|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: It is an objective point of view.
Back then they were symbol of good, regardless the fact they, as you said, could have been part of any alignment, simply because a "good cause" is something which could be twisted depends the hystory, the environement, the winners, and stuff like that.
Then you're not talking about the origin of the word. You're talking about the later Medieval Romance tradition that also brought us Arthurian legends. Objectively speaking, the actual origin is literally just something related to the imperial household, and even THAT association is because Palatine hill is the centermost hill of Rome, and multiple imperial palaces were built there. Paladin referring to just heroic knights is a relatively new use of the word.
Edit: As to rpg associations, I don't think 4e had alignment restrictions, and I know 5e does not. World of Warcraft paladins can explicitly be evil, and that's going to be the first association many have with traditional RPG classes.
AnimatedPaper wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: It is an objective point of view.
Back then they were symbol of good, regardless the fact they, as you said, could have been part of any alignment, simply because a "good cause" is something which could be twisted depends the hystory, the environement, the winners, and stuff like that.
Then you're not talking about the origin of the word. You're talking about the later Medieval Romance tradition that also brought us Arthurian legends. Objectively speaking, the actual origin is literally just something related to the imperial household, and even THAT association is because Palatine hill is the centermost hill of Rome, and multiple imperial palaces were built there. Paladin referring to just heroic knights is a relatively new use of the word.
That's ok, but even so it is something which was added to enhance the fact they were righteous, while they weren't ( they were just the winner part ).
Also, I bet that if you ask anybody what a paladin is you will get answers somehow tied to "good deeds" or simply "good".
Not to say that we have no palatine hill nor rome in a fantasy environement, and that's simply a word that has a generic meaning as well for a hystoric one.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Edit: As to rpg associations, I don't think 4e had alignment restrictions, and I know 5e does not. World of Warcraft paladins can explicitly be evil, and that's going to be the first association many have with traditional RPG classes.
No sure about 4e either, since I didn't play it.
As for 5e it is true that they opened the class to different alignments, but remember what they said
Quote: As guardians against the forces of wickedness,
paladins are rarely of any evil alignment. Most of them
walk the paths of charity and justice. Consider how your
alignment colors the way you pursue your holy quest
and the manner in which you conduct yourself before
gods and mortals. Your oath and alignment might be
in harmony, or your oath might represent standards of
behavior that you have not yet attained.
Which is something like
"Drows are known to be evil creatures, but we know a good one who fights against them. So there could be other good drows".
Possibilities have been given in order not to limit one class to a specific alignment pool.
But the focal point here is
"Paladins are guardians against the forces of wickedness, and are rarely of any evil alignment."
ps: I prefer not to consider a MMO to deal with alignments, also because the "light", if i recall correctly, is different from the lawful good stuff.
little edit:
Quote: The Light (also known as the Holy Light, Holy Light of Creation and light of Creation) is an endless, shimmering sea of energy situated outside the barriers of reality and one of the two most fundamental forces in the world of Warcraft along with the Void, which was born from the absence of the former. The two cannot exist without the other. The Light is not necessarily "good", it is a primal force with its morality characterized by how it is wielded. https://wow.gamepedia.com/Light
scary harpy wrote:
It's a shame the Kineticist cannot be renamed the Warlock. I wish Pathfinder had it's own Warlock class and this would work really well. :(
PF1e had the warlock as an archetype.
AnimatedPaper wrote: Paladin referring to just heroic knights is a relatively new use of the word. I mean, we're talking 12th century here, so "relatively new" seems more than a bit of a stretch.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
12th century "paladin" still referred to a specific group of heroic knights, more akin to "Knights of the Round" than general "Knight." I meant the usage of "Paladin" as referring to heroic knights in general is relatively new, but I can see that is unclear in my post. That usage is quite possibly is a DnD invention according to wikipedia. I don't think it is, but I took that class about 15 years ago and the details are a bit hazy, and the reader is packed away in a closet somewhere.
