Paladins and Bards

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

Since I think the idea of a bard having signifcant buffing/debuffing effects in a combat situation to be hard to swallow (outside of the Macross/Robotech universe) I will put that aside. Since we have already been told that combat and non-combat skills will be acquired seperately there is no reason to limit the diplomatic/street smart/music playing role to only one class. Therefore, IMO there is no need for a bard.

 

The paladin might already exists as a subclass (remember those?) of the warrior, priest, or perhaps the 'traditional' paladin powers might be divided among multiple subclasses. The reason why paladins are part of DnD (and similar) lore is that they were the martial force of the gods on earth (well, not 'earth' earth, but you get the idea). If I recall correctly the gods in PE are much less concerned with the day-to-day lives of the people, so it would make less sense for them to have mortal followers with the sole purpose of roughing up their enemies.

[nikolokolus]

Non core classes are always going to have shades of their parent class, but for me it boils down to mechanics. Any subclass should be rooted in some specialization that differentiates it from the parent class enough to make it distinct. (particularly in a CRPG where enforcing behavior oriented mechanics is problematic). In terms of combat roles I'm not sure there's enough differentiation between a paladin and a fighter or a priest; they borrow from both, but don't do anything mechanically that is distinct.

 

Even properly playing a paladin in PnP required a lot of careful monitoring by a GM and a lot of subjective judgments about a character's motives and actions, otherwise they were just a cool fighter with some magical abilities thrown in and not many disadvantages.

 

Being a paladin ends up being about 90% roleplay enforcement and about 10% game mechanics to do it right, now take out an alignment system and how do you manage that type of character in a gameworld where the idea of pure good and pure evil are left behind for a faction reputation system? The only logical conclusion I can draw is that if there are paladins in Eternity, then they are a faction unto themselves -- a religious, monastic order of knights -- rather than a broad based general class of character.

[TrashMan]

I'll assert it again: I think Paladins should be included, but it really should be a titular role gained by proving yourself worthy through the course of the game. Going all the way back to 1st ed. AD&D, the whole notion of the class seemed to be defined around their deeds and philosophical rigidity.

 

Wouldn't some of you guys that love paladins rather earn it than having it handed to you?

 

 

Only if it's restricted to fighter-types only and it unlocks a paladin sub-class.

 

If a fighter can't become an archamge, then I don't want to see mages being called paladins. Not even as a title.

[Merin]

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

I disagree. Vehemently.

[phimseto]

If there is a bard party character and there is some degree of voice acting, can we get Cary Elwes to be the bard? )

[nikolokolus]

I'll assert it again: I think Paladins should be included, but it really should be a titular role gained by proving yourself worthy through the course of the game. Going all the way back to 1st ed. AD&D, the whole notion of the class seemed to be defined around their deeds and philosophical rigidity.

 

Wouldn't some of you guys that love paladins rather earn it than having it handed to you?

 

 

Only if it's restricted to fighter-types only and it unlocks a paladin sub-class.

 

If a fighter can't become an archamge, then I don't want to see mages being called paladins. Not even as a title.

 

I totally agree ... well almost totally. I think militant clerics should be able to qualify for such an order too.

Edited October 4, 2012 by nikolokolus

[IchigoRXC]

I think the Paladin should be available, perhaps as a sub class, kit or prestige. Maybe a paladin is a priest who has taken the route of a fighter, or vice versa. I think the idea of earning the title of Paladin is also a good idea.

 

As for the bard, perhaps a special line or specialisation could allow a thief to become a bard, once again as a subclass, kit or prestige (however they plan on doing classes). They are pretty much thieves with a little spell casting and area buff/de-buffs in many games, so it could be incorporated into thief I believe.

[LordCrash]

I'll assert it again: I think Paladins should be included, but it really should be a titular role gained by proving yourself worthy through the course of the game. Going all the way back to 1st ed. AD&D, the whole notion of the class seemed to be defined around their deeds and philosophical rigidity.

 

Wouldn't some of you guys that love paladins rather earn it than having it handed to you?

 

 

Only if it's restricted to fighter-types only and it unlocks a paladin sub-class.

 

If a fighter can't become an archamge, then I don't want to see mages being called paladins. Not even as a title.

In fact, if there is a subclass or title only fighters should be able to become such. Priests/clerics shall never be paladins/knights because they are part of the clergy and only obey to their church and their gods while paladins/knights commit themselves to oaths which are far more secular. They also gain their power through faith but not by following clerical ideology but by following the path about what is right, just and lawful.

[ImNotCreative]

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

I disagree. Vehemently.

 

Thanks for you extensive contribution to the conversation.

[nikolokolus]

From what I understand nobody draws power from the gods, all power is drawn from the soul of the character.

[Sarog]

You are missing the point, those "specialized" classes are chosen because they have different mechanics (at least I hope so). Nothing is forcing you to a specific role when you chose a class and because of that there shouldn't be a paladin class. They got rid of the alignment precisely because of that, your role (personality and motivations of your character) should be determined by the way you interact with the world not by a choice of class.

 

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

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.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[Merin]

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

I disagree. Vehemently.

 

Thanks for you extensive contribution to the conversation.

 

He's asking me to be more verbose. I do not believe he understands what a favor it was for me to be quite terse and to the point.

[nikolokolus]

as an aside, in a world without a reductive alignment system, who determines what is "right, just and lawful?" Aren't those conventions largely fungible from society to society?

[AlphaShard]

a poll would be better.

Don't really care if paladins or bards are in the game- both are not my choice of classes.

and bards, really? people actually like playing bards? that just.. unexpected..

I think we have already a good class selection: a weapon specialist (warrior), a bare hand specialist (monk), a ranged combat specialist(ranger), a magic user(wizard), thief/rogue/sneaky guy, shape shifting/nature guy (druid) and a faith guy (priest).

