Why all the Paladin hate?

[graystone]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Actually no, thats not what he said at all. Let me help. He (like me) likely doesn't give two squirts of piss about what people do on their home tables. He isn't likely to play in a game that waters paladin down like that, and he isn't likely to play a system that makes it part of the official rules. People playing whatever they want at their table is whatever, the game altering because people would rather the official rules have the same rules as their table is a deal breaker.

I NEVER mentioned home games. I was talking about an official option. He knew it, I knew it and you know it. So please don't try to pretend to be offended and act like we were talking about home games.

As to "waters paladin down", as STILL fail to see how that affect you or him. He's already making house rules on how paladins are authorities and how the general populace gives them great difference so how would it be different to add that paladins are as 'pure' as you like?

Ryan Freire wrote:

When people make this argument about warpriest it becomes pretty obvious its more about cool powers than any real rp reason.

And when people make an argument about that people could just play a warpriest, it's clear that sacred cows are more important than real RP... the "one true way" is another's 'badwrongfun'. Just because someone doesn't role play like you think they should, you call it 'not real rp'....

[HWalsh]

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Actually no, thats not what he said at all. Let me help. He (like me) likely doesn't give two squirts of piss about what people do on their home tables. He isn't likely to play in a game that waters paladin down like that, and he isn't likely to play a system that makes it part of the official rules. People playing whatever they want at their table is whatever, the game altering because people would rather the official rules have the same rules as their table is a deal breaker.

I NEVER mentioned home games. I was talking about an official option. He knew it, I knew it and you know it. So please don't try to pretend to be offended and act like we were talking about home games.

As to "waters paladin down", as STILL fail to see how that affect you or him. He's already making house rules on how paladins are authorities and how the general populace gives them great difference so how would it be different to add that paladins are as 'pure' as you like?

Ryan Freire wrote:

When people make this argument about warpriest it becomes pretty obvious its more about cool powers than any real rp reason.

And when people make an argument about that people could just play a warpriest, it's clear that sacred cows are more important than real RP... the "one true way" is another's 'badwrongfun'. Just because someone doesn't role play like you think they should, you call it 'not real rp'....

Not really, my house rules are actually very light.

Paladins make the same DCs at the same levels as everyone else. They are more likely to have NPCs begin favorable to them depending on the NPC.

[Lady-J]

Nodrog wrote:

knightnday wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

knightnday wrote:

It is fine to have that sort of thing as the default of your home brew setting. However, it is giving the paladins a lot of social power that isn't baked into the class.

What you are describing is something akin to how, say, the Heralds of Valdemar are seen by the population in large part. Which, again, is fine if that is what you want to do. But the default setting doesn't grant them any sort of situational bonuses or any special recognition that others wouldn't get.

No. I am describing the game setting for Pathfinder. That is the default. When you deviate from that it is called homebrewing.

Thus in your homebrew setting it is fine to have that sort of thing not be the default. In the non-homebrew setting that is the default.

Page numbers? Where is the bits on all of this? I've poured over the various editions of D&D and Pathfinder and I seem to be missing these pieces of information.

I don't think there are any. However I would say that in very large towns or more towards cities with well established temples, most citizens could recognize someone dressed as a paladin. As all of the paladins belonging to the same temple would have the same uniform/armor and weapons. Which can be said of: knights, cavaliers, clerics, war priests, the city guard... A mercenary company that calls the city home.

That being said, if you went to a small village or town with no paladins; then the population there wouldn't have a clue. Because you would just be another full plate wearing person with a weapon. Is this person a fighter, a mighty knight, a paladin or a cocky mercenary? No way to tell until they did something, and even then that won't help. Until the paladin is the only one turning down the reward for getting rid of this town's particular monster.

But really you could take all of his points and apply them to Knights or Cavaliers. Because fluff... anyone flying a banner of the area's major...

how does one dress like a paladin? and is that suposta mean every paladin looks exactly the same?

[graystone]

HWalsh wrote:

Not really, my house rules are actually very light.

Paladins make the same DCs at the same levels as everyone else. They are more likely to have NPCs begin favorable to them depending on the NPC.

This and ALL of your other posts in this thread don't match up then. You implied that they were universally trusted and granted authority just because they were paladins. That's not sounding the same DC as any other random PC...

