Sarog

Careful. If a BSNer smells templar validation, we will soon be swimming in zealous denial and self-righteous appeals to human rights.

It seems likely that the elves will have celtic influence. That might even become the new genre standard. This might be a bit of tangent, but I am a bit hesitant about these barbarian elves. The setting is a late middle ages one, with firearms and cannons and full plate armour. For a culture to still be on a level of technological and/or intellectual barbarism at this stage in the world's history would require them to be so far geographically removed from high civilization as to have no or next-to no interaction, in the equivalent of Southern Africa or South America. Just being a little ways away on the same landmass seems a bit implausible to me at first, but we'll have to see how they are implemented. Also the idea that in a world with guns and full plate armour, a barbarian companion can be equivalent in power and value to your other companions is also a bit weird to me. Soul power, sure, but it does threaten to trend towards Warcraft's example, where technology is mostly an inconsistent gimmick. That's its own conversation and has nothing to do with elves, though, and I'm sure that Obsidian won't derp it up like that, but I'm definitely not sold on that yet.

I had a scary BSN flashback when I wandered in here. Someone please hold me. I don't think modern notions of "atheism" have any place in a pre-modern setting, especially one where the gods are active, involved, meddlers who interact with the world. Hating gods, sure. Losing your faith in your god, and not identifying with any of them, also sure. But strong denial that any form of divinity exists whatsoever, when these divines are active in the world, has about as much place in such a setting as magical Facebook pages and pantomime Kardashians. As for if they should get killed for XPs, I'd say only as the potential end boss of the game, on the scale of the final battle in BG2:ToB.

That boat has sailed. The D&D roster we have. Nothing is going to make this roster look original now. Novelty will have to be found elsewhere, therefore judging classes on whether or not they are new is futile.

I appreciate that people prefer new, innovative things to what we've seen before. I felt the same and hoped for non-traditional, non-Tolkien, non-D&D fantasy from P:E. The game as it is shaping up is very traditional though, and the class roster fits exactly into the D&D mold with these two exceptions. Including monks, barbarians, and rangers and not including paladins feels... I'm not going to say arbitrary, because we don't know the mechanics well enough yet, but certainly whimsical. Or in other words, novelty and innovation should be found in how these old traditional classes are represented, not in which are included and which are not.

Eh, not entirely. I always appreciated immunities and auras. I often played BG2 with the paladin chevalier kit because of the passives.

Yes, and probably yes. Am I correct then that you view this unfavorably? It has been my experience that people generally praise movies/games that go for this sort of gritty, realistic approach. I can't say I've often seen Nolan's Batman or Game of Thrones used as negative comparisons before, so I'm curious as to your perspective.

Is this trend towards realism or "grittyness" related to your idea of stories being overly focused on political/factional narratives, do would you say that is something that is also reflected in other narratives as well?

Bards really just tend to be rogues with auras (songs) and low level magical abilities. If auras are folded into another class I don't see much need for them, as their other mechanical and roleplaying roles are squarely in rogue territory. I'd agree that they make the most sense as a rogue specialization, if anything.

If I'm your idea of an aggressive debater than I envy your sheltered experience with the internet. I think I've been very reasonable in asking for clarifications rather just barking opinions. The general idea of "balance" is fine and dandy, but I don't see the harm in asking someone to explain himself more specifically. Strawman. /groan. Asking someone to clarify things is not a strawman. Please don't contribute to the devaluation of fallacies by naming them recklessly. He did bring the TW1 v TW2 comparison onto the table, and it is an open forum. I'll play quote tennis with you for now, but let's keep it moderate? I understand what tone is. If you or the OP can use that to extrapolate how TW1 and TW2 are substantively different from each other, or provide an example of this sort of tone being a trend that overshadows the other elements of the game other than the TW series or DA2, I'm all ears. Sorry, but a list of how the titles took the same approach to their narrative and their quest content, and the subsequent conclusion that they are not fundamentally dissimilar, is not subjective. Agree or disagree but I'm not arguing from preference. Nice ironic sentence there. If it helps, I'm not trying to distort his argument. I literally don't perceive any premises to his argument other than those that are based on subjectivity, vibes and feelings and whatnot. And I don't think that saying "most people would agree with me" is an excusable thing to say unless you have legitimately representative polls to back yourself up. If there's something more substantial here that I've missed, give me the benefit of the doubt that I didn't notice it rather than accusing me of blatant distortion. I think he's talking about trends that don't exist, and justifying them with perceptions that aren't based on anything substantial, yes. Considering that I've been asking questions, trying to see if there's more to subject that I'm missing, and not just putting my opinion on a soapbox, I get the feeling that we have very different ideas of what constitutes "useful" discussion.

