(Discussion) General Part IV

[garyh]

Um... what do you mean by miss? I assume if your up to date on the end of the last thread and the beginning of this one, were all up to date.

Oh I also asked, how do people feel about cutting inn threads to about 100 posts from now on, so that we constantly restart the days... especially nice for DMs that get intimidated by having to read the 200+ posts at times.

By "miss" I was just asking if there was anything you specifically asked me that I forgot to reply to. I've read all the Discussion posts.

I'm up for limiting the Inn threads to 100 posts. More turnover keeps the tavern lively.

 

[Thels]

Wow, I go to sleep for a few hours and this thread evolved for 2 pages. Friggin nuts.

I'm all for keeping alignment in the game. I wouldn't know what to do with Zoe if there's suddenly a loss of alignment. I'd probably scrap her and make a new lvl 1 char.

However, we might be a little looser on alignment. For example, we could have the Monk requirement set to Cannot be Chaotic (Though we need to think of something to prevent Barbarian/Monks, I think).

Another question why we're on the topic. If a starting character (or any NPC for that matter) decides to watch the world from an evil alignment point of view, would that character be classified as clearly 'Evil'? For example, would a paladin be able to detect his evil aura and smite him? The way I see it is that anyone who starts with evil is actually neutral with evil tendencies, until he actually does something that shifts his alignment to Evil (like becoming a cleric of an evil deity, animate dead without prior authorization, commit acts like murder, rape, etc... (thievery seems chaotic to me, unless the people you stole it from really depend on it and will suffer illness without)).

I think the Paladin should stay LG, but we should have counterpart Divine Warriors of the other alignments. Having one for each alignment would turn into a lot of classes though, so perhaps some that fit a group of alignments.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

• I think eliminating alignments altogether is a bad idea.
• I think removing or reducing alignment restrictions for some classes is a good idea... Making Monks any non-chaotic, for example, allowing Paladins of non-LG gods.
• I think class penalties for changing alignments (Paladins and Barbarians, for example) should not be removed.
• I think removing class-specific penalties for multiclassing (Paladins and Monks, for example) is a good idea.
• I don't think evil characters are inherently a bad idea, but we should be careful... It's very easy to ruin a fun game with an evil character.

 

[Uriel]

I think the Paladin should stay LG, but we should have counterpart Divine Warriors of the other alignments. Having one for each alignment would turn into a lot of classes though, so perhaps some that fit a group of alignments.

It would be a fairly easy thing to just have three different groups, with the same Abilities but different names for flavor.

For instance

Scions of the Light (LG,NG,CG)
Scions of the Balance (LN,TN,CN)
Scions of the Dark (LE,NE,CE)

You could even have them Named after their Deity, Scion of Grendath, for instance.

Just a thought.

 

[garyh]

• I think removing class-specific penalties for multiclassing (Paladins and Monks, for example) is a good idea.

This I whole-heartedly aprrove of. I was VERY disappointed they were still in 3.5 when I got the revised books. I think they're arbitrary restrictions that make no sense.

 

[Thels]

Dunno for monks. Never play them.

But being LG is an essential part of being a Paladin. Scrap the LG part and what do you get? Just some guy/girl with some meaningless abilities that don't make sense together.

 

[Velmont]

It would be a fairly easy thing to just have three different groups, with the same Abilities but different names for flavor.

For instance

Scions of the Light (LG,NG,CG)
Scions of the Balance (LN,TN,CN)
Scions of the Dark (LE,NE,CE)

You could even have them Named after their Deity, Scion of Grendath, for instance.

Just a thought.

Why not having 4 type of Paladin: Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful. When you create a Paladin, the God you choose will tell you which alignement Paladin you are. You must at least always have the alignement asked by your god, so a LG paldin of a NG god may become CG wihtout losing his powers.

Now, in all his powers, you replace Evil by opposite alignement and Good by same alignement.

So a lawful paladin will have smite chaos and detect chaos.

What do you think of that?

 

[Creamsteak]

Seems relatively simple. That's sorta what were going to go for I guess...

I'm thinking way work on a Living Enworld version of the SRD,if I can put together a website for it.

 

[Thels]

Ehm, isn't there a way to add new Divine Warrior classes without messing with the Paladin?

 

[Macbeth]

Wow, see what I miss when I leave my computer for a night? Let me pu int my thoughts on these subjects:

• Alignment- I'm no fan of alignment, but the overwhelming opinion seems to be too keep it, and I have no problem with that.
• Paladins- I like the idea of multiple Paladin types for different alignments.
• Scent- Fine with me
• Gnomeworks' Feats- A big thumbs up from me. Good to see some LEW feats.
• Little Sneak- Great! I like the latest revision, and I think we should approve this. I vote tp approve it.

I THINK thats all the major topics I need to comment on, and I'm glad to see some players expressing their oppinions. We couldn't build this world without everybody helping.