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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6296725" data-attributes="member: 7006">As a counter to your argument... the Priest to me sounds like a vocation that a character should still have.  Whereas Backgrounds (which I have come to understand them) are leanings that your character had prior to becoming an Adventurer.  To be a Priest (to me) means you've gone through the long and rigorous process of actually becoming ordained.  Most people who are Priests actually work *as* priests in their respective churches-- it's not just a casual thing they did growing up before going on to become a Fighter or a Wizard or whatnot.Whereas an Acolyte of Pelor means that you are still a devout follower of Pelor but not actually employeed by the church.  Perhaps you've spent time working within the temple, or you volunteer, you were raised in it, or you just are exceedinly devout in your personal time.  But in any case... you haven't actually become a fully ordained and a functioning employee.  You were still more than able to spend most of your time learning combat or magic or music or whatever it was that gave you your Class, which is the primary descriptor of what it is you do.  If you were an Acolyte *and* you then became actually ordained... that's where having the Cleric as your Class comes in.This is the same reason why many people had problems with the Knight background way back when in the very early playtest packets.  Being an actual Knight seemed way too advanced in learning and status for someone who starts the game as a 1st level adventurer.  Earning that title should have been a big deal, and not something a character just casually did in their past prior to becoming a Fighter or Barbarian or Wizard.  Had the background been Squire it wouldn't have caused the same consternation, because it was much more believable a character might have been a squire prior to becoming a Fighter or a Paladin.  But to have been a Knight and then become a Bard?  Felt more like a demotion than a part of a character's history.So I happen to agree that Backgrounds should try and avoid using terms that imply longer-term work or study in the field as that seems to run counter to what the Backgrounds are meant to imply.  A Commoner feels like she could go on to become a Ranger.  A Noble feels like he could go on to study Wizardry.  A Priest feels like she should actually be a functioning Priest within the church... and not someone who forsook her path to then become a Rogue.  At least, that's how I feel about it.</blockquote>

Verification