What EXACTLY is the inquisitor?


Advanced Player's Guide Playtest General Discussion

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
King of the who?

The Britons!

Liberty's Edge

Spanish Inquisition wrote:
Montalve wrote:
[in Spain IT was different, the power was not on the archbishops but the king :P
King of the who?

*King of Spain* shut up and bring those traitorious counts... tell someone they made contact with hell.. and let them feel it... yesterday!

Dark Archive

Shinmizu wrote:
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
King of the who?
The Britons!

Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Dark Archive

Cardinal Biggles wrote:
Shinmizu wrote:
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
King of the who?
The Britons!
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

So, if some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me, does that make me more of a king than you?

Liberty's Edge

Cardinal Biggles wrote:
Shinmizu wrote:
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
King of the who?
The Britons!
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

i have seen this is untrue, even in the US

its not the masses but a few well positioned men whose vote accounts for the state :P


Inquisitor is a word that inspires dread. I imagine it will be a dark class I think rogue like lots of knowledge and skills so they can ferret out the 'truth' I imagine them a non-spellcaster class perhaps modeled after the Inquisitor of the Middle Ages. They could be the natural bane to the witch class


I am hoping the names to these classes get changed.

I really don't much care for Inquisitor or Oracle. They need to be something different.

I hope Inquisitor is like the Avenger, and honestly, I don't understand why they don't change it to Avenger anyway? It's cooler sounding, it invokes more feeling than the word Inquisitor does and an Avenger class is not owned by WotC alone.

Dark Archive

Razz wrote:

I am hoping the names to these classes get changed.

I really don't much care for Inquisitor or Oracle. They need to be something different.

I hope Inquisitor is like the Avenger, and honestly, I don't understand why they don't change it to Avenger anyway? It's cooler sounding, it invokes more feeling than the word Inquisitor does and an Avenger class is not owned by WotC alone.

I doubt you're going to get oracle changed. As for Avenger the problem with that is that the Avenger seen so far is very...

How do I put this...

4th Ed's Avenger doesn't really fit the inquisitor vibe for me. An avenger should be the guy that runs in and does the job after the Inquisitor has determined guilt or innocence. The inquisitor often determined the likely-hood of someone being a pagan, or under Satan's influence, or merely being a devout Christian. An Avenger would be the guy you send at a cult after you've determined its existence.

Its like the difference between a detective and a patrol officer in the police. One determines things, the other does the grunt work.

Because of that, I would rather the Inquisitor keep that detective feel, just with the ability to judiciously kick ass ala Helsing.

Dark Archive

Montalve wrote:
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
Montalve wrote:
[in Spain IT was different, the power was not on the archbishops but the king :P
King of the who?
*King of Spain* shut up and bring those traitorious counts... tell someone they made contact with hell.. and let them feel it... yesterday!

Who cares about kings or queens of these weird-sounding nations... the only royal personage that *TRULY* counts is our own beloved Majestrix! ;P


Razz wrote:
I am hoping the names to these classes get changed.

Religion might be for you. :P


Montalve wrote:
Cardinal Biggles wrote:
Shinmizu wrote:
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
King of the who?
The Britons!
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

i have seen this is untrue, even in the US

its not the masses but a few well positioned men whose vote accounts for the state :P

Can you see the violence inherent in the system?

Help! Help! I'm being repressed


Randal wrote:
Montalve wrote:
Cardinal Biggles wrote:
Shinmizu wrote:
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
King of the who?
The Britons!
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

i have seen this is untrue, even in the US

its not the masses but a few well positioned men whose vote accounts for the state :P

Can you see the violence inherent in the system?

Help! Help! I'm being repressed

Bloody peasants!


KaeYoss wrote:
Razz wrote:
I am hoping the names to these classes get changed.
Religion might be for you. :P

You know, KaeYoss, some of your remarks to me in this thread could be construed as indirectly -- but definitely -- condescending, passive-aggressive, and sneering. Not disagreeing with my viewpoint, but with me, personally -- my existence, my personality. For example, you implied above that I was a brainless twit who required a "cleric" to think for me, probably because you guessed that I'm religious.

