PDA

View Full Version : Perversions?



PaladinBoy
2007-05-31, 06:19 PM
I saw the following posted in this thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45728) It wasn't quite the proper place to have this discussion.


*snip*
I want the possibility of blighter druids who are tricking nature for their powers, paladins of highly questionable morality, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, chaotic monks.

I can see the last three. Maybe.

What really caught my eye was the first two. The way the classes are described in the SRD leads one to believe that a druid is a person who reveres nature, and a paladin is a person of (nearly) unimpeachable morality that dedicates his life to fighting evil. At least, that's the impression I gain from them.

I can see people opposed to those causes (like the blighter or the blackguard), but not really see perversions of those causes. The powers of a paladin in particular and a druid to a lesser extent seem to be rewards and gifts given by the gods for dedication to a cause. If you have a druid that disrespects and destroys nature, is he really a druid? If you have a paladin willing to torture evil creatures to death simply for being evil, or a paladin willing to steal, lie, and cheat to destroy evil...... well, I suppose you could call him a Grey Guard, but is he really a paladin?

It seems to me that if you want something like that which seems so different from the base material, if you will, then you might as well create a new class. Perhaps with similar abilities, but the idea of a druid that tricks and destroys nature or the idea of a paladin that supports good while being evil seems different enough from the base class that you might as well create a new one. It really strikes me as a matter of entirely different concepts for the class.

Thoughts?

melchizedek
2007-05-31, 06:26 PM
I agree with you to some extent, but I would say that most of the differences there are fluff. It shouldn't be too difficult to say that my character has all/most of the abilities of a paladin or druid, but is different in that they are actually against nature, or that they are less obviously good. You would definitely need to change the fluff, and some of the abilities might not quite fit, but these characters probably aren't going to be far from the original class.

kjones
2007-05-31, 07:00 PM
For evil paladin's that aren't just blackguards, look at Fax's The As-It-Should-Be Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33551). As for evil druids, how exactly do you "trick" nature? It's nature. If you hurt Nature, it'll know.

JaronK
2007-05-31, 07:04 PM
The word "Paladin" actually just means Warrior Servant. The one in the PHB is a Warrior Servant of Heironeous, but why shouldn't there be ones for other causes or gods?

Unearthed Arcana answers this with the Paladin of Freedom, Paladin of Slaughter, and Paladin of Tyranny, which are CG, CE, and LE, respectively. They also call the base Paladin a Paladin of Honor.

I think it works great.

JaronK

PaladinBoy
2007-05-31, 07:19 PM
Oh, I understand Fax's paladin, or other things like it. They're champions of a different cause than Good, which seems fine to me. What I have trouble identifying with is a paladin that says he's supporting Good while being evil.

I can see Paladins being steadfast champions of a particular point of view, but not a major, steadfast servant of good with questionable morality. Well, maybe I can, but I wouldn't call it a paladin. Likewise with the druid....... I can't really see a druid that hates and tricks/ destroys nature. I can see a blighter, or other class or person that destroys nature out of habit.

Really, I can see people like a paladin of questionable morality or a druid that hates nature...... I just wouldn't use the druid and paladin for their abilities. I would use a Grey Guard or a blighter. Nor would I call them a druid or a paladin.

Enzario
2007-05-31, 07:41 PM
Well, if you like the idea of a Grey Guard or a Blighter for those ideas, yer gonna hafta get yerself a 'hole new class.
Honestly, blighters are terrible PCs. Good BBEGs, but bad PCs. The requirement to destroy several square miles worth of forest is something that is too easily brought to either end of the spectrum: being incredibly strong/abusable or incredibly pathetic. The blighter abilities, too, are flawed in that they require the destruction of a huge amountof land, and are incredibly powerful. See reasons above for why that just doesn't work. So, using the blighter as the base idea, work your way out from there. Weaken the abilities, and make it easier to get those abilities available for use. Maybe change a few other things if you feel like.

