Any time I've seen anyone track performance, a Greatsword Fighter outdoes the Greatsword Barbarian. The barbarian doesn't always have rage. The fighter almost always has his favored weapon, and even with rage on, the fighter out-DPR's him.
Pounce is pretty useful though.
But even if you're right, and the Barbarian can keep up to a fighter in melee, he's is way less useful out of melee. He has way less class features than pretty much any class, and he is very much a 1-trick-pony
The barbarian has more skills and rage powers that allow him to do things like fly. How is it way less useful out of combat?
Any time I've seen anyone track performance, a Greatsword Fighter outdoes the Greatsword Barbarian. The barbarian doesn't always have rage. The fighter almost always has his favored weapon, and even with rage on, the fighter out-DPR's him.
Pounce is pretty useful though.
But even if you're right, and the Barbarian can keep up to a fighter in melee, he's is way less useful out of melee. He has way less class features than pretty much any class, and he is very much a 1-trick-pony
Wut.
The Fighter has literally no class features that help him outside of combat, AND he has less skill points.
There is no possible way a similarly built Fighter will be more useful out of combat than a Barbarian. Even if the Barbarian has 7 Int and pumps ALL of his Feats and Rage Powers into combat, he's pretty much identical to the Fighter out of combat.
As well, the "Barbarian doesn't always have Rage" thing doesn't really hold up after about level 4. A level 10 Barbarian can Rage for 22+Con rounds a day, in a game where combat generally lasts 3 rounds at maximum. He can Rage for roughly 7 combats (not counting rounds granted from Con), the entirety of them, and that's enough to get him through the average day. In a long day he can ration his Rage and use it just when he needs to, meaning he WILL always have it when he needs it if his player is smart.
I'm still utterly baffled as to how you think the Fighter has class features for out of combat. The closest thing is Armor Training, so he can Climb/Swim/Acrobatics in armor, but Climb and Swim QUICKLY become useless in a game with casters and Acrobatics is mostly an in-combat skill.
for the fighter to get his signature weapon he blew multiple feats on and outshine the barbarian. one or more of the following has to happen
a campaign has to feature magic mart, which means, the fighter's niche magical gear is available for purchase. not every DM allows all the fighter items, or free reign to purchase of weapons higher than +2
the DM has to coddle the player and include his signature weapon, avoid random loot, and tailor drops
you have to be ridiculously lucky on the random loot drops
your have to pray your DM never uses disarm, sunder, nor rust monsters
you have to have an ally with crafting feats.
with any of those 5, yeah, your fighter can get his signature weapon
It is +3 from full plate and +1 from defender of te society. And the barbarian get a -2 from rage, so they are even.Oh and to top it off. Higher level Barbarian out AC's the average fighter. Beast totem gives up to a +6 natural armor. Since the amulet of natural armor gives an enhancement bonus to natural armor and not actually natural armor it stacks. So the +6 overcomes the fighters +3 from platemail. Furthermore the mithral on his breastplate will be 5k cheaper than mithral on full plate.
I'm still not seeing the perks of being a fighter personally. Fighter has always been on the bottom of my "to play" list. 3.5 or PF. Its right next to classes I think are mechanically broken/inferior.
|
I retract my statement about Barbarians. I haven't played one / seen one played in a while (pre APG), and it seems they're better than I had thought.
I'm pretty sure they didn't used to be.
And while they get more skill points, I remember their skill list being terrible, and their class features and rage powers underwhelming. Perhaps that's a thing of the past.
Good to know they're better now.
I retract my statement about Barbarians. I haven't played one / seen one played in a while (pre APG), and it seems they're better than I had thought.
I'm pretty sure they didn't used to be.
And while they get more skill points, I remember their skill list being terrible, and their class features and rage powers underwhelming. Perhaps that's a thing of the past.
Good to know they're better now.
I actually always thought the Barbarian skill list was like the perfect martial skill list.
They get across the whole "Rough and tumble fighter type" thing pretty well, with Survival, Perception, Handle Animal, and Intimidate.
Though I do think the Fighter's skill list would probably be better overall if he just had Perception. It's a travesty that a martial doesn't have Perception.