[Ouachitonian]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ouachitonian wrote:

Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

that's a cavalier and a warpriest not the same thing in the slightest, it would be like saying some one who wants to play a fighter should play a wizard instead which is just plain dumb

What is it that you want from a paladin that you can't get from those two classes?

The only thing I can think of would be 4th grade casting, in which case there's probably a ranger archetype for it.

Things a Paladin gets that a Warpriest doesn't

Full BAB
d10 hit die
Certain Paladin-exclusive spells
Aura of Good
At Will Detect Evil
Smite Evil
Divine Grace
Aura of Courage
Divine Health
Mercies
Celestial Mount
Aura of Justice
Aura of Faith
Aura of Righteousness
Holy Champion

Note: I'm using vanilla, no-archetype classes for comparison. I'm aware of the Champion of the Faith Warpriest, who gets inferior versions Detect Evil and Smite Evil (but still lacks all the rest).

Neither class is really that good of a substitute for a paladin, except in very limited areas.

When people make this argument about warpriest it becomes pretty obvious its more about cool powers than any real rp reason.

I'm just answering the question. Really, I think that the Warpriest gets cooler powers, what with Sacred Weapon, swift-action casting, 6 levels of spellcasting, etc. Those are a lot more useful, in my experience, than some of the stuff the paladin gets. But there's a big RP gulf between "martially inclined priest" and "holy warrior". Which side of that gulf I want to be on, more than anything mechanical, determines which class I choose.

[PossibleCabbage]

I wonder what the arguments would be like if, say, Wizards were required to be Lawful Neutral.

[TOZ]

The same.

[PossibleCabbage]

TOZ wrote:

The same.

They might be worse, since the Wizard is the most (potentially) powerful class in the game. The Paladin is merely "one of the better martials."

[HWalsh]

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Not really, my house rules are actually very light.

Paladins make the same DCs at the same levels as everyone else. They are more likely to have NPCs begin favorable to them depending on the NPC.

This and ALL of your other posts in this thread don't match up then. You implied that they were universally trusted and granted authority just because they were paladins. That's not sounding the same DC as any other random PC...

And I kept saying that fluff and mechanics aren't the same thing. Reacting to you, and altering the mechanics aren't the same thing. It is part of the fluff, the Role-Play, you know the stuff that has nothing to do with dice rolls? The part that makes it a Role-Playing game?

There are some benefits that *can* come into play for Paladins, just like there are some that *can* come into play for any other class. It also can be a negative.

Example:

The party, a Fighter, a Paladin, a Rogue, a Cleric and a Wizard walk into a town. They want to split up and see if they can get help with (insert task here).

The Paladin goes to the Sheriff. He's likely to be favorable toward the Paladin, given the reputation Paladin's have. He is likely to be indifferent toward the Fighter or the Wizard though and possibly antagonistic toward the Thief, if he recognizes him as a thief.

The Wizard is going to go to the local Wizard's college, again, they are likely to be favorable to him, as he's a fellow Wizard, and not so much to the Paladin or the Fighter.

Meanwhile the Rogue goes to the Thieve's Guild. He knows Thieve's Cant, and they know he's one of theirs. They are likely to be favorable. If the Paladin went to the Thieve's Guild he's likely to be NOT favorable as, he's a Paladin, and Thieves generally think those are bad for business.

Meanwhile the Paladin or the Cleric are likely to be more favorably received at the Temple, as they are both divine classes. The Fighter likely indifferent.

Those aren't +50 on a Diplomacy check, but it is pure setting fluff put into action.

[graystone]

HWalsh wrote:

And I kept saying that fluff and mechanics aren't the same thing.

Ok, but you said you'd drop the game if the mechanics changed even though you can keep the same fluff... You're trying to have it both ways: Fluff and mechanics are separate here but before they are so intertwined that you couldn't play the game anymore. It's hard to reconcile universally trusted and adored with straight dice rolls: IMO harder than making room for non LG paladins.

[Nodrog]

Why wouldn't paladins of the same order dress the same?

A good example would be from the Book Faiths of Purity, and Seranrae. Page 12

When you travel, you can often recognize others of your
faith by their dress, as the Keleshite robes of the desert
dervishes have become synonymous with the faith in
many worshipers’ minds, as have the symbol of a sunburst
and the colors of white, red, and gold. Your fellows
sometimes wear jewelry sporting ankhs or stylized
doves, and even in the cold north, far from the deserts of
Qadira and Osirion, the truly devoted carry scimitars in
homage to your goddess.

