'s of Avani?

The 2nd ed material did say that Avani was the halflings' favored deity.

What about Cuircean? Paladins of the storm lord are really not all that much "priestly" are they? I mean in 2nd ed - no spells and no turning undead.

How about Avani? There should be some magician or wizard in there really in order to capture that one (so really a triple class prerequisite).

Nesire?

More priestly than fighter, IMO, but a fighter/priest hybrid could work.

ryancaveney

06-19-2007, 10:33 PM

assuming that a paladin of moradin is a fighter/cleric hybrid

That seems right to me.

What about Cuircean? Paladins of the storm lord are really not all that much "priestly" are they? I mean in 2nd ed - no spells and no turning undead.

As part of representing paladins without the paladin class, we already have to interpret the paladin's other abilities (laying on hands, fear resistance, et al.) as spells themselves, so some spellcasting will enter the picture lest stormlords become solely fighters. On the other hand, the nice thing about removing paladin as a specific class means it's very easy to show differences between religious specialties just by distribution of class levels (though of course those won't really show up until the higher levels). For example, while a 12th-level paladin of Haelyn might be a Ftr 6 / Clr 6, an equivalent paladin of Cuiraecen might instead be a Ftr 8 / Clr 4. This makes "paladin" not a game-mechanic, but rather a description of the social role the character takes on, which seems right to me. In fact, since such paladin-archetypes are far more likely to be adventurers than administrators, and I suspect most priests in Haelyn's temple heirarchy are mostly Aristocrat/Experts with just one or two dimly-remembered caster levels acquired in seminary school, the "paladins" are probably better spellcasters than the "priests", considered as social roles rather than character class names.

How about Avani? There should be some magician or wizard in there really in order to capture that one (so really a triple class prerequisite).

I have several different possible responses to this, and the other special cases you raised.

One: what is the reason for the xp penalty? I am inclined to just ignore it for simplicity.

Two: paladin is supposed to be a difficult path pursued by only a few, so I am not really worried about imposing an extra cost on some of them.

Three: triple-classing for Avani, Ruornil or others isn't really necessary if you customize their clerical spell lists properly.

Ryan

kgauck

06-20-2007, 01:56 AM

The easiest way to give Avani and Ruornil a touch of arcanist without requiring triple classing is permit a small number of arcane spells to be cast as divine. Either through a fixed number (3 spells) or fixed slots (1 spell per level) or, my favorite, allow 10 spell points to be cast on arcane spells.

Its also possible for priests of Ruornil to have free multi-classing with sorcerers, and Avani to have free multi-classing with wizards. Multi-classing is less onerous if you have a pool of magical ability that can slosh back and forth between the two classes. However, while I think theurge types are common enough in temples of Avani and Ruornil, the paladin type is probably a fighter/priest who can dabble in arcane goodness.

MatanThunder

06-20-2007, 05:50 AM

:cool:

Or you could just play it 2nd ed.

Originally Posted by irdeggman
assuming that a paladin of moradin is a fighter/cleric hybrid

Or you can have him a true paladin with powers commensorate with the Moradin portfolio. The original thread was about if the varied classes of paladins were viable in the game.....maybe not in 3.??....but it can be done if a DM has the will to have it played out that way.

Ruornil a touch of arcanist without requiring

Ruornil needs to be triple classed to use powers of magic in 3.??....There's your problem.

In all the diatribe about this fine point and that fine point there is absolutely NO reason why the "Plethora of Paladins isn't a viable part of the game.

Each to their own....but the rules allow for its functionality and usefulness as defenders of the faith.
Later

kgauck

06-20-2007, 07:28 AM

The original thread was about if the varied classes of paladins were viable in the game.....maybe not in 3.??....but it can be done if a DM has the will to have it played out that way.
But, we're all cowards and frightened of change, even back to the glories of 2.0.

Ruornil needs to be triple classed to use powers of magic in 3.??....There's your problem.Oh 3.0 is so cool, to cast a first level spell he needs three classes, two feats, an elective granted power, has to choose the non-combat option, gets spell points equal to half his character level times his Int modifier divided by his willpower divisior. Then when he wants to cast a spell he has to compare his spellcasting rating to his current Int divisor and look up the energy availabilty matrix which is convieniently in both the DMG in appendix XXIII and in the PHB in sidebar 7-12, then you look up the spell requirement rating of the spell and see if you can cast it. Its pretty easy, just as easy as it was in 2e.

Thelandrin

06-20-2007, 09:46 AM

Oh 3.0 is so cool, to cast a first level spell he needs three classes, two feats, an elective granted power, has to choose the non-combat option, gets spell points equal to half his character level times his Int modifier divided by his willpower divisior. Then when he wants to cast a spell he has to compare his spellcasting rating to his current Int divisor and look up the energy availabilty matrix which is convieniently in both the DMG in appendix XXIII and in the PHB in sidebar 7-12, then you look up the spell requirement rating of the spell and see if you can cast it. Its pretty easy, just as easy as it was in 2e.

