Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    James Ray
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    - ----------
    > From: Gary V. Foss
    >
    > I think it is generally a bad idea to tell players how to play their
    > characters. The fact that paladins get played so badly seems to be a
    fault of the character class description rather than the fault of all the
    players who play them.>

    I always thought it was part of the DMs job description to make sure
    everyone is acting in accordance with their alignments and classes and
    races and whatever.

    > Part of the problem with the paladin character class as I see it is that
    its description is too restrictive. If a player wants to play his
    character as you suggest, then he is welcome. If he wants to play his
    character some other way, I think he should be encouraged to do so. I
    don't think charisma should be the
    > defining characteristic of a holy warrior unless the player wants that to
    be the way the character is run.>

    True, it DOES all depend. In BR, though, there are several different types
    of Paladins already, so if someone wants to play a Paladin differently,
    there are alternatives to the "standard".

    >
    > Even with your comments, however, why should paladins be required to have
    a 17 charisma? That's the very top end of the scale, making the character
    class incredibly restrictive. It defines the class in a way that gets in
    the way of role-playing. I just don't see why it should be like that.>

    Because Paladins are the ultimate symbol of a gods own devotion to his/her
    devotees in the campaign world. They have the high Charisma to make them
    more competent at rallying and leading the disparate parts of a gods
    followers in a world. How does a high Charisma get in the way of
    role-playing? That "Reaction Adjustment" bonus makes them VERY convincing
    in role-playing situations, and a silver tongue goes a long way in the
    world of politics - just ask Mr Clinton :)

    > As I see it, paladins should be "lightened up" a little bit. They should
    be holy warriors in the same way that rangers are warriors who emphasize
    nature. I've never heard of someone keeping a ranger out of a dungeon
    adventure simply because his skills are geared towards the outdoors.
    Similarly, I think paladins should be given more leeway. If a player in my
    campaign wants to play
    > a hard-drinking, foul-mouthed warrior for Cuiraecen then I think he
    should be allowed. It makes sense given the philosophy. I say go with
    it.>

    Paladins are not just "devotees" a certain god - they are fanatical leaders
    of hordes of true-believers. Fanatical tree-huggers would probly be more
    apt to become Druids. Rangers are Warriors who specialize in sneaking and
    peaking in the woods, and operating in small groups. The "lone wolf"
    aspect is probably responsible for their being able to use two weapons
    simultaneously without penalty :)

    > I'd like to fundamentally redefine the paladin class. That is, I'd like
    to define paladins as holy warriors rather than as knights of law and
    good. This would eliminate the term that seems to have offending the AD&D
    designers so much: Anti-paladin. If paladins can exist for any god, then
    they can be as variable and interesting as the gods....>

    Again, it all depends. The Crusader Class from Spells & Magic, in my
    opinion, goes a long way towards making "Paladins for everyone" a reality.
    The REAL question to ask is "how many Paladins are there in a given
    campaign?" If they are fairly common, then there IS something wrong. How
    many players are actually going to allocate such a precious roll as a 17 to
    an ability like Charisma? *I* havent had one since my high school days.

    > In the Oriental Adventures book gone OOP many moons ago, they had a
    character class called the Sohei, which were sort of monk-warrior types. I
    like the idea of paladins being a kind of a blend of their current
    description as modified by BR and the sohei class, which would make them
    less restricted in theme and playability.>

    Actually, I think the old Sohei class was merely the OA version of the 1st
    Edition Paladin. They were a LOT more fleshed out in the OA material than
    the generic Paladin has ever been.

    > This is, of course, a change from the core rules that I will make part of
    my house rules which people are free to ignore, but I'd suggest that it
    makes a lot of sense and might be something that should be incorporated
    into the system as a whole.... The restrictiveness of the paladin
    character class interferes with play, and I don't like that. If we loosen
    things up a bit game mchanics
    > flow more easily and a gaming session is more fun.>

    I still dont understand how they are restrictive, so cant even contemplate
    how they interfere with play. The Paladin is MEANT to be role-played, more
    so than any other character, and thus the high Charisma requirement.

    James

  2. #2
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    James Ray wrote:

    > > I think it is generally a bad idea to tell players how to play their
    > > characters. The fact that paladins get played so badly seems to be a
    > fault of the character class description rather than the fault of all the
    > players who play them.>
    >
    > I always thought it was part of the DMs job description to make sure
    > everyone is acting in accordance with their alignments and classes and
    > races and whatever.