As a barbarian these days you are usually going to be less likely to be dominated and used as a weapon against your party or fail a save and be helpless or grappled/pinned thanks to superstition and strength surge. My barbarian doesn't hit as hard as an optimized two handed fighter...unless they both have to move more than 5' per round.
Gunslingers.
I absolutely hate the Gunslinger class and I haven't even had a good look at the build and no I do not wish to do so.
I hate the flavor that they bring to the game. With black powder firearms comes the whole 'wild west' feel and, I'm sorry, but Fantasy and Cowboy are two completely different genres.
I can understand if you had a 'wild west' campaign going with only Gunslingers running around but guns simply don't work within the Fantasy world. I don't care if you come up with something more "medieval" or whatever; it still wont work. That's my decision and my views and I'm sticking to them!
=
Rangers; these were acceptable before (Pathfinder CRB) but I couldn't stand the fact that they had the ability to cast Spells. I never used them and because I didn't, it underpowered my character a bit- like I was purposely gimping my character by choosing not to use Spells; like I was ripping off a piece of the build. Thankfully though I managed to find the Expanded Spell-less Ranger and everything's hunky-dory :)
Glad I don't play in your game Ulrich! Cheers m'man!
|
Samurai and cavalier, I am also not too thrilled about fighters, though the third one of those is at least playable mechanically, I don't see why anyone would completely forgoe magic, when casting low tier spells is so useful and prevalant, and there's so many ways to do it, now I love martial casters, I've never played a caster with less than 16 str
Allong that vein every sneak attacker I ever use will multiclass into arcane trickster
Gunslingers.
I absolutely hate the Gunslinger class and I haven't even had a good look at the build and no I do not wish to do so.
I hate the flavor that they bring to the game. With black powder firearms comes the whole 'wild west' feel and, I'm sorry, but Fantasy and Cowboy are two completely different genres.
I can understand if you had a 'wild west' campaign going with only Gunslingers running around but guns simply don't work within the Fantasy world. I don't care if you come up with something more "medieval" or whatever; it still wont work. That's my decision and my views and I'm sticking to them!
=
Rangers; these were acceptable before (Pathfinder CRB) but I couldn't stand the fact that they had the ability to cast Spells. I never used them and because I didn't, it underpowered my character a bit- like I was purposely gimping my character by choosing not to use Spells; like I was ripping off a piece of the build. Thankfully though I managed to find the Expanded Spell-less Ranger and everything's hunky-dory :)
IF it is just the flavor that can always be changed. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Lumiere Dawnbringer, I respect your knowledge of the game, you do seem to know what your doing when it comes to math and such. I very much doubt with the way that you present yourself that you understand the purpose of a role-playing game though. In the end, if number crunching is your thing, then fine I'm not going to stop you; but endless posts to mathematically prove one class over another, while most of the time they are based on personal preference and flavor, just seems like an overreach in my opinion.
I implore you to look past the numbers and 'min-maxing' to really grasp the way many of us in the community play this wonderful game. After GMing for over a decade I have found ways to deal with min-max types because they tend to make the game less fun for those people that they are playing with.
And to all those people that like to hate on me, please continue, it is quite interesting to see how you react to someone calling out a powergamer.
You are making the assumption that everyone with enough of a grasp of the game to figure out which class is mathematically superior is a powergamer, and even worse are implying that said people are ONLY about the numbers, not the RP, and therefore "don't understand the game".
Stop that.
The post in question was in response to a post that the Fighter was mechanically superior to the Barbarian. He proved that poster wrong using the math and a listing of very easy to obtain class abilities for the Barbarian. Preference is fine, but it does not undercut the facts that the math is capable of producing.
My favorite class is the Monk. That is my preference.
However, I am also fully aware of its mathematical inferiority to a lot of other classes. Given the same amount of effort and time I can build a far superior Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian or other martial class to a Monk, and generally end up with more utility (besides Fighter) with little effort.
This does not mean I "make the game less fun for others" nor does it mean you need to "call me out" as if I were some sort of bigot, bully, or some other undesirable.
Having a working knowledge of the system does not preclude someone from having fun with the game, and you should not sit up there so smugly on your high horse for incorrectly believing so.
