Hey guys, Im fairly new to Role-Playing Games right now, but i do have some knowledge on some of the games main mechanics. One little thing that i kind of have trouble with is if characters should stick to a cetain alignment when they choose a specific class? For example, I would want to make a Neutral Good Paladin, basically a guy whose iswilling to do the right things, but is not restricted to ones beliefs.He has more compassion and is more forgiving, but isn't willing to hold back punches when necessary. If there was a character i can compare my character to, I would say is the Avatar from the Ultima series (EXCEPT 9 of course). Reason i ask is because i have seen and heard people saying they are only Lawful Good(The typical hard-ass, killjoy character that people in reality oppose now a days)or are on the other side of the spectrum. Basically either good or evil, of Lawful or chaotic. Where are the neutral options? If such thing exists, can anyone help me with some directions? And if there were other class options that sort of have some mastery over both martial and spellcasting talentssnd can be neutral good as well, can you point me to the right class?
One little thing that i kind of have trouble with is if characters should stick to a cetain alignment when they choose a specific class? For example, I would want to make a Neutral Good Paladin, basically a guy whose iswilling to do the right things, but is not restricted to ones beliefs.He has more compassion and is more forgiving, but isn't willing to hold back punches when necessary. If there was a character i can compare my character to, I would say is the Avatar from the Ultima series (EXCEPT 9 of course). Reason i ask is because i have seen and heard people saying they are only Lawful Good(The typical hard-ass, killjoy character that people in reality oppose now a days)or are on the other side of the spectrum.
If you're playing 4E, then there's absolutely nothing stopping you from playing a Paladin as you see fit. Previous editions insisted Paladins be LG only as a rule, but 4E did away with that straightjacket and stated anyone could be a Paladin, whether they're benevolent or not, lawful or not, etc. You are free to develop your Paladin as you see fit. People who say Paladins are only ever LG are typically a) playing a previous edition of the game or b) fond of the LG-only rule to the point where they refuse to accept 4E's take on Paladins.
Also, in 4E terms, there's not really a Neutral Good - only Lawful Good and Good (essentially, does your virtue stem from an appreciation of order or a love of freedom), so if you are playing a 4E game, I'm not sure where you're getting NG from (unless it's a houserule on your DM's part?).
And if there were other class options that sort of have some mastery over both martial and spellcasting talentssnd can be neutral good as well, can you point me to the right class?
Paladins, as it happens, have both martial prowess and the ability to channel divine magic, so you should be set. Incidentally, if you find yourself interested in arcane magic, you could try a Swordmage, as they are warriors who channel magic through their blades. But no, you don't have to worry about a Paladin being unable to fulfill your hopes.
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it."
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived.
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up!
We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and....
One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison...
MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development.
TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment.
You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :|
I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
If you're playing 3e, just play a NG cleric. The cleric is significantly more powerful than the Paladin on all fronts and has fewer restrictions on top of it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
If you're specifically trying to model the Avatar, he'd be LG as far as D&D is concerned, but please realize that...
"(The typical hard-ass, killjoy character that people in reality oppose now a days)"
...is more of an example of Lawful Stupid than Lawful Good.
In 3E terms, you could probably use any class as a baseline* because he'd be an example of as an exalted character. (Mind you, the BoED is a mess in many regards...)
In 4E terms, the same applies (any class could work*) but you're not stuck dealing with the exalted rules-mess.
* There isn't a single specific class that really represents the 'canon' Avatar, since he could be any of the eight PC classes while also being the Avatar - that's the main reason why 3E's exalted character rules would be a better fit in that edition. In 4E terms, Avatarhood doesn't really have any specific representation, although I suppose a theme/paragon path/epic destiny could be built around it.