    I guess this is just a difference in DM styles. I prefer to let players do as
    they like with me acting more as a referee. The folks I play with play in
    order to take on a role, so me telling them how their characters would behave
    is not only unnecessary most of the time, but would be inappropriate. I rarely
    have to tell a player playing a druid that his character wouldn't burn down a
    forest to stall a goblin horde. I see my job as a DM is to set up a scenario
    for the players to operate within and then adjudicate their actions. I don't
    tell them how to run their characters any more than I would tell them to behave
    as people when we hang out without playing the game.

    > > Part of the problem with the paladin character class as I see it is that
    > its description is too restrictive. If a player wants to play his
    > character as you suggest, then he is welcome. If he wants to play his
    > character some other way, I think he should be encouraged to do so. I
    > don't think charisma should be the
    > > defining characteristic of a holy warrior unless the player wants that to
    > be the way the character is run.>
    >
    > True, it DOES all depend. In BR, though, there are several different types
    > of Paladins already, so if someone wants to play a Paladin differently,
    > there are alternatives to the "standard".

    Well, there are a few alternatives, but I don't see those alternatives as being
    all that drastic do you? I mean, the class is still pretty much limited to the
    description that you give them as:

    > Paladins are the ultimate symbol of a gods own devotion to his/her
    > devotees in the campaign world. They have the high Charisma to make them
    > more competent at rallying and leading the disparate parts of a gods
    > followers in a world. How does a high Charisma get in the way of
    > role-playing? That "Reaction Adjustment" bonus makes them VERY convincing
    > in role-playing situations, and a silver tongue goes a long way in the
    > world of politics - just ask Mr Clinton :)

    A high charisma doesn't get in the way of role-playing. The high charisma
    REQUIREMENT is what does that. By requiring all paladins to have a 17 or 18
    charisma it makes a lot of paladins similar. The variation possible in ability
    scores starts to break down, making on paladin more likely to be just like the
    next.

    Personally, I think priests should be closer to the ultimate symbol of a gods
    devotion than paladins. Priests cast spells better than paladins, actually
    channeling the power of their god through their skills. A paladin should be
    attentive to the views of priests who presumably dedicate more of their time to
    actual worship than does a holy warrior who has to practice sword swinging and
    horsemanship and such.

    > > As I see it, paladins should be "lightened up" a little bit. They should
    > be holy warriors in the same way that rangers are warriors who emphasize
    > nature. I've never heard of someone keeping a ranger out of a dungeon
    > adventure simply because his skills are geared towards the outdoors.
    > Similarly, I think paladins should be given more leeway. If a player in my
    > campaign wants to play
    > > a hard-drinking, foul-mouthed warrior for Cuiraecen then I think he
    > should be allowed. It makes sense given the philosophy. I say go with
    > it.>
    >
    > Paladins are not just "devotees" a certain god - they are fanatical leaders
    > of hordes of true-believers. Fanatical tree-huggers would probly be more
    > apt to become Druids. Rangers are Warriors who specialize in sneaking and
    > peaking in the woods, and operating in small groups. The "lone wolf"
    > aspect is probably responsible for their being able to use two weapons
    > simultaneously without penalty :)

    This is the exact characterization of paladins that I would like to change. I
    think paladins should be just as likely to be the lone, shadowy character who
    fights for his beliefs in back alleys as the stereotypical knight in shining
    armor. I'd like to see paladins who might exude faith in their god not
    necessarily have faith in themselves. In short, I'd like to see paladins as
    characters rather than simply as a character class. The high charisma
    requirement puts paladins more in the spotlight than I think should be required
    of a character class, because it tends to dominate alternative role-playing
    options.

    One of the aspects of the BR setting that I like is that it gives thieves a
    certain amount of legitimacy as guild holders and merchants. I'd like to
    redefine paladins in a similar way, making them not necessarily the white
    knights but also the black knights, and all the shades in between.

