Additional Paladins from UA

[Patlin]

Just curious what makes you think that the PoS and PoT are only going to be used for NPC's? As of now in LEW (and hopefully forever) evil characters are allowed.

I'm not so much assuming that they won't be used for PCs as I am stating that no one up to that point had stated a desire to play one. If you feel this would be fun to play, certainly say so, and hopefully add why you feel it would be better than existing options. I'll change my vote if it seems warranted.

 

[Patlin]

As for the PoT, I'd ponder it, but with a few Tyrany philosophys and deities in the works, I think it's probably not a bad idea to have it out there even for players, and DerHauptman is right, in that evil characters are allowed, so we shouldn't disaprove of something simply because it's evil.

While I feel that in a perfect world, people would *want* to be the good guys, I'm not going to vote against a class just because it is evil. The PoS seems silly, that's why I voted against it, not due to the alignment issue. I'd be interested in hearing why the PoT would make LEW a better game... does it fill a nitch better than, for example, a LE Blackguard?

I'd like to see more of a discussion on the merits of the class. What makes it cool?

 

[Rystil Arden]

While I feel that in a perfect world, people would *want* to be the good guys, I'm not going to vote against a class just because it is evil. The PoS seems silly, that's why I voted against it, not due to the alignment issue. I'd be interested in hearing why the PoT would make LEW a better game... does it fill a nitch better than, for example, a LE Blackguard?

I'd like to see more of a discussion on the merits of the class. What makes it cool?

I'll field that--let's say my character concept is exactly what you proposed: LE Blackguard. My character became a champion of a LE deity intent on using his holy powers and blade to terrorise and conquer. I wanted to play a LE Blackguard. But I definitely didn't want to play a Cleric--I don't care about commanding undead and I don't want to cast, I want to fight, like a Blackguard. So what's left? Well, nothing. I can be a Fighter and then later take Blackguard, but how uncool is that? I get no unholy powers at all, just feats. I could go Paladin and then Ex-Paladin and then Blackguard, but that changes my concept and I don't want to be a fallen Paladin. What do I do?

 

[Bront]

RA hit it right on the head.

Currently, the only holy warriors are clerics, or paladins. So, you're either LG and a holy warrior, or you're a holy warrior/priest. Or, you only get flavor of being a holy warrior with no real benifits if you take any other class.

The Paladin of Freedom and the Paladin of Tyrany allow for variable concepts of holy warriors. If the PoS was better flavored (Honestly, just needs some flavor rewrites, the crunch is fine), it would fit as well.

And yes, to make the most of a blackguard, you have to be a fallen paladin, but that's I think an unfortunate part of the class, not good flavor.

 

[Knight Otu]

Apart from the aspect that the Paladin of Slaughter is decidedly not a team-player in any way (personally, I'd like characters to at least make a token effort to be team players, as that's a big part in most games) - if we allow these classes, do we shoot the idea to not allow new core classes dead? I'm fine either way, but I think we need to be aware that it can be viewed as both.

 

[Rystil Arden]

They technically are not new classes--they are variants on the Paladin that are actually *less* different than the Totem Barbarians we already allow

Not that I wouldn't be completely in favour of abolishing the rule.

 

[Bront]

I'm all for abolishing the new core ruel, though I know why you did it, so I'm fine with keeping it.

However, as RA said, these are less different than the Totem Barbs, they adjust already existing class abilities in a few instances (Inflict wounds indead of lay hands, cause instead of cure disease, smite good instead of smite evil, and different auras), but they are pretty much what you expect as the reverse power, and the aura is easy to note on the sheet.

 

[Erekose13]

I'm all for variants of the core classes as outlined in UA (or proposed if someone has a nifty idea). But I think we should stay away from our own home brewed base classes, though I'd have loved to see my Buccaneer get in. He's lost now.

 

[Bront]

I would have proposed my Noble if they were letting core classes in, but no biggie.

 

[orsal]

if we allow these classes, do we shoot the idea to not allow new core classes dead? I'm fine either way, but I think we need to be aware that it can be viewed as both.

While I'm not committed to the new-new-base-classes rule, I think allowing minor variants to existing base classes is more in the way of amending that rule than repealing it. There's a big difference between, say, totem barbarians and alignment-variant paladins on the one hand, best understood as a familiar class with easily understood modifications, and a base-class version of the Trader or Learner classes, with entirely new packages of abilities. The former is a lot easier for someone new to LEW to grasp.