All the gods have a symbol and or colors that represent them, even that grump Erastil has a symbol worn or carried by his followers. Uniforms or holy symbols sort of let other people know your faith allowing others of the same faith to easily recognize one another.

As paladins are supposed to be all great and pure, they would want to be easily identified as a paladin of what ever god they follow.

[Athaleon]

Ryan Freire wrote:

When people make this argument about warpriest it becomes pretty obvious its more about cool powers than any real rp reason.

Athaleon wrote:

The Munchkin scum just want Divine Grace

You can't point out any mechanical differences between the Warpriest and Paladin or you're The Cancer That Is Killing RPGs.

Nodrog wrote:

As paladins are supposed to be all great and pure, they would want to be easily identified as a paladin of what ever god they follow.

Not everywhere. There are many places (yes, even in Golarion) where any worshipper of an illegal or unpopular deity would not want to be identified as such. The very nature of their occupation means Paladins are venturing into such places on a routine basis.

[HWalsh]

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

And I kept saying that fluff and mechanics aren't the same thing.

Ok, but you said you'd drop the game if the mechanics changed even though you can keep the same fluff... You're trying to have it both ways: Fluff and mechanics are separate here but before they are so intertwined that you couldn't play the game anymore. It's hard to reconcile universally trusted and adored with straight dice rolls: IMO harder than making room for non LG paladins.

You can't keep the same fluff once the Mechanics don't make any sense. The second not all Paladins are L/G, the second they can lie, the second the Code doesn't mean diddly squat... The fluff breaks. The Verisimilitude breaks. Paladins, at that moment, cease to be Paladins and just become Holy Warriors.

[graystone]

Nodrog wrote:

you can often recognize others of your

faith by their dress

Note: faith, and not paladin order.

Nodrog wrote:

the Keleshite robes of the desert

dervishes have become synonymous with the faith

Note: faith, and not paladin order.

Nodrog wrote:

All the gods have a symbol and or colors that represent them, even that grump Erastil has a symbol worn or carried by his followers. Uniforms or holy symbols sort of let other people know your faith allowing others of the same faith to easily recognize one another.

Yes, faith not order.

Nodrog wrote:

As paladins are supposed to be all great and pure, they would want to be easily identified as a paladin of what ever god they follow.

So they are ID'd how? Why are people seeing a paladin instead of a cleric, fighter, cavalier, ect of that faith?

HWalsh wrote:

You can't keep the same fluff once the Mechanics don't make any sense. The second not all Paladins are L/G, the second they can lie, the second the Code doesn't mean diddly squat... The fluff breaks. The Verisimilitude breaks. Paladins, at that moment, cease to be Paladins and just become Holy Warriors.

Then you've ALREADY thrown away the fluff as you currently can play a non-good or non- lawful paladin right? gray paladins are a thing and they ARE paladins...

[HWalsh]

graystone wrote:

Nodrog wrote:

you can often recognize others of your

faith by their dress

Note: faith, and not paladin order.

Nodrog wrote:

the Keleshite robes of the desert

dervishes have become synonymous with the faith

Note: faith, and not paladin order.

Nodrog wrote:

All the gods have a symbol and or colors that represent them, even that grump Erastil has a symbol worn or carried by his followers. Uniforms or holy symbols sort of let other people know your faith allowing others of the same faith to easily recognize one another.

Yes, faith not order.

Nodrog wrote:

As paladins are supposed to be all great and pure, they would want to be easily identified as a paladin of what ever god they follow.

So they are ID'd how? Why are people seeing a paladin instead of a cleric, fighter, cavalier, ect of that faith?

HWalsh wrote:

You can't keep the same fluff once the Mechanics don't make any sense. The second not all Paladins are L/G, the second they can lie, the second the Code doesn't mean diddly squat... The fluff breaks. The Verisimilitude breaks. Paladins, at that moment, cease to be Paladins and just become Holy Warriors.

Then you've ALREADY thrown away the fluff as you currently can play a non-good or non- lawful paladin right? gray paladins are a thing and they ARE paladins...

Gray Paladins are Gray Paladins, not Paladins. Empyreal Knights are Empyreal Knights. They are specific kinds of Paladins with their own mechanics. They don't just say, "I'm a Paladin."

[Nodrog]

graystone wrote:

Nodrog wrote:

As paladins are supposed to be all great and pure, they would want to be easily identified as a paladin of what ever god they follow.