You also seem to be trying to be inflammatory on the topic of religion and religious people, without saying anything quite openly enough to directly violate the forum rules.

Now, I don't wander around threads, making little snide comments about atheists constantly, trying to goad them with sly little asides about how dumb their ideas are, what a sham their beliefs are, and everything else you've strongly hinted at in regard to anyone who doesn't happen to believe what you do.

While I can admire your technique -- getting your jabs in through a form that's vague enough to escape direct censure -- I would like to politely request that you desist from continuing to make these half-veiled, negative references to other people's beliefs and personalities.

Even your comment to Razz can be construed as vaguely inflammatory and personally aggressive, since further up the thread, you make blanket negative declarations about religion, and then shortly thereafter suggest that someone should take up religion.

I would also like to point out that I don't give half a damn what your beliefs are, but if you define them solely by antagonism towards other people's beliefs and attempt to use them to introduce conflict into a thread, then I would prefer if you posted an Off-Topic forum thread where you can get this out of your system, and let other people enjoy threads about the GAME.

Thanks.


Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Razz wrote:
I am hoping the names to these classes get changed.
Religion might be for you. :P

You know, KaeYoss, some of your remarks to me in this thread could be construed as indirectly -- but definitely -- condescending, passive-aggressive, and sneering. Not disagreeing with my viewpoint, but with me, personally -- my existence, my personality. For example, you implied above that I was a brainless twit who required a "cleric" to think for me, probably because you guessed that I'm religious.

You also seem to be trying to be inflammatory on the topic of religion and religious people, without saying anything quite openly enough to directly violate the forum rules.

Now, I don't wander around threads, making little snide comments about atheists constantly, trying to goad them with sly little asides about how dumb their ideas are, what a sham their beliefs are, and everything else you've strongly hinted at in regard to anyone who doesn't happen to believe what you do.

While I can admire your technique -- getting your jabs in through a form that's vague enough to escape direct censure -- I would like to politely request that you desist from continuing to make these half-veiled, negative references to other people's beliefs and personalities.

Even your comment to Razz can be construed as vaguely inflammatory and personally aggressive, since further up the thread, you make blanket negative declarations about religion, and then shortly thereafter suggest that someone should take up religion.

I would also like to point out that I don't give half a damn what your beliefs are, but if you define them solely by antagonism towards other people's beliefs and attempt to use them to introduce conflict into a thread, then I would prefer if you posted an Off-Topic forum thread where you can get this out of your system, and let other people enjoy threads about the GAME.

Thanks.

Uh, to be honest he just meant (I'm fairly sure) that he may as well start praying for the name change, because it's frankly unlikely.

I can't see anything snide or offensive in his above two posts, he disagrees with you, but he's not snide.

Your over-reaction to a perceived slight is more of a jerk move in that your trying to portray him as an antagonist, frankly unfairly.

Maybe he is in other threads, but not here.


Spanish Inquisition wrote:
Montalve wrote:
[in Spain IT was different, the power was not on the archbishops but the king :P
King of the who?

Once I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)

Oh... my unspeakable wife, Queen Lisa (now I eat humble pie)
I'm telling you I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)
And now I work at the Pizza Pizza

Royalty, lord it looked good on me
Buried in silk in the royal boudoir or going nuclear free
Or playing Crokinole with the Princess of Monaco
Telling my jokes to the OPEC leaders, getting it all on video

Once I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)
A palatial palace, that was my home (now I eat humble pie)
I'm telling you I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)
And now I vacuum the turf at SkyDome (once he was the King of Spain)

I can't wait, I'm lowering interest rates, my people say:
"King, how are you such a genius?
There's a roof overhead and food on our plates!"
It's laisez-faire, I don't even give a care
Let's make Friday part of the weekend
And give every new baby a chocolate eclair

Once I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)
Hey Clinton! Hey Yeltsin! Got problems? You phone me (now I eat humble pie)
I'm telling you I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)
Now the Leafs call me up to drive the Zamboni (once he was the King of Spain)

Now some of you are probably wondering how I cam to be living in Canada
after being royalty in Spain. Should I tell them, guys?
Tell us, King!

