|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 2:20PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
Same as Deity or Unaligned. But even then, it just means you have to select a different Deity but you can still be any kind of Cleric/Paladin you want.
It doesn't make that much sense to be an active force of Evil following a Good Deity anyway, with the way Alignments are supposed to be now (with just about anything being "Unaligned" anyway)
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 2:32PM
#52
|
|
|
The basic discussion is, how has D&D progressed since its 1st edition and which parts do you think are for the better or for the worse in newer editions, in particular 4th edition.
I've never been much for the actual mechanics of the game. Each system has its own appeal for me (and its drawbacks). My primary focus has always been on the 'lore' of D&D.
I enjoy following the lore from edition to edition. The changes are always interesting to me. Some story changes I really like, some I don't of course but they're always interesting.
For instance, I love the World Axis cosmology (for 4e). The Great Wheel (for 3.5 and earlier) was interesting but never really felt 'fantastic' (like the World Axis does).
The proverbial Realms Shaking Events are hit and miss with me. The Time of Troubles (which took the Forgotten Realms from 1st edition into 2nd edition) was okay; the novels were a fun read. It happened much later in our home games (as a transition from 2nd to 3e in fact). The Spellplague (which took the setting into 4e) was just too drastic a change for me to ever accept however.
Other bits of lore I liked: The Simbul was always a sorcerer (that was revealed in the switch to 3e), aasimar were re-imagined as deva (for 4e). And that brings up what I really enjoy about 4e:
It's D&D re-imagined, the lore has been 'dusted off'. I'm really enjoying a fresh new start  .
/\ Art
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 2:33PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2008
|
Same as Deity or Unaligned. But even then, it just means you have to select a different Deity but you can still be any kind of Cleric/Paladin you want.
But does it not say that a Paladin must choose a diety and you must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity?
So if you want to be a Paladin of Bahamut then you must be Lawful Good?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 2:36PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Point in case, the first 4e paladin build released has no alignment restriction; hell, even the essentials paladin builds don't force you to choose a lawful good alignment to play a cleric. Complaining about a company's product is how you get that company to change said product.
Dont you have to have the same alignment as your diety?
And? People are not saying they don't want paladins to be the devote paragon (not used in the game's mechanical sense) knights of their religious order. Being forced to be a lawful good paladin, no matter who your deity is, or being forced to choose a lawful good deity, is what people complained about.
EDIT: I removed the last sentence or two. I was getting paladins and avengers mixed up there.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 2:39PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
you can choose to be unaligned no matter what your deity's alignment.
You can? Where is the rule for that? In the paladin class it says it must match you diety, with no option for unaligned.
(Not to disagree with your intended point in any way.)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 2:42PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
you can choose to be unaligned no matter what your deity's alignment.
You can? Where is the rule for that? In the paladin class it says it must match you diety, with no option for unaligned.
(Not to disagree with your intended point in any way.)
What do you know. You are right. I could have sworn there was an unaligned option. Am I getting paladin's mixed up with avengers?
EDIT: Just looked it up. I was getting paladin's mixed up with avengers. My bad. Still, the rest of what I said still stands.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 3:11PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
Clerics get the same out, apparently only Paladins must be the same Alignment as their Deity. Fortunately there are plenty of Deities to chose from, so your Alignment isn't really restricted.
(Also it doesn't make much sense to be devoted to a Lawful Good deity and be Chaotic Evil yourself... you´re pretty much supposed to act out your deities tenets which are of the same type as the deities alignment anyway)
Also you're not forced to continue serving your Deity; once a Paladin always a Paladin. That means you can select an Unaligned deity to start with, and then lster switch to another one.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 3:24PM
#58
|
|
|
No one complains that Barbarians and Bards couldn't be lawful and that it limited their roleplaying freedom.
Not so. I always thought those restrictions were particularly onerous and pointless.
I could understand them with Paladins, since their spell list and abilities and such were so heavily slanted against chaotic and evil creatures. But they made absolutely no sense for barbarians, bards, monks and a host of other classes. Fortunately, the alignment restrictions on those classes weren't so deeply embedded in their mechanics, and it was easy to simply throw out.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 3:25PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2010
|
To the OP - thanks! I like doing these comparisons being an 'old' Basic D&D games myself.
Together with most I believe it's not really the rules deciding about a game being a roll- or roleplaying game. Like an earlier poster said I think it's a mindset. Sure, sometimes rules don't work with telling a good story or having an exciting and dramatic play. But if your mindset (DM + players) is about telling a good story and having fun roleplaying, nothing's to stop you from doing it your way. Hasn't this always been the case?
To me roleplaying is not so much about finding a good spin to every action and making it sound plausible, but picturing yourself in the shoes of the character. That usually creates a more realistical (right, that's fantasy realism of course) and clear perspective on possibilities. The character doesn't know about rules for falling damage or armour weight with swimming. You just don't jump from cliffs or swim wearing plate mail! A good ruleset helps the DM and players to know their limits. And having realistic limits do help with roleplay in the sense that it rewards creative play. This works just the same in or out of combat. Like a group of characters not being capable of solving a challenge conservatively/traditionally (e.g. hacking a way through) thus requiring some creativity (e.g. setting up an ambush or finding specific weaknesses). D&D4e does fine setting up believable limits I think.
Compared to the older editions I think it does offer more options with character creation and more freedom. And personally I don't mind it the characters more easily survive a single combat hit. That's without arguing that those older, restrictive rules could be changed, which is totally true. But at least 4e doesn't need much rule fiddling in my experience. For the players who do have a roleplaying mindset it's very supportive and it also doesn't prevent hack/slash lovers to play it.
When starting my forgotten Realms campaign I found it very easy to add things I like and/or substract what I didn't like. Because of my World of Darkness days I wanted to try and tell a story with focus on dramatic play. This seems to be working well with removing the races/classes (amongst other things) not right to the story and adding character merits/flaws plus some good character motivations. Such wouldn't have been as easy with 'older' D&D systems. I'm not saying it couldn't be done. Just that it's really simple with 4e.
Play on!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2010 - 3:45PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2008
|
Point in case, the first 4e paladin build released has no alignment restriction; hell, even the essentials paladin builds don't force you to choose a lawful good alignment to play a cleric. Complaining about a company's product is how you get that company to change said product.
Dont you have to have the same alignment as your diety?
And? People are not saying they don't want paladins to be the devote paragon (not used in the game's mechanical sense) knights of their religious order. Being forced to be a lawful good paladin, no matter who your deity is, or being forced to choose a lawful good deity, is what people complained about.
EDIT: I removed the last sentence or two. I was getting paladins and avengers mixed up there.
I was just wondering where the "no alignment restriction" for Paladins came from.
Why must you slavishly adhere to rules pre-4e and yet ignore the same rules in 4e?
|
|
|