So they are ID'd how? Why are people seeing a paladin instead of a cleric, fighter, cavalier, ect of that faith?

Being easy to identify does not mean everyone would instantly know what order or faith anyone is. Just that those people would assume anyone they saw in a uniform they have seen before might belong to the same group as all those other people dressed the same way.

You are going to argue order VS faith? If a paladin follows X god, than they will be in X order with X faith. They have faith in X god so they are in X god's order.

[Lady-J]

HWalsh wrote:

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Not really, my house rules are actually very light.

Paladins make the same DCs at the same levels as everyone else. They are more likely to have NPCs begin favorable to them depending on the NPC.

This and ALL of your other posts in this thread don't match up then. You implied that they were universally trusted and granted authority just because they were paladins. That's not sounding the same DC as any other random PC...

And I kept saying that fluff and mechanics aren't the same thing. Reacting to you, and altering the mechanics aren't the same thing. It is part of the fluff, the Role-Play, you know the stuff that has nothing to do with dice rolls? The part that makes it a Role-Playing game?

changing the reaction of how people see you is literally what the mechanics in game are for, bypassing that by saying the fluff of the class of my character lets me do this and this and that is effectively giving you mechanical benefits that simply are not there

[Lady-J]

HWalsh wrote:

graystone wrote:

Nodrog wrote:

you can often recognize others of your

faith by their dress

Note: faith, and not paladin order.

Nodrog wrote:

the Keleshite robes of the desert

dervishes have become synonymous with the faith

Note: faith, and not paladin order.

Nodrog wrote:

All the gods have a symbol and or colors that represent them, even that grump Erastil has a symbol worn or carried by his followers. Uniforms or holy symbols sort of let other people know your faith allowing others of the same faith to easily recognize one another.

Yes, faith not order.

Nodrog wrote:

As paladins are supposed to be all great and pure, they would want to be easily identified as a paladin of what ever god they follow.

So they are ID'd how? Why are people seeing a paladin instead of a cleric, fighter, cavalier, ect of that faith?

HWalsh wrote:

You can't keep the same fluff once the Mechanics don't make any sense. The second not all Paladins are L/G, the second they can lie, the second the Code doesn't mean diddly squat... The fluff breaks. The Verisimilitude breaks. Paladins, at that moment, cease to be Paladins and just become Holy Warriors.

Then you've ALREADY thrown away the fluff as you currently can play a non-good or non- lawful paladin right? gray paladins are a thing and they ARE paladins...

Gray Paladins are Gray Paladins, not Paladins. Empyreal Knights are Empyreal Knights. They are specific kinds of Paladins with their own mechanics. They don't just say, "I'm a Paladin."

exept they do say im a paladin cuz that's the name of their class and the roll they play if i'm playing a character who is a mutagen warrior fighter they are going to say they are a fighter, if there is a scaled fist monk they are going to say they are a monk when describing themselves to others

[knightnday]

HWalsh wrote:

Gray Paladins are Gray Paladins, not Paladins. Empyreal Knights are Empyreal Knights. They are specific kinds of Paladins with their own mechanics. They don't just say, "I'm a Paladin."

Eh, I'd sort of disagree there. I'm not a big fan of people identifying with their class name in the game world. Maybe paladins would identify as paladins, or maybe by individual orders or names for each God or ideal.

[Lady-J]

Nodrog wrote:

graystone wrote:

Nodrog wrote:

As paladins are supposed to be all great and pure, they would want to be easily identified as a paladin of what ever god they follow.

So they are ID'd how? Why are people seeing a paladin instead of a cleric, fighter, cavalier, ect of that faith?

Being easy to identify does not mean everyone would instantly know what order or faith anyone is. Just that those people would assume anyone they saw in a uniform they have seen before might belong to the same group as all those other people dressed the same way.

You are going to argue order VS faith? If a paladin follows X god, than they will be in X order with X faith. They have faith in X god so they are in X god's order.

that's not how orders work

[Senko]

I just want to point out on the subject of impersonating paladin's and to a lesser extent clerics I wouldn't want to do it in a world where the gods are (a) real, (b) actively involved and (c) not going to be very happy with you pretending to be a holy warrior of theirs.

I'm reminded of the scene in one of Pratchett's novels where the golem say's he will debate religion with the priest of any god who can prove their existence then gets hit by a lightning bolt.

