Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="quixoteles" data-source="post: 4032470" data-attributes="member: 59883">To be honest, I have been wanting to play the brother in arms, ie the Warlord since I started playing DnD when I was 12. The idea that the fighter would be a combat enhancer, would make everyone else better fighters is a fun idea, and people want it. It is what is missing in the game. A fight sometimes is not ideological or personal but collective. People who fight in wars have time and time again said their aim is to keep their fellows alive. In DnD someone in the adventuring party that you can depend on is actually a gross oversight that I wasn't able to mention for a very long time because I couldn't but it into words. I disagree with the original argument, A paladin is not there to judge you, he's there to serve a god's will. You follow her [4e Paladin] because you believe in the suasion she's spouting and she is spreading divine protection she receives on to you. It's not a really paladin's concern wether they follow. The paladin as a defender is a powerful redeeming idea, better than a divine leader, which reek's offensive offal to me. The GM roleplay's god, anyone wanting to be a leader-type with a divine power source is looking for the GM to state: this is my chosen one, come to heel and don't mess with him.   I think that is truly obnoxious, at least as an American who believes in the separation of church and state, in this case the state of the battle.Is it really the player power trip that makes heads shake? You secret fascist at the table squeeing at the table because he want's to make his upteenth unstoppable empire and now all the players have to listen to him b/c he's the warlord? From what perspective does this come from, player or GM? And just what makes this kind of battle whiz type (please do not get into the "there is no such thing as tacticians in Fantasy" contention, this is metagame) so irritating or the potential of it so irritating? What is a DND, or rather a 3.5 party to you? I figure 3-5 guys are going to get absurdly powerful and save the world, while along the  way becoming incredible rich and famous and visiting incredible gorgeous locales and meeting terribly exotic peoples. I make this assumption about your games, and base it on what I think it takes to make a game go well, with this assumption I assume that war, the nasty anonymous process to exert control over a region and make it subjugate to their will is an unnecessary, or unwanted part of the game. Stating this opinion in term that I understand, and for the record stating that I like very much for players to weave in and out of sweeping battles occurring in settings, you see that someone like the Warlord as nothing but a irritant in a collection of independents. You have a guy that is odd in a group of rugged individualists who are out for fame, fortune, power, and glory. She is literally stealing an ounce of every other roles thunder, by making them not so individual anymore, and thereby killing the cool of the game. Killing dragons in dungeons is the name of the game, snatching their hoard and such not is the realm of DND any else is a wargame and has no place in the dungeon? If that is true, then yes fine this doesn't work.  I remember hearing a podcast titled "you already may be playing 4e" and hearing one of the designers say; fantasy has changed. WW II is part of the fantasy dreamscape I believe, and so war in front and behind it. The battle of Thermopylae, and Normady beach need's to be filled with warlords. And in people's dreams they want them there and in the dungeon and fighting the wizard in the tower and standing up to the gods.  I think the warlord is just that it represents what people think when they identify with the evolving notion of what fantasy is. I certainly do think that the leader of men/kind stranger/pale rider is a fantasy trope, I also think it's embodied in the fighters raw aggression, in the rouges backstab, in the clerics buff, and in the paladin's interposition and every class can survive on it's own, it's just that the Warlord is best standing for and beside his fellow's. I certainly don't understand this idea that belief in god of some kind or belief in some divine principle for a good leader makes. There are not many theocracies, and few surviving monarchies. The idea that a leader has to be divine seems outdated Gothic to me. I believe that most player' don't even recall that kind of trope or detail. The distinction between fellows like Heracles and Mars is in fiction quite clear and I believe ultimately finally, finally, DND reflects that.</blockquote>

Verification