| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Illodrin02-08-07, 02:34 PM | i resently read a post on this board where a member said "In Demihuman Deities, it specifically stated, lore-wise, why Corellon Larethian refused to allow Paladins to serve him." I have tried to find the part of the text that would imply this but failed. Can someone please give me a page or somthing. thanks |
| Mad Mage02-08-07, 02:57 PM | Just checked pages 100-103 in Demihuman Deities, which is where Corellon's entry is; no such claim is made. |
| Illodrin02-08-07, 03:05 PM | Just checked pages 100-103 in Demihuman Deities, which is where Corellon's entry is; no such claim is made. That is the same conclusion that i made after looking through the Corellon section.... strange:confused: |
| GothicDan02-08-07, 04:02 PM | Said member was me. :) I was pretty sure (80%) that it stated as such in his entry; maybe it was another book. If no evidence comes up, then I'm fully willing to admit I was utterly wrong on that statement. |
| Old Sage02-08-07, 07:36 PM | Just checked pages 100-103 in Demihuman Deities, which is where Corellon's entry is; no such claim is made.Corellon's entry is located on pgs. 121-126. |
| Mad Mage02-08-07, 07:54 PM | Corellon's entry is located on pgs. 121-126. No, that's Rillifane Rallathil. |
| Fabius Maximus02-09-07, 08:42 AM | No, that's Rillifane Rallathil. Then you have a different book. Corellon's entry indeed is on pages 121-126. And while there are no restrictions on paladins mentioned, the book does not include them in Corellon's entry either. |
| Old Sage02-09-07, 09:00 AM | No, that's Rillifane Rallathil.No. Rillifane's entry starts on pg. 147. My printed copy of Demihuman Deities has the Corellon entry starting on pg. 121... as does the PDF copy I have from paizo.com. And only Crusaders/Knights are mentioned in Corellon's entry. |
| Mad Mage02-09-07, 03:11 PM | No. Rillifane's entry starts on pg. 147. My printed copy of Demihuman Deities has the Corellon entry starting on pg. 121... as does the PDF copy I have from paizo.com. And only Crusaders/Knights are mentioned in Corellon's entry. My copy of DHD has Correllon on pages 101-103 and Rillifane on pages 120-123, with a picture of some of the Seldarine on pg 121. Trust me, I'm not joking/crazy/etc. Yes, I did the see the Crusader/Kingts reference, BUT it didn't explicitly say that Corellon does not have paladins, or an official order of them at least. |
| ElberethSilverleaf02-11-07, 12:56 AM | One would assume that a paladin has to be Lawful Good, otherwise she's not a paladin. If you follow canon you can't have a CG, CN or NG paladin. One of these 3 alignments is required to be a cleric of Corellon. (the 1 step rule) Elvish paladins can exist, but their primary diety is going to be a LG or perhaps NG god. I can't imagine a paladin following a LN god considering she would have to tolerate the evil members of the flock. None of the elvish gods are lawful. Period. A paladins strict adherance to dogma, rules, codes, and rigid structure is the antithesis of the elven way of life. Period. Why are some people dead set on being that 1 in a billion exception to the rules? |
| Illodrin02-11-07, 04:54 AM | One would assume that a paladin has to be Lawful Good, otherwise she's not a paladin. If you follow canon you can't have a CG, CN or NG paladin. One of these 3 alignments is required to be a cleric of Corellon. (the 1 step rule) Elvish paladins can exist, but their primary diety is going to be a LG or perhaps NG god. I can't imagine a paladin following a LN god considering she would have to tolerate the evil members of the flock. None of the elvish gods are lawful. Period. A paladins strict adherance to dogma, rules, codes, and rigid structure is the antithesis of the elven way of life. Period. Why are some people dead set on being that 1 in a billion exception to the rules? well, elven paladins can exist. there is a class for it called paladin of freedome from UA. next to that i could point to the elven paladin substitution level from Races of the wild. And i dont se why the heroes in the adventure could not be thouse one in a billion? |
| Fabius Maximus02-11-07, 08:33 AM | One would assume that a paladin has to be Lawful Good, otherwise she's not a paladin. If you follow canon you can't have a CG, CN or NG paladin. One of these 3 alignments is required to be a cleric of Corellon. (the 1 step rule) Elvish paladins can exist, but their primary diety is going to be a LG or perhaps NG god. I can't imagine a paladin following a LN god considering she would have to tolerate the evil members of the flock. None of the elvish gods are lawful. Period. A paladins strict adherance to dogma, rules, codes, and rigid structure is the antithesis of the elven way of life. Period. Why are some people dead set on being that 1 in a billion exception to the rules? *Sigh* There was no One-Step-Rule in 1st and 2nd edition. Dan said that he somewhere saw it written that Corellon mustn't have paladins in old material. We are searching for it. |
| Jon-Rigel02-14-07, 12:15 AM | I can't imagine a paladin following a LN god considering she would have to tolerate the evil members of the flock. That seems a pretty intuitive assumption. But then there is Helm, who is Lawful Neutral, has Lawful Evil clerics among his clergy, and Paladins among his worshipers. I often think the Helmite conventions could be more interesting (read: Chaotic) than the stringent dullness of the individual members might suggest. |
| see02-14-07, 04:21 AM | Weird. Corellon is on pages 100-103 in my copy. |
| Stigger02-14-07, 04:37 AM | Mine is on 100-103 as well. No printing history mentioned in it, so I'm presuming it's an original printing... truly odd. |
| Aegis_Chiron02-23-07, 02:59 PM | I think that what page the listing is on is a very minor note to the topic (though it's on 103-106 in my copy). The true issue is whay were/are paladins not allowed in Corellon's clergy. I think it has to do with a conflict between the Pally's strict code of honor and "Lawful" alignment demands versus the natural elven chaotic tendencies (ever notice how none of the Seldarine are lawful?). "the Creator of the Elves embodies the highest ideals of elvenkind..." and by allowing paladins he would be turning his back on some of those ideals. Just my thoughts on the subject. Accept or ignore of you like though I to do recall some reasong for the lack of pallys |
| Stigger02-23-07, 03:19 PM | Dunno, it could be kinda not-minor if we're looking at what are presumably the same books and seeing different things... |
| Alediran02-23-07, 04:38 PM | For starters, Elves couldn't be paladins in second edition. |
| Stigger02-23-07, 06:29 PM | 2e was rife with humanocentric hogwash though... made absolutely no sense a lot of the time, to me anyway. |
| GothicDan02-24-07, 09:37 AM | Humanocentric? Everything should be everything-centric, as far as I'm concerned. I really think that the breaking down of clear class distinctions for various cultures (races) has perpetuated the "humans in funny suits" problem. |
| Stigger02-24-07, 04:51 PM | Interesting... have essentially the exact opposite perception of the issue, since it lets you figure out just how each race would approach an individual class and really make them unique. |
| Jax_Nightstalker02-26-07, 02:37 AM | DemiHumans could not be Paladins in 1e or 2e. With the new rule system in effect now any race can almost be any class they choose to be. I guess the question would be would Corellon have paladins as a part of his church. Page 25 of the Campaign Setting states that the Patron Deity of a Paladin must be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, or Neutral Good. But there seems to be an exception to the rule. This is because Sune, the goddess of beauty, has Paladins apart of her church and we all know she is Chaotic Good. So with that said if Sune can have Paladins why can't Corellon. Truely if you are playing a game it's going to be up to the DM. To me it seems this 3e edition gives you more freedom to think outside the box because it opens up just about all classes to all the races, and a character no matter what race can raise in levels up to 20 and sometimes beyond to become epic. |
| Stigger02-26-07, 02:45 AM | Could hardly agree more Jax. |
| Lord_Lucien_Karsus_Necron03-01-07, 12:52 AM | Yes I agree. I was very pleased to see Orc Paladins in 3rd edition lore. |
| Green Elven Vampire03-01-07, 01:43 AM | Goodness, it's simple. Paladins have to be Lawful and ALL elven deities of the Seldarine are Chaotic. |
| MarkusTay6303-01-07, 02:09 AM | Mine is on 100-103 as well. No printing history mentioned in it, so I'm presuming it's an original printing... truly odd.Both of my copies as well (I accidently purchased two), I wonder what we with less pages are missing? :confused: As far as the Corellon/Paladin thing goes, I couldn't find any references AGAINST it in MM or 1e DD either. 2e LL didn't cover the non-human deities, and they aren't mentioned at all in either the CBoE or tEoE sources (strange). I can't think of anywhere else to look, and I don't own faiths and Pantheons. Although canon doesn't seem to allow them, I can't see why a nice DM couldn't allow one anyway. It seems to fit his role as protector of the Elven people. Funny thing I found while digging - Corellon is described as being "both male and female" in the 1e source, and it also goes on to say that the Elves were formed from his blood during his battle with Lolth. How times have changed. :D |
| herceg03-01-07, 02:16 AM | I don't know... In this regard, I liked the "limits" of 2e compared to 3e's freedom. Because now there is no need for a player to ask the DM if (s)he can play a unique character (dwarf wizard, elven paladin for example) - the system simply permits it. In 2e it was also possible (with permission) to play such "unique" characters if someone insisted, but they just remained that way. Unique. Not just "unusual" or "atypical" but "unique". If you have mature players who know that racial stereotypes are there to give you a hunch as how those races "should" behave (or how they should be portrayed), it's ok. I always told my players that "If you want to play an absolutely atypical member of a race, think about WHY do you want to play it in the first place (instead of choosing a more fitting race/class combination)? If the answer is in any way connected to numbers, OR you don't have a VERY good story for that, you shouldn't playing one." EDIT: 1) 1e and 2e sourcebooks did not needed(sp?) to specify that you couldn't be the paladin of Corellon, because there were no elven paladins back then 2) I for one always thought that bladesingers are the "protectors" of the elven way of life. |
| Green Elven Vampire03-01-07, 02:19 AM | If you want to be a Paladin of the Seldarine then just take the PrC Divine Champion! It's pretty much as close as you'll get, or possibly even the Champion of Corellon Larethian in Races of the Wild. |
| Stigger03-01-07, 07:32 AM | Sune... if there's one exception, it opens the doors up to others... all depends on the DM. |
| herceg03-01-07, 08:13 AM | After how they portrayed her in the Avatar Tri(penta)logy, I'm not sure she deserves the "priviledge" to have paladins. Of course, that is _her_ choice, not others (if she accepts them or not), as in the case of any individual deity. To put it another way, alignment limitation is not a "rule" but a "fact" - most deity _usually_ accepts only clergy (clerics, paladins, etc.) with relatively similar alignment. It is within the power of a deity to grant special status to certain individuals, if it wants to. In Corellon's case, this means (s)he prefers NOT to have paladins. But exceptions could exist. |
| Stigger03-01-07, 09:20 AM | And yet she does indeed have paladins... which would probably imply that she was either misrepresented in that trilogy, or it's simply one aspect of her behaviour and hardly the sum total of her personality. Regardless of alignment, if a person wishes to serve and venerate a deity, why would they be turned away if they were sincere in their hearts about it? Alignment limitations provide a general overview of the sorts who are likely to venerate a given deity, and who would probably serve best as their clerics, but keep in mind that Sune had a number of LG clerics among her clergy, at least as far as 2e was concerned, which nothing in 3e has directly contested or changed that I'm aware of. |
| herceg03-01-07, 09:24 AM | About Sune: you're probably right. In the 3e she's anything but what she was in the "Avatar-cycle". About alignment: You look at it from the opposite direction. In my oppinion, its really the gods' choice - not the mortals' - that matters. But you are right, both do matter. |
| Stigger03-01-07, 09:31 AM | Chicken and the egg really, if we go by Power of Faerun, then mortals opinions and views matter, but so do godly opinions and views. Sharess is another good example of it, without the alignment component. Compare the description of the average cleric of hers with the Celebrant of Sharess PrC in PGtF, and it presents two very different types of people within the same faith, often at odds with each other, and yet both serving the same deity. There's a lot of contrast and occassional contradiction in many of the faiths out there, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in my view. |
| herceg03-01-07, 09:37 AM | It's almost as if deities recently became much less choosy concerning worshippers/priests... hm, how could that be... :) |
| Stigger03-01-07, 09:40 AM | Is a bit disconcerting in some respects, but good in others. Guess it largely depends on how it's treated by the DM, so long as we don't start seeing evangelist types knocking door to door asking if we've heard the word of whoever on the streets of Waterdeep... |
| MarkusTay6303-01-07, 10:02 AM | I've been trying to come up with a plausible mechanic for how gods and worship work for years, and nothing seems to fit perfectly. I even get into arguments here and at CK because everyone has completely different ideas about how it all works. Doesn't everyone know that I am right? :P Anyway, I think the gods are just reflections of our own worship. In another thread we are discussing how Chauntea, Maztica, the Earthmother, Jannath... are all one and the same, even though she is looked at differently by each group, and in some case the portfolios don't even match. Thats why I think that all gods are just 'concepts' mortals dream up and give life to, but thats just my take. No-one is right and no-one is wrong - the god is however you perceive him/her to be. |
| herceg03-01-07, 10:16 AM | "On the sixth day, Man created god(s)" ;) |
| Stigger03-01-07, 04:11 PM | Why worry about the mechanics of it. They gods are there, they're real, they grant spells, and that's about all us poor mortals really need to know. Unless someone is playing a hardcore theological philosopher of a cleric, it's not really that important. ;) |
| BrianCritchley03-01-07, 11:34 PM | I don't know... In this regard, I liked the "limits" of 2e compared to 3e's freedom. Because now there is no need for a player to ask the DM if (s)he can play a unique character (dwarf wizard, elven paladin for example) - the system simply permits it. In 2e it was also possible (with permission) to play such "unique" characters if someone insisted, but they just remained that way. Unique. Not just "unusual" or "atypical" but "unique". If you have mature players who know that racial stereotypes are there to give you a hunch as how those races "should" behave (or how they should be portrayed), it's ok. I always told my players that "If you want to play an absolutely atypical member of a race, think about WHY do you want to play it in the first place (instead of choosing a more fitting race/class combination)? If the answer is in any way connected to numbers, OR you don't have a VERY good story for that, you shouldn't playing one." EDIT: 1) 1e and 2e sourcebooks did not needed(sp?) to specify that you couldn't be the paladin of Corellon, because there were no elven paladins back then 2) I for one always thought that bladesingers are the "protectors" of the elven way of life. that's a terriable arguement really it is. when you boil it down to everything what your saying is 2E was better because it forced racial sterotypes and dms where certinly able to break this rule without the game suddenly and totally breaking but it ment the PCs char was "special" |
| herceg03-02-07, 01:53 AM | No, it is not :) You're looking at it from a wrong angle. All I meant was: aside from "fluff", other races are really just smaller/tougher/longer living/stronger/faster/wiser humans. Humans with special abilities/attributes etc. But if you want to play an elf (faster, more fragile, longer lived and connection to magic, with its own style and outlook) you shouldn't play it like a "human" (or anything else), you should play it like the elf it is. That's what I meant. Don't take away the "feeling" of a race, just to be "special". If you want to do just that, in reality you don't want to play THAT race. All you want are the stats. And IMHO, that's just baad :) |
| Stigger03-02-07, 04:19 AM | But if they were all those things, wouldn't they be more prone to diversity than the humans were? Seemed to me that the only real advantage humanity had in 2e was the ability to constantly breed, kinda like orcs without the infravision... never made any sense to me that humans dominated the world with rules like that. We had unlimited advancement and could technically hit level 50 in 100 years, while an elf living 1000 years couldn't even hit level 20 in a class, just for the sake of 'fairness'... right... made absolutely no sense whatsoever. |
| GothicDan03-02-07, 11:19 PM | that's a terriable arguement really it is. when you boil it down to everything what your saying is 2E was better because it forced racial sterotypes and dms where certinly able to break this rule without the game suddenly and totally breaking but it ment the PCs char was "special" Oddly enough, you ended up summing up my own feelings about the old system, yet applied the adjective 'terrible' to the stance, whereas I apply the term 'logical.' ;) The thing is, the lore was written with the class restrictions already in mind. So to remove those class restrictions and then try to cite the fact that Dwarves have so few Wizards among their ranks because of their culture is sort of retroactive and sneaky. That's not something I like to do, and 3E does it a lot. I always considered the limitations in 2E to be supernatural/magical/natural limitations, just like humans are unable to run as fast as a cheetah, or sense E&M fields like fish and birds. As to the level limits, there were optional rules provided right in the DMG for surpassing them, and we saw how they differed in one setting to the next (the original Elven High Mage kit was originally made specifically for surpassing this limit for Elven wizards, which showed how the Elves of Faerun differed in capability and mindset from their core cousins). As to being prone to diversity... Cultures in which it's common and proper to obey and respect your elders (Dwarves and Elves, particularly Gold Dwarves and Gold Elves), often with great sincerity, and in which those Elders can guide your society directly for 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. centuries at a time (and even longer via magic), aren't likely to be changing too swiftly. The Elves' Reverie, especially, means that in general the younger generations are much less likely to 'rebel,' because they've often already experienced more in the womb than a 15 year old human has. And that's what (illogical) rebellion is often about: one not trusting someone's view because one hasn't personally experienced the sort of things that led to that view. In the case of the Elves... Well, sure, for the first century and a half or two, they are a little more ADHD and rowdy, but they settle down fairly quickly. In Cormanthyr, it also states that this natural, nigh-inevitable maturation (from living among the Elven communal soul and from seeing so many things in life come to pass) is one of the things that make Elves so rarely evil, in the long run. (No citing specific examples which don't stand up, numerically, please. ;) ) Alignment is a facet of culture; so this helps suggest my reasoning is correct, at least as far as the Tel'Quessir go. |
| Stigger03-03-07, 12:12 AM | Dunno about correct so much as logical. Were it correct, it would still be the prevailing thought... *ducks and runs* |
| GothicDan03-03-07, 12:15 AM | Just because no one here 'thinks' that the Hermitian conjugate of a quantum observable is the same as the Hermitian operator doesn't mean it's incorrect, does it? |
| Stigger03-03-07, 12:24 AM | Not having any idea about the details of what sounds like quantum physics to me, I'm not about to answer that, as presumably, we are speaking of a scientific principle that can eventually be proven or disproven at some later date, rather than something as subjective as logic applied or misapplied to a matter that cannot be definitively answered given that it can and has arbitrarily changed due to facts being changed between editions. |
| Stigger03-04-07, 10:46 AM | As I was poking through Champions of Valor last night... it came to my attention that the Knights of the Shadowy Cloak, a paladin order of gnomes in service to Baravar Cloakshadow exists... a deity with a portfolio of illusions, deception, traps, and wards. If a deity like that will sponsor paladins, I don't see a problem with Correllon doing it. :D |
| GothicDan03-04-07, 09:44 PM | There is no such thing as true proof in science. Only plausibility - logical discussions. |
| Stigger03-05-07, 08:49 AM | True irrefutable proof? No, but a lot more in the way of objective observable evidence than you're ever going to get in a discussion over what effectively translates into subjective opinion. ;) |
| herceg03-05-07, 10:26 AM | As I was poking through Champions of Valor last night... it came to my attention that the Knights of the Shadowy Cloak, a paladin order of gnomes in service to Baravar Cloakshadow exists... a deity with a portfolio of illusions, deception, traps, and wards. If a deity like that will sponsor paladins, I don't see a problem with Correllon doing it. I don't know what to think. I am not surprised that most gods would love to have paladins. They are powerful, compelling champions of the church. But I am intrigued by the mindset that can make you the paladin of certain gods. Maybe the paladin class is no longer the iron-clad knight of medieval fantasy, but instead the champion and embodiment of the will and lifestyle of a race? I mean, gnomes - because of their perceived physical "weakness" - have a high regard for illusions and deception, "combat" (actually, problem solving) modes that can triumph over a much stronger/bigger opponent. Maybe that's why that Baravar fellow can have paladins of his faith. And guys, please, stay on topic :) |
| Stigger03-05-07, 11:41 AM | I don't think I've ever really considered paladins as stoic and unbending armored knights that fantasy has often relegated them to... to me they are holy warriors who embody their chosen religion and swear to be guardians and defenders of said religion, sacrificing certain things for the betterment of their people, living by the codes of their religion, and often dying by those same codes. Upholding those codes even in the face of duress and extreme hardships would I think justify the lawfulness of the class, while the good thing is rather self-explanatory to me... I do not think an evil type could muster the selflessness that the class implies. Obviously there will always be exceptions, but those tend to make the rule, as they say. That's pretty much my perspective on paladins, so from that definition, I don't really see a conflict with most faiths sponsoring an order of them if there is a need or want for it. If you can come up with a plausible and rational explanation as to why a church would need or want such an order, I say do it. You could pretty easily imagine a Lliiran paladin order out there crusading to liberate people oppressed by tyranny who focus and concentrate of her freedom and liberty aspects... certainly holy liberators would be a part of such an order, potentially even the bulk of it, but the concepts of freedom and liberty as ideals could certainly appeal to a paladin as much as to anyone else, perhaps even more so as they tried to temper some of the chaotic types wilder excesses. What it comes down to though is that a paladin is willing to make sacrifices and take on burdens for the greater good, swears an oath to their god to that effect, and then sticks to that oath for good or ill. I fail to see why an elf, who certainly are capable of those sorts of things, as evidenced by things like Evereskan Tomb Guardians, could not be a paladin. Perhaps they would not call themselves paladins (preferring an elven term for it of course), or view the class the same way that other races would (breaking away from 'traditional' views of how a paladin should fight), but I still think they're more than capable of doing it. As to Corellon's being willing to 'accept' them, I could see that too if someone were sincere in their hearts of their wish to do so. Concentrating on his aspects of war, warriors, or the elven race (in particular this one), his portfolio certainly supports a few ideals that a prospective paladin could get behind. |
| GothicDan03-05-07, 03:43 PM | Paladins are heavily rooted in Judeo Christian dogma and theme; Elves do not worship Jesus or the Christian God. To a LG Sun Elf, things like human concepts of honor and chivalry could matter less. What matters is that which protects the Elven society and its ways of life. That's why Tel'Quessir Paladins make no sense. Elves care more about their cultures and traditions thank abstract moral ideas like Law and Good, even if they happen to be Lawful and Good. |
| Stigger03-05-07, 03:58 PM | Yeah, well, the entire concept of Chivalry is horridly misunderstood by modern culture... and hardly a code that lives up to its perceptions. I could see a blackguard promoting it more than a paladin would... especially considering it's actual historical practices. As to honor... well, if we're talking about judeo-christian dogmatic definitions of honor, I can't see a paladin living by that either. My point is that paladin would have different meanings and roles depending on what culture was defining them, and would not simply default to a human definition of them. Each race has a pretty different view of what a wizard, ranger, or cleric would and should be like, I can't see why a paladin would be any different, beyond a clinging to the rigid definitions established in 2e, which have largely been tossed out the window since 3e came into existance. |
| GothicDan03-05-07, 08:56 PM | Because then they would be Crusaders - not Paladins. The Bladesinger pretty much epitomizes what an Elven "Paladin" would be. |
| Stigger03-06-07, 09:53 AM | I'd disagree with that simply for spiritual reasons... so basically if you're a LG elf who wants to serve their people with a religious bent to him, you're pretty much SOL and told to "bugger off, we don't want any of you lawful types around here... go play with some squirrels" then? |
| Fabius Maximus03-06-07, 12:06 PM | I'd disagree with that simply for spiritual reasons... so basically if you're a LG elf who wants to serve their people with a religious bent to him, you're pretty much SOL and told to "bugger off, we don't want any of you lawful types around here... go play with some squirrels" then? There's always the Divine Disciple. |
| Stigger03-06-07, 03:04 PM | Not gonna happen if you're looking at it from the one-step rule and the absolute interpretation of that rule, ie, gotta be a cleric, druid or ranger, and that's not going to work if you're LG. Maybe Divine Champion, but that's about it... and even then I have a feeling there'd be a lot of arguement over it. |
| GothicDan03-06-07, 04:24 PM | I'd disagree with that simply for spiritual reasons... so basically if you're a LG elf who wants to serve their people with a religious bent to him, you're pretty much SOL and told to "bugger off, we don't want any of you lawful types around here... go play with some squirrels" then? You're told, "Be a Cleric or a Bladesinger." What's wrong with that? They have a deity SPECIFICALLY for Bladesingers, you know, and Corellon is the god of Sorcery and Swordplay... You really don't seem to understand Tel'Quessir culture. To an Elf, the path of the Bladesinger IS already holy. They don't need some 'divine spells' arbtrarily designated by real world designers to be that. |
| Fabius Maximus03-06-07, 05:09 PM | Not gonna happen if you're looking at it from the one-step rule and the absolute interpretation of that rule, ie, gotta be a cleric, druid or ranger, and that's not going to work if you're LG. Maybe Divine Champion, but that's about it... and even then I have a feeling there'd be a lot of arguement over it. Sorry, I meant Divine Champion. |
| Stigger03-06-07, 06:38 PM | Sure I understand it... but I also understand that there are a lot of elves out there that live in human society and are influenced by it... for a culture that prizes individuality as much as elven culture seems to, and to borrow a Neverwintan phrase 'following their own weird', to have them locked into particular roles and barred from others seems ludicrous as a concept to me. |
| GothicDan03-06-07, 10:26 PM | And we have examples of Elves worshipping HUMAN deities and being Paladins... We're not talking about Elves who were raised in human societies. Those Elves wouldn't know of the Seldarine. |
| theartistformerlyknownas03-07-07, 12:31 AM | I can fathom elven paladins, but not of elven deities. I don't buy into the whole "paladin of freedom/tyranny/slaughter" bupkus. A paladin is making a choice to serve a higher power, and sacrificing his individuality to do so. This is not a choice many elves would be willing to make. It is as ludicrous to see a LG elf paladin of Corellon as it is to see a Divine Trickster of Helm (back me up on this one, GEV). They are two incompatible extremes. If such an elf was born (hypothetically) and raised by their brethren, and still maintained their lawful disposition, they would likely be equally frustrated by the frivolous ways of the Tel'Quessir as any LG dwarf priest would be. This outlook would likely find them in the pitying eyes of other elves who "know better" and would most inevitably lead said elf into isolation, and ultimately, exile. The next logical step would be to find people (and powers) that shared their sense of devotion and chivalry. Hence elven paladins. Think about it, if your power didn't agree with you, would you continue to serve such deity? |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-07-07, 03:55 AM | And we have examples of Elves worshipping HUMAN deities and being Paladins... We're not talking about Elves who were raised in human societies. Those Elves wouldn't know of the Seldarine. I think they would know of the Seldarine but if they're LG they won't feel much of a spiritual affinity with them. If they feel a spiritual LG calling, they'll just choose a LG diety that fits their world view. An elf is still an individual with free will and may identify more as a Waterdhavian or Tethyrian citizen than just as an elf and may adopt a LG god as a patron. An elf raised in the "greater world" may see the elven society of Evermeet as too ethnocentric, xenophobic or even racist. |
| Stigger03-07-07, 06:28 AM | Far too limited a view of elves for my liking... but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree really, since a lot of it depends on how things are interpreted as far as I can tell. |
| Stigger03-07-07, 07:44 AM | Interestingly, as I was browsing through Races of Faerun, I ran across this passage on page 41, under Sun Elf Characters: Sun elves are also the foremost clerics and paladins among the elven races. Strangely, if taken in context with the rest of the entry on them, and their widely acknowledged devotion to the Seldarine and belief in the supremacy of Elven culture in general, it would follow that those paladins are indeed in service to the Seldarine, since no mention is made of those same paladins going outside of the Seldarine in their devotion. Food for thought perhaps. |
| Elven Avenger03-07-07, 08:04 AM | Bladesingers are the Paladins of elven society, so perhaps, and I already agree with my statement, the word "paladins" in the book description is only talking about elves taking a role to be like a Paladin, and not the "Paladin Class". |
| Stigger03-07-07, 08:11 AM | So inotherwords, despite the specific use of the word paladin, you don't like the idea that it should be RAW and choose to interpret it in a way that corresponds more closely to your own opinions... which is of course fair enough, but it doesn't take away the fact that it does indeed say paladin and can be interpreted in a literal sense... along with the natural extension of the sentence into there indeed being an exception to the one step rule for paladins of Corellon and possibly other members of the Seldarine. Rules wise, both are perfectly logical extrapolations depending on how you interpret things... which ultimately is my point. |
| Elven Avenger03-07-07, 11:52 AM | Well, to add more to my opinion, there is the fact that, there is no source saying that Corellon is a Chaotic Deity like Sune is, that allows Paladins among his ranks. |
| Stigger03-07-07, 03:02 PM | But since bladesingers are a prestige class as opposed to a base class like paladins, and that bladesingers are indeed mentioned previously in the entry as one of their preferred prestige classes, perhaps you might start thinking about elven paladin bladesingers. And besides, which version of Bladesinger are we talking about... 2 or 3 of those running around as far as I know? As far as the Chaotic issue... no there isn't anything that says it does apply to the Seldarine, but nothing that specifically states that it does not either. But if the exception to the rule has been established, it does open the door to further exceptions. And if it specifically mentions paladins by name under the sun elf entry while emphasizing their devotion to their race and pantheon, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to presume that such an exception does exist among the Seldarine, with Corellon being the most obvious choice for that. |
| GothicDan03-07-07, 04:00 PM | Stigger.. You do realize you're referencing a 3E book, right? That means that it's going to uphold 3E mechanics regardless of established lore. So, yes, they're going to say that Sun Elves are the foremost Paladins of the Elves, because they're the only ones who tend to be Lawful. But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't mesh culturally with them. Mechanics support them; lore does not. |
| Karsus the Mad03-07-07, 04:08 PM | Mechanics support them; lore does not. Wasn't that lore founded because of previous mechanics preventing elves from being paladins? Elven paladins...silly notion.... |
| GothicDan03-07-07, 04:12 PM | In part, yes. And in part, no, because Paladins are specific to a Judeo-Christian mythos, regardless of what demihuman race you're looking at. You don't like Paladins much in Faerun either, do you Karsus? ;) Mind you, I'm against even human Paladins in Faerun to a point, to - at least, the way they've been classically presented. It's why I prefer Crusaders. |
| Karsus the Mad03-07-07, 04:49 PM | In part, yes. And in part, no, because Paladins are specific to a Judeo-Christian mythos, regardless of what demihuman race you're looking at. It simply seems to have been a piece of lore that was created as an in-game reasoning for why elves (or any demihuman) didn't have paladins. Not that I mind:smirk: You don't like Paladins much in Faerun either, do you Karsus? Nope. I bloody hate them (in FR). As you say, they're Judeo-Christain specific. It's why they don't exist in my Realms. I represent the role with warriors, clerics, or multiclassed variations with divine champion, depending on the faith. |
| Soltares03-07-07, 08:34 PM | Given that dieties are established as being able to lie to their worshippers and grant powers in the names of gods they have killed / imprisoned / made up, it would be perfectly possible for *Bane* to have an order of Paladins, completely clueless about the source of their power, and carefully directed to fight evil competitors of Banite interests, far from actual Banite holdings. Once the Paladins of Bob (whom we've secretely killed and replaced by Bane, let's see what happens!) are done clearing out those pesky Malites or whatever, and sent off to deal with something else far away, Banites can move in and fill the local 'evil power vacuum.' |
| BrennonGoldeye03-07-07, 08:39 PM | Nope. I bloody hate them (in FR). As you say, they're Judeo-Christain specific. It's why they don't exist in my Realms. I represent the role with warriors, clerics, or multiclassed variations with divine champion, depending on the faith. :w00t:YoooHooo:w00t: KtM and I finally disagree!! Talk about hubris. Whose my favorite vestige? Hmmm? ;) |
| Karsus the Mad03-07-07, 08:55 PM | :w00t:YoooHooo:w00t: KtM and I finally disagree!! Talk about hubris. Whose my favorite vestige? Hmmm? ;) Which part do we disagree at?:) Is it my hatred for paladins in FR? If so, it's FR specific, not paladins in general. I absolutely love paladins in a setting in which a medival fantasty world with demi-human influence and magic, and other strange things have somehow miraculously formed a modern western real world ethical ideal of how a person should behave:rolleyes: |
| BrennonGoldeye03-07-07, 09:20 PM | Shhh.. Just let me bask in my own impudence!!! |
| BrennonGoldeye03-07-07, 09:36 PM | OK, enough basking. There were folk acting like canon paladins long before the change from B.C to A.D. Thinking otherwise is true hubris.;) |
| GothicDan03-07-07, 10:17 PM | Acting LG does not a Paladin make. ;) And, er, let's just say that I can't think of any off the top of my head. I think of Norse and Roman archetypal heroes, and woah are they not Paladins... Romulus, killing your brother? Raping the women-folk? Like, woah. |
| Karsus the Mad03-07-07, 10:25 PM | OK, enough basking. There were folk acting like canon paladins long before the change from B.C to A.D. Thinking otherwise is true hubris.;) Thar' twas? |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-07-07, 10:31 PM | OK, enough basking. There were folk acting like canon paladins long before the change from B.C to A.D. Thinking otherwise is true hubris.;) Ahem... it's B.C.E. and C.E. |
| Stigger03-08-07, 01:48 AM | So using any new lore outside of 2e is suddenly not allowed, and we should just ignore 3.x entirely then? Right... As to paladins coming straight out of Judeo-Christian mythos... the Judeo-Christian world pretty much invented the idea of paladins for the purposes of political stability than any actual actions taken by crusader armies... that most of it was based on the idea that each crusader received an absolvence of past, present, and future sin if they went on Crusade, and that it was the absolvence that provided the backdrop of that piety and holiness, not their actual actions... that's hardly paladin like in the slightest. Or is this a case of an analog interpretation being acceptable when it suits ones purpose, but not in others when it does not? |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-10-07, 01:25 AM | Leave the Judeo part out of the paladin origins. Nothing Judeo about them. From what I understand the whole chivalric code etc. were literary inventions ala Le Morte D'Arthur. |
| Stigger03-10-07, 01:57 AM | Kinda hard to leave that whole Judeo-part out, considering it forms the foundations of the -Christian part. Besides, in modern parlance, Christian tends to refer more to evangelicals rather than its more historic meaning. As to the Chivalric code thing, yeah, that's pretty much their origin. Considering a lot of it was thought up by a convicted rapist, not the easiest things to be convicted of given the time period, I'd say a lot of it was pretty suspect in the first place, even more so if you really look into what it's points were. Not even going to go into the whole Lancelot thing... |
| GothicDan03-10-07, 11:43 AM | Exactly. It came from a SPECIFIC case of an Earth-inspired religious/chivalric belief. Therefore, a good reason to leave it out of Faerun, it you ask me. |
| herceg03-10-07, 03:15 PM | Leave the Judeo part out of the paladin origins. IMHO ElberethSilverleaf meant "leave the _judeo-christian part". But thats a sidetrack. Exactly. It came from a SPECIFIC case of an Earth-inspired religious/chivalric belief. Therefore, a good reason to leave it out of Faerun, it you ask me. Just like druids and bards? ;) |
| GothicDan03-11-07, 03:22 AM | The D&D Druid and Bard is nothing at all like the real life Druids Bards; the Paladin is. If they were, I would feel the exact same way. In D&D, Druid refers to nothing specifically Celtic, but rather describes simply one of a number of Specialty Priests; in this case, one of a Nature-oriented deity, typically True Neutral. There's nothing very Celtic about that. As to the Bard? Bards were known in a plethora of European cultures, not just one. |
| Stigger03-11-07, 12:50 PM | I would argue that since the idealized paladin never actually existed... and was largely a creative work of fiction, a fiction that was at best a pipe dream, at worst works of political and theological propaganda... I have no problem applying one fictional template to a fictional setting and bringing them to a happy blending. Paladins aren't a bad idea, despite their origins, and the world would have been better off had something like them actually existed, so I rather like them in the Realms. Though to be honest, the idea of paladins is fairly widespread across European culture... Russia to Spain sort of thing, so if it works for bard, why not paladin? |
| GothicDan03-11-07, 01:55 PM | A creative work of fiction that derived specifically from the mindset of a single European culture, with blatant real world religious influences. Whether or not the 'class' actually 'existed' doesn't make it any more applicable to a fantasy world based roughly on European archetypes. Paladin = Bad. |
| BrennonGoldeye03-11-07, 02:03 PM | I'm starting to realize that our ideas of what a paladin is seem to vary greatly. Acting LG does not a Paladin make. No, acting LG never makes a paladin. Being LG, no matter your culture, does qualify you for the class though. ;) No need for shiny metal plate armor, giant churches, fairytale castles, crusades, big horses or some guy named Jason. Paladin is a crosscultural alignment based class. Or at least it can be, if you want it to. :cip: |
| GothicDan03-11-07, 02:09 PM | If they don't want it to be that, then why would they call it a Paladin still? ;) I feel the same about the Druid; they turned it into a completely different class. And, actually, I prefer the specialty priests of Chauntea and Silvanus to actual Druids, myself. |
| BrennonGoldeye03-11-07, 02:16 PM | If they don't want it to be that, then why would they call it a Paladin still? Why change it? Words evolve. Things grow. Hey, KtM left some excellent snacks. Ever tried Imaskari Gingerbread? Here, try this...:cookie: |
| Khaelieth03-11-07, 04:40 PM | - Sun elves are also the foremost clerics and paladins among the elven races. as posted by Stigger. It doesn't say that the paladins worship the Elven pantheon. |
| GothicDan03-11-07, 07:38 PM | That's what I noted. Also, things change. Why not make new words for them? Like, I dunno, "Crusaders" - which was already made SPECIFICALLY for FR, and would fit better than Paladin. |
| Stigger03-12-07, 12:46 AM | It doesn't say that they don't worship the elven pantheon either... As to the conventions of the paladin in more than european culture... you could probably make a decent case of it applying to Samurai, honorable muslim hero types who fought for Allah, etcetera and so forth. It's only as limited as you wish it to be really, and considering that Hiawatha is mentioned as an example of a paladin in Champions of Valor, it would seem to me that the designers had a much broader definition in mind than the one you seem to be giving it. |
| GothicDan03-12-07, 11:26 AM | I'm just saying I would NOT agree that such real life characters are Paladins - in my mind. And it doesn't HAVE to say they're not Paladins of the Seldarine... We KNOW that they're not Paladins of the Seldarine, for two reasons: they don't have the proper alignment (except in a very very rare cases of demigods), and we have examples of Elven Paladins not of the Seldarine in canon. :) |
| Khaelieth03-12-07, 03:14 PM | Most mystic keepers of Corellon Larethian begin as clerics or rangers. Paladins are attracted to this class as well, although many find that the devotion required of a paladin is difficult enough. Multiclass cleric/fighters are also common. Cleric/sorcerers and cleric/wizards are rarely mystic keepers, finding the class's focus a bit too martial, but a few can be found among their numbers. That's from Dragon 328, on the "Mystic Keeper of Corellon Larethian" PrC. Dunno what to make of it. |
| Optimystik03-12-07, 04:14 PM | Goodness, it's simple. Paladins have to be Lawful and ALL elven deities of the Seldarine are Chaotic. I think the solution is that elven paladins worship non-Seldarine greater powers. I've read the Seldarine's dogma, and almost all of them contain the words "frolic," "dance,""gambol," and "wonder." Paladins really don't have time for that nonsense. As for Sune's paladins, I think they're more dedicated to preserving the order that beauty depends on than pursuing beauty themselves. |
| Stigger03-12-07, 04:41 PM | I think we have very different views on Sune... and that the definition of paladin being used by most seems considerably more narrowly rigid than is actually intended. Considering the existance of things like Gray Guards, Sunite Paladins, Hin paladin orders... that definition just doesn't work anymore. Sure it worked back in 2e when it was Human only and the stat reqs were insane, but that is not the case anymore. All of the classes have gotten more flexible and open to interpretation... paladins included. I don't see or understand a reason to keep them pigeonholed because of a definition that was discarded a long while ago. |
| Optimystik03-12-07, 06:29 PM | Let me just say that I agree - I think the definition of a Paladin is narrow too. That's the reason why so many people are taking Divine Champion levels instead. After all, can't a neutral or chaotic deity have chosen warriors after their own heart too? I do, however, understand *why* they're narrow - Paladin abilities are really quite powerful for a base class. They continue to be sought after even through PrCs (BGs and DCs). The LG restriction is meant to balance that, from the rules perspective of keeping the player in line, and from the flavor perspective of the god or goddess in question only being willing to bestow such power to a responsible, upright individual. To borrow another thread's discussion, it is possible to have a good heart without being responsible in the slightest - and Lathander himself is evidence of that. |
| ElberethSilverleaf03-12-07, 11:51 PM | one of the things that has lessened the "specialness" of paladins is the lack of stat requirements. In 2e they not only had to be LG but they also had to meet minimum stat scores. Now just about anyone who's LG can be a paladin. |
| Stigger03-13-07, 12:54 AM | I hated stat requirements to be honest... I like the concept of being able to take any career path with whatever stats I have, without having to worry about what stats I do and don't have. It opens up a lot of RP potentials in my mind, so you can play a sub-par stat paladin... a paladin exists in his heart and mind, not in his stats is a good way of putting my perspective to words. |
| GothicDan03-13-07, 03:11 PM | It depends largely on the class, and how you view being a member of that class. I think certain stat requirements should be in effect again, for the more trained classes. And, personally, there's a greater appeal in playing a PC who is TRYING to be a member of a class that he cannot truly attain. THAT'S being a Paladin in your HEART, not in your abilities. |
| Stigger03-13-07, 04:04 PM | Interesting thought... my own thought towards that would be that the character was broken in some way, morally or ethically, and they can't or won't face that yet so cannot become a paladin. But then I really don't see them as the most common of classes either... certainly much rarer than they've become of late since I don't think all that many people can have what it takes spiritually to live up to it. |
| GothicDan03-14-07, 06:40 AM | That "have what it takes" in D&D is represented by abilities. Thus, in 2E, it was prefectly reflected in their obscenely high prerequisites for Charisma and Wisdom, showing they had the spirituality, force of will, willpower, and zeal to serve their deity as a proper Paladin. I don't think Torm, for example, would really condone Paladins who are weak-willed, cannot urge the populace behind them, and who would crumble in the first melee. Granting such a person the actual divine gifts of a Paladin, intentions regardless, would be more detrimental than helpful. |
| Treymordin03-14-07, 10:39 AM | There is a Lawful Good elven goddess in the Races of the Wild. |
| GothicDan03-14-07, 04:40 PM | She's Lawful Neutral, I thought? Anyway, that's a core product, referring by default to the Elven pantheon of the Great Wheel. Since that pantheon is not the same as the one currently active in FR, she doesn't exist among the Seldarine there by RAW unless an FR source references her directly. If this was the old cosmology, of course, I'd be saying differently. |
| Lia The Sun Elf Wizard03-14-07, 11:57 PM | In the races of the wild sourcebook, there's a lawful neutral deity daughter of corellon larethian (if i ain't mistaken), the book says most elven paladins worship this goddess. (though i don't know if she exists in FR elven pantheon cause i noticed there are some elven deities in races of the wild that doesn't have in the FR campaign setting. |
| Stigger03-15-07, 06:11 PM | That "have what it takes" in D&D is represented by abilities. Thus, in 2E, it was prefectly reflected in their obscenely high prerequisites for Charisma and Wisdom, showing they had the spirituality, force of will, willpower, and zeal to serve their deity as a proper Paladin. I don't think Torm, for example, would really condone Paladins who are weak-willed, cannot urge the populace behind them, and who would crumble in the first melee. Granting such a person the actual divine gifts of a Paladin, intentions regardless, would be more detrimental than helpful. You've got a good point there. RAW and ignoring the intent of the class I can see where it would be open to a lot of abuse and just plain non-sensical characters. And you're right, I don't see Torm just handing out the title paladin to a guy one step away from village idiot just because he wanted to be a paladin... but I can't see such a guy really understanding what a paladin really was in the first place. Guess really it would be a judgement call for a DM to make as to whether they were worthy, so to speak. |
| DrBoron03-16-07, 12:46 AM | That "have what it takes" in D&D is represented by abilities. Thus, in 2E, it was prefectly reflected in their obscenely high prerequisites for Charisma and Wisdom, showing they had the spirituality, force of will, willpower, and zeal to serve their deity as a proper Paladin. Perhaps, but I don't have a lot of respect for a gaming system that works like this: New Player: "I'm really excited about playing [class]!!!" DM: "Great! Let's get started--roll these dice for your stats" DM: <looks> DM: "Sorry, you can't be a [class]. Maybe you'd like to spend every Thursday night for the next 6-12 months playing [class the player isn't excited about]." So as a DM, you were stuck either bumping the PC's stats so she could play the desired class (unfair to the party) or explaining to someone you wanted to have fun in your game why she couldn't play the character concept she wanted and had to pick something else. Fluff aside, getting rid of this problem was one of the things I really liked about 3.0. |
| Stigger03-16-07, 01:47 AM | Precisely! |
| GothicDan03-17-07, 11:49 AM | My DM in 2E just gave us all the same stat pool to choose from (average of 14 in each stat), which let us all play any class we wanted by rearranging the stats properly, as we wished. It ended up with higher stats than normal, but in 2E, that wasn't such a bad things, since stats weren't nearly as directly influential to the mechanics of the game in 3E... And the fact that you didn't even start getting bonuses in them until 14-ish (higher in some cases). So as a DM, you were stuck either bumping the PC's stats so she could play the desired class (unfair to the party) or explaining to someone you wanted to have fun in your game why she couldn't play the character concept she wanted and had to pick something else. Fluff aside, getting rid of this problem was one of the things I really liked about 3.0. In such cases, the DM and the player would have to work things out privately. Remember, any rules system is just a group of guidelines that describes the basic 'reality.' A DM can change any aspect of that reality, large or small, as he/she sees fit. I'd rather have a DM decide such things on a case by case basis then go with 3E's lack of requisites altogether (same with Dwarf Wizards, non-human Paladins, etc.) |
| Karsus the Mad03-17-07, 02:52 PM | In such cases, the DM and the player would have to work things out privately. Remember, any rules system is just a group of guidelines that describes the basic 'reality.' A DM can change any aspect of that reality, large or small, as he/she sees fit. I'd rather have a DM decide such things on a case by case basis then go with 3E's lack of requisites altogether (same with Dwarf Wizards, non-human Paladins, etc.) I go with the same result, but the opposite approach myself. I'd rather not have the mechanics have built in restrictions, but rather any restrictions be placed in by me. Eh. The end result is the same, just different method of approach. |
| GothicDan03-17-07, 11:55 PM | I go with the same result, but the opposite approach myself. I'd rather not have the mechanics have built in restrictions, but rather any restrictions be placed in by me. Eh. The end result is the same, just different method of approach. The end result for me and you is the same, sure. But the end result is vastly different as far as how it would actually have affected the lore and development of various campaign worlds. There'd be much less reason for Dwarves to particularly dislike Arcane Magic in general (there's nothing about their physiology or neurology that would give reason for such a cultural standard to develop, and no historical reasons, either). It would be the equivalent of an entire civilization of people deciding that technology was evil, and refusing to use it "just because." Sure, that happens in cults and even parts of religions for a time, but millions of individuals? |
| Karsus the Mad03-18-07, 12:59 AM | The end result for me and you is the same, sure. But the end result is vastly different as far as how it would actually have affected the lore and development of various campaign worlds. There'd be much less reason for Dwarves to particularly dislike Arcane Magic in general (there's nothing about their physiology or neurology that would give reason for such a cultural standard to develop, and no historical reasons, either). It would be the equivalent of an entire civilization of people deciding that technology was evil, and refusing to use it "just because." The joy of a fantasy race in a fantasy world I suppose. The creator decides, not ever changing game mechanics. The reason is exactly the same as before. It's a cultural thing. It hasn't changed. Previously, dwarven wizards were an exception, because the rules prevented it. Now that the rules allow it? They're still the exception. Same reason why millions of people do use technology. Or, despite being designed to do so, why millions of people don't eat meat. It's all a choice. Removing the ability to even have a choice one way or another in a generic ruleset doesn't add anything to a particular setting. It simply forces all settings utilizing the generic ruleset to follow a specified doctrine. In one setting, the dwarves might be completely unable to utilize arcane magic, while in another, they may be the masters of the arcane. Why place arbitrary restrictions in a generic ruleset when such restrictions are setting based? Any racial or cultural restrictions are the province of a setting, not a generic ruleset, unless of course the ruleset is the setting. Basically, I feel each setting should have it's own rules. I don't think the setting should conform to a set of generic rules, but rather that the generic rules should conform to the setting. This isn't achieved by placing restrictions into the generic rules without regards to the setting. Just my view. |
| GothicDan03-18-07, 01:03 AM | The joy of a fantasy race in a fantasy world I suppose. The creator decides, not ever changing game mechanics. The reason is exactly the same as before. It's a cultural thing. It hasn't changed. Previously, dwarven wizards were an exception, because the rules prevented it. Now that the rules allow it? They're still the exception. If you decide to NOT apply societal logic and evolution, I guess? Same reason why millions of people do use technology. Or, despite being designed to do so, why millions of people don't eat meat. It's all a choice. Actually, I wouldn't say we were designed to eat meat; we're descended from vegetarian primates. But anyway, yes, it's a choice. But entire civilizations are rarely cohesive enough to make and keep to the same "choice" made thousands and thousands of years ago. Why place arbitrary restrictions in a generic ruleset when such restrictions are setting based? Any racial or cultural restrictions are the province of a setting, not a generic ruleset, unless of course the ruleset is the setting. Well then, what's the point in having restrictions or options or races at all? To me, an RPG without a setting to put it in is pretty much a waste of money. Basically, I feel each setting should have it's own rules. I don't think the setting should conform to a set of generic rules, but rather than the generic rules should conform to the setting. One does achieve this by placing restrictions into the generic rules without regards to the setting. Just my view. That I agree with the most. And it's one of the reasons I preferred 2E Realms (where many rules WERE different from the core). |
| Karsus the Mad03-18-07, 01:35 AM | If you decide to NOT apply societal logic and evolution, I guess? In a fantasy setting utilizing races where societal logic and evolution were never applied to begin with? Every race is exactly as it has always been. Humans have always been protrayed as, well, humans (rather difficult to portray them any other way):P Elves and dwarves were created as they are, etc. I think the error is that societal logic and evolution hasn't been applied (at least to any large degree) in regards to various DnD settings. They've all been based upon stereotypical archetypes of a generic ruleset (which in itself is inspired by yet additional stereotypes) and had their culture, traditions, world, etc molded to conform, rather than the other way around. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, merely something I don't prefer. Actually, I wouldn't say we were designed to eat meat; we're descended from vegetarian primates. But anyway, yes, it's a choice. But entire civilizations are rarely cohesive enough to make and keep to the same "choice" made thousands and thousands of years ago. Aren't they? Other than the advancement of technology, how far have we varied from our original seeds? Don't answer that, it's moot:P A better question would be "how would dwarven culture progress then since the mechanics now allow dwarven wizards?" They still have the cultural dislike. The rules haven't removed that. More specifically, how would FR dwarves be different? While I don't know the answer, my guess would be that they wouldn't be any different than originally invisioned, given that FR existed long before DnD. Well then, what's the point in having restrictions or options or races at all? To me, an RPG without a setting to put it in is pretty much a waste of money. I agree. Thus why I prefer each setting to have it's own rules. However, since that's not how it is, why subject ALL settings that utilize a given ruleset to the same limitations, regardless of how inaccurate it may portray the setting? Create a generic ruleset and after applying it to a setting, change the rules for that setting. Don't change the setting. That I agree with the most. And it's one of the reasons I preferred 2E Realms (where many rules WERE different from the core). I do think dwarven restrictions (not impossibility, as even in 2e in wasn't "impossible") on arcane magic to represent their cultural aversion should be a rule, just not a core rule imposed upon any setting that utilizes the core rules. Anyway, I think we got off topic:) We both look to achieve the same result. We merely choose different methods of doing so:) |
| Stigger03-18-07, 02:25 AM | Our teeth tell a different story... one that says we're supposed to eat meat given the presence of cuspids and incisors in our mouths. And most primates are omnivores... as are humans. But that's besides the point. As to the whole 'philosophy' behind the various races... it always bugged the hell out of me that everything was so human dominated. I like the fact that other races are finally giving humans some competition, I like the fact that they're just as diverse now, I like the fact that the game has finally moved away from pigeonholing the non-humans into various pre-ordained roles and given them the breadth that their cultures would have to have in order to function... in otherwords, I vastly prefer 3e mechanics. The 2e fluff was better in a lot of respects, but the over-arching idea that humans > everyone else always bugged me. |
| BrennonGoldeye03-18-07, 10:01 AM | We agree.:D |
| GothicDan03-18-07, 12:40 PM | The 2E mechanics in the Realms never seemed to favor humans to me. |
| Stigger03-18-07, 01:06 PM | Level caps... how did that not utterly favor humans? The fact that two major races had wizardry unavailable to them according to the ruleset? The (arguably) most powerful melee class out there, paladins, were only available to humans? Sure the numbers weren't directly slanted against them and they had a few paltry racial bonuses to make up for it, but given the relatively high level characters in the Realms, a whole lot of exceptions had to be made for NPC's that just weren't available to your average PC. |
| GothicDan03-18-07, 02:56 PM | Because in the older rulers, level advancement was slow enough that traditionally humans died out before they could reach such high levels, and after that, the demihumans (Elves in particular) could gain XP at a lessed rate, living for centuries, and still equal or exceed human magi. And again, you bring up specific Realmsian examples of breaking from the rules. I've already stated that's how I personally think it should work. The core mechanics should make a baseline, and individual campaign settings should alter those base mechanics to fit their own realities better. FR did this. The Elven High Mage kit as originally presented in Evermeet was specifically made to do this. Are you aware of it? |
| Stigger03-19-07, 12:06 AM | Yes, of course I read it. However that didn't change the fact that dwarves, gnomes, and hin were pretty much screwed. Sure we finally got slow advancement rules, but all that said to me was that other races had a really crap learning curve and the lifespans meant they were in a perpetual state of arrested development. Sure that lessened learning curve could apply to elves, since they do seem to take their time with everything... could even see it with dwarves to a lesser extent (the whole overplayed smith thing aside), but with the frantic pace hin live at it doesn't even close to make sense. And gnomish curiosity doesn't sit well with it either, at least to my view of them. What it came down to was some inane sense of 'game balance' that justified human domination of society... the lore that I read didn't quite mesh with that core underlying precept of the rules. Seemed to me that the only real advantage humanity should have had was an incredible fertility cycle, not some idiotic unlimited advancement rule that no one else could have... Sure the setting did take steps to undermine that a bit, but I don't think it ever managed to escape the gravity of the 2e AD&D ruleset as much as I would have liked. |
| GothicDan03-20-07, 07:26 PM | I have to honestly say I never got the same impressions as you did. Then again, I never gamed in real life past 6th level in my 11 years of play. |
| BrennonGoldeye03-20-07, 08:20 PM | Hmm. Might have to start calling yourself a prelitist. ;) |
| GothicDan03-20-07, 08:23 PM | Pft. I've done my fair share of higher powered gaming - but always online, typically in one-to-one settings. I love writing, and in such personal sessions, there's always more emphasis on plot, story, relationships, etc., than rules. |
| BrennonGoldeye03-20-07, 09:08 PM | Nothing but good in all those things. :) |
| Stigger03-21-07, 01:09 AM | 6th level... wow... my least favorite levels playing wizards, though perversely some of the most fun since you have to get really creative to stay alive long. You'd probably like the campaign we just finished if you prefer story though, last 4-5 months saw maybe 4-5 dice rolls... most of them diplomacy checks, when the ideas got a little too unlikely to simply let them RP their way through them. |
| GothicDan03-21-07, 09:01 AM | The longest-running campaign I was in (a little over a year) usually had very, very few dice rolls. It was during 2E, of course, so there were no silly diplomacy rolls, either. ;) |
| BrennonGoldeye03-21-07, 09:31 AM | You guys do know that the dice are kinda needed for the game. Otherwise it is once again Storytime with <insert DM name here>. Nothing against storytime, just not the same thing as that neat little game invented 30 odd years ago.:) |
| Stigger03-22-07, 02:52 AM | Depends on how much combat you're getting into... most of the story revolved around social interaction, not combat. Not much need for dice if you're just flapping your lips at people, particularly when you've got a group that prefers to RP their way through the conversations instead of just letting the dice get rolled. |
| GothicDan03-22-07, 06:19 AM | Judging from what I know of the game as it was 30 years ago, I'd hate to play that game. :) |
| Stigger03-22-07, 12:27 PM | As there's no wrong way to eat an Oreo, there's no wrong way to Play a game if everyone agrees to it... ;) But yeah, I hated 1e rules myself... wasn't even that fond of 2e really, but it was far more tolerable. |
| GothicDan03-23-07, 07:09 AM | Who says there's no wrong way to eat an oreo? Are you saying that my assessment about the wrong way to do something is... Wrong? |
| BrennonGoldeye03-23-07, 07:14 AM | giggle |
| Stigger03-23-07, 07:15 AM | You are not wrong in your assessment of my assessment of wrongness... and your wrongness in particular. Or maybe not. I might have been actually agreeing with you up there. I'm not sure right now though. :P |
| GothicDan03-23-07, 07:26 AM | And this is where I like to poke fun at the liberals who think that freeing their mind means not actually applying logic throughout their lives. ;) Then, to giggle at the conservatives, I despoil holy regalia. |
| Stigger03-23-07, 07:32 AM | Liberals apply logic to their lives all the time. It's just warped and twisted logic bent to the will of political ideology. Much like conservative logic. ;) |
| Alediran03-23-07, 09:31 AM | Liberals apply logic to their lives all the time. It's just warped and twisted logic bent to the will of political ideology. Much like conservative logic. ;) And that is the reason why the are both useless. The logical thing to do would be create a third political ideology, merging the best parts of both worlds while eliminating the bad parts. |
| GothicDan03-23-07, 11:23 AM | I call that an empiricist with Epicurean tendencies and a fun view of nihilism! That's me! |
| Karsus the Mad03-23-07, 01:07 PM | Views of things from the furthest possible point of logic, ignoring all that shows otherwise, and purposely discriminating against that which logically suggests otherwise, yet again, determining that such does not exist due to such direct conflicting with a biased and narrow minded (which is expected from those who lack the ability to wipe their own butts without whining) view of "how things should be.". See, I can make up big words. More than that, I can make up big sentences and paragraphs that use such made up big words:P I'm special:D |
| GothicDan03-23-07, 01:11 PM | .... You didn't use any big words in that post. Are you drunk again? |
| Karsus the Mad03-23-07, 01:39 PM | ].... You didn't use any big words in that post. Hmmm? I wasn't responding to you:P At least I don't think I was: will check...nope. I was responding to the pattern of the thread in the most general of manners:) Checking my own post tho', I DID use really big words for those that lack the ability to comprehend common-sense!:P Are you drunk again? I don't believe so....then again, "I can see the Land of Drunk without a looking glass, if you catch my drift, my fuzzy little friend." Does it matter? I don't think it affect the humor of my posts, which is the entire point:P I like making people laugh:) If I didn't make you laugh, I'm sorry, I'll try harder next time I derail a thread:D:D:D |
| GothicDan03-23-07, 01:48 PM | But you said this... See, I can make up big words. The "See,..." would indicate something that you had just previously written had included a big word in it! |
| Karsus the Mad03-23-07, 01:56 PM | But you said this... The "See,..." would indicate something that you had just previously written had included a big word in it! Ah, but you see, if you take my post into context with regards as to the common ability of the general populace to deduce simplistic patterns of idealogy, such words as "discriminating", "logically", or "suggests", are indeed "big words"...so are "the" and "it" and "and"....hehehehehe |
| GothicDan03-23-07, 01:59 PM | But you ALSO didn't make them up! |
| Karsus the Mad03-23-07, 02:08 PM | But you ALSO didn't make them up! Actually, no...no I didn't....OH! You sneaky bastard!:D Good one! |
| GothicDan03-23-07, 02:17 PM | One for me! Hm... Going on about 50 hours of not sleeping now. |
| Karsus the Mad03-23-07, 04:13 PM | One for me! Hm... Going on about 50 hours of not sleeping now. 50 hours eh? That's bordering on dangerous...go snooze. I'm an expert of lack of sleep, and if you're still awake to read this, I do believe you're going to start, or already have started, to have minor dillusionary ideals of perception. Ideas or thoughts that seem to make sense, but truly lack any basis in reality. Oft times, from my own experience of course, such situations arise from the imbiding of too much Lapin Kulta. Either way, the result is the same: FUN:D |
| BrennonGoldeye03-23-07, 09:45 PM | I call that an empiricist with Epicurean tendencies and a fun view of nihilism! That's me! Prelitist no doubt.:m: |