Shiny Man in armour: "I am a paldin of Iomadae and I'm here to . . . " Crack THOWOM.
Nearby villager: " Why do we always get imposters in harvest season, Elena could you pass me the broom."

[PossibleCabbage]

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Not really, my house rules are actually very light.

Paladins make the same DCs at the same levels as everyone else. They are more likely to have NPCs begin favorable to them depending on the NPC.

This and ALL of your other posts in this thread don't match up then. You implied that they were universally trusted and granted authority just because they were paladins. That's not sounding the same DC as any other random PC...

I feel like things similar to "how organized are organized religions" or "what opinions people hold about certain races or classes" aren't so much "house rules" as just "setting details that are always and have always been within the GM's prerogative."

Like if I said something like "Paladins are very rare, most people will tell you they've never seen one but they've all heard the stories, but part of that might be because the truly righteous tend to be humble and rare is the Paladin happy to broadcast the fact" it's not exactly a house rule so much as a setting detail not unlike the GM deciding how many magical colleges or martial arts oriented monasteries there are in the vicinity.

I mean, it's my strong preference that people in the setting do not refer to classes using accurate game mechanical terms, since there's no reason the people in the world should know how the game mechanics work.

[Lady-J]

Senko wrote:

I just want to point out on the subject of impersonating paladin's and to a lesser extent clerics I wouldn't want to do it in a world where the gods are (a) real, (b) actively involved and (c) not going to be very happy with you pretending to be a holy warrior of theirs.

I'm reminded of the scene in one of Pratchett's novels where the golem say's he will debate religion with the priest of any god who can prove their existence then gets hit by a lightning bolt.

Shiny Man in armour: "I am a paldin of Iomadae and I'm here to . . . " Crack THOWOM.
Nearby villager: " Why do we always get imposters in harvest season, Elena could you pass me the broom."

paladins don't have to have gods so if they are being a paladin impostor they would be one who isn't of a god

[BigNorseWolf]

Good fluff and mechanics work off of each other.

The druid is an example of that. Its a nature themed character: animals, plants, elements, that has a thematic tie as a protector and promoter of nature.

In the rush for sweet sweet saves, people forget that the paladins crunch and fluff are intertwined as well. The idea that purity of spirit and nobility will strengthen your arm in battle, render you imperious to spells and fear, that being chaste and honorable will protect you from the demonic forces of magic goes all the way back to the arthurian lore that Tolkien borrowed from so D&D could borrow from him.

[PossibleCabbage]

You can have meaning without mechanics, but you can't have mechanics without meaning; and meaning is all that matters, IMO.

[Lady-J]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Good fluff and mechanics work off of each other.

The druid is an example of that. Its a nature themed character: animals, plants, elements, that has a thematic tie as a protector and promoter of nature.

the trees and animals of the forest don't gawk in aww when a druid enters the forest and they don't bend over backwards with out major prompting(via class features and spells) so wanting mechanical benefits for their fluff(and just their fluff) doesn't work, nor should it be so for paladins or anyone else you have to have mechanics to back up what you want to do, or have done something worth while for those around you to do anything out of the ordinary

[graystone]

HWalsh wrote:

Gray Paladins are Gray Paladins, not Paladins. Empyreal Knights are Empyreal Knights. They are specific kinds of Paladins with their own mechanics. They don't just say, "I'm a Paladin."

Then I have NO understanding of your dislike of other options for different aligned paladins. If a gray paladin is ok, then why isn't a paladin of freedom? If it's a label, then label it... I'm looking for an archetype or alternate class: at this point I wouldn't expect the base class to change.

And I'm rarely in a game where people identify themselves by class, so I'd never find anyone poping up saying "I'm a Paladin."

[Lady-J]

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Gray Paladins are Gray Paladins, not Paladins. Empyreal Knights are Empyreal Knights. They are specific kinds of Paladins with their own mechanics. They don't just say, "I'm a Paladin."

Then I have NO understanding of your dislike of other options for different aligned paladins. If a gray paladin is ok, then why isn't a paladin of freedom? If it's a label, then label it... I'm looking for an archetype or alternate class: at this point I wouldn't expect the base class to change.

And I'm rarely in a game where people identify themselves by class, so I'd never find anyone poping up saying "I'm a Paladin."

calling people by their class pops up a lot especially when people forget what a persons characters name is and just say "oh (insert class name here)"

[PossibleCabbage]

Lady-J wrote:

calling people by their class pops up a lot especially when people forget what a persons characters name is and just say "oh (insert class name here)"

I have literally never seen that happen.