You see late one night when the palace was asleep
Out of my royal chambers and into the garden I creep
And I wait till the appointed time, when the moon is lighting the pitch
At which point my peasant friend, who looks just like me
Arrives and we make a switch
Prince and pauper, junior and whopper
World made up of silver and copper
Out of my own volition, I took a change of position
So next time you drool in the pizza line
Remember, slower pizza's more luscious
The King of Spain never rushes!!!

Once I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble)
I was looking for off-handed ways to improve us (now I eat humble pie)
I'm telling you I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)
And now I'm jamming with Moxy Frvous! (once he was the King of Spain)


Razz wrote:


I hope Inquisitor is like the Avenger, and honestly, I don't understand why they don't change it to Avenger anyway? It's cooler sounding, it invokes more feeling than the word Inquisitor does and an Avenger class is not owned by WotC alone.

Wow, I really don't agree. An avenger, to me, sounds like something you might call an angry paladin on the hunt for a bad guy. I'm not very familiar with 4e, but the word sounds like an overly broad description of a lot of different archetypes, none of which fit my understanding of an inquisitor.

When I hear inquisitor (and read Jason's description) I'm picturing Abraham Van Helsing, witch hunters from Warhammer, or the spies and detectives for a particularly militant church. None of those fit something so thuggish as an 'avenger.'

Also, I think Paizo's been really careful with most of these new classes to use titles that people have actually been called. Not counting annoying forumites, an avenger is an abstraction while an inquisitor is a title somebody has actually held. The exception to this seems to be summoner, but there's just no better name for that.


Carnivorous_Bean wrote:


You know, KaeYoss, some of your remarks to me in this thread could be construed as indirectly -- but definitely -- condescending, passive-aggressive, and sneering. Not disagreeing with my viewpoint, but with me, personally -- my existence, my personality.

Ok, I'm going to hop in here. You're way out of line. You've probably posted enough on these forums to realize that KaeYoss is always a smartass. I've never seen him post anything particularly malicious, especially not here, so it's pretty safe to assume that he's just being a bit silly and doesn't mean anything by it.

You're the one who chose to expand a two-line quip he made into a theological debate. He followed up with you, then made some more quips because, frankly, he probably realized how stupid it was to be having a serious theological debate in such an unrelated thread.

Razz is a big boy, I'm sure he can take a tiny bit of teasing. You're the one driving the thread way off topic then griping at KaeYoss for doing so, which leads me to think that either you were looking for a fight, you've completely misread the situation, or you're taking KaeYoss's comments WAY too seriously.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Velderan wrote:
Razz wrote:


I hope Inquisitor is like the Avenger, and honestly, I don't understand why they don't change it to Avenger anyway? It's cooler sounding, it invokes more feeling than the word Inquisitor does and an Avenger class is not owned by WotC alone.

Wow, I really don't agree. An avenger, to me, sounds like something you might call an angry paladin on the hunt for a bad guy. I'm not very familiar with 4e, but the word sounds like an overly broad description of a lot of different archetypes, none of which fit my understanding of an inquisitor.

When I hear inquisitor (and read Jason's description) I'm picturing Abraham Van Helsing, witch hunters from Warhammer, or the spies and detectives for a particularly militant church. None of those fit something so thuggish as an 'avenger.'

Also, I think Paizo's been really careful with most of these new classes to use titles that people have actually been called. Not counting annoying forumites, an avenger is an abstraction while an inquisitor is a title somebody has actually held. The exception to this seems to be summoner, but there's just no better name for that.

The 4e Avenger is something akin to an assassin. Pretty much if you ever played the Assassin's Creed video game, that's your Avenger right there.

Personally, I hope the class doesn't go that way, I mean its a fun class as is, but I don't feel the need to have a 3.5 analog, and there are a lot more fun things you can do with the idea of Inquisitor.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:


The 4e Avenger is something akin to an assassin. Pretty much if you ever played the Assassin's Creed video game, that's your Avenger right there.

