Atypical Clerics and Wizards who like versatility

[Nightchilde-2]

God I hope not, remember that there have always been 9 alignments, and only 3 of them are "good". I see no reason why an Evil character might not be self serving and value his life above others. Also if we move away from that we wouldn't have stories with elements of redemption or anything like that.

I dearly hope that Fourth Edition will not limit character concepts in such a manner. After all, the heroes journey is one of change as well as defeating the evil dragon.

If I understand correctly, there's now Good, Unaligned and Evil (or something to that effect). So I think there's a difference between the self serving small-e-evil and the murderous. manipulative capital-E-evil. Small-e will be Unaligned, while captial-E will be Evil.

Of course, I could be completely incorrect...it's happened on occasion.

I've always wondered why the attraction to playing non-heroes in games like D&D.

 

[Lizard]

If I understand correctly, there's now Good, Unaligned and Evil (or something to that effect). So I think there's a difference between the self serving small-e-evil and the murderous. manipulative capital-E-evil. Small-e will be Unaligned, while captial-E will be Evil.

Of course, I could be completely incorrect...it's happened on occasion.

I've always wondered why the attraction to playing non-heroes in games like D&D.

Well, first off, "Hero" and "Brave" aren't synonyms. Neither are "Hero" and "In-your-face". I'm pretty sure Gandhi would have something to say on the idea that fighting for good means fighting with your fists.

Second, even if you want every PC to be kicking ass for their god, what if you want NPC clerics of evil, or even pacifist, gods?

As I said in another thread, the playspace of 4e is severely constrained, and that's at the root of nearly every specific problem I have with it.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Well, first off, "Hero" and "Brave" aren't synonyms. Neither are "Hero" and "In-your-face". I'm pretty sure Gandhi would have something to say on the idea that fighting for good means fighting with your fists.

No, but Ghandi wouldn't have made a very interesting PC (IMHO) for a game with marauding dragons and baby-eating orcs. Nor does a wizard who sits in his tower all day pondering the mystical implications of his navel.

Second, even if you want every PC to be kicking ass for their god, what if you want NPC clerics of evil, or even pacifist, gods?

Then...you make it so. I was referring to PCs as heroic. Y'know, the stars of the story, the ones who should be out there rescuing villages and vanquishing demons.

 

[drjones]

I've always wondered why the attraction to playing non-heroes in games like D&D.

My first dnd campaign was an AD&D evil party. It sucked. I still hate one of those guys. If I had not been such a nerd I never would have played again.

That said we have not seen anything forbidding evil characters, they are just not spending any effort on writing guidance/rules for them (or have not included it in previews) because it is a waste of effort for something that will be used by players much less often and by more experience players who do not need guidance. The 12 year old trying to run their first game should have two dimensional typical heroes because they will have more than enough complications running their game without everyone trying to stab each other in the back or refusing to go along with the plot.

 

[Lizard]

No, but Ghandi wouldn't have made a very interesting PC (IMHO) for a game with marauding dragons and baby-eating orcs.

Actually, I think a non-violent character in a violent world is a very interesting PC.

Then...you make it so. I was referring to PCs as heroic. Y'know, the stars of the story, the ones who should be out there rescuing villages and vanquishing demons.

My point was, if the rules don't support clerics with different styles, it reduces the utility of the rules. About the only thing 2e ever did right was the cleric 'spheres', so that clerics of different gods could have REALLY different spell lists. 3e nerfed this to just domain spells, so that clerics shared 95% of their spells with each other, and it looks like in 4e, the only difference between a cleric of Luvvypeace, Goddess Of Fluffy Kittens and Bloodguzzler, God Of Eating Babies, will be that they *might* be able to pick a feat to give them a minor alternate power. Otherwise, same thing, stat wise.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To clear up the Alignment issue first, it seems 4e will have alignments that require you to *commit* to it. So you aren't just Evil because you don't play nice with others -- you are Evil specifically because you CHOOSE to be evil.

Secondly, the beating-and-healing clerics are probably more related to the Leader role than to anything specifically Cleric-y. 4e wanted to make sure that you could do more on your turn than just heal, and they wanted to encourage leader players to go do something instead of standing there like an HP factory, so they linked it to attack mechanics. I'm pretty sure the Warlord is the same way.

Self-interested or arrogant spellcasters might be better represented by the Warlock, or some as-yet-hidden class. It might take some house rulin' ("divine pacts" or whatever), but there's definately room for it in the game (just probably not as a "leader." Which makes sense -- if you're interested mostly in your own good, you're not going to get a lot of followers.

I've always wondered why the attraction to playing non-heroes in games like D&D.

I'm very confident 4e will support, in general terms, the "nonheroic" archetype. In many ways, it's exactly what the Tiefling is described as -- unpleasant and self-interested without being throughly evil by necessity. There's also the idea of things like the Paladin being opened up to evil characters and the like. And the fair liklihood of a 4e Book of Vile Darkness style tome. Also works with the Warlock class.

It just might not be the best fit for the Leader role.

 

[Storminator]

In none of the preview games I have run has the cleric spent any time in melee intentionally. The ranged at-will has been used a lot, same with the heal. Compared to a 3.0 level 1 cleric I think the new guy feels more caster to me.

And this, I would assume, is not a character that has chosen powers/feats to specialize on ranged attacks or aggressive/debilitating spells.

I played Erais recently, and I spent a lot of time in melee. I would go stand next to Kathra, and grant her an extra +1 AC (myself as well), and she would use Tide of Iron to maneuver foes off me, and mark the one I was facing. I ended up fighting 1 enemy while I had +3 AC, and she had someone to keep her from getting surrounded. It worked pretty well. I could easily see a more melee focused cleric PC doing that job regularly.

PS

 

[Nightchilde-2]

That said we have not seen anything forbidding evil characters, they are just not spending any effort on writing guidance/rules for them (or have not included it in previews) because it is a waste of effort for something that will be used by players much less often and by more experience players who do not need guidance. The 12 year old trying to run their first game should have two dimensional typical heroes because they will have more than enough complications running their game without everyone trying to stab each other in the back or refusing to go along with the plot.

Ah...you see my point.

 

[Will]

Actually, Gandhi-like character would be awesome.

Monk, vow of poverty (let's pretend it's not horribly broken), vow of peace (ditto), always does non-lethal damage (barring undead and constructs, which I'm guessing a pacifist probably would have no problem dispatching, assuming there aren't good undead and the construct is destructive).

Ooo! Maybe ask for access to Wild Empathy and a few tweaks to support it! Wild animal? I will talk to it, soothe it, so we may pass...

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Actually, I think a non-violent character in a violent world is a very interesting PC.

That's a difference in playstyles. I'd rather run a game of Indiana Jones-style butt-whippin' and high adventure. Neither style is bad, I just have a preference for one over the other.