[Lady-J]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

calling people by their class pops up a lot especially when people forget what a persons characters name is and just say "oh (insert class name here)"

I have literally never seen that happen.

its off and on with calling the character by the players name but it happens on a regular basis with every group i've been in as well as the other groups in the area

[BigNorseWolf]

Lady-J wrote:

the trees and animals of the forest don't gawk in aww when a druid enters the forest and they don't bend over backwards with out major prompting

I usually get a pretty good reaction

[HWalsh]

Paladin isn't just a class, it is also a title.

Gwyn of Iomedae, Paladin of Iomedae is both his name, his title, and how he's known.

[Senko]

Lady-J wrote:

Senko wrote:

I just want to point out on the subject of impersonating paladin's and to a lesser extent clerics I wouldn't want to do it in a world where the gods are (a) real, (b) actively involved and (c) not going to be very happy with you pretending to be a holy warrior of theirs.

I'm reminded of the scene in one of Pratchett's novels where the golem say's he will debate religion with the priest of any god who can prove their existence then gets hit by a lightning bolt.

Shiny Man in armour: "I am a paldin of Iomadae and I'm here to . . . " Crack THOWOM.
Nearby villager: " Why do we always get imposters in harvest season, Elena could you pass me the broom."

paladins don't have to have gods so if they are being a paladin impostor they would be one who isn't of a god

Which is where I differ from the RAW in my games if you don't serve a god you're not a paladin.

[graystone]

HWalsh wrote:

Paladin isn't just a class, it is also a title.

Gwyn of Iomedae, Paladin of Iomedae is both his name, his title, and how he's known.

Maybe in your game but not for the game at large. I've seen countless DM's over the years and the only time I've seen 'names' like that is with royalty/aristocrats not ordinary people. It's normally Gwyn the tracker, Gwyn the brave or Gwyn the green fox. I don't run into Gwyn the wizard, Gwyn the fighter, Gwyn the paladin or Gwyn the commoner...

It'd be like "hey I'm a wizard. I'm a wizard, remember that I'm a wizard ok? Cuz wizards are cool!!! Oh i almost forgot, my name is tim, but that's not as important as WIZARD!!!"... Never seen a class as a name/title/known alias. Even something like 'order of the royal knights' is secondary to a name and nickname.

[Lady-J]

graystone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Paladin isn't just a class, it is also a title.

Gwyn of Iomedae, Paladin of Iomedae is both his name, his title, and how he's known.

Maybe in your game but not for the game at large. I've seen countless DM's over the years and the only time I've seen 'names' like that is with royalty/aristocrats not ordinary people. It's normally Gwyn the tracker, Gwyn the brave or Gwyn the green fox. I don't run into Gwyn the wizard, Gwyn the fighter, Gwyn the paladin or Gwyn the commoner...

It'd be like "hey I'm a wizard. I'm a wizard, remember that I'm a wizard ok? Cuz wizards are cool!!! Oh i almost forgot, my name is tim, but that's not as important as WIZARD!!!"... Never seen a class as a name/title/known alias. Even something like 'order of the royal knights' is secondary to a name and nickname.

but are you a wizard?

[PossibleCabbage]

Lady-J wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

calling people by their class pops up a lot especially when people forget what a persons characters name is and just say "oh (insert class name here)"

I have literally never seen that happen.

its off and on with calling the character by the players name but it happens on a regular basis with every group i've been in as well as the other groups in the area

I've always made an effort (and encourage others to do this when I'm GMing) to, if I don't remember a character's name, to either make a nickname based on some detail about them I do remember (e.g. "Red" if a character has red hair, or "Stinky" for the Swarm Monger Druid with 5 charisma) or to use some rough synonym of a class title ("Priest" or "(Wo)man of God" instead of Cleric) since it just seems more natural that way.

[BigNorseWolf]

For PFS with a shifting cast of party members, table tents help a lot. I bring construction paper and markers for the party to get artistic.

For online games getting a name underneath the characters picture helps a lot.

[graystone]

Lady-J wrote:

but are you a wizard?

If I wasn't I wouldn't be as important. I mean everyone can tell I'm one when I walk in the room because, well I'm a wizard! But do you ever wonder if you're TOO wizard? People keep giving me authority and taking everything I say as the truth... :P

BigNorseWolf wrote:

For online games getting a name underneath the characters picture helps a lot.