Do you really need a paladin (warrior/priest hybrid) and a bard (well, a buffing dude)? Maybe a rogue can go music route or warrior choosing a deity becomes palladinish?

Please read at least some of the posts already existing here before writing your own....

 

We don't want paladins solely for gameplay reasons, we want them for roleplaying reasons because of their moral conflicts, their perfect fit for mature topics, their attitude, their style, their way of talking with other people, their way of acting and so on. Why the hell are you people playing story-driven RPGs? There's a lot more than combat in it. In fact, in a perfect RPG you should be able to avoid most combats with other skills and the paladin is a perfect fit for that because of his leadership skills, his reputation in society (good or bad or somewhere between), probably his speaking skills as member of the nobility, his faith in his mission and things like that. The same is true for bards to a great extend. Perhaps they are not the best fighters out there but they are damn good in talking with NPCs and companions, in gathering information, in holding up morals in your group and so on....

 

So show some respect for these forgotten classes!

Thank you!

 

Didn't they say they wanted to include non combat solutions to avoiding fights? Why not use the two classes that can excel at that. There is good reason that Paladins and Bards get high charisma, they use it to TALK there way out of fights.

 

We already have Deities and Priests why wouldn't they have Paladins to crusade for them?

 

You can use the reputation system with the Paladins chosen faction faith. If his rep falls so does he.

Edited October 4, 2012 by AlphaShard

[LordCrash]

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

I disagree. Vehemently.

 

Thanks for you extensive contribution to the conversation.

And what was your special contribution to the conversation other than stating your personal opinion that class selection should only be mechanical?

[Majek]

And you don't give a damn about anything but your personal preferences.

[draft1983]

Well im with the majority on the view that bard is a rogue subclass.... and as they have already stated wizards can wear heavy armor and use a broad sword if u so wish, then the same will go for the priest/cleric, paladin would be a subclass... you cna make it - seems most onyl care aboutt he name PALADIN- even though its he same- you can cover a turd in golden wrapping paper, but it's still a turd

[LordCrash]

And you don't give a damn about anything but your personal preferences.

Maybe but why should I? There isn't a single reasonable arguement why paladins shouldn't be present in the game. In fact, adding them would only mean additional content you don't have to like at all. But why saying no to it if other people like it? I personally don't say that they should take ciphers or the adventurers hall or whatever out of the game though I'm not interested in them at all.

[nikolokolus]

And you don't give a damn about anything but your personal preferences.

 

I think you just described about 100% of the people on this message board.

[ImNotCreative]

You are missing the point, those "specialized" classes are chosen because they have different mechanics (at least I hope so). Nothing is forcing you to a specific role when you chose a class and because of that there shouldn't be a paladin class. They got rid of the alignment precisely because of that, your role (personality and motivations of your character) should be determined by the way you interact with the world not by a choice of class.

 

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

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.

 

If you are asking for specific mechanic that's another story and I apologize. But how can you speak about differentiates between classes when we know so little? This isn't DND based game and I hope that they are going to make Barbarian significantly different from Fighter. I want to roleplay a lot role playing options and because of that I think that it is a bad decision to tie such a specific moral code to a class choice.

[Azzy]

My personal taste is that classes should be reflected in more than mechanics, take the Harper Scout, I think it was called, in NWN2 I know from Jaheira that the Harpers are an order dedicated to balance for me to take that class without some story to justify it and for it to have nil effect in story interaction seems pointless. If classes should only be mechanical in nature then their names should be simply functional descriptions.

 

Anyway not that I should probably be commenting on these things as I'm not a PnP gamer and combat mostly bores the snot out of me but it is my feelings on classes.

[draft1983]

You are missing the point, those "specialized" classes are chosen because they have different mechanics (at least I hope so). Nothing is forcing you to a specific role when you chose a class and because of that there shouldn't be a paladin class. They got rid of the alignment precisely because of that, your role (personality and motivations of your character) should be determined by the way you interact with the world not by a choice of class.

 

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

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.

 

But you have no idea how they are going to design a barbarian - could be alot of unique abilitys etc to them + little armor etc. The paladins abilitys are already in the priest/ cleric tree... you want a different class just for the name? seems silly to me, and i always play a dwarf paladin in bg2 and iwd2... always. seems they will be a sub tree build

[ImNotCreative]

You are constantly arguing for paladin because of role playing while only good argument for a class should be mechanical.

 

I disagree. Vehemently.

 

Thanks for you extensive contribution to the conversation.

And what was your special contribution to the conversation other than stating your personal opinion that class selection should only be mechanical?

 

At least I explained my reasoning, maybe I wasn't clear enough. If you tie specific moral codex to a class you are limiting the number of roles that are possible to play.

 

Edit: And btw they implied that they are going to separate those two from the beginning by dropping alignment. I didn't hear nobody complain then.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ImNotCreative

[Sarog]

If you are asking for specific mechanic that's another story and I apologize. But how can you speak about differentiates between classes when we know so little? This isn't DND based game and I hope that they are going to make Barbarian significantly different from Fighter. I want to roleplay a lot role playing options and because of that I think that it is a bad decision to tie such a specific moral code to a class choice.

 

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.

 

But you have no idea how they are going to design a barbarian - could be alot of unique abilitys etc to them + little armor etc. The paladins abilitys are already in the priest/ cleric tree... you want a different class just for the name? seems silly to me, and i always play a dwarf paladin in bg2 and iwd2... always. seems they will be a sub tree build

 

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".

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[aVENGER]

Guys, even if the game won't have alignment, they could still make a Divine Champion type class.

 

Basically, a warrior (not necessarily good-aligned) imbued with divine powers working to further the goals of his god.