Personally, I hope the class doesn't go that way, I mean its a fun class as is, but I don't feel the need to have a 3.5 analog, and there are a lot more fun things you can do with the idea of Inquisitor.

Well, at this point, that sounds like something you can do with a rogue. I'm pretty excited to hear about bard level casting and the "I get better the longer the fight goes" mechanic (something, as far as I know, completely undone in 3.5). Overall, it's been quite a good show with these new classes.

EDIT: Though I do still want guns, damnit

Sczarni

What ever the Inquisitor is I hope it doesn’t gain spells, as of right now 10 classes gain spells and only 5 don’t. Its not that I hate spell casters but im a fan of warriors and I would like to see a balance between spell caters and warriors.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Velderan wrote:


Well, at this point, that sounds like something you can do with a rogue. I'm pretty excited to hear about bard level casting and the "I get better the longer the fight goes" mechanic (something, as far as I know, completely undone in 3.5). Overall, it's been quite a good show with these new classes.

EDIT: Though I do still want guns, damnit

Mostly, yeah, like a rogue with some Divine spellcasting.

And +1 for Guns.

Dark Archive

Velderan wrote:
Carnivorous_Bean wrote:


You know, KaeYoss, some of your remarks to me in this thread could be construed as indirectly -- but definitely -- condescending, passive-aggressive, and sneering. Not disagreeing with my viewpoint, but with me, personally -- my existence, my personality.

Ok, I'm going to hop in here. You're way out of line. You've probably posted enough on these forums to realize that KaeYoss is always a smartass. I've never seen him post anything particularly malicious, especially not here, so it's pretty safe to assume that he's just being a bit silly and doesn't mean anything by it.

I can understand why envious, lesser beings would interpret Chelaxian behavior that way, but it is not haughtiness or veiled irony. Why would we need to be haughty? We, along with everyone else, just recognise the fact that we're the blessed nation, and all of us are citizens of the Mightiest Empire that has ever existed. So, how on Golarion a decadent Taldorian dandy or an Andoran dim-witted lumberjack even *COULD* feel being on the same cultural and intellectual level as supreme Chelaxians? It is just not possible! ;P

Liberty's Edge

Velderan wrote:
Razz wrote:


I hope Inquisitor is like the Avenger, and honestly, I don't understand why they don't change it to Avenger anyway? It's cooler sounding, it invokes more feeling than the word Inquisitor does and an Avenger class is not owned by WotC alone.
Wow, I really don't agree. An avenger, to me, sounds like something you might call an angry paladin on the hunt for a bad guy. I'm not very familiar with 4e, but the word sounds like an overly broad description of a lot of different archetypes, none of which fit my understanding of an inquisitor.

the avenger for what little I have seen is closer to Al-Quadims "Holy Assassin", a religious killer sent to do the dirty job... he is all subtetly, a rogue trully (it was a kit for rogues after all, no clerics)

Velderan wrote:
When I hear inquisitor (and read Jason's description) I'm picturing Abraham Van Helsing, witch hunters from Warhammer, or the spies and detectives for a particularly militant church. None of those fit something so thuggish as an 'avenger.'

i agree in this vision, its closer to the historical Inquisitor too

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

For those of you who like Solomon Kane and Van Helsing as a character type, you are probably going to be pretty happy here in just a few hours...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

For those of you who like Solomon Kane and Van Helsing as a character type, you are probably going to be pretty happy here in just a few hours...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

That's really exciting. The amount of (hopefully constructive) criticism we've given aside, you guys have really done a hell of a job on these new classes. Every single one of them has given me a 'Oh, that's a cool idea' at the least.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

For those of you who like Solomon Kane and Van Helsing as a character type, you are probably going to be pretty happy here in just a few hours...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Well then a member of my group who is planning a ravenloft/van helsing style pathfinder game may jump up and down.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

For those of you who like Solomon Kane and Van Helsing as a character type, you are probably going to be pretty happy here in just a few hours...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

One hours? Two? Three? :)

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Try within the next hour... hopefully within the next 15 minutes..