You are right, we don't know much about class mechanics yet. But because the class selection mirrors traditional D&D so closely, we can safely assume a few things for the sake of being theoretical. I believe that the Paladin archetype should be catered to in the game, whether it is a class or not. I also believe that there is as much mechanical justification for a paladin class as for a barbarian class, even though I don't need to have such a class to enjoy paladin roleplaying if that is catered to. There are two distinct arguments to be made for paladins, both of which have merits, but I am more wiling to sacrifice the class than the archetype. I do find it weird that they paladins are absent from the starting line up though, just because some of the classes that are seem more more mechanically and thematically obscure. I don't mean to be snide, but I don't know how to respond to that other than "please read what I have said more carefully".

You're right, it is. But I think if you ran a survey, most people would subjectively agree with me. Seriously man, if you don't see how TW2 was more political than TW1 then nothing I can say will convince you. I don't see why I should spend my time trying to convince you of it. This is a Project Eternity forum, not a Witcher forum, after all. You started this thread and brought the Witcher 1 vs. Witcher 2 comparison into it to validate your opinion. Do you object to me continuing the discussion? Were you just looking for an echo chamber? If so that seems a bit juvenile. I've tried to engage with you, and compare and contrast things point by point and identify where the problems and differences lie, if they exist. And you keep falling back to vague, wishy washy "vibes" and whatnot. I certainly don't expect to be able to slay a dragon that lives in your mind, but as a reasonable person surely you can take a moment to consider that your inability to justify your argument might just mean that you are pulling a Don Quixote here. I see no real grounds to argue that the Witcher 1 and the Witcher 2 are fundamentally different narratives when they include the same sorts of things (that I have listed), nor do I see any reason to believe that there's a recent trend that abandons outdoor adventure and exploration in favour of politics (because the two are not mutually exclusive, and Dragon Age 2 does not count as a trend by itself). It is 100% possible for you to change my mind if you can find more reasonable premises, but if you rely only on vibes and claiming to speak for a silent majority I rather think you are wailing on a windmill.

You're misrepresenting my posts, likely lumping me in together with other posters. I'm not dead set on the existence of a mechanical class in order to provide for a roleplaying niche. As far as roleplaying is concerned, I'd be perfectly happy to play a fighter in a knightly order for the same roleplaying (though not a temple soldier, because those are substantially different from each other). But mechanically, you could make as strong an argument for paladins as you could for barbarians, to cherry pick one of the specialist classes. The barbarian is traditionally identical to the fighter except for two key differences. They wear lighter armor, and they use rage mechanics. These two things by themselves can, and have, been folded into the standard warrior class in other rpgs. To justify a barbarian as a separate class, certain things get thumb-sucked that have novelty but aren't terribly meaningful; fast movement, uncanny dodge, and other small gimmicky things. Paladins traditionally differ from warriors and priests in at least as many mechanical respects as barbarians do from warriors. They aren't the pure melee specialists that fighters are, nor are they the defensive support spell-casters that priests generally are. Paladins traditionally sacrifice these things in exchange for the unique mechanics of passive auras, passive immunities, weapon blessings, and the like. If light armor and rage mechanics are enough to contrive an entire class for barbarian that is distinct from the fighter, an argument can definitely be made that passive immunities, auras, and weapon blessings are just as much cause to contrive a distinct class for the paladin. The roleplaying justification and the mechanical justification are separate though.

Can you elaborate on the that some more? "Vibe" is terribly vague, and again a purely subjective thing. Both Witcher games had very political stories, extensive outdoor adventuring, and included monster hunting and occult-related quests, some of which related to the main plot and some of which did not. Is there anything more substantial you can list as to how one falls within your "oldschool" trend and the other falls within your "newschool" trend?

Which is the new D&D interpretation of the paladin, certainly, but this sort of Divine Champion mold caters to a different roleplaying niche than the traditional paladin. The archetypical barbarian is as close to the warrior or the rogue as the archetypical paladin is to the priest. In terms of roleplaying archetypes, it is easy enough to fold the barbarian into the fighter, the ranger into the rogue, the psion into the mage, and the monk into the priest because the concepts only differ in a few key ways that can be internalized as specializations. Tradition has built them into classes of their own, alongside the paladin, and identified them with specific roleplaying niches. It is just weird to see some of those archetypes resurrected, like the monk and the even more obscure psion, while the paladin is engulfed by the priest. Personally I'd be content with being able to join a knightly order, but I'm a bit baffled by which classes were kept and which were thrown out.

That really depends on the deities available, though. Being a warrior-priest means very different things according to whose priest you are. Whereas the paladin is very specific ideal that some of us would like to be catered to. Though I would be happy having it catered to in another class so long as that other class explicitly got the option to go the monastic knight route, having an acknowledged paladin class would do much to guarantee this archetype. Barbarians and monks could just as easily have been folded into other classes as well.

The-ends-justify-the-means actions are almost always unpleasant to perform, witness, or even think about. That's a natural trade off between common moral intuition on the one hand and effectiveness on the other. I certainly don't think the game should objectively brand you as evil for doing something controversial, but it would be very weird if you could sacrifice the virgin maid to the scary dragon to spare the town his wrath and be praised for it. I think it is natural and sensible that doing bad things for good results should still net you some reputation penalties and popular condemnation. What is the point of making controversial decisions if there is no controversy?