I think.
Might have been eaten by silverfish by now.
Edit: some edits for clarity
AnimatedPaper wrote: 12th century "paladin" still referred to a specific group of heroic knights, more akin to "Knights of the Round" than general "Knight." I meant the usage of "Paladin" as referring to heroic knights in general is relatively new, but I can see that is unclear in my post. That usage is quite possibly is a DnD invention according to wikipedia. I don't think it is, but I took that class about 15 years ago and the details are a bit hazy, and the reader is packed away in a closet somewhere.
I think.
Might have been eaten by silverfish by now.
Edit: some edits for clarity
I mean, Palladine is a character in The Faerie Queene, and it's not like Spenser was super subtle in his naming conventions.
That's quite possibly what I'm thinking of, though I could swear Galahad was called a paladin in some of the later stories when Arthurian stories were coming back into fashion. Might just be a translation thing; I didn't read them in the original French, so depending on when that particular translation was done...
Ug. The three weeks we spent on the Faire Queen just hit me all at once. Still, not as bad as Paradise Lost, where by the end of that midterm I was literally thinking in Iambic Pentameter for a couple hours.
Wizards as we know them are a relatively recent invention.
The oldest one that I know is Merlin, who is an agalmation of multiple different people. Which is part of why the Arthurian Legend is just weird, every couple of years people just add or change parts of it. So we are left with whats effectively just an archetype with some pre selected character names.
Heck he was more of a prophetic shapshifter at the begining, and then later converted to a Wizard/advisor later.
*****************
Even the idea of a Wizard itself is not that old. Even with the few legends that are "wizards", most stories are from the 20th century. Tolkien, 1e DnD, Earthsea, etc.
You mentioned Harry Potter, but that series is literally like 25 years old with multiple books and movies.
So again, of course the 5 year old Kineticist wont be as famous as an archetype that is 30+ years old.
Temperans wrote: Kineticist had Suffocate that lets you use a force choke with Aether, Air, Water, or Void elements.
Also all Kineticist began play with a basic kinesis ability.
PF1 Kineticist Elemental Focus wrote: She can select aether (telekinesis), air (aerokinesis), earth (geokinesis), fire (pyrokinesis), or water (hydrokinesis). She gains her selected element’s basic utility wild talent (basic telekinesis, basic aerokinesis, basic geokinesis, basic pyrokinesis, or basic hydrokinesis; see page 23) as a bonus wild talent. See Elements on page 14 for the specific abilities granted by each element. Each of those abilities are about manipulating existing matter. While Kinetic Blast represent the Kineticist pulling power from the planes, which is why it takes burn to use the more powerful Kinetic Blasts.
* P.S. Wood gets Basic Phytokinesis and Void is Basic Chaokinesis.
Fair enough on the Suffocate thing. Having never played or seen a Kineticist in play, such things wouldn't have ever probably came across either table I've played at.
The abilities really only further my point, though. If there's no fire in a tundra or no water in a desert, how can they use those abilities on-the-fly with no apparent source from which their abilities are supposed to function?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Paladins came from 12 knights that supported Charlmenge, their postion was considered above knight. Whole them being bastion of honour and good came only recently.
I feel like the diagetic genesis of the kineticist is that you discover that you are able to move whatever element around purely by force of will and that in exploring this you cultivate a connection to "fire" or "aether" or "water" etc. on a planar level so that you're able to draw it into existence even when it isn't already present.
But basic geokinesis doesn't do anything if you're in the middle of an ocean where there is no dirt or rocks, basic aerokinesis doesn't work underwater or in a vacuum, etc. A couple like basic hydrokinesis and basic pyrokinesis have an out in "your body already contains water, heat."
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Fair enough on the Suffocate thing. Having never played or seen a Kineticist in play, such things wouldn't have ever probably came across either table I've played at.
The abilities really only further my point, though. If there's no fire in a tundra or no water in a desert, how can they use those abilities on-the-fly with no apparent source from which their abilities are supposed to function?