    > > I'd like to fundamentally redefine the paladin class. That is, I'd like
    > to define paladins as holy warriors rather than as knights of law and
    > good. This would eliminate the term that seems to have offending the AD&D
    > designers so much: Anti-paladin. If paladins can exist for any god, then
    > they can be as variable and interesting as the gods....>
    >
    > Again, it all depends. The Crusader Class from Spells & Magic, in my
    > opinion, goes a long way towards making "Paladins for everyone" a reality.
    > The REAL question to ask is "how many Paladins are there in a given
    > campaign?" If they are fairly common, then there IS something wrong. How
    > many players are actually going to allocate such a precious roll as a 17 to
    > an ability like Charisma? *I* havent had one since my high school days.

    Aside from ability score requirements, why should paladins be more rare than
    rangers? The presence of the gods should be pretty significant in an AD&D
    world, especially one like Birthright where they went off like fireworks....
    Why would an equal number of paladins and rangers be wrong? If the character
    class is changed a bit to make paladins as variable and different from one
    another as priests, shouldn't a proliferation of them be a good thing?

    > > In the Oriental Adventures book gone OOP many moons ago, they had a
    > character class called the Sohei, which were sort of monk-warrior types. I
    > like the idea of paladins being a kind of a blend of their current
    > description as modified by BR and the sohei class, which would make them
    > less restricted in theme and playability.>
    >
    > Actually, I think the old Sohei class was merely the OA version of the 1st
    > Edition Paladin. They were a LOT more fleshed out in the OA material than
    > the generic Paladin has ever been.

    And they were cooler too, IMNSHO.

    > > This is, of course, a change from the core rules that I will make part of
    > my house rules which people are free to ignore, but I'd suggest that it
    > makes a lot of sense and might be something that should be incorporated
    > into the system as a whole.... The restrictiveness of the paladin
    > character class interferes with play, and I don't like that. If we loosen
    > things up a bit game mchanics
    > > flow more easily and a gaming session is more fun.>
    >
    > I still dont understand how they are restrictive, so cant even contemplate
    > how they interfere with play. The Paladin is MEANT to be role-played, more
    > so than any other character, and thus the high Charisma requirement.

    I meant restrictive in terms of the charisma requirement, which I see not only
    as highly restrictive as far as who can become a paladin, but restrictive
    within the character class in a way that limits role-playing options.

    The kind of role playing I'm talking about, however, is a little different from
    the type you are talking about, I think. I'm talking about a more definitive
    kind of role-playing. An emphasis on the role, rather than the playing. I'd
    like players to be able to define their character's role before play begins
    rather than give them a character with a fairly fleshed out role and have them
    play it.

    Paladins are the most constricted class in the game, a trend that has finally
    been broken with the paladin options in BR. Before BR, the class had not
    changed significantly from the 1st edition rules, except for the Unearthed
    Arcana stuff that made the character class even more restricted than they had
    been before. I'd like to take the variation of paladins as presented in the BR
    setting a step or two further and make the class more dynamic. I think the
    first step in that is lowering the charisma requirement to something more
    reasonable, so that paladins can be different from one another and, therefore,
    more interesting to play.

    Gary

  3. #3
    The Olesens
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    James Ray wrote:

    > ----------
    > > From: Gary V. Foss
    > >
    > > I think it is generally a bad idea to tell players how to play their
    > > characters. The fact that paladins get played so badly seems to be a
    > fault of the character class description rather than the fault of all the
    > players who play them.>
    >
    > I always thought it was part of the DMs job description to make sure
    > everyone is acting in accordance with their alignments and classes and
    > races and whatever.
    >
    > > Part of the problem with the paladin character class as I see it is that
    > its description is too restrictive. If a player wants to play his
    > character as you suggest, then he is welcome. If he wants to play his
    > character some other way, I think he should be encouraged to do so. I
    > don't think charisma should be the
    > > defining characteristic of a holy warrior unless the player wants that to
    > be the way the character is run.>
    >
    > True, it DOES all depend. In BR, though, there are several different types
    > of Paladins already, so if someone wants to play a Paladin differently,
    > there are alternatives to the "standard".
    >
    > >
    > > Even with your comments, however, why should paladins be required to have
    > a 17 charisma? That's the very top end of the scale, making the character
    > class incredibly restrictive. It defines the class in a way that gets in
    > the way of role-playing. I just don't see why it should be like that.>
    >
    > Because Paladins are the ultimate symbol of a gods own devotion to his/her
    > devotees in the campaign world. They have the high Charisma to make them
    > more competent at rallying and leading the disparate parts of a gods
    > followers in a world. How does a high Charisma get in the way of
    > role-playing? That "Reaction Adjustment" bonus makes them VERY convincing
    > in role-playing situations, and a silver tongue goes a long way in the
    > world of politics - just ask Mr Clinton :)
    >

    Here's an idea: Just as a high score can give you XP bonuses, why not do the opposite? A
    figter with 8 strength needs to work harder at his trade than most of his compantions.
    The paladin who isn't so beutiful/leadery. Applying it to wizards and priests could be
    questionalble though.