@Lumiere Dawnbringer, I respect your knowledge of the game, you do seem to know what your doing when it comes to math and such. I very much doubt with the way that you present yourself that you understand the purpose of a role-playing game though. In the end, if number crunching is your thing, then fine I'm not going to stop you; but endless posts to mathematically prove one class over another, while most of the time they are based on personal preference and flavor, just seems like an overreach in my opinion.
I implore you to look past the numbers and 'min-maxing' to really grasp the way many of us in the community play this wonderful game. After GMing for over a decade I have found ways to deal with min-max types because they tend to make the game less fun for those people that they are playing with.
And to all those people that like to hate on me, please continue, it is quite interesting to see how you react to someone calling out a powergamer.
First of all nobody is hating. You just used a poor choice of words and made a silly assumption that because someone presents math they play a certain way. Knowing the math is good. That does not mean the person uses an excel sheet to make a character, and you did not exactly say that, but it came across that way.
So maybe if you stopped with the generalizations and took the time to ASK the person why they are using numbers in the forums then you would get less of the responses you do. It is not to late to start.
Somewhat off-topic:
In my games you get to RP if you want, but at the same time your character must be able to pull its weight. That does not require a spreadsheet, but there is chart in the bestiary showing you the average saves monsters of certain CR's can force. If you dump wisdom and need a 15 to save against a CR=APL monster then you might think, "I should raise my ___ save". Now some GM's will make sure you never fail at anything, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you(general statement) should never assume the GM will give you anything.
Short version: Knowing how the numbers work at least on a basic level can help your character stay alive and useful. There is nothing wrong with that. Now if someone comes in here saying you must have the best build available all the time, that is different, but that is not what I read.
Lumiere Dawnbringer were you trying to say that the best build must always be used?<---Asking helps.
Lumiere Dawnbringer were you trying to say that the best build must always be used?<---Asking helps
no, the optimal build isn't necessary at all.
such factors as playstyle, party size, DM preference, campaign restrictions, the setting, and a variety of other factors modify which characters fit better.
i was merely responding to a post that the barbarian was inferior to the fighter on a mechanical level.
i roleplay better online, clamming up in public when put on the spot
but despite my akwardness, i have been considered unconventional, and sometimes cheesy, depending on interpretation.
but i play in groups with minimal internet access, minimal electronic use, massive parties, high point allotments, and crazy levels of martial damage output with the downside that all these melee glass cannons need a lot of healing.
in fact, our roleplay is limited by the size of our 12-15 player raiding band.
in a group of 4-6. i could roleplay better
but i am type casted into a handful of recycled roles the group ends up requiring. usually of the casting variety.
|
I look at each game differently. Who's the GM? What races and classes do my fellow gamers like and employ? Pathfinder is a game of cooperation (one way or another) and as such I feel I should make as harmonious a character as possible that will mesh well with my fellow gamers. With that being the general rule, I have played nearly every race and every class. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Mechanically, you can make any class/race combination work with the right stat distribution, feat selections, in-game strategies, and party symmetry. While some may not be as optimal as others, Pathfinder is a roleplaying game and most, if not all shortcomings can be overcome with intraparty cohesion and solid roleplay.
With that little rant over, I do have a few classes that I found less enjoyable to play than others:
1. Summoner- I find the Eidilon exceptionally overpowered, the spell selection subpar, and the Summon Monster spell-like ability marginal unless you flood the battlemap.
2. Witch- Overall very underwhelming and not my cup of tea thematically.
3. Anti-Paladin- While I am not adverse to the ocassional evil character/game, my concept of heroic fantasy precludes ever truly enjoying playing evil. Besides, I like my flirtations with evil to be more controlled and tyrannical (LE).
As for races, it is a fantasy game and I feel all those laid out in the Core Rule Book and Advanced Player's Guide allow for the diversity the genre needs.
Classes I love to play above all others:
1. Paladin- I'm a goody-two-shoes at heart and the paladin is a competent warrior, pocket healer in a pinch, and great for roleplaying/intra-party dynamics.
2. Cleric- In a perfect world, there would only be spontaneous casters, but alas it is not so. I've always been a fan of the warpriest concept and the cleric is a capable combatant and a powerful healer/buffer.
