|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 17, 2015 14:15:19 GMT -6
howandwhy99 wrote: I agree the ability to turn and the calling on of miracles and combat prowess is campaign specific, which makes them external qualifiers. So what is the cleric system? Do you mean just the concept of a holy man (which could either be a normal man or adventuring class)? The cleric system is the alignment shifting game. Most of the game structures which make it up are NPC stats, like Morale and Loyalty. That's different from the combat system: AC, HP, To Hit results tables, and all the components tied to those like arms & armor. And the magic system: Saving Throws, and magical effects by item, spell, and location. You get XP for your class based on how well you demonstrate mastery of the system you're roleplaying.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 17, 2015 14:36:24 GMT -6
I don't think Turning is an external qualifier (based on programming lingo). Turning is channeling your deity or faith toward others. It's effects are largely dependent on the other creature, but it's still the primary feature of the class.
A warrior could show off his fighting prowess due to training in order to gain followers, maybe start a mercenary band. A wizard could show of her magical effects gained from arduous mental study and take on apprentices.
A cleric heads a religion or is part of a bigger organization by demonstrating their wisdom and the power their belief conveys. They gain henchmen/student acolytes and, more importantly*, large communities due to their ability to be wise. They are the keepers of civilization. The wardens of nature. And the maintainers of destruction.
*Monks don't actually gain communities, just henchmen IIRC. But they're a subclass anyways.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 17, 2015 15:12:12 GMT -6
howandwhy99, I am enjoying reading your take on things. Where is it coming from? It is not to be found explicitly in the rules, of course. Is this from some kind of game theory you could share? A cool book? Set of articles? Theorist you like? Or is this from your own reflections over the years? (If so, wow.)
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 17, 2015 23:28:14 GMT -6
howandwhy99 wrote:
BTB how does alignment relate to morale/loyalty dice? Morale, loyalty and alignment IIRC do show up together in the AD&D's DMG, but I don't recall them falling together elsewhere. What is the alignment "shifting" game? That is to say, alignment tends to remain static in most games I have played, chaotics remain chaotics, as do neutrals, and for the most part Lawfuls.
Turning is just another spin on morale dice, much like a superhero or wraith within charging distance causing others to check morale (30,33 Chnml). Moreover, if turning, miracles and skill at arms are campaign specific as you assert, the implication is they are not class specific.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 18, 2015 0:46:48 GMT -6
I usually picked a god for my cleric character but never developed the religion per se. Not much need of it when you're just going to the dungeon. If I created a cleric, the character was probably much like a Catholic priest or a Crusader. My first cleric miniature had a cross, after all.
As for turning undead, I first thought the cleric would hold up the symbol and the undead would spin around (like kids do to amuse themselves) helplessly while the party passed through the room unhindered. Really, that's how I originally pictured it.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 18, 2015 0:54:34 GMT -6
I usually picked a god for my cleric character but never developed the religion per se. My clerics usually were priests of a "made-up-on-the-spot" deity (and ofter the only priset of that deity). The tenets of the faith were often similarly impromptu during the play. (I also had a randon d100 table of religious -sometimes contradictory- obligations)
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 18, 2015 23:16:58 GMT -6
howandwhy99, I am enjoying reading your take on things. Where is it coming from? It is not to be found explicitly in the rules, of course. Is this from some kind of game theory you could share? A cool book? Set of articles? Theorist you like? Or is this from your own reflections over the years? (If so, wow.) This is from attempting to answer "why are there these rules specifically?" And from not listening to obviously wrong game theory like literary theory wrongly called game theory. But yes, also knowing some actual mathematical game theory from which most wargames like D&D derive. As well as understanding how wargames in the 60s and 70s were conceived of, perhaps most importantly the last. It also comes from growing up in SE Wisconsin in the 80s and remembering with new understanding what people used to believe. And, what really mattered for me, is a great DM friend I know hooked on OD&D over a decade ago. To the point I've left all other "rpgs" except as a player. None of it is somehow irrefutable and I question myself too, but I've made considerable headway. If you play D&D thinking "we're here to collaboratively create a story", then everything I know about OD&D isn't relevant. If you play thinking "how do I decipher what's going on to achieve objectives in this game?", then we're on the same... plane, let's say?
