The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[diaglo]

So perhaps indeed the time has come to "agree to disagree" and put it to rest.

i agree.

Original D&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Don't make me get a shovel, Diaglo...

 

[Rel]

So perhaps indeed the time has come to "agree to disagree" and put it to rest.

Yeah, but somebody has to get the last word in. I mean, I didn't follow ten pages of thread just so everybody can walk away living and letting live. Somebody has to get stabbed or at least beaten into unconsciousness after a thread like this.

Where's the violence?



What are you guys doing with those mechanical pencils?

 

[diaglo]

Where's the violence?

*WHAM dig, dig, dig....*


there, are you happy?

 

[Rel]

*WHAM dig, dig, dig....*


there, are you happy?

More like sore.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Where's the violence?

Well, I get a little irate on page 4 or 5 (can't remember). This thread was mostly good for strawmen arguments and assumptions about worst-case scenarios, though.

Sorry to disappoint...

 

[I'm A Banana]

While to you, the flavor-change was enough to justify its inclusion, to me it's lazy campaign design. If put in the same position (and having a thus-far unvisited Mesoamerican continent in my own world, so I could very well end up in it), I wouldn't have just used the Paladin Class but rather would have dug into Mesoamerican myth and lore, determined the kinds of abilities "holy" champions of those cultures were said to be endowed with, and written a whole-new Class based on that.

In my eyes, all you've done is take the mechanics that are designed to support a Charlamagne-esque Paladin Class-role and placed it into a completely foreign environment where the specific powers of the class may or may not even be culturally relevant. Which is why this debate has become one of subjective opinion: To you, the flavor change was good enough, while to me it is just an excuse for taking the "easy road" of campaign building.

I'll address the specific powers, first, just changing the flavor text:
-------
Good BAB: Well, it's something warriors get
Good Fort save, bad Reflex and Will saves: So they're good at gritting their teeth, but not so much at the dodge or the willpower. Prolly why they keep the clerics around for advice. But nothing out of line with any kind of warrior yet.
d10 HD: A front line kind of guy, who wants to suck up the blows.
2 Skill Ponits/Level; Skills related to religion, spellcasting, animals, and nobility: Hmmm, here's a bit of implied flavor. We've got 'em casting spells (good for a defender of the Temple of the Sun), being religious (it is a temple...), being nobles (they interact with foreigners, smooth over relations with allies; I don't think there's ever been a big religious group that's not in good with the local government, so that works), and dealing with the wildlife (every temple needs your animal sacrifices! The royal Quetzal birds and the dogs need to be taken care of, too).
Aura of Good: Well, now we're getting a bit cultural, but let's run with the idea that the Temple of the Sun devotes itself to a cause of Good. Makes sense that a holy warrior would shed out this kind of energy.
Detect Evil: Again, something 'warriors of goodness' would get.
Smite Evil: Okay, I get the point, it's a warrior of goodness! Nothing either Charlamagne-specific or Western-specific yet...just warrior + goodness (and a bit of religous nobility with the skills).
Divine Grace: Well, good saving throws for being stylish and loved by the masses certainly supports that whole nobility idea. So they definately aren't social outcasts, probably.
Lay on Hands: Well, they like to heal their friends, who doesn't? Since this is D&D, and clerics = healers, it links them to religion better. So now we got Good + Noble + Religion + Warrior.
Aura of Courage: Pretty good to stay and fight (warrior), and to avoid looking like a coward (nobility)....hmm, I don't see anything referencing the Crusades yet....or flaying flesh and wearing it around...
Divine Health: Unbelievably useful for a jungle setting. And it further links them with clerics, healers, and religion.
Turn Undead: I don't know of many Temples of the Sun that like encouraging those buried under them to rise up and fight; plus Undead are by-the-mechanics evil by nature, so it works with the whole Good aspect, *and* with the whole Religion aspect (linking them better with clerics). So, still Noble Religious Warrior of Goodness...what could make you think Charlamagne, lemme think....maybe it's the -
-Special Mount? True, there's not a lot of horses in the jungles of historical Mesoamerica, but I don't see any threat to my campaign's flavor by allowing them. It's not like 'horses' gives any particular strong cultural feel; a lot of South American Gauchos use them to this very day, and they were certainly popular when they were introduced in the mesa regions of Mexico, where places like Teotihuacan flourished (odly enough, where the original Temple of the Sun is located!). So there are horses for these Noble Religious Warriors of Goodness to ride; probably part of the royal stable, specially held in high regard by the emperor. Taking the mechanics without any alterations, I could even overlay a new flavor on them. They're no longer warhorses -- they're WARLLAMA! Just like horses, but now they can be milked and can give wool; no mechanics changes whatsoever. Or maybe I'd rather have 'jungle horses', that'd work too. Horses who have non-mechanics-affecting special adaptations for the jungle. Or I could take the PHB's suggestion of selecting another kind of mount -- they suggest riding dogs for halflings, and sharks (which are pretty powerful critters, when compared to warponies!) for aquatic campaigns...maybe these Mesoamerican paladins are known for riding Apes! Or Camels (which would, now that I think about it, be a better fit for Llamas, since they're more closely related)! Or Large Vipers (think of the Feathered serpent after all)! Heck, by the rules, I could allow dire wolves, hippogriffs, giant eagles or owls, pegasai, rhinoceroses, dire lions, and hippogriffs, if the Paladin is willing to wait a level or five. Imagine that, the default D&D world has, on occasion, paladins astride rhinoceroses. I think Charlamagne would crap himself!
BUT, I'm trying to stay within the exact, stringent rules and see if it still fits, so there we go. The Paladins of the Temple of the Sun have special horse mounts. Horses are now not introduced -- they're indigenous to the mesa area. Though I suppose if I have a problem with that, even a ruleslawyer would have to permit me to change it. But no problem. Horses are okay.
Divine Magic: Well, this is largely part-and-parcel of the "Religious" quality, and I don't see any that add anything to the 'implied setting by the rules' so far beyond the Noble Religious Horse-Riding Warrior of Goodness.
Remove Disease: Pretty much like Divine Health, but now our Templar of the Sun can spread the love around a bit.
---------
So, there are the entire mechanics for the Paladin class, and every speck of flavor they entail. I can see Mesoamerican Wearer of Flayed Skin in that just as easily as I can see Charlamagne. I can see a Samurai in there, too. Or a Hun. Or a Pharoah's Calvalry. Or a Cowboy (!). As far as this goes, the potential is all in how you look at it. The mechanics of the Paladin class no more specifcy Crusaders in Medieval Europe than they specify Cowboys. At least, that's surely the way it looks to me.