3. Alchemist- An all-around useful character brimming with relevant abilities for almost any situation. I don't lose any sleep at night even if they are overpowered...:-D
Lumiere Dawnbringer were you trying to say that the best build must always be used?<---Asking helps
no, the optimal build isn't necessary at all.
such factors as playstyle, party size, DM preference, campaign restrictions, the setting, and a variety of other factors modify which characters fit better.
i was merely responding to a post that the barbarian was inferior to the fighter on a mechanical level.
i roleplay better online, clamming up in public when put on the spot
but despite my akwardness, i have been considered unconventional, and sometimes cheesy, depending on interpretation.
but i play in groups with minimal internet access, minimal electronic use, massive parties, high point allotments, and crazy levels of martial damage output with the downside that all these melee glass cannons need a lot of healing.
in fact, our roleplay is limited by the size of our 12-15 player raiding band.
in a group of 4-6. i could roleplay better
but i am type casted into a handful of recycled roles the group ends up requiring. usually of the casting variety.
Thanks for answering. I only asked to prove a point that assuming is not always good. :)
Unless they add an archetype that fixes it, Cavalier. I don't like the class basically demanding mounted combat. I liked the idea of granting teamwork feats to allies (though most of them are not really all that worth it) and some of the different orders, but the Mounted combat dependence, and the challenge mechanic sucking (both mechanically, and flavorfully. I don't want a Smite-anything mechanic. If I'm challenging someone, I feel like I should incite something in them, rather than just focusing myself to hit them harder) really kill the class for me.
Also, probably Summoner is another one. I don't like it as a DM because it's so broken beyond belief, and as a player, I don't think I'd want to play a class that I knew was that badly designed; It just brings too much metagame thinking, since I know that I'll either have to intentionally be counter-optimal (not just sub-optimal), or else I'll be in the position where either, I dominate everything, or the DM pumps up the difficulty, and I'm doing alright, but everyone else is struggling to keep up. The game environment that a summoner in the party creates isn't really the environment I want to play in.
Otherwise, there's not much I wouldn't want to play. There's enough breadth covered by each class that I could usually find something I like in them. Even classes like Fighter, Monk or Rogue, which mechanically are subpar, ranging from extremely to acceptably, I'd still play because there are interesting concepts which I could try out. I might be a bit more incentivised to play them if the DM implements house-rules which make them more viable, but even as is, I want to play them. I don't prioritize them when choosing my class, because I know they are mechanically sub-par, but they certainly aren't classes that fit the bill of "least likely to want to play."
Inquisitor; Spanish Inquistion was one of my favorite organizations, as is their modern fictional catholic counterpart. the Iscariot Organization, branched in the Vatican. something about Sadists who slaughter heretics coldheartedly makes me all giddy inside.
Yeah, the Inquisition. Woohoo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Inquisition. Woohoo.Inquisitor; Spanish Inquistion was one of my favorite organizations, as is their modern fictional catholic counterpart. the Iscariot Organization, branched in the Vatican. something about Sadists who slaughter heretics coldheartedly makes me all giddy inside.
I get the feeling that you are one who does not ruv the Rord, Cheezus Chwist.
Ret you be ackewse oh Rord, amen-ah.
I have no interest in playing druids, wizards, or sorcerers, and little interest in summoners.
I guess I can't get into the druid enough. I love divine spellcasting classes, and religious characters in general, but for me the druid just barely falls into that niche and with too many restrictions (such as alignment and weapon lists) to be of much interest.
There's just something about wizards/sorcerers that doesn't appeal to me. Perhaps part of it is the limited weapon list here too, but I just don't really like the low BAB progression mainly, I think. I do like witches though, but I think the main difference is that I actually thematically like witches. I also like the alchemist class and the magus is OK by me.
Mostly I GM, but in recent tabletop campaigns as a player, from most recent to least recent, I've played an LG ratfolk rogue of Erastil, NG dhampir cleric of Pharasma, NG dhampir inquisitor of Sarenrae, and a (pre-gen) NG human cleric of Sarenrae. (In Neverwinter Nights, which I still play, my characters are a CG human rogue14/divine champion3 of Selune, CG half-elf bard11/rogue3/divine champion2 of Sharess, NG human rogue7/fighter8/shadowdancer3 of Selune, and a CG human bard 3/cleric 12/divine champion 2 of Lathander.) In 3.5e I played a NG half-vampire human rogue1/fighter1 (ECL 4) of Selune, a CG human cleric1 of Selune, and a couple level 1 human rogues, but mostly I DMed.
