HUZZAH! Neverwinter Nights 2 gone Gold!

[mkreku]

Smiley replies aren't spam. Thank you for playing.

 

Just because you seem to lack the ability to understand replies that are in abstract terms doesn't mean this is the case for everyone.

 

Have a nice day.

And this isn't trolling? I guess it's polite and on-topic too?

 

And one-smiley posts aren't spam.. You learn something new each day.

 

Crap, I shouldn't have written this post. It must be "harrassing".

 

 

ANYHOW.. why is it that so many players choose to play a paladin when they start a new D&D character? Is the class unbalanced and easier to play? I mean, it is basically a fighter that is self-sufficient (since he can heal and stuff). Not so many paladins in this thread perhaps, but everytime I watch someone play D&D they instantly roll a paladin. I get the feeling it's the cookie-cutter class.

[Pop]

I don't know. A casual gamer will surely look at a paladin and see a fighter + tons of abilities and immunities and the obvious tank potential, but a roleplayer will probably see all the restrictions attached to the alignment and feel stifled. We don't want to be forced into being the hero all the time. I personally just don't happen to think most fighter classes are all that interesting to play. Cept monks, of course. Love monks. Skirmish fighters. Also kind of limited in their own way, but nothing I can't accept.

 

I would have actually liked to see an evil paladin-type class (that isn't the "crusader" fighter class) or at least had paladins that were restricted in their alignment like monks were, on the law/chaos axis only. That would have put some much-needed spice onto the character concept.

[Gorgon]

Paladins suffer from the same personality disorder as Jedi Knights, they are either too good for their own good or the incarnation of evil. I want a gray paladin option.

[mkreku]

I'm not a true role-player and I've always thought the alignment system was dumb. In most games the only thing alignment does is not letting you wield that evil sword (when being a paladin). In the real world, there are no 100% good people. Mostly decisions have consequences (duh) and the results are usually like 80% good, 20% not so good.

 

I usually play a paladin because I am lazy. I want a character with the best weapons, the best armour, that can tank and help with spells if needed. Tada, a paladin is born!

 

I even played a paladin in World of Warcraft, but unfortunately they sucked in that game.

[Darque]

And one-smiley posts aren't spam.. You learn something new each day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Darque]

Paladins suffer from the same personality disorder as Jedi Knights, they are either too good for their own good or the incarnation of evil. I want a gray paladin option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, that is part of their "character".

[Pop]

Apparently mods can't be arsed to use the "edit" button either "

 

But regardless, we love our mods, don't we? Yes!

Edited October 19, 2006 by Pop

[Atreides]

The MTG creative dudes say limits can encourage creativity when the bounds are clearly defined. For example a Paladin fighting alcoholism or the necessity of sacrifice for the "greater good" could be interesting areas to explore.

[Volourn]

I can now OFFICIALLY play NWN2 with my computer!!!

[Darque]

I can now OFFICIALLY play NWN2 with my computer!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Got an upgrade?

[Volourn]

Yes! Check the DOMINATION thread!!! Muahaha!!! Redownolading the toolset, and it's going much quicker!!! (w00t) (w00t) (w00t)

Edited October 19, 2006 by Volourn

[alanschu]

I don't know. A casual gamer will surely look at a paladin and see a fighter + tons of abilities and immunities and the obvious tank potential, but a roleplayer will probably see all the restrictions attached to the alignment and feel stifled. We don't want to be forced into being the hero all the time. I personally just don't happen to think most fighter classes are all that interesting to play. Cept monks, of course. Love monks. Skirmish fighters. Also kind of limited in their own way, but nothing I can't accept.

 

I would have actually liked to see an evil paladin-type class (that isn't the "crusader" fighter class) or at least had paladins that were restricted in their alignment like monks were, on the law/chaos axis only. That would have put some much-needed spice onto the character concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the record, I am not a casual gamer, and am a roleplayer, and I find myself enjoying the Paladin, and don't feel stifled at all. Especially seeing that, as a roleplayer, what class I start off with is irrelevant because I'm going to play the role of my character, whatever class I may be. If "we" don't want to be forced into playing a hero all the time, there's nothing stopping you from that...even if you start the game off as a Paladin. I have played through games as a Paladin that falls before, and I enjoyed them. If on my first playthrough of NWN2 I feel like that is the situation, I'll do it. It only becomes restrained if you're specifically trying to keep the Paladin class and progress fully, which isn't really roleplaying as far as I'm concerned.