I'm assuming that's irony, Kgauck.

The follower of Ruornil mayneed to be triple-classed in 3rd Ed, but at least they have the option of those three classes. While I enjoyed 2nd Ed enormously, the inflexibility of the classes and the near-total inability to change your profession once you've started now bug me with the introduction of 3rd Ed.

MatanThunder

06-21-2007, 01:58 AM

:cool:

The follower of Ruornil mayneed to be triple-classed in 3rd Ed, but at least they have the option of those three classes.

Not my cup of tea I'm afraid....now let me dual or triple class the PC....there you have a keeper for a PC....Ruornil or no.

While I enjoyed 2nd Ed enormously, the inflexibility of the classes and the near-total inability to change your profession once you've started now bug me with the introduction of 3rd Ed.

In 2nd ed they allowed humans (*and some DM's allowed the other races to do it to) so that you could dual class or even triple class should you survive the inevitible strains caused by those low levels in the new (dual/triple) class.

Also some of us DM's diversified the multiclassing of those races capable of employing them.

So 2nd ed did allow for the changing of class.

I also allowed (with the sacrafice of 1 FULL level of exp) that a dual class PC could switch back and forth between these classes from time to time.

House rules.....now all you had to do is find a good DM who liked inventiveness.

we're all cowards and frightened of change,

I thought so......:rolleyes: ....had to be something like that!!

Oh 3.0 is so cool, to cast a first level spell he needs three classes, two feats, an elective granted power, has to choose the non-combat option, gets spell points equal to half his character level times his Int modifier divided by his willpower divisior. Then when he wants to cast a spell he has to compare his spellcasting rating to his current Int divisor and look up the energy availabilty matrix which is convieniently in both the DMG in appendix XXIII and in the PHB in sidebar 7-12, then you look up the spell requirement rating of the spell and see if you can cast it.

Its pretty easy, just as easy as it was in 2e.

Wait.....take a class, pick your proficienies, pick your spells......and each system has that ol's racial choice too. Seems a little easier to me.....you even get a number of bonus spells if you have access and use that table from the Dragon Magazine....sort of like the clerics spell bonus....a lot better to start with more spells.

Later

:cool:

RaspK_FOG

06-21-2007, 08:56 AM

Read those lines, people (as you cannot see my lips, anyway): variant classes.

While I assume that the project cannot employ them to any truly great extent, we may add some of these in order to provide a variant, say in an article or something (now that would REALLY be my cup of tee: priests of Eric with holy, druidic, and ranger abilities, warrior-paladins of Cuiraécen, magic-using priests of Ruornil, and so on)!

As for the whole 2e-vs-3e, no, neither multi-classing nor dual-classing made much sense outside their perspective: "You are effectively starting anew; since you gain levels in an altogether new class, using the abilities of the old class will hold you back, rendering you unable to proceed any further - you get no XP this session because you smacked things like a warrior, not a priest..." Kind of silly considering how you still got some XP for smacking things as a priest anyway, even if doing it as a warrior paid off much more, right? I mean, if you CAN GET XP for killing moving things as a man of the church, why is a man of the church using his prior training as a man of the church-of-hit-something-very-hard-if-possible NOT GETTING ANY XP for doing JUST THAT!?

kgauck

06-21-2007, 09:11 AM

irdeggman

06-21-2007, 09:56 AM

Read those lines, people (as you cannot see my lips, anyway): variant classes.

Would tht be like my first post in this thread?

http://www.birthright.net/forums/showpost.php?p=40051&postcount=3

Now this is only for 3.5, and as such really wouldn't help out MatanThunder (and those who only play 2nd ed) - but since the BRCS is 3.5 (again part of that official fan site thing) it works.

While I assume that the project cannot employ them to any truly great extent, we may add some of these in order to provide a variant, say in an article or something (now that would REALLY be my cup of tee: priests of Eric with holy, druidic, and ranger abilities, warrior-paladins of Cuiraécen, magic-using priests of Ruornil, and so on)!

The BRCs is attempting to keep as close to the 2nd ed setting definition material as possible. Which is why only variant paladin classes were written up for those that were specifically allowed in the 2nd ed material.

The insertion of dwarven paladins was to account for the logic that it wasn't setting specific material that forbade them from having paladins but rather 2nd ed as a whole, the same reason dwarves or halflings couldn't be wizards.

3.5 has opened that area up.

What I would like to see, eventually, is a sort of Unearthed Arcana for the BRCS. A book with variants such as those mentioned, but not a part of the core rule set.

Something else I think would be really good, and would best fit in the Atlas material - since they are specifically tied to cultures, would be racial substitution levels (again something only applicable for 3.5). I really find them full of flavor and a way to capture unique aspects of races/cultures.