The grey guard is a terrible class, from what I've heard. Just use the paladin variants from UA (they work well, trust me). Now, on the issue of a fallen paladin, just use "cleric-ish" rules on changing gods/outlook, and maybe throw in a slightly large side quest for atonement. Bam. Problem solved.
Now, on the issue of a paladin who says he's good but is actually evil, just use rule 0; don't allow him any spells or abilities that rely on him being good, switch his alignment to evil, and then start him on an atonement/conversion quest. If he refuses/argues, remember that D&D is based around an agreement between the DM and the players, and that violation of that agreement is grounds to stop playing, since you have violated the basic principle of the game. Example: No one plays chess with someone who moves two pieces at a time.

I definately see and agree with your point. But fluff is probably the easiest thing to change about a class or character. And alignment is iffy. Use your best judgement, good luck, and above all, since it's just a game, have fun!

Diggorian
2007-05-31, 07:57 PM
I know fully what ya mean.

A non-LG paladin or nature destroying druid are contraditions in terms, like a killer-healer. The concept cant cohere on it's own, but can be a mechanical basis of a new class.

The variants in UA I could play and run with, but I have to change their name: Enforcer, Slayer, or Liberator. A nature killing druid could evolve into a Divine casting Defiler, not a variant druid.

Whiplord
2007-05-31, 07:57 PM
Well for the paladin idea, if I may pull out a very nerdy example:

If any of you watch anime, than you have probably either heard of or seen an anime/manga called Death Note. In it a young boy recieves a notebook with which he can kill anyone as long as he knows their name and face. In fact, he can specify the way they die up to the smallest detail.

When he first finds it, he is very nervous about it. After all, isn't it wrong? But then he decides to purge the world of all evil by killing all the criminals, and anyone he sees as doing wrong. This includes anyone who gets in his way, including a man who he was very good friends with on some level.

Light (the main character) is convinced he is doing good, but his actions show otherwise.

melchizedek
2007-05-31, 07:58 PM
I'd actually like to see some sort of Paladin type class for each of the gods. The paladin variants in UA come close, but they don't allow for a LN pally, who was focused on upholding the law for the sake of the law, or any similar ideas. Some of those could be cool. A Paladin of St. Cuthbert could be an interesting character or NPC, but wouldn't be possible under regular rules. Likely, he'd have similar abilities to a regular pally. (You might want to swap out chaotic for evil, but even that wouldn't be necessary.)

Xaros
2007-05-31, 08:26 PM
Does this idea of perversion versus purity extend into thoughts as well as actions? The reason I ask is that I'm playing a Paladin of Freedom (by DM's request) in Sigil. The problem, as I see it, is that he's surrounded by Baatezu and Tanar'ri every day. Some are even quite close to the character. Does such a paladin risk his alignment through such associations, and effectively become "less good" or less a paladin (or both)?

For the record, I'm minimizing the chaotic aspect of his alignment only because I play it practically as neutral.

SurlySeraph
2007-05-31, 08:36 PM
@ Enzario: Oh, you better not have just dissed Greyguards... okay, they're kinda weak in a conventional campaign, where you won't get many chances to kill non-evil things in the name of the greater good... but they're still the best paladin PrC ever, flavorwise.
Everything else you said is absolutely right, though.

DreadArchon
2007-05-31, 08:44 PM
A non-LG paladin or nature destroying druid are contraditions in terms, like a killer-healer. The concept cant cohere on it's own, but can be a mechanical basis of a new class.
I disagree. (Which is why I unbound alignment restrictions on classes in my campaign.) I have no problem with the idea of a chaotic evil core paladin who slaughters everything that doesn't read on Detect Evil, or a druid who thinks that he has authority over nature--and hates it, thus prompting him to tear it down and remake it to his liking. I view the classes as portrayals of study, training, experience, education, and practice, rather than tracks used by the Union Pacific Fluff Line.

Jack Mann
2007-05-31, 08:55 PM
A Paladin of St. Cuthbert could be an interesting character or NPC, but wouldn't be possible under regular rules.