As much as I love South Park, I'm not sure that a creative crossover from it into P:E is a good idea. To put it mildly.

To me, that feels like an arbitrary distinction though. Stories about people, factions, and ideology are very important to roleplaying, and I don't think that the level to which the game's plots and subplots are interrelated affect anything other than narrative coherency. The Witcher 1 was every inch as political as the Witcher 2, but the focus on the escalating conflict between the Order and Scoia'tael didn't impede any of the rural/wilderness adventure that you feel is fading away, and monster slaying was of course a tremendous focus, as you played a monster hunter. Nor did the Witcher 2's detailed political plot take anything away from the time I spent mucking around in the forest, looking for endrega teeth, plotting how to kill the kayran, banishing ghosts and breaking curses. So I do rather feel like the lines and boundaries you are drawing here are a touch arbitrary, and don't really affect the meat and potatoes of any of the titles we've discussed.

I suppose that, this being a kickstarter project, there is an argument to be made that people who don't mind spoilers should get a little insight into the themes and messages that the game might advocate, and any political causes it might allegorically champion. I'm not about to cut my pledge over any single thing, but I can imagine that if the finished product was loaded with messages that I'm not comfortable with, I might likewise feel uncomfortable that I helped finance it. Some transparency in that area would probably be responsible.

That's not the kind of human-centrism I'm referring to. When I say "human-centric", I mean humans as a civilization, as political animals - not humans as individuals that you meet along the way and help. BG2 (and D&D games in general) tended to have a very simplified view of such things. You'll notice that you never actually got to meet the rulers of Amn or the leaders of the Cowled Wizards in BG2. I confess I'm not entirely sure of how you define it this human-centric focus. A story can be factional and political without involving the people at the top of the pyramid. Baldur's Gate 2 included a great deal of factional emphasis, both inside towns and out. Rival thieves guilds. Rival druid circles. A paladin order and an anti-paladin offshoot of that order. The Roenall family's covetous grasp extending towards d'Arnise keep. Three prominent rival churches in competition with each other, and a cult trying to steal their worshipers. The outbreak of the war between the drow and the surface elves. All of these things are essentially about people struggling over ideology or competing for power. I'm not sure how this is less political or human-centric than the Witcher 2, except that the Witcher focuses on fewer, bigger political conflicts rather than a lot of smaller ones.

Being able to join a faction that is a monastic knightly order and have the appropriate quests, dialogue and other content would, I think, definitely cover the most important part of the paladin niche concept. I'm sure no one is too attached to needing abilities like Lay on Hands, and the soul mechanic might provide such for fighters anyway. That the roleplaying archetype is properly provided for is the important thing, I think.

Fair enough. So long as we don't go off on tangents that assume relationships where none exist and take for granted problematic trends that aren't really in evidence.

They should react to what you do, not what your class label is. The common person shouldn't even know what that means. They shouldn't have some instinctive knowledge of the difference between a preacher, a warrior priest, and a Paladin. They should know "he's going on and on about his god while being a jerk to me and waving a bloody sword in my face." This is true, but I think there's a case to be made that the inclusion of a class brings validity (and more importantly, scripting!) to a certain role that might otherwise be absent. In a game without paladins, you can certainly roleplay your standard warrior as devout, upright, morally inflexible, but your options for doing so might be limited and there's no guarantee that you'll be able to explore this role to the extent which you would like to. Whereas the inclusion of the class guarantees that the franchise recognizes this particular roleplaying niche and may provide for it with quests, subplots, factions, and the like that appeal to it. No matter how you roleplay a dragon age warrior, you are never going to feel quite as much like a paladin as you did when you joined the Most Sacred Order of the Radiant Heart and played content that was uniquely tailored to the paladin. The paladin class is certainly not necessary, but I think it is natural that people voice support for it in order to safeguard a specific roleplaying niche preference that doesn't always get included in other RPGs. Especially since the game is already doing so for the barbarian, monk, and ranger, which are really just a paladin's D&D niche roleplaying preference cousins.

That comparison,.... doesn't really make sense? I think he said more *Please carter equally to apples and oranges* By first introducing the false dilemma that suggests that they are already unequal, requesting a lessening of a perceived emphasis on urban adventure and human-related stories that is fallaciously labeled as "newschool". We're talking about a non-existent dilemma here. BG2 was definitely not "new school", and was primarily focused on a very expansive city scape filled with human-centric plots and factions. Fallout NV and Skyrim both featured very expansive wilderness adventure that at the very least equaled the urban-human emphasis in those games, if not overshadowed them. Is this dilemma of the old school wilderness crawl being overthrown by newschool townsy actually present? If you juxtapose Icewind Dale to Dragon Age 2, sure, but isolated examples don't make a trend. This thread is a random pairing of 1) aesthetic preference, 2) pointing the finger at consoles for things that one dislikes, and 3) the assertion of a perceived trend that isn't necessarily true. Each of those points on its own has merit to be discussed but I'm not sure that fusing them into a single ManBearBig antagonist creates a legitimate dilemma.