Results 1 to 10 of 16
Thread: Paladins for Everyone (long)
-
09-21-1998, 08:08 AM #1James RayGuest
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
-
09-21-1998, 11:41 AM #2Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
09-21-1998, 12:19 PM #3The OlesensGuest
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.
-
09-22-1998, 05:51 AM #4DomGuest
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
-
09-22-1998, 06:30 AM #5Gary V. FossGuest
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
-
09-23-1998, 06:07 AM #6HSteiner1@aol.coGuest
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...
######################################
-
09-23-1998, 06:07 AM #7HSteiner1@aol.coGuest
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...
######################################
-
09-23-1998, 07:02 AM #8BinagranGuest
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
-
09-23-1998, 12:34 PM #9Daniel McSorleyGuest
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
-
09-23-1998, 02:38 PM #10BinagranGuest
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
-
Paladins for Everyone
By The Olesens in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 11Last Post: 09-24-1998, 07:10 PM -
RE: Paladins for Everyone
By Kariu in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 09-20-1998, 05:28 PM -
The kings Paladins
By Trizt in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 03-13-1998, 11:16 AM -
vos paladins
By Alexander in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 09-12-1997, 03:49 PM
Bookmarks