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 18, 2015 23:49:33 GMT -6
BTB how does alignment relate to morale/loyalty dice? Morale, loyalty and alignment IIRC do show up together in the AD&D's DMG, but I don't recall them falling together elsewhere. What is the alignment "shifting" game? That is to say, alignment tends to remain static in most games I have played, chaotics remain chaotics, as do neutrals, and for the most part Lawfuls. So Alignment is determined by players before play for their PCs, but it's a stat. Like any stat it can change based on actions in the game. It represents aggregate behavior related to what each alignment stands for. Change your behavior and your alignment changes as appropriate. It is not static as any Paladin player can tell you. To help with this shifting you can check out the 2 charts in TSR no. 2-1 (which I consider more rules IMO, just like some early The Dragon). Just as the intro to the MM does with Intelligence, Gary says it is up to the DM to determine what those numbers mean specifically. No rule suggestions (which is what everything else amounts to), but a necessary game element. My understanding is: NPCs are game constructs, not game pieces where the DM arbitrarily makes decisions for them. That's why the DM is a referee. Unlike PCs, NPCs take actions based upon their stats and their "decision making" is largely due to alignment behaviors. As to Morale and Loyalty, the Lawful alignment appears to work based on loyalty, while chaotic is based on fear and greed. Though your system may work differently. I don't use all the specific tables for AD&D morale/morality, but it's a good starting point. Morale rolls are a basic dividing point for NPC behavior. In X situations, roll for A or B behavior results. Repeat another Alignment's behaviors often enough and the NPC Alignment stat will change. Which has leads to different behaviors taken and other alignment-based rules like in encounter reactions. What is Turning as game design though? Usually it is channeling of a deity's power, but it could be different per the player for the deity/religion/whatever they've chosen to explore. Turning oversteps a monster's check for morale with the cleric's own ability to influence others morale. This is a direct ability to affect behavior in others, which ties to changing alignments as outlined above. So it's the primary ability for the cleric game IMO. But deity-assisted miracles and combat ability to defend the faithful are important too. But the class isn't designed to play the wizard or warrior games. Class specifics are mostly subclass narrowing. Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians are narrower designs of the Fighting-Man. Monks and Druids too for Clerics. The "core classes" can also have different stats, but usually they are so bland as not to allow much change. A fighter knows all arms & armor, and siege weapons. They know how to lead an army and control a land like a baron. But primarily they are best at AC, HP, and To Hit ability because those are the combat system stats. Change the whole world so armies and ruled territories aren't part of the game and core class F-M don't need those abilities either. However, these things are all role/system specific. If cleric doesn't have the ability to deal with class level appropriate challenges, the class isn't functional. Moreover, if it instead has abilities enough to deal with another class's level appropriate challenges, then it's actually that class!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 19, 2015 9:22:24 GMT -6
As for turning undead, I first thought the cleric would hold up the symbol and the undead would spin around (like kids do to amuse themselves) helplessly while the party passed through the room unhindered. Really, that's how I originally pictured it. That's pretty cool. How about the kids who thought "turn undead" meant "the cleric turns into an undead"? Roll the dice. If your cleric rolls high enough, he turns into a wraith!
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Sept 19, 2015 10:53:34 GMT -6
Guess thinking they covered their eyes and hissed like Dracula wasn't a popular thought? hehe
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 19, 2015 14:05:35 GMT -6
Howandwhy99 wrote: Here, we depart in two ways. Alignment is not a stat, as it bears no numerical value. It is a quality, measure may be imposed on it (as in the almost venn-like diagram in the PHB, nonetheless more geometric than algebraic), but it is something in itself; to borrow from your point without meaning to be flippant, ask a paladin. Alignment, moreover, is not a reflection of behavior or rather conduct, as much as orientation. That orientation reflects belonging, Lawfuls find their perceivable origins in civilization (even a withdrawn monastic life is a form of civilization) a world formed out of an increasingly rarified cognition that is initially human and ultimately existential in outcome (pantheons initially appear human often giving way to something cosmic and remote or even to a mere fiction and incredulity). Neutrals coexist with the wild, within and without, perceiving flora, fauna and the land as their source and reflection, and in the shamanic ways of sight may yield a more remote but unifying mystery. Chaotics are monstrous, the blind, appetitive forces of life that disrupt and threaten to overwhelm the living, both neutral and lawful, flora, fauna and mankind alike. Tolkien draws the very same distinction between Christian, heathen and monster in his exposition of the Beowulf tradition. He is an author who grounds OD&D as much or more than Howard, Lovecraft, Leiber and Moorcock; all of whom share a similar though varied view of human orientation.