Basic Waterkinesis: Create water as the spells, purify water as the spell, create currents in water (strong enough to move a water mill), dry creatures as prestidigitation.
Basic Pyrokinesis: Light, Spark, or Flare as the cantrips. Light using this does have heat.
Basic Aerokinesis: Create a breeze in one direction (does not work if there is no air). Can help vs scent.
Basic Geokinesis: Move rocks, loose earth, sand, clay, and other similar materials up to 15 ft.
Fire is effectively just heat and easy to find even in a tundra. Water is always in the atmosphere. In either case they are available either via your link with the elemental plane or because its available in the environment.
**********
* P.S. only ones that have a real limitation are: Phytokinesis (need plants), Aerokinesis (needs air), and Geokinesis (needs earth).
thenobledrake wrote: And that the only difference between "science fiction" an "fantasy" is an entirely artificial distinction that boils down to explanation. Fantasy is a huge space of possible stories; science fiction is a small corner within that space of possible stories constrained by adherence to an ill-defined set of delimiters as to what is plausible; and somewhere within that is the infinitesimal dot that is all fiction set in the world we actually live in.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
For what it may be worth, I still strongly favour Elementalist as the name for this class.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote: thenobledrake wrote: And that the only difference between "science fiction" an "fantasy" is an entirely artificial distinction that boils down to explanation. Fantasy is a huge space of possible stories; science fiction is a small corner within that space of possible stories constrained by adherence to an ill-defined set of delimiters as to what is plausible; and somewhere within that is the infinitesimal dot that is all fiction set in the world we actually live in. The line marking that "corner" is entirely artificial though.
Add “horror” into the mix to really confuse things.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As an author, this is why I wish the term Speculative Fiction was used more.
The English majors of the world will never allow that. We can only argue about the ghost in Hamlet for so long; we need fresh material for our doctoral thesis.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: Also metal is part of the Earth Element. Electricity is part of Air. Ice is part of water. Positive is part of Wood. Negative is part of Void.
Overall each element (except Fire and Aether) has two types.
Fire could have a Light kineticist broken out (if it doesn't already, I've lost track!), and Aether could perhaps be separated into sub-categories of Force (more creating 'force constructs' like a Green Lantern) and Momentum (haste, slow, stopping incoming attacks, flinging stuff around telekinetically, without actually creating 'telekinetic force fields'). There's a ton of potential, still.
Since JJ has already said there's no immediate plans for a 2E kineticist, I'm just here to say that "kinetic adept" as a dedication feat with subsequent access to powers through multi-class feats would bolt well onto a lot of classes, rather than it being it's own class. That'd leave space for elementalists to be sorcerers who augment their spellcasting with more on-demand control of their element, kinetic knights or avatar like monks who primarily fight but who also use elemental powers (though the last one might hew a little too close to the student of perfection).
Set wrote: Temperans wrote: Also metal is part of the Earth Element. Electricity is part of Air. Ice is part of water. Positive is part of Wood. Negative is part of Void.
Overall each element (except Fire and Aether) has two types.
Fire could have a Light kineticist broken out (if it doesn't already, I've lost track!), and Aether could perhaps be separated into sub-categories of Force (more creating 'force constructs' like a Green Lantern) and Momentum (haste, slow, stopping incoming attacks, flinging stuff around telekinetically, without actually creating 'telekinetic force fields'). There's a ton of potential, still. I didnt count Aether because a lot of its powers concern using force to stop attacks, cause attacks, or move things in general. There isnt really a lot of "momentum" stuff in it.
As for Fire. Yes it does have light I forgot. Things like Flare, anti-invisibility, etc.
But yes there is still a lot of potential for Kineticists.
*********************
Kinetic Knight is weird. The Archetype was made so that Kineticist who focus on Kinetic Blade talent dont have to pay burn every time. I think it works best as a class archetype or path for a Kineticist class than as a general archetype.