 

And the expansions had the Blackguard PrC, which pretty much seemed like an evil Paladin IIRC.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Going gold, now to see if it will actually be released on October 31st.

[metadigital]

I don't know. A casual gamer will surely look at a paladin and see a fighter + tons of abilities and immunities and the obvious tank potential, but a roleplayer will probably see all the restrictions attached to the alignment and feel stifled. We don't want to be forced into being the hero all the time. I personally just don't happen to think most fighter classes are all that interesting to play. Cept monks, of course. Love monks. Skirmish fighters. Also kind of limited in their own way, but nothing I can't accept.

 

I would have actually liked to see an evil paladin-type class (that isn't the "crusader" fighter class) or at least had paladins that were restricted in their alignment like monks were, on the law/chaos axis only. That would have put some much-needed spice onto the character concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the record, I am not a casual gamer, and am a roleplayer, and I find myself enjoying the Paladin, and don't feel stifled at all. Especially seeing that, as a roleplayer, what class I start off with is irrelevant because I'm going to play the role of my character, whatever class I may be. If "we" don't want to be forced into playing a hero all the time, there's nothing stopping you from that...even if you start the game off as a Paladin. I have played through games as a Paladin that falls before, and I enjoyed them. If on my first playthrough of NWN2 I feel like that is the situation, I'll do it. It only becomes restrained if you're specifically trying to keep the Paladin class and progress fully, which isn't really roleplaying as far as I'm concerned.

 

And the expansions had the Blackguard PrC, which pretty much seemed like an evil Paladin IIRC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never liked the Paladin because I thought Lawful Good was a thoroughly unrealistic alignment.

 

However, as

• alignment roleplay is limited and even almost-impossible in cRPGs,
  
• considering that a significant portion of the armour, weapons and equipment are all geared to fighter classes (not too many greatsword-weilding mages out there), and
  
• I predominantly play a good-aligned character, then
  

I found myself drawn towards the tank-self-healer character. (I used to play a lot of monks, mainly because of the kewl immunities, like poison and magic at higher levels.)

 

Mages are still the more powerful of the higher level characters, though.

 

I'd really like to investigate a rogue character properly, too, if the full range of abilities were available (climbing walls) and thieving was integrated better into the game mechanics ... possibly even incorporating some spell-like beguiling powers for the very well gab-gifted, too.

[alanschu]

Wow, I had quite the run-on sentence to start things off with that post.

[Lord Tingeling]

Mages are still the more powerful of the higher level characters, though.

 

From playing HotU again and again I'm not sure I'd agree. A straight mage is indeed pretty rockin' compared to a straight melee class, but if you're a dirty powergamer melee characters tend to be much more fun.

 

At least they were, before all this unstackable crit range modifiers garbage in 3.5. *shakes fist*

Edited October 19, 2006 by Lord Tingeling

[deganawida]

Because killing people is wrong.

 

though slaughtering hordes of goblins, wolves, trolls and other beasties makes you a saint..... for some reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chaotic evil creatures have abandoned reason through their rampant murdering habits and thus, have abandoned any claim to moral personhood.

 

Kant pwnz D&D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Woot! Go Kant!

[Dark_Raven]

I can now OFFICIALLY play NWN2 with my computer!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Little Volo want a donut?

 

 

 

But good news for you.

[metadigital]

Boo egoism! Boo hiss! Not workable! Ayn Rand bad!