Actually, it is. St. Cuthbert has paladins called Votaries of Communicants. St. Cuthbert is (often) lawful neutral, but he has good tendencies and has a strong focus on the destruction of evil, so much of his clergy and church is composed of lawful good people. And this isn't even going into setting where he's lawful good with lawful neutral tendencies.

melchizedek
2007-05-31, 08:58 PM
Actually, it is. St. Cuthbert has paladins called Votaries of Communicants. St. Cuthbert is (often) lawful neutral, but he has good tendencies and has a strong focus on the destruction of evil, so much of his clergy and church is composed of lawful good people. And this isn't even going into setting where he's lawful good with lawful neutral tendencies.
What book is this in? I might have to look it up. I'm not denying what you're saying, I just want more information.

Diggorian
2007-05-31, 09:00 PM
@ Dread Archon, I'm all for diversity within a classes theme.

The paladin you describe can still be lawful good, although a zealot. A pally that kills good people cant be a paladin.

A creative druid, shaping nature, can still be a druid. One that seeks to turn all the world into a desert is some kind of insane fallen druid.

EDIT: I've had a paladin of Cuthbert in one of my games. We just tweaked his Code to emphasize the lawfulness over the good.

Matthew
2007-05-31, 09:19 PM
Saint Cuthbert, apparently, used to be Lawful Good and is now Lawful Neutral or something. Weird stuff, but there you go.

Paladins who aren't Paladins. Paladins for every Alignment. Paladins for every Religion/Cause/Deity. It's easy to see why this would be attractive. Indeed, this proposition is at least fifteen years old (which is when I think I first heard it voiced in Dragon Magazine). It's not my cup of tea, but it's probably tolerable when done right. I wouldn't be inclined to use the word Paladin, as the connotations are well established in modern English. Divine Champion, perhaps, or simply Champion. Something like that.

I don't really get why it has to be a Paladin; surely just creating a more generic Class with appropriate generic fluff (as with the Cleric) would be sufficient, without having to incorporate the Paladin into it?

barawn
2007-05-31, 09:42 PM
As for evil druids, how exactly do you "trick" nature? It's nature. If you hurt Nature, it'll know.

You're not hurting it. You're convincing it that what you're doing is good.

Is it "not a druid"? Of course it's not a druid. Not in the sense that you're thinking. It's nearly identical in terms of abilities, though.

That was kindof the point of the comment - it'd be nice to have very basic, balanced classes, which could then be added onto.

Matthew
2007-05-31, 09:46 PM
You mean like the Generic Classes in Unearthed Arcana?

Shoyliguad
2007-05-31, 10:00 PM
Here are my two cents, in game you aren't a paladin, your a crusader. You might be a druid but more called the protecter of the forest. There are no "classes" that meta-gaming. Alignments are how a charecter acts, limiting it is not cool and i usually say, "If you can role play it out, I'll let you do anything within reason" (no auto crits, making a level ones arrow kill a great wyrm dragon etc etc). If the rules don't allow it just work with the dm/player to make a class that fits what you need.

Starsinger
2007-05-31, 11:09 PM
Light (the main character) is convinced he is doing good, but his actions show otherwise.

That would be nice if D&D was in a game of abstract alignments. But idiotically so, it's a world where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are defined, and real forces in the universe. You can kill all the puppies and orphans that you want, thinking that you're doing something good, but it won't make it so. Paladins and to a much greater extent, the book of ED set extremely high moral standards and then when you fail to meet said extremely high standards, they take everything away from you.

As to the question of a paladin of a different alignment... I much prefer the Champion class from Arcana Unearthed, it's customizable, allows you to champion a cause, and doesn't straight jacket you into an extreme alignment.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-06-01, 12:08 AM
Perhaps you could have a cabal of Evil "Paladins" who captured and tortured some celestial being to gain their holy powers...