If here you mean stats, like numerical values for intelligence as sighted in the PHB and described in the MM for instance, sometimes this is the case. NPCs I find commit to action based on their class, and alignment, as I described above, tells us something more about the actual landscape from which that class has emerged. A fighter, may be a knight, Viking, or even anti-paladin, if you will, the latter being chaotic as this rendering of alignment reflects.
I think this is a fair assessment. Drawing from war gaming, morale really rests on sheer nerve and/or military training. With regard to loyalty, high morale may reflect either fear or devotion as the source of one's loyalty.
The crumbling of loyalty or morale leads to failures in cohesion and purpose. Sometimes this will shift a character's alignment, but in our games the source must be a failing of nerve in the most dire of circumstances or from the insidious effects of sorcery that erode will and cognition.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 19, 2015 20:03:13 GMT -6
I used to have all kinds of monotheist and pantheonic religions, but these days I have (in 3-way or 5-way alignment, respectively): - "The Church" - the source of Lawful (3-way) or Lawful Good (5-way) clerics.
- "The Old Faith" - druids, primitive tribes, country folk, basically druidic but with animist undertones, may be Neutral druids, or Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Good (5-way) clerics, although there are some disgruntled Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics and witches.
- "Cults" - mostly evil fanatics like the Callers of Cthulhu or Dagonites, Chaotic (3-way), or Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics.
I had druids mostly Neutral, but with the (rumored) existance of a "Red branch", as the "crazy, human-sacrificing, wickerman-burning, inhuman-Nature worshippers" which counted as neutral as far as Alignment detection, divisional languages, etc. were involved, but actuelly behaved as Chaotic, and an even more secret "White bough", which behaved as Lawful to fill in the role of the "peacifical, helpful tree-huggers". I drifted away from polytheism in D&D and towards something that's almost but not quite a fusion of these two. First, the way I see it, druids are not really clerics. They deal with nature spirits, but they don't channel power from deities. They're closer to nature-themed philosophical magic-users the way I run them. In that sense, alignment doesn't really matter for them. I have both Lawful and neutral clerics, and Chaotic anti-clerics I rename "heretics". For me, alignment is important for clerics, but is not the same as religion. It's more like a dominant philosophical orientation: the Lawfuls are on the side of civilization as an embodiment of cosmic order, the Chaotics aim to undo the cosmic order for selfish ends. God or the gods, if you are going to assign alignment to them at all, are Lawful, but will accept both Lawful and neutral followers, with the Lawfuls being true believers and the neutrals being more mundane. Chaotic heretics infiltrate the church and try to undermine it from within. Only the Lawfuls and the Chaotics can start religious orders. Neutrals are level capped until they pick a side. Because my alignments are philosophical abstractions, Lawful clerics of different religions can actually feel united against the forces of Chaos, while neutral clerics are more attached to the mundane trappings of their religion and opposed to members of rival sects. For my religion, I use some elements of Blake's mythos as a widespread mythic backdrop, but the dominant religion in each area is devoted to a single god. For example, the Church of Urizen is my crypto-Christian religion, with many variant sects, and in another area Ahania dominates and is sort of a crypto-Islam. The druids lost a centuries-long conflict with the spreading Urizen-based culture and have become resistance fighters opposed to civilization, so my druids are never Lawful, but may be Chaos Druids who use magic to dominate nature and twist it into a weapon against their hated foes. I set it up that way because I wanted something like the druids in the BBC's Merlin. I have the Chaos Druids revering Red Orc. If a player wanted to play a cleric of a different god, I'd allow it, but the cleric is the cleric of that god. There would be no others, until the cleric became a patriarch of a new order. This means that neutral clerics of Thor in my world are kind of impossible, unless say the cleric doesn't fully believe in Thor and is just using a "Church of Thor" for some crazy scheme.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 19, 2015 20:09:23 GMT -6
