Paladins and Bards

[dlux]

Paladin is a fighter...a fighter with a fancy Title. Given to him by some church authority that he/she serves.

Paladins are also divine spell casters and use auras in addition to being very good fighters.

 

Yes and it just makes more valid arguments for Priest = Battle/Fighter Priest = Paladin. You can even Fighter = Battle Priest = Paladin.

Well, ok then. If that is true, then this is also correct:

 

Druid = Cleric

Barbarian = Fighter

Cipher = Mage/Priest

Ranger = Fighter with bows

Monk = Fighter without swords

Rogue/Thief = Rogue

 

So, according to what you say the game should only have Fighters, Mages, Priests and Rogues (the core classes). Interesting.

Edited October 4, 2012 by dlux

[TrashMan]

Threads like this:

 

http://forums.obsidi...uxury-for-evil/

 

Is why I am so passionate and insistent on being allowed to have a Paladin. If people are allowed to play as evil I would appreciate being allowed to continue playing as Good. Lately it feels like games (Ie: Skyrim) make it far to easy to play as a total evil sob. Part of the fun of those classic IE games was being allowed to be good and evil. I realize they dropped alignment for reputation but that's not going to change people wanting to play good or evil.

 

 

Actually, you don't need an aligment system.

 

You can easily punish a paladin for clearly evil actions. Grey remain grey.

[Sarog]

I think its easier to reduce a Paladin with respect to this game because his main thing is largely tied to a roleplayed code which he can fall from. The code is entirely alignment based and there is no alignment in this game. Devs have stated they will avoid truly "good" or "evil" choices and instead present us with the soup of moral relativism. How the heck can you have a Paladin who falls when he does "bad" things with that design? It just doesn't work. The player's motivation could compelling be stated to "find" good in the sea of grey but I don't buy it. It would completely trivialize this game's direction with respect to alignment to have some Paladin sit on his high horse declaring this holy and that blasphemy.

 

I think you are making some big assumptions there that aren't necessarily true.

 

Paladin code being entirely "alignment based"? Well yes and yes. Yes in term of "paladins associate themselves with good." No in terms of "paladins must have hardcoded morality mechanics to make sense".

 

The devs have told us that they aren't using morality mechanics. That doesn't mean that the world and/or game will have no good, no evil, and only murky grey morality. It means that the game's mechanics will not make moral judgments about objective good and evil. Characters and cultures will continue to have their ideas of what is good and evil, and you don't need Lawful Good or Lightside V on your screen for a rigid moral code to be present in the class narrative.

 

Why does moral relativism mean that a paladin can't fall from his code? He can only fall from his own code of moral values, not from the codes of moral values that belong to other cultures/religions/whathaveyou. Why would relativism affect that? Other people's consciences don't matter in terms of the paladin falling or not falling.

 

Maybe you think that without clear, objective moral choices and morality mechanics, a moral code would be meaningless because any action can be interpreted as "good" in some way. But I disagree. If we are told that the paladin code is X, Y, Z, we don't need a morality mechanic to hold our hands and tell us that we are *this many* bad decisions away from falling. As long as the code is defined, it doesn't matter if there is objective morality or not, because we know what the code is, and what it means to fail it.

 

I think the lack of objective morality mechanics would make paladins more interesting, not less. If Good is Good and this is objectively true and recognized as a cosmic force, recognizing it and struggling to uphold it is nowhere near as meaningful as if good is an elusive, fragile idea in a murky world.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[Jigawatts]

Whats funny is if they had already included Paladins and Bards with the other official classes, noone would have a problem with them being in the game.

[Bill Gates' Son]

Paladin is a fighter...a fighter with a fancy Title. Given to him by some church authority that he/she serves.

Paladins are also divine spell casters and use auras in addition to being very good fighters.

 

You mean just like clerics?

 

And don't say Clerics aren't good fighters; besides AD&D, they've always been good fighters own their own without multiclassing.

