Discussion: Classes

[daggerhart]

Up until the first socialist movements of the 19th century, it was widely accepted to consider some groups of people to be below other groups. Just for kicks, you should read up on some social philosophers (ranging all the way from Plato to Kant) and see what they have to say about women (for example).

now that discussion definantly belongs in another thread.. :).

we could probably have a decent 'Alignment' philosophical discussion.

[Soup Nazi]

Strangely that period of time actually was my biggest inspiration for Sulos, and Hazra'Ghalduur in particular.

As for the paladin...if you try not to think of them as a divine servent of god, and more like a knight in shining armor (with a personal code, but no particular deity to whom he swears total servitude), they make perfect sense.

However if you try to put them in the context of a divine crusader who embodies the ideals of his deity, then you start to wonder why there aren't paladins who serve all deities. Try not to fall into this trap.

I don't even think we need totem warriors to be honest. The totem barbarians from unearthed arcana, though in need of totem specific revision, really already personify what we want. I also think variants like those are much easier to integrate into a setting than whole new classes.

-Nasty-

[daggerhart]

can we use stuff from the Unearthed Arcana?

I confused as to which stuff we can and can't use.
I know what the OGL is, but i dont know which products are OGL.

[Soup Nazi]

The Unearthed Arcana is in the SRD...all things you can find in the SRD are indeed OGL. It's pretty cool actually.

-Nasty-

[Wix of Bel-Air]

The Unearthed Arcana is in the SRD...all things you can find in the SRD are indeed OGL. It's pretty cool actually.

-Nasty-

That is pretty damn cool, I think I'll check it out.

[Wix of Bel-Air]

I wasn't paying attention...

Are we doing 'regional' classes or not?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

daggerhart, there's a huge difference between the D&D supplement, "Unearthed Arcana," and Monte Cooke's "Arcana Unearched."  UA basically just gives you a few variant rules systems to go by.  AU is all new classes, races, skills, feats, and spells for a campaign called "The Diamond Throne."

[Xeviat]

If we're having such a hard time with Paladins, then I suggest we use the Unearthed Arcana varient Paladins and just change the class name to Champion (as in the champion of causes), or we use my Templar class (and I can modify it to fit the needs of the setting).

As it's shaping out now, the standard Paladin probably doesn't fit this world.

Has the group come to a conclusion on the Cleric vs. Druid situation?

[brainface]

As it's shaping out now, the standard Paladin probably doesn't fit this world.

ehhh... there might not be a LOT of them, sure. but i don't think it'd necessarily be necessary to say that no character, ANYWHERE, is a paladin. it's okay to have a few black sheep here and there, in this case, very holy black sheep.

it might help class placement if we threw out some preliminary npcs for city-states/places in the empire. basically, have a few people brainstorm a particular npc's classes working in a particular spot. cuz i ain't seeing consensus here, as far as classes go.

[Xeviat]

Well ... remember that paladins make up a sizable chunk of the adventuring population. Any hamlet is bound to have a paladin between 1st and 3rd level, and a 1 in 3 chance of having a 1st level one (that's if there's a 3rd level one). Granted, Paladins and Rangers are more rare than sorcerers and wizards, but they're still there.

I just think a generic Templar or Champion is just better design; why should only LG, NG, and LN gods have a martial champion at 1st level, while CG, CN, and the evils have to wait till they take a PrC (blackguard and holy liberator)?

Has anyone suggested the PrC Bard, Paladin, and Ranger yet?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I haven't suggested it, but that's what I use in Shadowfell and think it's a pretty good idea.... but then again, we're limiting core classes to do something like that.

[Soup Nazi]

Stop thinking of paladins as divine champions, and you won't have any issues with them. I already warned against this trap a few posts ago. It makes no sense for only LG gods to have divine champions...but paladins are not made for this job. Favored souls, clerics, and the divine champion PrC all fit this role better than the paladin.

Paladins are knights with divine favor from the combined forces of goodness. Though they may worship a particular deity, or even be blessed by him/her/it, they are not a subservient minion of this being. They are loyal to their code, first and foremost, and their deity second...some LG gods are not as virtuous as the paladin...why would the paladin to look to them for their example? The paladin sets the example himself.

-Nasty-

EDIT: I forgot to make the point. Paladins still work just fine, even if you want to make a divine champion class.

[brainface]

Well ... remember that paladins make up a sizable chunk of the adventuring population. Any hamlet is bound to have a paladin between 1st and 3rd level, and a 1 in 3 chance of having a 1st level one (that's if there's a 3rd level one).

you seem to be mentioning DMG rules which we are under no obligation to follow. :)
We could easily split that between paladin and 'divine champion/totem warrior'.
or we could ignore it altogether, and say whoever writes up an individual city/village determines the mix of classes...in some cities it'd probably make a LOT of sense to have them. in others, none.

[Soup Nazi]

Come to think of it wouldn't it be cool if paladins were the elite knights of the empire? They swear allegience to the emperor, and serve the greater good, the saints, and mankind, against the entropic destructful forces of the Totem Gods and their barbaric followers.

They could at times be at odds with the empire, but for the most part are very loyal and heroic warriors. Even if the empire were slightly corrupt or self serving the imperium could point to the paladins who serve them, and say "why would such noble men serve us, if we were unjustified in our cause or methods?"

Seems like a perfect role for paladins, that isn't tied to the worship of an individual deity. Lot's of great role-playing opportunities in there too.

-Nasty-

[Xeviat]

I'd like to see Paladins as strictly Emperial, and rangers as strictly Totemic (pantheon wise). The only problem is that this means Paladins would need to be changed more to Justicars; Any Lawful aligned.

This would make the Emperial pantheon primarily lawful (which makes perfect sense). Of course, the empire will have demonized the Totemic "pantheon" (much like western religion demonized native european faiths by lumping them together under the catch all of "peganism"), and may recognize a few of the Totems as fiends.

The Totems, though, will range across all of the alignment, and won't have enough of a relationship with each other to actually be a pantheon.

That is definately a role for paladins; knights of the empire.