Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 9594007" data-attributes="member: 4303">I think this approach can only be cogent within a certain - campaign specific - context, where the milieu is tailored to reflect the classes and they are purposefully and mindfully grounded in the campaign world. And I don't think it can work - i.e. it is not logically tenable - with broad-remit classes such as rogues and fighters.If the only deity who has paladins is Heironeous, then having an elect order of holy knights who are granted certain supernatural boons by their devotion is not unreasonable: this is not dissimilar to the way that certain prestige classes in 3.X are assumed to work. But when you extend the ambit of &quot;paladin&quot; and make it a class which exists independently from a particular context (e.g. of Pelor, of Tritherion - whatever), and insist that that particular mechanical expression - &quot;paladin&quot; - is a sensible &quot;thing&quot;, regardless of their religious persuasion, then you've created a logical inconsistency; you've interpolated an element - &quot;paladin&quot; - between the ruleset and the imagined world, and afforded it a substantiality which is unwarranted. Wizards are another class which can be purposefully baked into the campaign setting - it does not strain credulity to have an order or clique of academically-minded, rigorously systematic magic-users who share a common methodology. But this - the &quot;wizard as a thing&quot; - will logically stumble the further removed it is is from the particular context in which it was established in-world. That said, I think &quot;wizard&quot; is the most durable and logically tenable &quot;class is real&quot; candidate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 9594007, member: 4303"] I think this approach can only be cogent within a certain - campaign specific - context, where the milieu is tailored to reflect the classes and they are purposefully and mindfully grounded in the campaign world. And I don't think it [I]can[/I] work - i.e. it is not logically tenable - with broad-remit classes such as rogues and fighters. If the only deity who has paladins is Heironeous, then having an elect order of holy knights who are granted certain supernatural boons by their devotion is not unreasonable: this is not dissimilar to the way that certain prestige classes in 3.X are assumed to work. But when you extend the ambit of "paladin" and make it a class which exists independently from a particular context (e.g. of Pelor, of Tritherion - whatever), and insist that that particular mechanical expression - "paladin" - is a sensible "thing", regardless of their religious persuasion, then you've created a logical inconsistency; you've interpolated an element - "paladin" - between the ruleset and the imagined world, and afforded it a substantiality which is unwarranted. Wizards are another class which can be purposefully baked into the campaign setting - it does not strain credulity to have an order or clique of academically-minded, rigorously systematic magic-users who share a common methodology. But this - the "wizard as a thing" - will logically stumble the further removed it is is from the particular context in which it was established in-world. That said, I think "wizard" is the most durable and logically tenable "class is real" candidate. [/QUOTE]

Verification