Oh wait. That's a stupid idea even in the game it was written for. Still, there's possibilities for non-LG Paladins. There are variants for Paladins devoted to different alignment ideals in Unearthed Arcana (though they aren't all that well thought out), and the Crusader in Tome of Battle has much the same idiom as the Paladin, but can devote himself to any ideal.

asqwasqw
2007-06-01, 12:25 AM
The real question is who is more important to decide on the druid/paladin's fate, the person committing it, the god overseeing the druid, or what? If the druid thinks he is doing good, but others think he is doing bad, does he loose his powers? No, by my interpretation of RAW, because he still reveres nature in his own twisted way. So you need to define the limits of the class first, and work up from there.

Koji
2007-06-01, 12:46 AM
I played a game online where paladins and clerics had no generic form. A cleric of one of the nature gods was a druid, and a paladin of such was a ranger. A cleric of the fire god was a fire wizard, and a paladin was some kind of mage knight. The list went on and on.

The best way to build variant paladins is to multiclass them and change the alignment restrictions to match the god. A paladin of Orcus would have his abilities and code of conduct flip-flopped and his steed would be undead. There is no way to do this for every god in advance, so it's best to work it out beforehand.

Still, the church of Mielekki might call a ranger a paladin of Mielekki (God help me on the spelling there, I can't remember), so long as he upheld the worship of the goddess. Something to consider if you want to be a paladin of some non-traditional god.

DreadArchon
2007-06-01, 09:47 AM
A pally that kills good people cant be a paladin.

One that seeks to turn all the world into a desert is some kind of insane fallen druid.
Sure, by RAW. That's why the alignment removal thing is a house rule.

Diggorian
2007-06-01, 12:23 PM
Even without the alignment striction or the code of conduct, to me Paladins arent anything but lawful and good. The title just has too many connotations for me.

barawn
2007-06-01, 12:52 PM
You mean like the Generic Classes in Unearthed Arcana?

Exactly. The generic classes themselves aren't the big deal, though (although I don't agree the Generic Classes themselves are balanced, but that's another discussion). The thing you really want are the "tack on modules" (let's call them "background modules") which convert the generic classes into the specific ones.

As an example, you've got a Generic spellcaster. The difference between him and a sorcerer? The sorcerer gets 1 additional spell per day per level, a familiar, and has no bonus feats. So you'd have a background module called "Magical Heritage," which says "Benefits: You gain 1 spell per day per level, up to a maximum of 6. You also gain a familiar at level 1. Costs: You lose all of your class feats. Your heritage must include some exposure to high level magic, and thus among those well-versed in high level magic, you are likely to have notoreity." (Note that to me, this doesn't seem very balanced at all.) Even smarter would separate out the "gaining familiar" (one class feat) and "spell per day per level" (four class feats) benefits/costs.

DreadArchon
2007-06-01, 01:20 PM
Even without the alignment striction or the code of conduct, to me Paladins arent anything but lawful and good. The title just has too many connotations for me.
Oh, you're correct (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin). But in ignoring class fluff, I saw no reason to pay any more attention to the name of the class than to its code of conduct. Much as the party I DM for has a Succubus (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/succubus) that acts like a 2nd Ed. Planescape Ghaele and two assassins (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assassin) who are good-aligned and typically don't murder or even hunt down villains (they usually travel around and broker trade agreements, actually).

Tormsskull
2007-06-01, 01:26 PM
When people say that a class is just a collection of skills/abilities, it makes me wonder why they are playing a game that uses classes? Why not simply play a game that doesn't use classes, and allows you to pick skills/abilities to make up your character?

From what I have heard, there are far better systems than D&D at doing what you want.

In my eyes, a class is a collections of skills, abilities, and fluff twined together. If you try to edge out fluff because you just don't like it, then you should just homebrew a new class. I think that players want their classes to be more legitimate than homebrew (lets face it, anyone can homebrew a class, even if it isn't any good), so they take existing classes and cut out what doesn't have a specific mechanical effect (fluff), and then call it balanced.

