Update #56: Paladins and Wild Orlans

[Superpat]

I don't believe PE paladins will have stupid causes  like "for the GOOD" or "for the EVIL".

The whole point was for Obsidian to ditch the idiotic morality system. I believe people will be more like in Game of Thrones or New Vegas. They will care about themselves and maybe their factions, but they won't champion universal umbrela causes like good/evil. Remeber, grey morality. But i could be wrong.

The best would be a mix, everybody fighting for something, in some cases universal, in other ones personal, but always for personal reasons.

[Leferd]

All class mechanics discussion aside, I just want my Paladin to look like and be inspired by David Thewlis' Hospitaller from Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut of course).

 

And I don't particularly care for paladins to begin with. That being said, I am agreeable to Josh's take.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Leferd

[Killyox]

Not really interested in a paladin myself.

 

I dislike zealots on principle. I also don't like religious stuff so paladins and clerics are no-no.

 

Druids, Monks, Sorcerers, Fighters etc are all fair game though. Everything that does not make my character god follower etc is fine.

[Killyox]

I want to play necromancer that isn't evil . 

[TrashMan]

Not really interested in a paladin myself.

 

I dislike zealots on principle. I also don't like religious stuff so paladins and clerics are no-no.

 

Druids, Monks, Sorcerers, Fighters etc are all fair game though. Everything that does not make my character god follower etc is fine.

 

Your zealos dislike of religion and zeal dooms you.

[Godslinger]

i was thinking about entering this discusion and share my thougths with you, because i was playing paladins or similiar class from very beginning of my adventure with rpgs (pnp, crpg, etc) and i have hight hopes for P:E, but this is my first post here so first things first - hello world

[sorry for my english - it isn't my native language, but i hope you will understand my point]

 

ok, i always believe DnD was somehow wrong about portraying paladins - the whole 'hole warrior' or church knight image is some kind misunderstanding (it is more a inquisitor to me). ofc i was and i'm still enjoy playing this class, but we all must admit that paladin was often to shallow and dumb

 

when i first read this update i feel P:E may be able to change a little this image (of paladin). Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, El Cid, and the Knights of the Round Table are (in may opinion) best example of paladins.

we should looking for origins of this class in "chanson de geste" - knights figthing for their king/senior (law, order), lady (love) or they own beliefs (honour, justice, pride). they are not avatars of good/gods/etc - they are humas, extraordinary humans but still humans maybe a better word is a champion - not just another knight, but one with a strong sense of their mission.

Paladins are class that requires a cultural background - it is also great oportunity for dewelopers to design something memorable - i hope that legacy of Darcozzi Paladins will be something like that.

 

it can give much more possibility play to role playing your character (it is a RPG, isn't?). we can play as a knight devoted to our senior case or the fundamentals of law (even sa Judge Dredd "i'm the law" , paladins can be (what even better fits rpg game) a knight-errant - wandering knight, who is inspired by legends etc, or a vengeance-driven person - always more "order/law" that "chaos", but here is more that just a knight in shining armor (is may be a one way to play but never the only).

 

 

ok, so what? how it implay to actual playing a paladin?

first of all paladin should have more a leader role in team - fighting in front row (not as good as fighter - he isn't restricted by fair & honour fighitng codex etc) and inspiring other (support, but little diffrent from mmo support/healers/priest)

 

players should have options to build paladins (and every other class) to better their party. more tanky defencer or offensive fighter and ever a simple buff giver (maybe not PC, but a companion why not?) - it all fits paladin quite good and i believe Obsidian will make it possible

 

without divine influence there is no room for immune for disease, posion or curse and we are losing source of magic - it is a problem for a lay on hands (everyone who play DnD love this skill). it can by solved by moving source of healing energi on paladin soul - i'm quite exciting about "soul magic" in P:E

 

this same goes to turn undead (and similiar skills) - undead may be enemy for holy warriors, but not for a 'elite guards of Darcozzi Palace in the Grand Empire of Vailia'. "true" enemy of paladins are dragons/wyrms, black knights and (the most important) "saracens" (as enemy of state).

 

with strong motivation and charisma paladin should affect other (ally and enemy) by auras or commands (good example - shake it off!, stand (up) and fight!).