As for the naitive Mesoamerican Holy Warrior, sure, he's good too. But it it's just one guy who likes the Paladin class and wants a campaign to play in, it's really not worth my time to whip up an entirely new class for him and hope that it fullfills the same need he gets out of the Paladin. Or if I already have a Mesoamerican Holy Warrior class, perhaps that doesn't exactly fulfill his need, as a fan of the mounted religious warrior of goodness (which is kinda hard to emulate with a class whose main powers deal in capturing people and ripping out their hearts to keep the cosmos functioning). When I can just use the bones of the Paladin class (the mechanics of it), and overlay my own setting's flavor, it keeps us both happy: I get a player who likes to be a bit creative to play in my setting without violating it, and he gets a character he likes playing.

If he came in there demanding to play Charlamagne, I'd still tell him he'd be dissapointed. "Sorry, I gots no muslims to kill, mang!" But if he came there wanting to play a member of the Paladin class (a Religious Noble Horse-Riding Warrior of Goodness), I see no reason to be difficult about it.

 

[woodelf]

The thing I find the goofiest about this whole discussion is that D&D, in comaprison to a *lot* of RPGs on the market, imposes *way* more restrictions on PCs.

Actually, i'd say it only imposes marginally more restrictions. Lots of game systems have pseudo-classes, such as Storytellers clans/tribes/whatevers. Usually, their impact is only slightly less than a D&D3E class. And you can always take a different class for your new level--your clan/tribe/whatever is pretty much immutable (though, admittedly, some of its restrictions aren't there after the character is in play). So, while i concur that D&D3E is more restrictive than most, i'd say it's only a *lot* more restrictive than a handful: the various universal/generic systems, like GURPS, Hero, Fudge, etc.

I mean, it's only just with 3e that players can bring PCs outside of a small handful of archetypes, and even then there's still limitations. In HERO, the only thing preventing a player from creating anything from an AI toaster to a planet-sized spacefaring bluegill is the GM. I don't see a lot of HERO players getting all up in arms that the system is provding "too many options" that hamper the ability of GMs to run their campaigns as they see fit.

On the other hand, you're absolutely right: these systems are *way* more open and option-ful than anything D20 System i've seen, much less the relatively-strictured D&D3[.5]E. So, yeah, i see what you're saying, and pretty much agree with it. I'm only nit-picking the degree.