Kinetic Adept itself does not make for a Kineticist. A sorcerer might make a good elementalist. But it will never be a good Kineticist.
So there's some people who play pathfinder who only play with Paizo's Golarion. These people like that how the rules are tailored for this specific version of science fantasy setting.
There's other people who play pathfinder as a rules set, but do not like the Golarion setting and use a different one. These people wish the rules were more generic.
D&D base rules were always very generic setting agnostic. There's multiple popular D&D settings, so the setting material was kept to separate books. Paizo decided to go a different route with pathfinder, and they doubled down on it with their second edition. The rules are designed for this specific setting of theirs, not to be generic. I'm sure this was a very conscious marketing based decision to give their brand some unique separation.
So for those of us who like the rules, but prefer to use out own setting, it means work, lots of work, to fix the wrong things. I don't begrudge them for this, but I also have no problem with renaming things, removing things, and reworking things to remove their setting, and fit into mine.
Reziburno25 wrote: Paladins came from 12 knights that supported Charlmenge, their postion was considered above knight. Whole them being bastion of honour and good came only recently. Kind of.
While the concept of "being honorable and good" was something that was fabricated and exaggerated, it was also somewhat based on the old code of Chivalry that those very same knights had to adhere to.
So really, it's not so much that Paladins were just "made up," they were basically something older that was taken a step further, and were given a different name for that distinguishable detail.
cavernshark wrote: Since JJ has already said there's no immediate plans for a 2E kineticist, I'm just here to say that "kinetic adept" as a dedication feat with subsequent access to powers through multi-class feats would bolt well onto a lot of classes, rather than it being it's own class. That'd leave space for elementalists to be sorcerers who augment their spellcasting with more on-demand control of their element, kinetic knights or avatar like monks who primarily fight but who also use elemental powers (though the last one might hew a little too close to the student of perfection). I really, truly, can't believe I'm admitting this, but the elemental sorcerer multiclass probably has you covered on this front.
Lanathar wasn't totally wrong.
Edit: Specifically, the dedication feat will give you the basic cantrip you need to start with, and most elements are covered by the various bloodline feats. I'd suggest using Basic Blood Potency to pick up Reach Spell, and then just getting the bloodline focus spells.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
A sorcerer as a kineticist just doesn't work for me, since there are two essential characteristics for a Kineticist I feel:
- You essentially unlimited access to power (i.e. you never run out of spells)
- Accessing this power puts tremendous strain on your body.
Both of those things are more core to the fantasy from where I sit than "elemental blasts."
Yes PossibleCabbage.
Unlimited access to power and strain for going trying to get more is core to what a Kineticist is. Even before the the elemental theme.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Like the Kineticist is basically the answer to "what could a con-based class be?" as constitution is generally wholly passive attribute (it adds to no skills). The basic answer to this is not "you're really tough" but "your schtick requires you to be extremely tough to pull it off."
So it has to be something like "you channel external energy through your body in a manner that is potentially hazardous" and there has to be a diagetic reason for doing things this way (which is actively painful at times) instead of just getting magic by going to seminary/wizard school/etc.
If it were up to me I would organize the class around "your magic flows through your body, which can hurt you, but it never runs out as long as you can take it" and make the "elemental blaster" thing just one of the flavors. You could have alternate flavors in things like "this external energy is harnessed to do incredible feats with your body" or "shapechanging that isn't based on wild-shape."
The Dark Elementalist and Blighted Defiler archetypes were basically "external energy is harnessed". They literally would Kill creatures or suck the life out of the surrounding area to reduce burn.
Also Kineticists could channel curses via Arakineticist.
Leshykineticist were fun. I am a plant that controls plants, and when I die I make more plants that let me revive.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
AnimatedPaper wrote: Add “horror” into the mix to really confuse things. Not really, to my mind. Science-fiction and fantasy, like war stories and Westerns are genre distinctions based on the furniture the story plays with; horror, like romance, is a genre distinction based on emotional tone. They're independent axes of variation.
thenobledrake wrote: the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Fantasy is a huge space of possible stories; science fiction is a small corner within that space of possible stories constrained by adherence to an ill-defined set of delimiters as to what is plausible; and somewhere within that is the infinitesimal dot that is all fiction set in the world we actually live in.
The line marking that "corner" is entirely artificial though. There are at least three borders there, fwiw. (Aristotle was wrong; humankind isn't the rational animal, it's the animal that makes taxonomies.)
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote: There are at least three borders there, fwiw. (Aristotle was wrong; humankind isn't the rational animal, it's the animal that makes taxonomies.) ...I fail to see what relevance this has to my claim that the separation of 'fantasy' and 'science fiction' is an artificial one.
thenobledrake wrote: the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote: There are at least three borders there, fwiw. (Aristotle was wrong; humankind isn't the rational animal, it's the animal that makes taxonomies.) ...I fail to see what relevance this has to my claim that the separation of 'fantasy' and 'science fiction' is an artificial one. Sorry for insufficient clarity there, then. My position is that fantasy and SF are mostly distinct genres, readily (and also usefully) definable apart from certain specific borderlands. You referred to "the line marking that corner" above, and I am arguing that there is more than one line delineating that space.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote: My position is that fantasy and SF are mostly distinct genres, readily (and also usefully) definable apart from certain specific borderlands. See, I don't think the definitions are useful nor readily agreed on*. You can try, I have (I was super not kidding when I said literature majors argue about this), but in my studies it mostly breaks down to how something is marketed and the "feel" of the particular story, which of course is different form person to person. And that's before getting into the weeds and trying to pin down something like "Star Wars", which technically qualifies as Science Fiction, Fantasy, Romance, and certain uses of Western all at once.
*Romance is an exception. You can play within the lines, but Romance has a small number of absolute hard rules you cannot break or it ceases to be a Romance work. But those rules derive from marketing; Romance writers will literally kick you out of the club (and there are, in fact, clubs) if you dilute their brand by failing to deliver on certain points, namely "Happily Ever After" or "Happy for Now".
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote: Sorry for insufficient clarity there, then. My position is that fantasy and SF are mostly distinct genres, readily (and also usefully) definable apart from certain specific borderlands. You referred to "the line marking that corner" above, and I am arguing that there is more than one line delineating that space. A demonstrative set of examples:
I'm going to summarize a trio of stories and you can tell me whether each is a fantasy story or a science fiction story. If they are distinctly different genres, rather than be separated by an imaginary line, you should have no difficulty.
Story A) A small team of human men and women hunt creatures that hide among humankind and must drink human blood to survive.
Story B) The crew of a ship travel across multiple worlds finding odd jobs to work so they can continue their journey.
Story C) A hermit, alone in an ancient house full of collected academic studies dating back centuries, begins to develop the ability to make alterations to time and space.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As Kineticists draw their powers from the different planes perhaps more thematic names could be something like
- plane-shaper
- conduit
- vessel
- creationist
- cultivator
It’s a shame we probably won’t be getting kineticists any time soon. I really liked the design space they occupied. I loved the 30ft range and string elemental themes, you could even make elemental warriors or archers by multi-classing; which is something that is near impossible without them.
thenobledrake wrote:
I'm going to summarize a trio of stories and you can tell me whether each is a fantasy story or a science fiction story. If they are distinctly different genres, rather than be separated by an imaginary line, you should have no difficulty.
I don't think this is a particularly meaningful test, as it would be perfectly possible to come up with a one-line summary of The Count of Monte Cristo, say, that would accurately convey plot and tone but equally well apply to both SF versions of that basic story arc like The Stars My Destination and fantasy ones like the Dragon Weather trilogy.
Quote:
Story A) A small team of human men and women hunt creatures that hide among humankind and must drink human blood to survive.