Oh yes, names and pics are a godsend for online as it can sometimes get quite chaotic with people talking for themselves and followers and having familiars and other pets doing stuff...

[Matthew Downie]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Good fluff and mechanics work off of each other.

The druid is an example of that. Its a nature themed character: animals, plants, elements, that has a thematic tie as a protector and promoter of nature.

When I hear this, my mind immediately constructs a character who has the powers of a druid, but a different theme. He enjoys controlling animals and making them fight one another. He doesn't have reverence for nature, instead representing the dominion of mankind over the natural world.

He'd make a good circus ringmaster, Colosseum owner, or Pokemon trainer.

[Vidmaster7]

I want to be the very best
Like no one ever was
To catch them is my real test
To train them is my cause

[Lady-J]

Matthew Downie wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Good fluff and mechanics work off of each other.

The druid is an example of that. Its a nature themed character: animals, plants, elements, that has a thematic tie as a protector and promoter of nature.

When I hear this, my mind immediately constructs a character who has the powers of a druid, but a different theme. He enjoys controlling animals and making them fight one another. He doesn't have reverence for nature, instead representing the dominion of mankind over the natural world.

He'd make a good circus ringmaster, Colosseum owner, or Pokemon trainer.

for a pokemon trainer you will really need the base summoner and not a druid

[Lady-J]

graystone wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

but are you a wizard?

If I wasn't I wouldn't be as important. I mean everyone can tell I'm one when I walk in the room because, well I'm a wizard! But do you ever wonder if you're TOO wizard? People keep giving me authority and taking everything I say as the truth... :P

your a wizard

[graystone]

Lady-J wrote:

graystone wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

but are you a wizard?

If I wasn't I wouldn't be as important. I mean everyone can tell I'm one when I walk in the room because, well I'm a wizard! But do you ever wonder if you're TOO wizard? People keep giving me authority and taking everything I say as the truth... :P

your a wizard

If i'm going to be a wizard, I'm going to be the the Angel Summoner!!! Who wants to be the BMX Bandit?

[Senko]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I want to be the very best

Like no one ever was
To catch them is my real test
To train them is my cause

That really is an odd show. We shall beat into near unconciousness living beings who are on multiple occasions shown to be as smart or smarter than humans, imprison them in a small ball and then make them battle each other for our amusement. Don't worry though kiddies its ok because they're cute little non-humans.

[RDM42]

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Actually no, thats not what he said at all. Let me help. He (like me) likely doesn't give two squirts of piss about what people do on their home tables. He isn't likely to play in a game that waters paladin down like that, and he isn't likely to play a system that makes it part of the official rules. People playing whatever they want at their table is whatever, the game altering because people would rather the official rules have the same rules as their table is a deal breaker.

I NEVER mentioned home games. I was talking about an official option. He knew it, I knew it and you know it. So please don't try to pretend to be offended and act like we were talking about home games.

As to "waters paladin down", as STILL fail to see how that affect you or him. He's already making house rules on how paladins are authorities and how the general populace gives them great difference so how would it be different to add that paladins are as 'pure' as you like?

Ryan Freire wrote:

When people make this argument about warpriest it becomes pretty obvious its more about cool powers than any real rp reason.

And when people make an argument about that people could just play a warpriest, it's clear that sacred cows are more important than real RP... the "one true way" is another's 'badwrongfun'. Just because someone doesn't role play like you think they should, you call it 'not real rp'....

It does effect it - it makes so the base assumption is that a chaotic neutral Paladin, a complete contradiction in terms, is officially sanctioned. If you want it, just huserule it yourself - why does the official system need to change for you to do that?

[Vidmaster7]

Senko wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I want to be the very best

Like no one ever was
To catch them is my real test
To train them is my cause

That really is an odd show. We shall beat into near unconciousness living beings who are on multiple occasions shown to be as smart or smarter than humans, imprison them in a small ball and then make them battle each other for our amusement. Don't worry though kiddies its ok because they're cute little non-humans.

Yeah its like dog fighting except you can us other animals and 10 year olds are doing it. Plus apparently you can capture Pokemon god. which raises so many questions. So does being a Pokemon master make you loss your paladin status I think the obvious answer is yes.