My present Pathfinder tabletop campaign has more witches and rogues than any other two classes among the NPCs, though there are a smattering of clerics, inquisitors, rangers, oracles, fighters, warriors, and experts as well. I think there's one NPC wizard in town, and no sign of any druids around.
Unless they add an archetype that fixes it, Cavalier. I don't like the class basically demanding mounted combat. I liked the idea of granting teamwork feats to allies (though most of them are not really all that worth it) and some of the different orders, but the Mounted combat dependence, and the challenge mechanic sucking (both mechanically, and flavorfully. I don't want a Smite-anything mechanic. If I'm challenging someone, I feel like I should incite something in them, rather than just focusing myself to hit them harder) really kill the class for me.
There's an archetype for cavalier in Animal Archive where the cavalier gives up his mount to gain an animal companion. I think it's called the Huntsmaster or Houndmaster. The huntmaster (or whatever) can gain additional lower HD animal companions at higher levels too. It has abilities like counting as flanking with the companion(s) when merely both are adjacent to the enemy as well.
|
Gunslingers.
I absolutely hate the Gunslinger class and I haven't even had a good look at the build and no I do not wish to do so.
I hate the flavor that they bring to the game. With black powder firearms comes the whole 'wild west' feel and, I'm sorry, but Fantasy and Cowboy are two completely different genres.
I can understand if you had a 'wild west' campaign going with only Gunslingers running around but guns simply don't work within the Fantasy world. I don't care if you come up with something more "medieval" or whatever; it still wont work. That's my decision and my views and I'm sticking to them!
=
Rangers; these were acceptable before (Pathfinder CRB) but I couldn't stand the fact that they had the ability to cast Spells. I never used them and because I didn't, it underpowered my character a bit- like I was purposely gimping my character by choosing not to use Spells; like I was ripping off a piece of the build. Thankfully though I managed to find the Expanded Spell-less Ranger and everything's hunky-dory :)
The Trapper Ranger archetype from Ultimate Magic sounds like your cup of tea. Check it out.
Yeah, the Inquisition. Woohoo.Inquisitor; Spanish Inquistion was one of my favorite organizations, as is their modern fictional catholic counterpart. the Iscariot Organization, branched in the Vatican. something about Sadists who slaughter heretics coldheartedly makes me all giddy inside.
Pretty messed up that lumiere is allowed to say crap like that and yet if we were to tell him/her what we *really* think of him/her, our post would get deleted, eh? Hurray, "rules of decorum"!
@Lumiere Dawnbringer, I respect your knowledge of the game, you do seem to know what your doing when it comes to math and such. I very much doubt with the way that you present yourself that you understand the purpose of a role-playing game though. In the end, if number crunching is your thing, then fine I'm not going to stop you; but endless posts to mathematically prove one class over another, while most of the time they are based on personal preference and flavor, just seems like an overreach in my opinion.
I implore you to look past the numbers and 'min-maxing' to really grasp the way many of us in the community play this wonderful game. After GMing for over a decade I have found ways to deal with min-max types because they tend to make the game less fun for those people that they are playing with.
And to all those people that like to hate on me, please continue, it is quite interesting to see how you react to someone calling out a powergamer.
First of all nobody is hating. You just used a poor choice of words and made a silly assumption that because someone presents math they play a certain way. Knowing the math is good. That does not mean the person uses an excel sheet to make a character, and you did not exactly say that, but it came across that way.
So maybe if you stopped with the generalizations and took the time to ASK the person why they are using numbers in the forums then you would get less of the responses you do. It is not to late to start.
Somewhat off-topic:
In my games you get to RP if you want, but at the same time your character must be able to pull its weight. That does not require a spreadsheet, but there is chart in the bestiary showing you the average saves monsters of certain CR's can force. If you dump wisdom and need a 15 to save against a CR=APL monster then you might think, "I should raise my ___ save". Now some GM's will make sure you never fail at anything, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you(general statement) should...