 

most offensive powers should be indirect - to have a powerfull strikes is job for barbarian or warrior, paladins could focus more on constant dmg that burst and take advantage of situations - enemy got a crit on your ally you got retribution on him or another good example - Inspiring Triumph ( i like more and more P:E ) more offensive & active skills should be availble in custom builds.

 

i would like to see some feats like heroic insiration from IWD2 (when Hp drop below 50% you gains some buffs). on high levels maybe even something like Majesty form Vampire the masquerade. there is many options to make paladin (and every other class) reliable in combat without making him a killing machine.

 

beside combat there are some other things to consider - for example mount and swords. actually whole chivalry rose from possesion and fighting on horse. second thing is a having a sword. Almost all knights have named their sword and it would be interesting option to have something similar maybe as one of backgrounds (btw. look to DnD Next Playtest for backgrounds it would be awesome to have something similiar w P:E). of course this kind of weapon we will be looting, but Excalibur wasnt loot on some goblins and player may have stronger feelings for a their own sword (it dont have to be main weapon for rest of the game). i could be something like 'Heart of (main character)' long sword in Targos (IWD2).

 

the last thing i want to write about is a paladin companion in game. i would really like to see a paladin (preferably female:), who is a example of devotion to more personal affair, which would involve a dilemma between duty/obligation (to Kings order, codex etc) and promise/vow. it would be a paladin who could be find his place in every party (good or evil), and PC may drag him/her to one side. (Negative?) example would be Aribeth (NWN).

 

 

i believe it is all (for today

 

PS

i'm interested in battle system, especially in initiative and rounds/ turn-based system - will P:E have rounds "under the hood" or be truly real-time. it would be quite fun topic for separate update

 

 

 

[Nishimoto]

 

 

The "foundational" paladins in this part of the world were the legendary elite guards of Darcozzi Palace in the Grand Empire of Vailia

i'm not that huge of a fan of the fact that your class is tied to a specific single order, and that you will probably get associated with it even if you don't like it.

I think the same for monks...

 

Paladins and monks are not tied to the foundation orders.

 

Have you guys been thinking of a negative type Paladin like the Blackguard from D&D?

Edited June 22, 2013 by Nishimoto

[TrashMan]

 

 

ok, i always believe DnD was somehow wrong about portraying paladins - the whole 'hole warrior' or church knight image is some kind misunderstanding (it is more a inquisitor to me). ofc i was and i'm still enjoy playing this class, but we all must admit that paladin was often to shallow and dumb

 

Nope. That some players were too stupid to play them with any depth is their problem.

I've met players who think they MUST play a pladin as a stick-in--the-butt Lawefull Stupid.

[centurionofprix]

Stick-in-the-butt Lawful Stupid is underrated.

Edited June 22, 2013 by centurionofprix

[Suen]

Stupid Evil is worse than Lawful Stupid.
Villains too often lack the sense of self preservation.

Stick in the Butt paladins are not always Lawful Stupid.
In a world where gods are real and real ****, a Stick in the Butt paladin could be someone actually playing his/her class right.

 

I want to play necromancer that isn't evil . 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10KObAQFmlY

Edited June 23, 2013 by Suen

[TrashMan]

Stick-in-the-butt Lawful Stupid is underrated.

 

 

Methinks people never really understood aligments.

 

A LG is a goal. An ideal to which a character strives no. Not a rock to which he is tied. A Lawfull Good character will try to follow the law and do good to the best of his abilittes. But as all people, he will make mistakes. He will struggle. He will fail.

A paladin doesn't let his faliure bring him down. He constantly gets up on his horse and keeps on trucking. The world is a complex mess and there won't be a perfect solution to most things.

That struggle is good roleplaying stuff.

A a paldin who skirts the line of "falling".

[Suen]

Ah, this is interesting. Is a paladin a real Lawful Good? I don't think so.
To strictly adhere to his/her beliefs a paladin can act against human laws and moral.

 

Glad Eternity is alignment free. 
 

[Superpat]

Ah, this is interesting. Is a paladin a real Lawful Good? I don't think so.

To strictly adhere to his/her beliefs a paladin can act against human laws and moral.

 

Glad Eternity is alignment free. 

 

Well who says the LAW must bow to these petty humans?

[Kisarazu]

Awesome, perfect paladin in my opinion! All the best from paladin brought to daylight

[Oner]

I like this PE paladin.