Here, we depart in two ways. Alignment is not a stat, as it bears no numerical value. It is a quality, measure may be imposed on it (as in the almost venn-like diagram in the PHB, nonetheless more geometric than algebraic), but it is something in itself; to borrow from your point without meaning to be flippant, ask a paladin. Alignment, moreover, is not a reflection of behavior or rather conduct, as much as orientation. That orientation reflects belonging, Lawfuls find their perceivable origins in civilization (even a withdrawn monastic life is a form of civilization) a world formed out of an increasingly rarified cognition that is initially human and ultimately existential in outcome (pantheons initially appear human often giving way to something cosmic and remote or even to a mere fiction and incredulity). Neutrals coexist with the wild, within and without, perceiving flora, fauna and the land as their source and reflection, and in the shamanic ways of sight may yield a more remote but unifying mystery. Chaotics are monstrous, the blind, appetitive forces of life that disrupt and threaten to overwhelm the living, both neutral and lawful, flora, fauna and mankind alike. Tolkien draws the very same distinction between Christian, heathen and monster in his exposition of the Beowulf tradition. He is an author who grounds OD&D as much or more than Howard, Lovecraft, Leiber and Moorcock; all of whom share a similar though varied view of human orientation. I like your thinking about alignment as orientation. Something I had cut (it was getting long) was how I use Saving Throws to leave an alignment. Retention of behavior is hard to overcome. Call it conscience, ennui, or what have you, it takes a concerted effort to step out of current thought and behavior. Alignment behavior could be seen as a particular direction for each type, retained as a focused orientation. It's "what I know, what I'm for, why I'm here"-stuff For me however, there is no way to remove the wrong idea that NPCs are game pieces for the Referee to "play the game" without demonstrating that NPC behavior is part of the design of the game. By my reading of the references I gave, Alignment is a measure upon the Alignment chart. The number isn't important outside whatever the metric for a particular campaign. But tracking alignment isn't unknown to D&D. It's measured position labelled as a quantity makes it a stat for me. Of course, use what game structures work for you. Yes, I mean all stats and abilities. Monsters won't attack you, if they don't know how to attack. Intelligent foes will use arms and armor they are proficient in. They will run depending on you appear and who they are. All sorts of stuff make up NPC behavior, but it's lots of compilation of other rules which all too often are presented as case specific. Succeeding a Morale Check could be due to terror of your leader or loyalty to them. Or factors from whatever else composes the score, like all those example modifiers in the DMG. Oddly, in both cases succeeding actually bolsters current alignment IMO, while failing can lead to its decline. And I very much agree when a Morale Check is made is as important as the result of the roll.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 19, 2015 20:14:20 GMT -6
Howandwhy99 wrote: Here, we depart in two ways. Alignment is not a stat, as it bears no numerical value. I think Howandwhy99 is thinking more of the AD&D DMG, where there actually is an alignment tracking system that sets a numerical value, from 1 to 4 if I remember correctly. So it is kind of a stat in 1e, but I've heard of very few people who used that part of the rules. I never used them back in the day, although I was definitely aware of them. I came into 1e from OD&D and later Holmes, and both I and the other DM for my high school friends tended to mix OD&D and 1e. The alignment tracking stat looked like way too much work for little to no gain. We did use the nine-fold, though, although now I prefer the three-fold.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 19, 2015 20:23:58 GMT -6
What do posters think about a Neutral Paladin class? Not LG Paladins or CE Anti-Paladins, but those who deny either and yet are somehow iconic of neutral behavior?
My instincts tell me to call it the Anti-Hero. An "I ain't yer hero and I ain't yer villain" belief enshrined. They leave innocents dying on the side of the road. Don't capture horrible murders. But will take down those who get in their way. And leave what they don't need for whoever wants it.
The trouble I don't know what kind of benefits and limitations to place on the character. Obviously a Neutral alignment limitation. Likely no followers or henchman beyond hirelings. But what does a Boccob the Uncaring or Procan the Storm Lord grant to such a lone soul? -- (Easier solo play I guess, but that's a potential wrench to a team game. Not as much as the Assassin assuredly, but probably as hard on a group as a regular Paladin)
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 19, 2015 21:59:39 GMT -6
What do posters think about a Neutral Paladin class? Not LG Paladins or CE Anti-Paladins, but those who deny either and yet are somehow iconic of neutral behavior? I personally don't like it, because I don't like the later interpretation of paladins as servants of a god. To me, they are clearly chivalrous knights, like the Knights of the Round Table or the Paladins of Charlemagne. They are exemplars of God only in the sense that the feudal order is seen as ordained by God. "Paladins" who aren't Lawful are just knights, possibly rogue knights. They aren't iconic of an alignment, they are just Chaotic or neutral people who happen to be knights. And my "neutral" is just "not aligned", so a neutral knight is just a worldly knight with mundane concerns.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Sept 19, 2015 23:17:28 GMT -6
A "neutral" paladin would be akin to a ronin in feudal Japan.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 20, 2015 11:07:25 GMT -6
Talysman wrote:
As far as I recall the tracking of alignment rests on the PHB appendix III graph in which minor and major shifts of behavior are plotted analogically; allowing for drift within one's band or radical departure into another alignment entirely. The 1 to 4 linearity sounds like a 2nd edition invention, though I confess I have not come across it. If you would cite the actual text I would be interested in seeing it - when I played with the nine alignments I would have thoroughly appreciated a numerical alignment tracking.
An interesting distinction, Talysman. I agree they are clearly chivalrous knights; however, if the feudal order is ordained by God and they are beholden to God's ordination of that order then in their mind the measure of their action must in someway be ordained by God. I can't imagine the paladin mind reducing God to a trope or necessary fiction.
Certainly a predominant medieval view, the converse in keeping with austerity, monasticism and mortification, the world and the spirit being mutually opposed. However, loss of alignment is not the consequence of being stripped of paladin status; one may be lawful and a knight without being a paladin.
howandwhy99 wrote:
The anti-hero I imagine is more of a personal orientation than a class. A neutral alignment is probably fitting, though I could imagine a lone lawful figure bearing this character as well. Innocents and those not essential to one's end being an uncomfortable reminder of a former life, or even compelling interruption to one's present activities. Antiheroes take all shapes and sizes from Homer to Shakespeare to Camus and contemporary authors like Stieg Larson.
punkrabbit wrote:
A clever reading and I had to give this some thought. On the surface I like it, but it doesn't really bear out. The paladin does not cease being Lawful or Lawful good, he loses his status, his favor and privilege awarded by the society and God. The samurai's reading of Bushido reflects the period of the feudal era. Stripped of his lands due to disfavor or occupation, a samurai becomes a ronin. In earlier periods, he might find his status restored (some served numerous masters in their life time)under the tutelage of a new lord. Even retiring to farming, craftsmanship or trade occured without disfavor. During the consolidation of the Edo period, there were fewer lords and less opportunity for military employment; it is during this later period that the 'wandering and vagrant' connotation becomes part of the idiom and the story of the ronin committing ritual suicide at the grave of the 47 ronin comes to us.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 20, 2015 15:16:14 GMT -6
Talysman wrote: As far as I recall the tracking of alignment rests on the PHB appendix III graph in which minor and major shifts of behavior are plotted analogically; allowing for drift within one's band or radical departure into another alignment entirely. The 1 to 4 linearity sounds like a 2nd edition invention though I confess I have not come across it. If you would cite the actual text I would be interested in seeing it - when I played with the nine alignments I would have thoroughly appreciated a numerical alignment tracking. I've never read the 2e DMG, so I don't know how it handled alignment. The numeric rating is not strictly an alignment rating alone, but is a per-adventure rating of roleplaying both class and alignment. It's on page 86 of the DMG and is connected to the level training rules. Gygax suggested giving an alphabetic rating of E, S, F, or P for each character's behavior