[Lady-J]

RDM42 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Actually no, thats not what he said at all. Let me help. He (like me) likely doesn't give two squirts of piss about what people do on their home tables. He isn't likely to play in a game that waters paladin down like that, and he isn't likely to play a system that makes it part of the official rules. People playing whatever they want at their table is whatever, the game altering because people would rather the official rules have the same rules as their table is a deal breaker.

I NEVER mentioned home games. I was talking about an official option. He knew it, I knew it and you know it. So please don't try to pretend to be offended and act like we were talking about home games.

As to "waters paladin down", as STILL fail to see how that affect you or him. He's already making house rules on how paladins are authorities and how the general populace gives them great difference so how would it be different to add that paladins are as 'pure' as you like?

Ryan Freire wrote:

When people make this argument about warpriest it becomes pretty obvious its more about cool powers than any real rp reason.

And when people make an argument about that people could just play a warpriest, it's clear that sacred cows are more important than real RP... the "one true way" is another's 'badwrongfun'. Just because someone doesn't role play like you think they should, you call it 'not real rp'....

It does effect it - it makes so the base assumption is that a chaotic neutral Paladin, a complete contradiction in terms, is officially sanctioned. If you want it, just huserule it yourself - why does the official system need to change for you to do that?

cuz they aren't in charge of the rules for their games and want to be able to take a given concept into a game without arguing with dms about it

[Vidmaster 1st edition]

They want dwarfs who can level above 6th level in fighter. Rangers that can choose something other then orcs for "favored enemy", Re-naming the Thief to rogue? Now they want to get rid of alignment restrictions!?!?!

Kids these days don't they know that a class is more then just a function of its class features. The game is more then just the mechanics fluff and mechanics go hand and hand. Heck they made up the class abilities by sitting around and thinking hmm what fits into the theme of a paladin? not the other way around.

(but for real how about a compromise? A class that is fairly similar to paladin but a different name I heard avenger for CG that sounded ok to me. so a set of archetypes for different alignments but they wouldn't be paladins anymore and some of their abilities would be a bit different and not just changing smite evil to smite good or smite law but having some of them work slightly different maybe one doesn't get divine grace and gets something else instead.)

[RDM42]

Lady-J wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Actually no, thats not what he said at all. Let me help. He (like me) likely doesn't give two squirts of piss about what people do on their home tables. He isn't likely to play in a game that waters paladin down like that, and he isn't likely to play a system that makes it part of the official rules. People playing whatever they want at their table is whatever, the game altering because people would rather the official rules have the same rules as their table is a deal breaker.

I NEVER mentioned home games. I was talking about an official option. He knew it, I knew it and you know it. So please don't try to pretend to be offended and act like we were talking about home games.

As to "waters paladin down", as STILL fail to see how that affect you or him. He's already making house rules on how paladins are authorities and how the general populace gives them great difference so how would it be different to add that paladins are as 'pure' as you like?

Ryan Freire wrote:

When people make this argument about warpriest it becomes pretty obvious its more about cool powers than any real rp reason.

And when people make an argument about that people could just play a warpriest, it's clear that sacred cows are more important than real RP... the "one true way" is another's 'badwrongfun'. Just because someone doesn't role play like you think they should, you call it 'not real rp'....

It does effect it - it makes so the base assumption is that a chaotic neutral Paladin, a complete contradiction in terms, is officially sanctioned. If you want it, just huserule it yourself - why does the official system need to change for you to do that?

cuz they aren't in charge of the rules for their games and want to be able to take a given concept into a game without arguing with dms about it

You can. Nothing in the world or ruleset right now prevents you from playing a holy warrior of a different alignment, just not using the Paladn chassis. Unless it's houseruled.

[The Sideromancer]

Matthew Downie wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Good fluff and mechanics work off of each other.

The druid is an example of that. Its a nature themed character: animals, plants, elements, that has a thematic tie as a protector and promoter of nature.

When I hear this, my mind immediately constructs a character who has the powers of a druid, but a different theme. He enjoys controlling animals and making them fight one another. He doesn't have reverence for nature, instead representing the dominion of mankind over the natural world.

He'd make a good circus ringmaster, Colosseum owner, or Pokemon trainer.

Heck, I don't think the base Druid is good at it's default fluff. Besides my perennial complaint with the class, the focus on woodlands and vertebrates makes it a poor choice for a protector of nature in general. The terrain archetypes in APG solve this somewhat, but the lack of more acessible vermin wild shape still raises questions (The desert druid has more aquatic wildshape options than the aquatic druid)