 

If they can make Paladins different in this game, then fine. But I always found them to be clerics with less spells.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[Tauron]

Well, ok then. If that is true, then this is also correct:

 

Druid = Cleric

Barbarian = Fighter

Cipher = Mage/Priest

Ranger = Fighter with bows

Monk = Fighter without swords

Rogue/Thief = Rogue

 

So, according to what you say the game should only have Fighters, Mages, Priests and Rogues (the core classes). Interesting.

 

Well, yes...something like that. Start with 'archtypes' and then develop your to your desired class as you go on. Gives you sense of achievement.

 

Blurry line is that some subclasses, specialisations, can variate betwean Archtypes and by what logic can they be implemented? Not evreybody would agree. Like I used exempel on Paladin. It has some Priest abilities and Fighter abilities. Someone could also argument that Ranger should be specialisation for fighter or a rogue. Since rogue is more relaying on stealth, guile, traps. Ranger is like rogue of wilds. So to what archtype specialisation it belongs, can be argued.

[DeadManINC84]

I am paying over 120$ for this game Paladins better dam well be in this game.

[general_azure]

Blurry line is that some subclasses, specialisations, can variate betwean Archtypes and by what logic can they be implemented? Not evreybody would agree. Like I used exempel on Paladin. It has some Priest abilities and Fighter abilities. Someone could also argument that Ranger should be specialisation for fighter or a rogue. Since rogue is more relaying on stealth, guile, traps. Ranger is like rogue of wilds. So to what archtype specialisation it belongs, can be argued.

 

You might want to google how an old MMO called shadowbane handled classes... since it used exactly the system you describe. The answer there was: Crusader (the paladin equivalent) was a promotion open for both fighter and healer base classes, but since they retained the abilities of those base classes in addition to the ones granted by the crusader class, the healer type was slightly better at casting while the fighter version was more durable. Same thing for rangers and some other classes.

[dlux]

Paladin is a fighter...a fighter with a fancy Title. Given to him by some church authority that he/she serves.

Paladins are also divine spell casters and use auras in addition to being very good fighters.

 

You mean just like clerics?

 

And don't say Clerics aren't good fighters; besides AD&D, they've always been good fighters own their own without multiclassing.

 

If they can make Paladins different in this game, then fine. But I always found them to be clerics with less spells.

Don't say barbarbarians aren't good fighters. And don't say that ciphers aren't good mages/priests either.

Edited October 4, 2012 by dlux

[Umberlin]

Cipher = Mage/Priest

 

Came off as more of a psionic/mentalist styled class in the description.

[Nonek]

Depends on whether there's a history of bardic recitals in the lands of Eternity, they could still use Mnemonikos for the passing down of folk tales and mythology, or have enough magical innovation to make the calling up of ancestor spirits and phantasmal players a viable form of theatrics. Bards just might not exist in Eternity.

[VIGIL_AU]

Paladin's/Knights/Holy Warriors/Clerics is how I roll. NOT to include a heavy armored healer would be treason.

[LordCrash]

Paladin's/Knights/Holy Warriors/Clerics is how I roll. NOT to include a heavy armored healer would be treason.

Well, clerics are already confirmed....

[Troller]

We gotta have Paladins, they are the symbol for Honor and Good, something that will probably be lacking in the game world

[ImNotCreative]

 

I think you are making some big assumptions there that aren't necessarily true.

 

Paladin code being entirely "alignment based"? Well yes and yes. Yes in term of "paladins associate themselves with good." No in terms of "paladins must have hardcoded morality mechanics to make sense".

 

The devs have told us that they aren't using morality mechanics. That doesn't mean that the world and/or game will have no good, no evil, and only murky grey morality. It means that the game's mechanics will not make moral judgments about objective good and evil. Characters and cultures will continue to have their ideas of what is good and evil, and you don't need Lawful Good or Lightside V on your screen for a rigid moral code to be present in the class narrative.