Really, cutting out the fluff from a Role Playing game is pretty odd IMO.

Matthew
2007-06-01, 01:31 PM
I think I tend to agree. Most Base Classes are just modified Generic Classes.

Counterspin
2007-06-01, 01:52 PM
There seem to be some people in this thread who are expressing misconceptions about my quote. I think this is because I was incompletely quoted. To quote myself at greater length.

"I want the classes stripped down to sleek little building blocks which I can combine and then festoon with fluff. I want the possibility of blighter druids who are tricking nature for their powers, paladins of highly questionable morality, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, chaotic monks."

I don't need the game to give me fluff, and I certainly don't want there to be any fluff(the word fluff as used here includes alignment restrictions to classes and rules for falling out of grace with one's deity or nature, as well as things like 2e tithing) that restricts my capacity to build. D&D is a framework, and I would like the tent to be as big as possible. I don't see why I should throw out perfectly good crunch because it conflicts with fluff, or why I should be expected to homebrew when the crunch that I want already exists.

Again, I don't want to cut out the fluff, I want to supply my own, better fluff, and I would rather the rules moved away from restricting that.

As for why I play D&D, it's because it produces the kind of combat that I want. D&D harkens back to its wargame roots in a way that I find agreeable.

Additionally, on a parlimentarian note, if you could send me a message when you start a thread based on one of my quotes, informing me of such, that would be appreciated. :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-06-01, 02:20 PM
I think the OP is just running with an idea that struck him when he read your post, not really criticising your view. In any case, I don't really see the problem. You are always free to build your own Base Classes and discontinue the use of the old ones, after all.

Counterspin
2007-06-01, 02:24 PM
Matthew - We're talking about the rules. I always have the right to make changes under rule zero, but the topic is always rules. I would like the rules to be different, so I say so. If you say you shouldn't discuss what you can house rule there would be not a single viable topic on this forum.

And I never said anything about the OP critisizing my view. I didn't respond to him, in particular, I just gave an explanatory bit on my view along with what I thought was a more complete quote.

DreadArchon
2007-06-01, 02:26 PM
Really, cutting out the fluff from a Role Playing game is pretty odd IMO.
Not cutting out, changing. They're still playing as something, it's just not what's recommended.

I also fail to see why I should write my own game system from scratch instead of just saying "remove those four lines and call it good." :smallsigh:

Diggorian
2007-06-01, 02:33 PM
Oh, you're correct (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin). But in ignoring class fluff, I saw no reason to pay any more attention to the name of the class than to its code of conduct.

We're on the same page but different paragraphs.

The class name conjures fluff automatically, it is fluff. For example, those variant paladins arent paladins anymore than chocolate ice cream is variant vanilla ice cream. A variation of ice cream sure; a variation of god-serving warrior type sure. That's how I see it.

Generic classes may be the way to go for Counterspin. Each combination of different special abilities and class skills creates a new/unique class. I just wouldnt name an immoral warrior a paladin.

Counterspin
2007-06-01, 02:37 PM
Rest easy Diggorian. I'm not after the name, just the delicious crunch underneath it. And the possibilty to play a monk from the empty mind school(barbarian/monk) without getting the googly eyes from my GM. "Empty the mind of all your restraints, your personality, anything that separates you from an animal. All that will remain is strength."

Matthew
2007-06-01, 02:43 PM
Matthew - We're talking about the rules. I always have the right to make changes under rule zero, but the topic is always rules. I would like the rules to be different, so I say so. If you say you shouldn't discuss what you can house rule there would be not a single viable topic on this forum.
There's nothing stopping us discussing House rules, but that's not the point. If you want the Official Rules to be different, play some other game or use Variant Rules. I just cannot see the issue here except in the context of a new edition of the game.


And I never said anything about the OP critisizing my view. I didn't respond to him, in particular, I just gave an explanatory bit on my view along with what I thought was a more complete quote.

Fair enough. It sounded like you were getting the wrong idea to me.