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Try within the next hour... hopefully within the next 15 minutes..

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Ahem...

BOOYA!

Paizo Employee Franchise Manager

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Try within the next hour... hopefully within the next 15 minutes..

Let the F5 begin!


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Try within the next hour... hopefully within the next 15 minutes..

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

tease

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It's up! Let the downloading begin!


Go! Go! Go!

Half-orc inquisitor lady is awesome, and I love the elf-man alchemist!

Liberty's Edge

vagrant-poet wrote:

Go! Go! Go!

Half-orc inquisitor lady is awesome, and I love the elf-man alchemist!

¬¬ *mumble grumble*

what did I said about no inquisitor half orc females... meh :P
i will give a check any way... still meh :P


Well..... It's not my justiciar....
But it is still A-MAZE-ING!!!!!!
Very van-Helsing-esque. I like.

The Judgement ability could use to be used a little more often, say...
3+Cha (or other appropriate ability) modifier times per day, but if you switch it, you have to start a new one. After all, the judgement ability is central to the character. Or so it seems....


I would actually prefer an Inquisitor more akin to the actual Inquisitors of history: A mixture of priest, lawyer, detective and judge. Though their role varied from Inquisition to Inquisition (the Spanish Inquisition, for example, started after the Bishop of Andalusia requested the Pope, through the Catholic Kings, that the Sanctum Officium allowed for a localized Inquisition to be carried on in order to tone down the severe social problems that had been sprouting after the Reconquista, due to the fact that they wanted to avoid the mass flogging of supposed Falsos Conversos -Fake Converts-, sephardic jews that remained in the peninsula after the moors were driven out. So basically the original intent was to *avoid* people dying, particularly jews. It was later that the Spanish Inquisition, due to the great level of power the Catholic Kings had over the Spanish Church -such as the Patronage, which allowed them to do things like appoint bishops in America without direct aproval from the Holy See-, that things went awry, in many cases using it as a tool of political machinations. Calling someone Falso Converso back then was a great way of confiscating goods or ending a political career).

Keep in mind Inquisitors never killed people nor condemned them to death; the Church and all its members have always been banned from spilling blood. Instead, they carried out trials and, when the person was found guilty of mortal sin (through stuff such as heresy, witchcraft or the like), they were handed over to the civilian authorities, who then carried out the punishment they saw fit. Of course, in practice it was the Church that more or less decided what to do, since the civil forces were involved in the process (known as Familiares -meaning Relatives- in the Spanish Inquisition).

So, an Inquisitor had to be extremely good at two things: Investigation, since he needed to be able to collect evidence (the popular image of the evil Inquisitor just making stuff up is generally mistaken. Though the trials were pretty harsh, they were also very thorough and actually fair. Do remember the context: Most of these guys were honestly trying to do the best for the accused, even if that meant burning the person in order to save his soul), and oratory, since he had to do act as a canonical lawyer (in fact, this is where the term Devil's Advocate comes from. During an inquisitorial trial, the Sanctum Officium would be represented by an inquisitor trying to prove guilt on the person, while another priest would defend him. This priest was called Devil's Advocate, since he had to try and find justification for the person's actions. And this actually worked; people tend to have a mistaken view of the Inquisitions, thinking that almost everyone got killed, while the truth is the opposite: Yes, a lot of people died, but according to the studies conducted over the Vatican Archives, less than 10% of all trials ended in death; another ammount involved what is called Burned in Effigy, where they burned a representation of the person -such as a picture or a figurine- instead of the actual person. The large majority were ultimately released -though there is no current agreement on how many went through torture-). All that, as well as including all the other skills associated with high-ranking priests, such as being an expert in theology, often with specialties that made them better fit for being inquisitors, such as deep knowledge of daemonology/angeology, excegetics, witchcraft, et cetera.

The Van Helsing/Father McGruder/Burn All Heretics concept is always fun, but I think it has been overdone to death. I would really like to see a closer-to-reality take on Inquisitors, which could be very interesting.

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / General Discussion / What EXACTLY is the inquisitor? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion