Dragon No. 319 arrived today

[LoneWolf23]

Actually, they do. Faith by itself is absolutely powerless. The elemental lords work as representatives of the plane in question and select individuals to carry out the fight between the planes themselves on Athas. The cleric-to-be oftentimes forms a pact with the elemental lords. The elemental lords though don't care about good and evil, or right and wrong. They only want the proliferation of their element. The size and power of each plane is mirrored by its abundance (or lack thereof) on Athas. Hence some elements are on the verge of extinction (such as the elemental plane of rain, and that of water) while others have grown in power tremendously (the plane of silt).



Sorry, but even those who are generally in favor (as seen here, as well as almost 3 years worth of debate on the topic over at the WOTC boards) of including the paladin agree that its probably best if altered. I'm not really against the paladin in general as much as I am against the copy pasted core class version of it. I've already tinkered the holy liberator, consecrated harrier, church inquisitor (each with highly altered flavor text) renamed simply liberator, harrier, and inquisitor respectively (though I've only gotten around to using the inquisitor).

The paladin's abilities themselves come from divine favor, something that there is none of on Athas. That means ditching most of the abilities that rely on that, leaving basically a fighter with morals. Restructure the abilities then to be fueled by psionics and you simply have a psychic warrior of sorts with a code of ethics attatched. Sorry, but most of the ways I can think of to work it (altered versions of the paly) could be more easily filled by other core classes that fit better. I'd be far more inclined to keep the code aspects as flavor than mechanicaly incorporated into the class. If a fighter wants to follow such a code, then by all means. If a PC wants to be heroic, I won't stop him. In a game though where a major theme is the debate over which is best, the needs of the few or the needs of the many, and where there is often a result of the ends justifying the means, a class that is based on such ideologies like honor, virtue, chivalry, etc cut more across the gain than I would allow.

A fine concept, for a fighter. Explain then where you can in this example (which I do like for a fighter mind you), the tribal protector gains spellcasting, the ability to heal others, becomes immune to disease, gains a special mount, etc.

Fine, then, don't give them spells. Like I suggested, you could use the non-spellcasting Paladin variant from The Complete Warrior. And you can explain other abilities such as Healing or a Mount Bond as being a pseudo-psionic "Spiritual Uplift" born of the Paladin's personal dedication.

Same question here. What divine source are you refering to? The closest thing to divine on Athas are the elemental planes and the lords there, and they're certainly not about holy crusades. People are nothing more than tools to them, to be used as such. Of course, its a fairly mutual view taken by the clerics too, many of which use the power gained by the elemental lords as a tool in their own agendas, rather than fanatic religeous worship (but all clerics are individuals, so there are some zealots among them who view it as religion). The Sorceror-King's were also in a way god-like, but there were not gods, not divine at all. A key aspect of their creation allowed them to 'tap' into the elemental planes and act as a channel for their templars to gain spells. Now, you could argue that lowly little mortals eventually learned also how to tap into this power, but that, IMO cheapens the SKs.

Well, the Paladins might have some bunk explanation such as "The Spirit of the City" or the like, but in game terms... Why -must- there be a well-defined source for their powers? Perhaps the Protectors of Tyr mysteriously appeared one day, fighting the good fight with powers that none, not even they, could explain. Perhaps they're a new kind of psionic adepts, perhaps they've become living vessels to some strange planar entities, perhaps they're unknowing dupes of a Sorceror-King...

The point is, if you keep it a mystery, you've got a lot of potential plot hooks...

I've used the general idea of the holy liberator PrC (albeit quite altered in the end) for this very aspect. In fact, there's even a precedent for it in the game in the near mythical tribe of ex-slaves known as The Free. Of course, like all things of Athas, the myths that talk of a group of people who set slaves free where ever and when ever they can is bunk. The Free do release slaves, but they release them to die in the deserts as freemen, not as slaves laboring away their last breath. They don't do it out of nobility, but out of sheer hatred and revenge against their former masters in the cities to disrupt the slave trade itself. That some slaves manage to live long enough to tell about the tribe is a side effect.

Extremely public acts? They'd be dead in a day. Everyone would be against them, from the common citizens who fear the templar's inquisitions, to the other slaves who would hope that turning in the Liberator would at least get them a reduced work load.

Again Dark Sun is a setting where the distinction between good and evil is blurred, by design. Hence if there is no clear cut distinction where exactly does the PHB paladin fit in? As many people have pointed out a variation on the paladin could be created, but these are no longer paladins per the PHB (which is what the Dragon article was proclaiming to use). Elemental-based holy warriors are not true paladins. The variant paladins from UA are closer, but they still are lawful good and have the same restrictions on their code as do the PHB version - it is just a matter of how the 'enforce' their code.

Is Hammanu truely as Evil as Dregoth? He is a SK so by his very nature he has to be evil, but there are definitely shades of evil involved here. Hammanu cares deeply for his city and his charges. Paladins (per the PHB) can't really exist in a world where there are shades of evil, that is where there is no clear distinction between the guys in the white hats and the guys in the black hats.

Ok, now both of these points hammer in the idea that "Dark Sun is just Inhospitable to Heroism", which not only grates at my moral fiber (I believe that Good is Good, that Evil is Evil, and that choosing "The lesser of two evils" is still choosing Evil.), but also goes against the motto of D&D 3.5 which is "Options, Not Restrictions".

My point is, it's up to players and GMs to make the final call on what fits or doesn't fit in a given campaign, not the gaming company. If you don't think Paladins belong on a harsh, unforgiving world like Athas, then don't add them. If you want to add Paladins to your Dark Sun games as the last heroes of a world that has forgotten what heroism was, then more power to you.

 

[Mach2.5]

But not impossible, which seems to have been the point. It seems unlikely, but apparently somehow Atzetuk got his hands on the Lens and became a Dragon.

Yeah, this baffles me a bit. Granted, in my home game Atzetuk threw off the domination of the Masters of the Mind and the Templarate to become a rightful ruler rather than a puppet king, but I never wanted the kid to be a dragon-king, too cliche' and easily anticipatable. But it does then lead to questions in the Dragon/Dungeon articles of what became of the Dark Lens. If Atzetuk got a hold of it at one point in time (in order to advance as a spell granting dragon-king), does he still have it? It would certainly make the newbie one of the most feared and potent SKs in the Tablelands. Not that I have a problem with that; I've a soft spot for the guy and have been staging more and more adventures in and around Draj lately.

So why can't we do that?

My main arguements have been with the paladin as stated in core (chivalrous goody-goodies; which are a favorite of mine if GH so its not simply anti-paladin sentiment, pun intended). I don't have as big an issue with it being modified, though many of the modifications make it far less of a paladin and more some other class' sphere of influence. I think we do at least see a little similar, but keep getting hung on semantics (at least, I know that's some of my stubborn issue).

Like I suggested, you could use the non-spellcasting Paladin variant from The Complete Warrior. And you can explain other abilities such as Healing or a Mount Bond as being a pseudo-psionic "Spiritual Uplift" born of the Paladin's personal dedication.

Sorry, but I still haven't managed to nab this book up yet. Its on the 'to-buy list' though.

Once again though, it depends on the background and flavor in question as to what abilities are appropriate. I would rather write the backstory of the class, then see what abilities are appropriate, rather than the reverse of looking at the abilities first and then trying to come up with a back story that justifies them. Its just my personal approach that the rules and mechanics serve my story, not the other way around. Others vary though in their approach and do so quite well. For example, dedication to any cause doesn't justify mystical abilities. Making them psionic is okay, but then you simply have a psychic warrior of sorts and hence more appropriate as a PrC.

(edit) Actually, something I just realised. There's no healing at all in the PsiH (haven't got the new one yet, though I doubt that would be something added in there). No powers that resemble cure spells or anything that heals damage of most any kind. One kind of take of the psionically empowered paladin concept that may not tread too much on the toes of the other core classes would be a psychic warrior whose powers deal at least somewhat with healing (some minor cure hit point powers, cure diseases, etc). Course, that's a bit of versatility going on for a single class, but its perhaps a step in the right direction. Maybe.

 

[reiella]

(edit) Actually, something I just realised. There's no healing at all in the PsiH (haven't got the new one yet, though I doubt that would be something added in there). No powers that resemble cure spells or anything that heals damage of most any kind. One kind of take of the psionically empowered paladin concept that may not tread too much on the toes of the other core classes would be a psychic warrior whose powers deal at least somewhat with healing (some minor cure hit point powers, cure diseases, etc). Course, that's a bit of versatility going on for a single class, but its perhaps a step in the right direction. Maybe.

Kinda curious, is Oronis dead in the Dragon write-up?

Just trying to figure out why he wouldn't be a possible or viable option for the paladins.

[edit / add ]
Is it because even the spells the SK grant are elemental in nature?
[End Edit]
And there are some healing powers in the PsiH .
Empathic Transfer (in XPH and rather weakened) - transfer damage from target to self (including ability damage).
And Body Adjustment (which I don't know if it is in the XPH), which heals self of 3d6 points of damage or up to 2 points of temp ability damage, or some bonus to disease / poison saves.

XPH also introduced Psionic Restoration (restore) and Psionic Revivfy (raise dead) for the Egoist power list.

But yea, Psions do not have good healing power typically. In 3.0, they could heal in a large burst, but often were near death shortly after.

 

[Mach2.5]

Kinda curious, is Oronis dead in the Dragon write-up?

Not sure. Most of the stuff from the revised box set is not mentioned. Oronis' city lay outside the Tablelands region and the articles didn't seem to venture there. No mention of Draskinor either from what I skimmed (still don't have the mags though, ran out of money with pre-orders of other books so its also on the 'to-buy' list for the next trip).

As for Oronis using holy knights, I go with Brax's Wisdom of the Drylanders write-up for what the former dragon's chosen would be based on, spies, infiltrators, and sabatuers (far more rogue-like) rather than championed warriors. If the other SKs learned of his change from dragon to avangion, the city of Kurn would find itself besieged rather quickly. Sending out warriors to do his deeds would only quicken his being found out about. Oronis isn't trying to fight the good fight IMO, he's working slowly and deliberately in the shadows with the long term goal of Athas' revival.

Empathic Transfer (in XPH and rather weakened)

Drats. I've been had! Forgot about that one.

 

[Wycen]

Regarding Atzetuk, being the newbie, he most likely is the weakest dragon. I know they previously published the levels of all the dragon-kings, and since this version takes place 300 years later, one would say that is considerable time to advance a step. So, Atzetuk is like 21st level while everyone else is 24th or higher. If I recall, before the introduction of Dregoth, Nibenay was the strongest.

Also, who's to say Atzetuk didn't find an alternative means of granting spells. Maybe tapping into the cerulean storm or something else he discovered in lost lore.

Certainly I would imagine the authors of this new Dark Sun material couldn't answer all the questions, or in fact find out what questions needed answers, when thinking this new stuff up.

 

[irdeggman]

Ok, now both of these points hammer in the idea that "Dark Sun is just Inhospitable to Heroism", which not only grates at my moral fiber (I believe that Good is Good, that Evil is Evil, and that choosing "The lesser of two evils" is still choosing Evil.), but also goes against the motto of D&D 3.5 which is "Options, Not Restrictions".
.

Ahh there is the difference in opinions. Dark Sun was in every previous incarnation and in the novels (which there are quite a few by the way, only FR and Dragonlance have more IIRC) a place of anti-heroism. It was a harsh world where there is no clear good and evil. It was full of situational ethics. In the revised DS set it attempted to define alignments in turn of sharing water, again no clear cut good and evil. There was sticking up for what a character thought was right against what he thought was wrong, only it was all personal - there wasn't any clearly designated right and wrong it was always defined by the character him/her self. See the novels and Sadira's defiling and how she handled it in the long run.

This does not fly against "the options not restrictions" mantra that people in general attempt to use to justify making any revision of an old setting merely a clone of Greyhawk/Forgotten Worlds. A setting is defined by its differences not by its similarities otherwise it is all just plain vanilla.

For example DS elves are the exact opposite of the PHB elves. Where the standard PHB elf desires to perserve and live as one with nature the DS elf would set up a contract to ravage the last forest if he could make a gp from it (remind me more of Ferengi than the generic fantasy elves). This is just one of the marked differences that made DS its own camapaign.

Now I'm not saying that a paladin-styled character couldn't fit, only that the PHB version will not unless modified quite a bit. Again "options not restrictions".

Something else that Dragon #319 should have done but didn't was to really tie in arcane spell casting the state of Athas. It was mentioned in #315 but the extension to bards if using the PHB version that casts arcane spells wasn't made. I personnaly don't like using the PHB bard in DS, but if it is being used then the defiling/preserving rules should be applied to them also.

 

[Mach2.5]

I personnaly don't like using the PHB bard in DS, but if it is being used then the defiling/preserving rules should be applied to them also.

The same idea seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. Stop over at the WOTC message boards. There's probably four different 'athasian' bard classes floating about there if you do a little search that more resemble the 2e bard of Athas, along with one or two 'psionic' bards. If you can find a link to the old WOTC message boards (I had it, but can't find it to repost here), there's a few more in there as well.

I believe that Good is Good, that Evil is Evil, and that choosing "The lesser of two evils" is still choosing Evil

I tend to think in the opposite of this. Its the reason for why you do what it is you do that defines whether you are a good or bad person. Giving to charity is considered good. Giving to a charity that you don't give one whit about only so you can gain an extra exemption for the purpose of a tax write-offs is not so good. Assassinating someone is evil. Assassinating the corrupt leader of a group of fanatical oppressors of the masses is not so evil. Using the cut and dry, black and white mentality means that any sharp-shooter hired by the U.S. Police Forces to stop crime is evil, since they assassinate criminals in a most unfair manner. Yet they do it for the greater good, so they're not evil people, nor are the police who hire or employ them. There's more shades of grey in real life than what many people want in their game, and that's fine. Me, I like the blurring lines of right and wrong.

This is what stands out in DS for me as compared to many other fantasy settings.