Counterspin
2007-06-01, 03:00 PM
Matthew - I'm honestly having a lot of trouble figuring out what you're getting at in your last two forum responses. You say "I just cannot see the issue here except in the context of a new edition of the game." and "I don't really see the problem." Given that everyone in this thread is doing the same thing, i.e. discussing to what extent they think fluff-crunch tying is a good idea, I can't grok why it is that those comments are directed at me in particular. I suppose, if it's helpful, that the "problem" is that I find the class-fluff tie to be too strong, and I believe the game would be more enjoyable without it.

Diggorian
2007-06-01, 03:13 PM
I like to go concept/fluff first then design crunch to match those rather than the other way around, but I respect the different method of others.

*rests easy* :smallamused:

Renegade Paladin
2007-06-01, 03:15 PM
The word "Paladin" actually just means Warrior Servant.
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/incorrect4dr.jpg

pal·a·din /ˈpælədɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pal-uh-din] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin)

Emphasis mine. Furthermore, we are discussing the word in the context of fantasy gaming, where it has had a much more specific definition for the entirety of the genre's existence.

Matthew
2007-06-01, 03:18 PM
What I am saying is that the Archetypes are themselves only example of Base Classes. The rules are already there to create as many Base Classes as you like, completely devoid of fluff. Dungeons & Dragons is already a Tool Kit for building your own Classes, it just happens to be accompanied by examples that are 'supposed' to be balanced.

[Edit] I think JaronK meant the etymology of the word, much like Knight and Samurai originally referred to Servant. You're right, though, that is not it's modern meaning.

Counterspin
2007-06-01, 03:24 PM
Matthew - Then we are in complete agreement. Glad we sorted that out.:smallsmile:

Talya
2007-06-01, 03:32 PM
For a "perversion of the paladin," you need look no further than World of Warcraft's "Blood Knights," the blood elf versions of the Alliance paladins.

While a Paladin in her pure form serves "The Light," and is granted power by "The Light" via prayer and supplication and impeccable moral quality, the Blood Knight harnesses "The Light" and bends it to her will, essentially hijacking a divine force and making it her own. It's sortof an Ur-Paladin.

barawn
2007-06-01, 03:50 PM
What I am saying is that the Archetypes are themselves only example of Base Classes. The rules are already there to create as many Base Classes as you like, completely devoid of fluff. Dungeons & Dragons is already a Tool Kit for building your own Classes, it just happens to be accompanied by examples that are 'supposed' to be balanced.

Well, the main problem there is that the Generic Classes themselves aren't balanced. But in addition, there's no real way to see how they went from the generic classes to the base classes. It's like they set up a foundation, and then showed you a couple of completed houses, but then neglected to tell you where the building materials were.

Matthew
2007-06-01, 03:54 PM
Well, I don't know about the 3.5 DMG, but there are guidelines in the 3.0 DMG. Yes, there are significant balance issues, however, most of them can be solved by removing certain Spells and Feats from circulation.

I have yet to find an RPG system that is actually balanced in what can be achieved when building a Character (and I'm willing to bet it would be boring - half the fun is in trying to find a balance!)

Enzario
2007-06-01, 05:19 PM
Can't remember who said this, and I'm not going to try to mess with quotes and such, but the idea of modular classes piqued my interest. I like the idea of several base ideas, with additional abilities you can choose from as you like to make your own class. Granted, that would be very hard to do without rules about "You can't use such-and-such with this" etc. And it would still be very hard: just look at epic spellcasting. But this idea has merit. It allows for much more customization than most other systems, and let's face it, not everyone can be defined by a mixture of classes in certain ratios.