[Somna]

 

 

 

The "foundational" paladins in this part of the world were the legendary elite guards of Darcozzi Palace in the Grand Empire of Vailia

i'm not that huge of a fan of the fact that your class is tied to a specific single order, and that you will probably get associated with it even if you don't like it.

I think the same for monks...

 

Paladins and monks are not tied to the foundation orders.

 

Have you guys been thinking of a negative type Paladin like the Blackguard from D&D?

 

 

Project Eternity Paladin has nothing to do with D&D Paladins.  The closest analogue for your comparison in Project Eternity is Priest.  Otherwise a literal interpretation of your question is asking if they'd put in a Paladin that uses incessant whining to power his/her abilities instead of motivation.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Somna

[Zdenio]

This Paladin sounds really nice. Even I'm interested and I haven't played this class in any oldschool RPG ever

 

I love the fact that all classes has little to do with their D&D equivalents. Playing every one of them will be exciting.

[Faerunner]

An excellent update! Everything seems to be coming along well!

 

The paladin concept sounds cool, though I confess I'm the wrong person to ask since I don't tend to play paladins, no matter the setting. Nothing wrong with them, I just don't tend to roleplay characters with the personality types required to be holy warriors. I like my characters secular and wild.

 

Which brings me to the Wild Orlan: they're coming along great! I love the concept of people outwardly hairy, savage, beastial, and reclusive. Are they really hostile or is that how most colonial cultures largely see them? I suppose they would have reason to be, though since I suspect most players will be playing colonial races, I would be careful about portraying them as somewhat sympathetic. I don't want the Wild Orlan to be portrayed like the Dalish Elves in Dragon Age, and with their popularity to boot. (It's pretty clear the writers hate the Dalish and want the players to hate them too, so even though the Dalish have legitimate complaints as a displaced minority, the writers go out of their way to portray them as so unsympathetic and unlikable that most players can't help thinking they deserve their misfortune, if not outright bring it on themselves.) I know not everyone is going to like them, but I just don't want them to be unlikable.

 

I can't wait to see how people tend to view the wild orlans and vice-versa. Though the players character won't be from Dyrwood, I also can't wait to see how other characters respond to a wild orlan protagonist. For that matter, putting the two concepts together, I wonder how paladins (the pinnacle of colonial society) and wild orlan (the pinnacle of wild society) get along and how characters from either side will view the protagonist of either (or both) class or race.

 

Please keep us posted! ^^

[topkerrigun]

Yeah this class is just a buffbot in armor, not cool at all. The buffbot proffession is fine, but let's not pretend it's not what it clearly is...this is no paladin, no holly warrior on the front lines of a crusade.

If buffs had to be a thing in a paladin, the obvious choice wouldn't be passive auras, but ****ing ACTIVE ones.

one could be be like Holly Fervor : For the next 6 rounds, your base attack bonus is increased dramatically (this means attack speed for those of you who haven't played DnD games), your attacks can't miss, and you move 35 % faster. Insert Cooldown.

That would be like something....yes a cooldown sucks, but it's better then pathetic passive bonuses.

Buffs should never be the main focus of a class(at least with a paladin, sheesh), with armor being the second, that's totally flawed.

A class should have like 2 really cool things going for it, with buffs being like the third icing on the cake...

This just sounds so bad, if it's going to be a buff bot at least put active buffs in it as well....

bah the class is a complete joke the way it sounds, i give up.

worthless

[Killyox]

 

Not really interested in a paladin myself.

 

I dislike zealots on principle. I also don't like religious stuff so paladins and clerics are no-no.

 

Druids, Monks, Sorcerers, Fighters etc are all fair game though. Everything that does not make my character god follower etc is fine.

 

Your zealos dislike of religion and zeal dooms you.

 

It's not dislike. It's just that your generic cleric or paladin is follower of god abiding by set of rules etc. Often those generic rules don't sit well with me. I don't mind angels and so on but I choose what I believe instead.

 

For example; your generic necromancer is evil, scheming and would eat your soul. I would wish to play neutral good necromancer. I don't have to curse people and send undead against them to be necromancer. Necromancy is just a knowledge, a tool if you will that can be used for good and evil. If i could raise someones tragically killed wife in game so they could have last words of parting to lessen the sorrow I would do it for the good. It's like with knives. They can be used for preparation of food for the hungry (good) making yourself a snack (neutral) or stabbing people in the threat (evil). In the end it's tool.

 

Generic stuff be damned

[Killyox]

 

Ah, this is interesting. Is a paladin a real Lawful Good? I don't think so.

To strictly adhere to his/her beliefs a paladin can act against human laws and moral.

 

Glad Eternity is alignment free. 

 

Well who says the LAW must bow to these petty humans?

 

 

I think that Lawful is, as an alignement kinda bad. I would slap on Righteous on paladin more so than lawful. Following mortal laws is not what paladin does, he follow laws of his god imo at least

 

 

Stupid Evil is worse than Lawful Stupid.

Villains too often lack the sense of self preservation.

Stick in the Butt paladins are not always Lawful Stupid.

In a world where gods are real and real ****, a Stick in the Butt paladin could be someone actually playing his/her class right.

 

I want to play necromancer that isn't evil  . 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10KObAQFmlY

 

In the end it (his monstrum) worked:>

 

Edited July 2, 2013 by Killyox

[Tale]

Methinks people never really understood aligments.

 

A LG is a goal. An ideal to which a character strives no. Not a rock to which he is tied. A Lawfull Good character will try to follow the law and do good to the best of his abilittes. But as all people, he will make mistakes. He will struggle. He will fail.

A paladin doesn't let his faliure bring him down. He constantly gets up on his horse and keeps on trucking. The world is a complex mess and there won't be a perfect solution to most things.

That struggle is good roleplaying stuff.

A a paldin who skirts the line of "falling".

Nobody ever really understood alignments. They were abstractions people tried to make concrete and others tried to flower over and make sound like these wonderful things. When all it really was is just a proud nail that some people really wished they could hammer in and other people thought added to the charm to the point they'd defend it to the last.

 

The best description I ever heard for it was simply an explanation of the law-chaos axis. Planning vs. impulsivity. The lawful good character is the one who does good while giving full consideration to the consequences of his actions. He makes sure he has all the information he can get before making judgements, and even when he can't, he tries to not allow his passions to override the facts. He only respects THE LAW when he has evidence that the law provides for the good.

 

It's not a goal or an ideal, it's the person that he is. A man who thinks before leaping into action. Like every other spot on the chart, it's just who they are. Lawful Evil isn't an ideal. Chaotic Evil isn't an ideal. They're not struggles. They're people who think about their evil or people who rush into it on whimsy.

 

The problem with "understanding" alignment is that I see notable differences between your idea of LG and mine. But I'm not so sure you can convincingly provide something that paints my idea as anything else. And that's kind of how alignment goes. It's too abstract to pull out a solid rule to understand it with.

[TrashMan]

The problem is with people playing it too tightly. It was a straighjacket insted of a direction.

[Zixu]

I've never liked D&D Paladins, finding them a bit boring, and their spells mostly pointless. These Eternity-Paladins look awesome though. Buffs are like my favorite thing in an RPG, especially passives or auras, but also spells. It's like a weird obsession of mine. If asked to choose between a 5% passive damage buff and a massive fireball of doom, I'll always go for damage! So I'll definitely be bringing a Paladin with me when I get my hands on this game!

[TrashMan]

 

For example; your generic necromancer is evil, scheming and would eat your soul. I would wish to play neutral good necromancer. I don't have to curse people and send undead against them to be necromancer. Necromancy is just a knowledge, a tool if you will that can be used for good and evil. If i could raise someones tragically killed wife in game so they could have last words of parting to lessen the sorrow I would do it for the good. It's like with knives. They can be used for preparation of food for the hungry (good) making yourself a snack (neutral) or stabbing people in the threat (evil). In the end it's tool.

 

 

I don't think the raised wife would be able to say anything otheer than "muuuuuhhrr! or "braaaains".

 

Ressurection and raising dead are different things.

And while it might not be "EVIL evil", you are still desecrating corpses...when you don't have to. With so many magical disciplines and ways to fight, you choose to use the corpse of someones mother as a puppet?

Evil or not, poeple will rightly consider you a d***.

 

 

**********

 

That said, I really want offensive stuff.

 

Like an aura that burns enemies that come clses to me...or weakens their resolve.

Or charging your balde with your burning soul.

 

Extra damage to undead is a bonus (explain it any way you want - may the paladins burning soul has a negative effect on the soulless corpse... or the magical threads that animate it), but not necessary