"must drink human blood to survive" == fantasy, given the lack of biological basis for obtaining anything from human blood that is not obtainable other ways.
Quote:
Story B) The crew of a ship travel across multiple worlds finding odd jobs to work so they can continue their journey.
Define "ship" and "worlds" in this context, and you will define the genre of the story.
Quote:
Story C) A hermit, alone in an ancient house full of collected academic studies dating back centuries, begins to develop the ability to make alterations to time and space.
Define how the ability works and you wll have a clear genre distinction. As I said above, the difference between SF and fantasy is what furniture you use.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As expected, you have highlighted the imaginary line.
Because I've seen sci-fi vampires, Star Trek is as fantasy as Spelljammer is sci-fi and there's no meaningful difference between them, and whether the author says "because faeries" or "because it's manipulating theoretical subatomic particles" the story of our hermit isn't any different - still has the same events, same story beats, same tone, message and all that actually substantive stuff.
Because, as Clark said; Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And the reverse is true too, any sufficient explained magic is indistinguishable from technology (and thus science).
thenobledrake wrote: Because, as Clark said; Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And the reverse is true too, any sufficient explained magic is indistinguishable from technology (and thus science). I prefer the other corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. :-)
_
glass.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
glass wrote: thenobledrake wrote: Because, as Clark said; Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And the reverse is true too, any sufficient explained magic is indistinguishable from technology (and thus science). I prefer the other corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. :-)
_
glass. Norm: Look at this wonderful magic! It allows me to move much heavier loads with ease! Marvel as I move two armloads of firewood at once!
Guy: ...that's just a wheelbarrow, Norm.
thenobledrake wrote:
Because I've seen sci-fi vampires, Star Trek is as fantasy as Spelljammer is sci-fi and there's no meaningful difference between them,
There's no meaningful difference between Star Trek and Spelljammer because they're both fantasy.
Quote:
and whether the author says "because faeries" or "because it's manipulating theoretical subatomic particles" the story of our hermit isn't any different - still has the same events, same story beats, same tone, message and all that actually substantive stuff.
Your notion of what counts as substantive is different from mine, then. Faeries (and, indeed, random made-up subatomic particles as Star Trek is prone to) fall on one side of a quite clear line, where actual, (or plausibly believed at the time of writing to be actual), subatomic particles, fall on the other; the distinction as to whether this is something that could happen is vital here.
Quote:
Because, as Clark said; Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
As with the Turing test, this is one of those statements that looks like it's about the tech but is actually about the observer. An ATM does not become a sentient being because a non-technically-minded person makes a point of thanking it each time it gives them cash, to quote an example I've seen in person.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote: Your notion of what counts as substantive is different from mine, then. Thenobledrake's entire point that everyone draws the line differently, rendering sharp definitions meaningless because no two people have the same definitions.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote: thenobledrake wrote:
Because, as Clark said; Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
As with the Turing test, this is one of those statements that looks like it's about the tech but is actually about the observer. An ATM does not become a sentient being because a non-technically-minded person makes a point of thanking it each time it gives them cash, to quote an example I've seen in person. This is useful example, because the discussion is about viewpoints. To the ritual ATM thanker, the machine might well be magical (or they're animists), while to you it is merely technology.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thank you AnimatedPaper, I was about to highlight exactly that piece of text for exactly that reason.
...and I was also going to share an anecdote about how absolutely furious a friend of mine's mother, who is "a huge fan of sci-fi, but not at all into fantasy," got when I presented the idea that Star Trek is a fantasy story. And she used a lot of citations like doing an internet search and seeing what genre is listed for the show to try and prove me wrong... for instance, did you know if you google "start trek genre" it'll pop back a result that lists science fiction, adventure fiction, action/adventure, drama, action fiction, adventure, and space western?
Yet here I'm being told the same thing I was saying to her then: Star Trek is fantasy (though my reason for saying it is because I was highlighting to her then the same thing I'm highlighting now - that there is no real difference between sci-fi and fantasy).
|