Also, the word "paladin" means different things, depending on which time period you're looking at. If you asked a wandering minstrel in the 1400s what a "paladin" was, he'd probably say that you were talking about some incredibly skilled and zealous knight. In the 1600s you would probably be answered more along the lines of "church inquisitor" (of course, a minstrel would just be a musician by then). Nowadays, most people you meet on the street probably will have no clue what a "paladin" is, let alone what he/she does; among those who do know the word, it has taken on the additional connotation of "crusader" or "champion of a cause." Paladin can mean many different things, and, since it's fantasy, you choose what you like. Plus, a character can call himself anything he likes. An assassin could see himself as a heroic warrior, and a spellcaster could see himself as a trickster/theif. Personally, I don't care what you call yourself, as long as you're consistent with your character's motives and personality.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-01, 05:26 PM
Additionally, on a parlimentarian note, if you could send me a message when you start a thread based on one of my quotes, informing me of such, that would be appreciated. :smallbiggrin:

Oops. My apologies, then; I wasn't sure whether that was necessary or not.

Matthew
2007-06-01, 05:30 PM
Can't remember who said this, and I'm not going to try to mess with quotes and such, but the idea of modular classes piqued my interest. I like the idea of several base ideas, with additional abilities you can choose from as you like to make your own class. Granted, that would be very hard to do without rules about "You can't use such-and-such with this" etc. And it would still be very hard: just look at epic spellcasting. But this idea has merit. It allows for much more customization than most other systems, and let's face it, not everyone can be defined by a mixture of classes in certain ratios.

Take a look at Unearthed Arcana's generic Classes, they might be of interest to you and are available in the SRD.


Also, the word "paladin" means different things, depending on which time period you're looking at. If you asked a wandering minstrel in the 1400s what a "paladin" was, he'd probably say that you were talking about some incredibly skilled and zealous knight. In the 1600s you would probably be answered more along the lines of "church inquisitor" (of course, a minstrel would just be a musician by then). Nowadays, most people you meet on the street probably will have no clue what a "paladin" is, let alone what he/she does; among those who do know the word, it has taken on the additional connotation of "crusader" or "champion of a cause." Paladin can mean many different things, and, since it's fantasy, you choose what you like. Plus, a character can call himself anything he likes. An assassin could see himself as a heroic warrior, and a spellcaster could see himself as a trickster/theif. Personally, I don't care what you call yourself, as long as you're consistent with your character's motives and personality. [/COLOR]
It doesn't really matter what Paladin meant 600 years ago, it only matters what it is commonly thought to mean now and how that interacts with the D&D ruleset. What you then decide to do with the word Paladin is up to you, but I wouldn't be surprised at a few raised eyebrows if I were to define Paladin as a generic term for a Warrior devoted to one of the nine Alignments.

mauslin
2007-06-01, 06:39 PM
I don't know exactly what the blighter druid class actually looks like, but it's not all that hard to create fluff that perverts the druid into a nature destroyer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancerous growth is in fact just as much a part of nature as balance. Yes, nature appears to be about balance; but that's because any ecosystem that is not balanced tends to destroy itself.

But just because a system destroys itself, why is it wrong? Yes, a predator that becomes too adept at killing its prey ultimately starves to death because all its prey is dead; but is it truly respectful of nature to stop that from happening?

Nature has created such a beast; to oppose Nature's will, simply because the system it creates will ultimately destroy itself, is wrong! If Nature so wills it, then Nature must be destroyed!

For there is such a beast, that Nature has created, and his name is Man! Man who rapes the forests, destroying that which supports him. For Man to deny his nature, to restrain himself from his rightful conquest, is true blasphemy against that which is natural!

So come, let us destroy the forests, poison the waters, render all a wasteland! In creating Man, in granting him his power, Nature has let its will be known! In the name of Nature, Nature must be destroyed!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go, a person who worships Nature by destroying it. Bloody crazy, but possibly quite fervent in her love of Nature.

It's perfectly good logic. Nature created Man, Man destroys Nature. By creating something that destroys itself, Nature must want to be destroyed. I worship Nature and wish to do its will, therefor I must destroy it.

thehothead
2007-06-01, 06:54 PM
That was awesome... You have my respect Mauslin. You are one of the few people that do, and the only one I have been physically capable of informing.