 

It's kinda odd, because a supposed egoist like Kreia would not be able to even consider the beggar. Objectivists ("objectivism" being that name which Ayn Rand gave to her own system) are only supposed to be concerned with themselves. To say "we can't give money to beggars because they must better themselves" is not Rand. It's a big problem with her ideas. She makes it explicitly clear that an ethical egoist cannot consider others in any way. Your reasons for not helping someone in need can only concern you. So Obsidian kind of goofed on that one. Silly Obsidian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a very interesting assessment; not that I profess to be an expert on Ayn Rand (in fact I haven't read any of her work), but what makes you think Kreia was a subscriber to her Objectivism?

 

I agree she is spouting some rational egoism, though:

In Rand's view, there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. Rational egoism, however, is not an excuse to act on every whim or emotional impulse,[1] because it is irrational to desire what one has not earned. [2] Happiness requires objective principles, like moral integrity and a respect for the rights of others. This exhibits itself in politics, because rational government would be the least restrictive while protecting everyone's right to life, liberty and property, and forbidding the initiation of force by anyone against anyone.[3]

1. What is Objectivism?
    
   
2. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness, New American Library, 1964
    
   
3. Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, New American Library, 1967
   

Bearing this in mind, I can see how a Lawful Evil alignment might fit.

I will give Obsidian big credit for trying, though. Throwing Rand into a soft Eastern-philosophy-good! oriented universe like Star Wars is like throwing your kid in the deep end of the pool. If anything, it helped to serve the idea that the Sith are western individualists and the Jedi are eastern altruists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm, it sounds like your analogy is an over-simplification fallacy.

 

Still, I am grateful for your comments as I have read up a bit on Rand and her Objectivism (that she wanted to call Existentialism, but for those French that took the title before her).

 

There are some worthy points:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

[Rand, Ayn. (1996) Atlas Shrugged. Signet Book; 35th Anniv edition. Appendix. ISBN 0-451-19114-5]

doesn't sound like a Sith to me ... although it is perfectly possible to pervert any sentiment into something far worse; hell, good intentions and paving stones, after all.

 

Further, Ms Rand has some reasonable conclusions from reasonable assumptions:

The essence of the Objectivist position on ethics was summed up by Ayn Rand in one sentence:

    "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem."

 

The ethics of Objectivism is based on the theory that each person is responsible for achieving his or her own rational self-interest. Rand wrote:

    "Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice

[Musopticon?]

Continuing with the paladin-discussion.

 

I am not sure where I exactly saw them, but I've seen concept art(for 3.5) of a Vheraunish paladin. Going with that in mind, it's not a huge stretch of mind to call any kind of fighting individual who is fiercely devoted to her deity a paladin.

 

At least, that's how I've always played them. Not lawful as such.

[metadigital]

Wouldn't that be lawful, though?

 

(Are we in danger of duplicating the Alignment thread from PnP?)

[Musopticon?]

But what if the god she worships is chaotic?

 

 

Let's try to not drift to that discussion.

[metadigital]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

Amongst our weaponry are ... a fierce devotion to the Pope ...

[Judge Hades]

Did someone mention the Pope?

 

http://www.adamriff.com/images/battlepope1large.jpg

 

Yes, the new pope with his slightly deviant sidekick... JESUS!

[taks]

*** snip long ayn rand post ***

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pretty good assessment, meta. seems you pay attention to such things. i disagreed with pop's assessment that an objectivist cannot consider others. on the surface, this is how objectivism comes across, though there is a subtlety that you won't get simply from a little reading. concerns for others are very important to an objectivist, though his motives for said concern are based on self-interest.

 

i think ayn believed that _most_, if not all, people were actually sort of "closet objectivists" simply because their motivations are rooted in their own self-interests more often than not. the difference being that someone calling himself an objectivist openly admits his motivations (most of this my own opinion, btw). for example, people that do a lot of charity work often talk about how good it makes them feel to help others (not all, of course).

 

that said, most of my "roleplaying" in games is based on a similar philosophy. as a result, i have a very hard time playing any alignment on the extremes (lawful good), or evil (evil deeds to not make me happy). i usually end up either chaotic good, neutral good or true neutral. that way, i don't mind walking into an empty house in the wilderness and lifting the potions of cure critical wounds out of their chest!

 

taks

Edited October 19, 2006 by taks