  4. #4
    Dom
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    >Here's an idea: Just as a high score can give you XP bonuses, why not do
    the opposite? A
    >figter with 8 strength needs to work harder at his trade than most of his
    compantions.
    >The paladin who isn't so beutiful/leadery. Applying it to wizards and
    priests could be
    >questionalble though.


    I could understand a reduction in XP for a Paladin with say 15 charisma
    rather than 17 charisma,
    to bypass the restrictions of being a Paladin. However I would think it
    unfair to subtract
    a % of XP, rather I would increase the XP for each level by 5%.


    A character who has low stats does earn the XP, ok to take an extreme case
    a high strength and
    dexterity fighter has a distinct edge in the potential XP that they can
    gather over a low
    strength and average dex fighter.

    A character with 18(50) Strength gets +1 to hit and +3 damage, greatly
    increasing the chance
    to kill an orc in one or two hits, and improving the chance to hit.

    Whereas a character with no bonus would have a harder time doing the same
    thing.

    Should a character with a Vorpal sword get the full XP for all they kill as
    someone who
    uses a NM weapon and skill ? I have thought this a tad unfair.



    Dom
    - ---

    mailto:dominicreynolds@dial.pipex.com or mailto:dominicr@bigfoot.com

  5. #5
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    The Olesens wrote:

    > Here's an idea: Just as a high score can give you XP bonuses, why not do the opposite? A
    > figter with 8 strength needs to work harder at his trade than most of his compantions.
    > The paladin who isn't so beutiful/leadery. Applying it to wizards and priests could be
    > questionalble though.

    One of the house rules I use is that everyone gets an experience point bonus based upon their
    prime requisite or the average of their prime requisites minus five. So a fighter with a 16
    strength gets an 11% experience point bonus. A bard with 16 dexterity and 18 charisma would
    get 12%.

    Gary

  6. #6
    HSteiner1@aol.co
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    [snipped alot about paladins]

    I have to throw a comment on this one.
    Somebody said, paladins should be the embodiement of their faith. I have to
    disagree, this is not so. Priests are the embodiement of their respective
    faith, paladins are (regardless of the portfolio of their god) the WARRIORS
    of their god (well, their church).
    Take, for example, Eloele (sp), Goddess of the night and thieves and so on.
    Their Paladins would be warriors, maybe with some thiving abilities, but
    foremost they would be warriors. The priests of Eloele ARE the living
    example of the faithful of Eloele, they get some special abilities and dont
    wear armor. The (speculative) paladins of Eloele would wear heavy armor and
    wield mighty, two-handed weapons, because they are warriors.
    I think, paladins of all faiths would be warriors with some extra abilities,
    but
    they would be warriors.


    (I think, i have to work on my avtive english sometimes ;-)

    Aedric Maeras
    Lord Mage of Roesone
    Undead Master



    ######################################
    Holger Steiner
    Programmer & Object-Technology Consultant
    HSteiner1@aol.com
    http://members.aol.com/HSteiner1
    Only the code gets executed, not the intentions...
    ######################################

  7. #7
    HSteiner1@aol.co
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    [snipped alot about paladins]

    I have to throw a comment on this one.
    Somebody said, paladins should be the embodiement of their faith. I have to
    disagree, this is not so. Priests are the embodiement of their respective
    faith, paladins are (regardless of the portfolio of their god) the WARRIORS
    of their god (well, their church).
    Take, for example, Eloele (sp), Goddess of the night and thieves and so on.
    Their Paladins would be warriors, maybe with some thiving abilities, but
    foremost they would be warriors. The priests of Eloele ARE the living
    example of the faithful of Eloele, they get some special abilities and dont
    wear armor. The (speculative) paladins of Eloele would wear heavy armor and
    wield mighty, two-handed weapons, because they are warriors.
    I think, paladins of all faiths would be warriors with some extra abilities,
    but
    they would be warriors.