 

Why does moral relativism mean that a paladin can't fall from his code? He can only fall from his own code of moral values, not from the codes of moral values that belong to other cultures/religions/whathaveyou. Why would relativism affect that? Other people's consciences don't matter in terms of the paladin falling or not falling.

 

Maybe you think that without clear, objective moral choices and morality mechanics, a moral code would be meaningless because any action can be interpreted as "good" in some way. But I disagree. If we are told that the paladin code is X, Y, Z, we don't need a morality mechanic to hold our hands and tell us that we are *this many* bad decisions away from falling. As long as the code is defined, it doesn't matter if there is objective morality or not, because we know what the code is, and what it means to fail it.

 

I think the lack of objective morality mechanics would make paladins more interesting, not less. If Good is Good and this is objectively true and recognized as a cosmic force, recognizing it and struggling to uphold it is nowhere near as meaningful as if good is an elusive, fragile idea in a murky world.

 

The problem is how is the game going to recognize that you have fallen if it doesn't log some kind of "morality points"?

[Sistergoldring]

Voted - I support both Paladins and Bards for PE...........but mostly Paladins

[Rink]

I personally don't like Paladins. Seen them in too many games and they usually were quite flat characters and usually don't really differ too much from fighters and clerics. Still I wouldn't mind if they were in the game. I personally would vote for an Anti-Paladin class then also though (so evil Paladins, fighting for evil Gods).

 

Bards may be a class that brings more fresh wind by having songs that affect all partymembers or all villains. It could give something other classes cannot. He could have high charisma and evation and know some illusion and charm magic spells. It would also be funny to have a pacifist bard in the party that doesn't use any weapons at all (well he doesn't want to break his instrument on the bad guys heads) but only magic spells and songs.

 

Both classes are usually men dominated and usually there are gay references to them. I wonder if u guys have seen enough of that already or if you want the heterosexual bard or paladin that everybody "bashes" as unmanly or homosexual.

I think female bard companion would be nice for a change (preferably very good looking but low intelligence - just enough so she can sing and dance on the table and really screw over the men around her with her relationship behavior :D ).

Edited October 5, 2012 by Rink

[Tamerlane]

Both classes are usually men dominated and usually there are gay references to them. I wonder if u guys have seen enough of that already or if you want the heterosexual bard or paladin that everybody "bashes" as unmanly or homosexual.

I think female bard companion would be nice for a change (preferably very good looking but low intelligence - just enough so she can sing and dance on the table and really screw over the men around her with her relationship behavior :D ).

I...

 

I see words, and I know these words, but I have no idea what is going on here.

[LordCrash]

Both classes are usually men dominated and usually there are gay references to them. I wonder if u guys have seen enough of that already or if you want the heterosexual bard or paladin that everybody "bashes" as unmanly or homosexual.

I think female bard companion would be nice for a change (preferably very good looking but low intelligence - just enough so she can sing and dance on the table and really screw over the men around her with her relationship behavior :D ).

I...

 

I see words, and I know these words, but I have no idea what is going on here.

This thread is only one post away from being closed..... It was only a matter of time until someone would come around again with that bull****.....

Edited October 5, 2012 by LordCrash

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...why not 'ave a "paladin-type" as a possible higher-level option o' clerics, as in ya gotta 'ave a certain level o' devotion ta yer faith 'afore ya can take up the sword fer it...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Shevek]

I think its easier to reduce a Paladin with respect to this game because his main thing is largely tied to a roleplayed code which he can fall from. The code is entirely alignment based and there is no alignment in this game. Devs have stated they will avoid truly "good" or "evil" choices and instead present us with the soup of moral relativism. How the heck can you have a Paladin who falls when he does "bad" things with that design? It just doesn't work. The player's motivation could compelling be stated to "find" good in the sea of grey but I don't buy it. It would completely trivialize this game's direction with respect to alignment to have some Paladin sit on his high horse declaring this holy and that blasphemy.

 

I think you are making some big assumptions there that aren't necessarily true.

 

Paladin code being entirely "alignment based"? Well yes and yes. Yes in term of "paladins associate themselves with good." No in terms of "paladins must have hardcoded morality mechanics to make sense".