So metagaming is no longer evil?
Unless they add an archetype that fixes it, Cavalier. I don't like the class basically demanding mounted combat. I liked the idea of granting teamwork feats to allies (though most of them are not really all that worth it) and some of the different orders, but the Mounted combat dependence, and the challenge mechanic sucking (both mechanically, and flavorfully. I don't want a Smite-anything mechanic. If I'm challenging someone, I feel like I should incite something in them, rather than just focusing myself to hit them harder) really kill the class for me.There's an archetype for cavalier in Animal Archive where the cavalier gives up his mount to gain an animal companion. I think it's called the Huntsmaster or Houndmaster. The huntmaster (or whatever) can gain additional lower HD animal companions at higher levels too. It has abilities like counting as flanking with the companion(s) when merely both are adjacent to the enemy as well.
Huh, Don't have that book yet, so I was unaware. Still a bit limited for my taste, but better. I don't like how tactician only affects Animal Companions, but it's a start. Mainly, what I'm looking for is something akin to the Marshal from 3.5 or the Warlord from 4e, and there still isn't an archetype that matches that feel.
Huh, Don't have that book yet, so I was unaware. Still a bit limited for my taste, but better. I don't like how tactician only affects Animal Companions, but it's a start. Mainly, what I'm looking for is something akin to the Marshal from 3.5 or the Warlord from 4e, and there still isn't an archetype that matches that feel.Unless they add an archetype that fixes it, Cavalier. I don't like the class basically demanding mounted combat. I liked the idea of granting teamwork feats to allies (though most of them are not really all that worth it) and some of the different orders, but the Mounted combat dependence, and the challenge mechanic sucking (both mechanically, and flavorfully. I don't want a Smite-anything mechanic. If I'm challenging someone, I feel like I should incite something in them, rather than just focusing myself to hit them harder) really kill the class for me.There's an archetype for cavalier in Animal Archive where the cavalier gives up his mount to gain an animal companion. I think it's called the Huntsmaster or Houndmaster. The huntmaster (or whatever) can gain additional lower HD animal companions at higher levels too. It has abilities like counting as flanking with the companion(s) when merely both are adjacent to the enemy as well.
For what it's worth, there's a 3rd party Warlord class that's on the SRD. It looks very inspired by the 4e Warlord (MY FAVORITEST CLASS EVAR), but of course, rather different due to the mechanical differences between the editions.
Yeah, I saw it. It's decent, and better than the cavalier for what I'm looking for, but there are things that limit it for me. It doesn't really work great for capturing the feel. Instead of tactical enabling, it just seems like it grants passive buffs, which are really dip-abusable, and for the case of the first two abilities, stack with everything.
For me, I'd probably give enabling abilities far earlier, and make that more the bread and butter of the class, with the ability to grant stuff like Step-up or Stand Still or granting an ally the ability to take a readied action by the warlord spending a standard action, and making them more Int and Cha based, with a lesser focus on STR and CON. Capable of front-line fighting, but not as good as most full-BAB classes.
Pretty messed up that lumiere is allowed to say crap like that and yet if we were to tell him/her what we *really* think of him/her, our post would get deleted, eh? Hurray, "rules of decorum"!Yeah, the Inquisition. Woohoo.Inquisitor; Spanish Inquistion was one of my favorite organizations, as is their modern fictional catholic counterpart. the Iscariot Organization, branched in the Vatican. something about Sadists who slaughter heretics coldheartedly makes me all giddy inside.
I looked this up online, and it is from a fictional organization, so it was not an attack on "real-life" Catholics. Did I miss something?
So metagaming is no longer evil?
Build a character to survive is not metagaming. Metagaming can only be done once the game starts*. A player can dump wisdom for a character if he wants to, but I consider it to be a bad idea, if he has the poor save progression. I am sure when he is stabbing his party in the face they will think it is a bad idea also.
*Doing things such as reading an adventure you supposed to play is not metagaming. That is cheating on an entirely different level if you use that specific information to build your character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Metagaming is not inherently a bad thing. It can be used poorly, but it can also be used to benefit the game. For example, the 'oh, hey, this guy's a PC' thing that gets the game underway instead of having to jerk around for two hours introducing a new PC.