    (I think, i have to work on my avtive english sometimes ;-)

    Aedric Maeras
    Lord Mage of Roesone
    Undead Master



    ######################################
    Holger Steiner
    Programmer & Object-Technology Consultant
    HSteiner1@aol.com
    http://members.aol.com/HSteiner1
    Only the code gets executed, not the intentions...
    ######################################

  8. #8
    Binagran
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    Priests are the embodiment of their faith???

    Hmm, then how come you can have corrupt priests stealing from the temple
    coffers, killing their fellow worshippers, leading insurrections against the
    regent, and this is only in the "good" churches. And yet after doing all these
    things, which you can only assume would be against the wishes of their god, they
    still seem to receive their spells.

    For a pretty good example, check out the Hierarch Taril Herad of the Chosen of
    Khirdai in Aftane. This guy ruthlessly eliminated any and all opposition to his
    order, supports the "suspect" rulership of the Red Kings of Aftane.

    Now if you can explain to me how this particular priest is the supreme
    embodiment of his particular faith then good for you.

    As a side not, I think in the particular religions of Cuiraecen and Haelyn (both
    being very militant orders) the paladin of each faith would probably be seen as
    being the ultimate symbol of the faith. Brave, Pious, Strong, etc, many things
    you might not find in the general temple clergy.

    Binagranataboclanorane

  9. #9
    Daniel McSorley
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    From: Binagran
    >For a pretty good example, check out the Hierarch Taril Herad of the Chosen
    of
    >Khirdai in Aftane. This guy ruthlessly eliminated any and all opposition
    to his
    >order, supports the "suspect" rulership of the Red Kings of Aftane.
    >
    >Now if you can explain to me how this particular priest is the supreme
    >embodiment of his particular faith then good for you.
    >
    Cuiraecen's portfolio is storms and conflict. This can be interpreted as
    either defense of the weak, or "war for war's sake". Both of those are
    right out of the BoP.
    If Heirarch Terad is belligerent, and eliminated any opponents to his
    temple, he's doing a darn good job. His temple is strong, he has brought
    many worshippers to Cuiraecen's fold, as the DM, I would say Cuiraecen is
    pretty pleased with the work this guy is doing.
    The priests don't all have to be goody two-shoes. Both Haelyn and
    Cuiraecen support and GIVE SPELLS TO evilly aligned priests, who are
    properly devout and worship them. They do support politicking and religious
    conflict. It keeps the faith strong, and spreads the base of power of their
    major followers, the temple regents. A priest of Haelyn, who led an
    inquisition type action in the lands he controls, all in the name of Haelyn
    and in the proper form, would be evil, and probably a terrible person, but
    he would receive spells.

    Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

  10. #10
    Binagran
    Guest

    Paladins for Everyone (long)

    > Cuiraecen's portfolio is storms and conflict. This can be interpreted as
    > either defense of the weak, or "war for war's sake". Both of those are
    > right out of the BoP.
    > If Heirarch Terad is belligerent, and eliminated any opponents to his
    > temple, he's doing a darn good job. His temple is strong, he has brought
    > many worshippers to Cuiraecen's fold, as the DM, I would say Cuiraecen is
    > pretty pleased with the work this guy is doing.
    > The priests don't all have to be goody two-shoes. Both Haelyn and
    > Cuiraecen support and GIVE SPELLS TO evilly aligned priests, who are
    > properly devout and worship them. They do support politicking and religious
    > conflict. It keeps the faith strong, and spreads the base of power of their
    > major followers, the temple regents. A priest of Haelyn, who led an
    > inquisition type action in the lands he controls, all in the name of Haelyn
    > and in the proper form, would be evil, and probably a terrible person, but
    > he would receive spells.
    >
    > Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu


    My point being, how could the LE priest of Haelyn (or the CE priest of
    Cuiraecen) possibly be considered more of an embodiment of their particular
    faiths than the LG (CG) Paladin.

    Binagranataboclanorane

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Paladins for Everyone
    By The Olesens in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-24-1998, 07:10 PM
  2. RE: Paladins for Everyone
    By Kariu in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-1998, 05:28 PM
  3. The kings Paladins
    By Trizt in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-1998, 11:16 AM
  4. vos paladins
    By Alexander in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-1997, 03:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.