 

The devs have told us that they aren't using morality mechanics. That doesn't mean that the world and/or game will have no good, no evil, and only murky grey morality. It means that the game's mechanics will not make moral judgments about objective good and evil. Characters and cultures will continue to have their ideas of what is good and evil, and you don't need Lawful Good or Lightside V on your screen for a rigid moral code to be present in the class narrative.

 

Why does moral relativism mean that a paladin can't fall from his code? He can only fall from his own code of moral values, not from the codes of moral values that belong to other cultures/religions/whathaveyou. Why would relativism affect that? Other people's consciences don't matter in terms of the paladin falling or not falling.

 

Maybe you think that without clear, objective moral choices and morality mechanics, a moral code would be meaningless because any action can be interpreted as "good" in some way. But I disagree. If we are told that the paladin code is X, Y, Z, we don't need a morality mechanic to hold our hands and tell us that we are *this many* bad decisions away from falling. As long as the code is defined, it doesn't matter if there is objective morality or not, because we know what the code is, and what it means to fail it.

 

I think the lack of objective morality mechanics would make paladins more interesting, not less. If Good is Good and this is objectively true and recognized as a cosmic force, recognizing it and struggling to uphold it is nowhere near as meaningful as if good is an elusive, fragile idea in a murky world.

 

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here. Everything that has been said from the devs makes it clear that they aren't about the whole good/evil dichotomy. Just because some in game cultures may "believe" in good and evil does not mean that good or evil actually work as a gameplay mechanic within the framework of the world. Especially when one considers the overall moral greyness of the world design. The simple fact that Paladins were not included should be an indicator, man.

 

Bottom line: Paladin good and evil is a child's good and evil. The real world is not as cut and dry as it is in eyes of some religious zealot. While this works in childish high fantasy, it falls apart the grittier the fantasy gets.

 

I recall those CS Friedman books (Coldfire Trilogy). In it, the main character is a typical DnD paladin type halfwit who would have fallen 10x over since he has to work with a guy who is evil as Hell in order to save his world. The reason the book works is because traditional high fantasy morality is cast to the side. The protagonists morality is warped over and over - just like most people's morality gets warped in difficult times. For PE to seem credible, a Paladin would have to fall within the first hour.

 

Paladins just don't make sense in PE.

[dlux]

Bottom line: Paladin good and evil is a child's good and evil. [...] Paladins just don't make sense in PE.

 

Quote of the day: "I don't like a class, so they must be childish" ^^

 

But seriously, if you don't like Paladins, then that is okay. I don't really like Monks either, but I know that many people enjoy this class and that is why I think they should be in the game. It is as simple as that.

Edited October 5, 2012 by dlux

[Sistergoldring]

There is hope for all Paladin supporters - @Obsidian just said 'he likes Paladins' on the kickstarter comments page. Ok, he might also like long walks on the beach, cats and marshmallows.................but I'm choosing to interpret it as an indication of a possible pro-paladin stance.

[dlux]

There is hope for all Paladin supporters - @Obsidian just said 'he likes Paladins' on the kickstarter comments page. Ok, he might also like long walks on the beach, cats and marshmallows.................but I'm choosing to interpret it as an indication of a possible pro-paladin stance.

Yes. And it is defintely better than calling Paladins "wimps".

 

Yes, yes, everthing is going as planned..... *rubs hands and chuckles evily* ^^

Edited October 5, 2012 by dlux

[Shevek]

Bottom line: Paladin good and evil is a child's good and evil. [...] Paladins just don't make sense in PE.

 

Quote of the day: "I don't like a class, so they must be childish" ^^

 

But seriously, if you don't like Paladins, then that is okay. I don't really like Monks either, but I know that many people enjoy this class and that is why I think they should be in the game. It is as simple as that.

 

I love the deep convo we had. What a great way respect another's arguments... take 2 snippets, ignore the rest... thats just awesome.