I looked this up online, and it is from a fictional organization, so it was not an attack on "real-life" Catholics. Did I miss something?Pretty messed up that lumiere is allowed to say crap like that and yet if we were to tell him/her what we *really* think of him/her, our post would get deleted, eh? Hurray, "rules of decorum"!Yeah, the Inquisition. Woohoo.Inquisitor; Spanish Inquistion was one of my favorite organizations, as is their modern fictional catholic counterpart. the Iscariot Organization, branched in the Vatican. something about Sadists who slaughter heretics coldheartedly makes me all giddy inside.
Apparently. You seem to think I'm upset at a bunch of cold-hearted sadists being called cold-hearted sadists. Rather than referring to helpless innocent torture victims as "heretics" and reveling on playing a character who does that and a game system basing a player character class off of it that is not evil-aligned (or any alignment at all required) in a game where most parties are good or neutral.
Apparently. You seem to think I'm upset at a bunch of cold-hearted sadists being called cold-hearted sadists. Rather than referring to helpless innocent torture victims as "heretics" and reveling on playing a character who does that and a game system basing a player character class off of it that is not evil-aligned (or any alignment at all required) in a game where most parties are good or neutral.I looked this up online, and it is from a fictional organization, so it was not an attack on "real-life" Catholics. Did I miss something?Pretty messed up that lumiere is allowed to say crap like that and yet if we were to tell him/her what we *really* think of him/her, our post would get deleted, eh? Hurray, "rules of decorum"!Yeah, the Inquisition. Woohoo.Inquisitor; Spanish Inquistion was one of my favorite organizations, as is their modern fictional catholic counterpart. the Iscariot Organization, branched in the Vatican. something about Sadists who slaughter heretics coldheartedly makes me all giddy inside.
I don't know much about the fictional organization. The only thing I found say they hunted vampire and werewolves, and did not like the protestants. It was not a thorough search.
lumiere was talking about both the fictional org *and* the spanish inquisition.
Not that many of the fictional genocidal religious cults (the ones that aren't outright labeled as evil, in general) don't rub me the wrong way either, though. It's impossible for me to ever play in an Ebberron game with a character who doesn't hate the church of the silver flame and is actively seeking to destroy it. Which...has caused some intra-party rifts in the past...
I remember the church of the silver flame. They also hunted shifters, not caring to find out who was who. I never liked those uppity bastards either. IIRC one of the main leaders of the hunt was actually evil, and is one of their top bishops.
|
|
Eberron went too far with their "this isn't your daddy's D&D world!" obsession, and having a LG church that's actually LE was one of the worst examples of that.
Right behind Shardspine Sawtoothslashers (called, you know, T-rexes everywhere else) and the "Our drow live ABOVE ground and worship SCORPIONS instead of spiders and that makes them oh so original and different" facepalms.
But I digress. Hate playing Aristocrats ... such a bland class. Major design fail there Paizo. Likely its' SKR's fault...
Please, stop talking if you haven't read Hellsing.
The main character is a nigh omnicidal, effectively invulnerable, unstoppable, sadistic asshat of a vampire.
He's the GOOD ONE.
And the werewolves are Nazis.
Hunting them into extinction isn't despicable.
As for the Silver Flame, "Evil aligned but not guilty of any crimes" is basically code for "Hasn't had an opportunity to rip someone to shreds yet". That's how Chaotic/Neutral Evil works, and Lawful Evil to a lesser extent.
Alignment is a gauge of how you think, not just what you do.
He was Chaotic Neutral, and overall a nice guy if a bit driven. Contracting lycanthropy immediately turns him evil, makes him embrace his condition, and turn on the party.
This is generally what the result is.
Though I think you just wanted to take this opportunity to crawl up on a soapbox and rant about something. So whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eberron went too far with their "this isn't your daddy's D&D world!" obsession, and having a LG church that's actually LE was one of the worst examples of that.
Right behind Shardspine Sawtoothslashers (called, you know, T-rexes everywhere else) and the "Our drow live ABOVE ground and worship SCORPIONS instead of spiders and that makes them oh so original and different" facepalms.
I couldn't disagree more.