during that adventure (E = Excellent, few deviations from class or alignment, P = "Poor showing with aberrant behavior") and then translating that letter into a number from 1 to 4. When the character levels up, (Italics and emphasis in the original.) An interesting distinction, Talysman. I agree they are clearly chivalrous knights; however, if the feudal order is ordained by God and they are beholden to God's ordination of that order then in their mind the measure of their action must in someway be ordained by God. I can't imagine the paladin mind reducing God to a trope or necessary fiction. What the paladin mind thinks isn't important, except in terms of how the player wants to express it. What is important, and what I was getting at, is that the old-school paladin isn't part of a church hierarchy, but the normal social hierarchy. A paladin is religious because everyone in the paladin's culture is (supposed to be) religious, especially the ruling class, and the paladin is the purest example of a virtuous knight. Paladins who stray from Law lose the benefits of paladinhood, but remain knights, even if still Lawful or if they return to Law.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 20, 2015 16:12:10 GMT -6
Talysman wrote:
I see why I missed this. Thanks for the citation. The tracking of alignment here really regards assessing experience and weeks of training, not so much radical loss of class or status. No such suggested ennumeration is ever regarded in the discussion of alignments or alignment change.
Sure, even in a class-based game, there is a degree to which the concept is observed by philosophy, history and literature and that to which it is regarded by one's own expectation for fantasy.
Indeed, he is not part of the Church hierarchy. He is part of the Christian milieu, his culture is religious as you note. The notion of 'supposed to be' defaults to his religiosity as a man-made quality (merely socially ordained) an interpretation that extends beyond the bounds of the game, though it is certainly a popular and academically valid point of view when considering religion today. The literature of the time, however, suggests his religiosity is not only cultural but existential, paladin hood is a calling as much as it is an ethical responsibility or cultic devotion. How one otherwise wishes to read the paladin rests on their own penchant for fantasy and/or their own modern sensibilities.
One may find weighing these perspectives unnecessary to playing a paladin. Over the years, I have found these insights instructive in not only playing a paladin, but essential to whether or not the paladin continues to have relevance at all, much less be fun to play.
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Sept 20, 2015 17:37:29 GMT -6
What do posters think about a Neutral Paladin class? Not LG Paladins or CE Anti-Paladins, but those who deny either and yet are somehow iconic of neutral behavior? I personally don't like it, because I don't like the later interpretation of paladins as servants of a god. To me, they are clearly chivalrous knights, like the Knights of the Round Table or the Paladins of Charlemagne. They are exemplars of God only in the sense that the feudal order is seen as ordained by God. "Paladins" who aren't Lawful are just knights, possibly rogue knights. They aren't iconic of an alignment, they are just Chaotic or neutral people who happen to be knights. And my "neutral" is just "not aligned", so a neutral knight is just a worldly knight with mundane concerns. I agree and I've made this explicit in my games. I use a slightly modified version of the GH paladin. So when players ask why the paladin doesn't have spells I point out they are virtuous knights their powers come from that not a deity. They can attach themselves to a church but it's not required.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 20, 2015 18:10:01 GMT -6
bestialwarlust wrote:
Whether a paladin has spells or not is more or less a convention. The inclusion of spells certainly implies a deity btb, but the exclusion of spell does not exclude a deity. A paladin most likely would operate beyond the bounds of a church as the quest which so often defines him might be heretical even. They might also operate as an extension of a clandestine order within a religion. The paladin you are describing reminds me of the virtuous gunfighter, a figure like Shane.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 20, 2015 18:43:11 GMT -6
Here is my thinking, for whatever it is worth:
Couldn't a cleric be something more like a Templar? I mean, they wear armor. Father Brown does not.
Isn't a fighting-man something more like Conan?
Then doesn't that make the class called a cleric more like the "knight," or "paladin" of 0e?
Cleric = knight of a religious order with powers due to association with patron. That sounds like a paladin to me.
"Knight" is never even a level title for a FM. Noone is going to knight that kind of barbarian rabble, however capable he may prove to be. It is the basic Conan / Fafhrd archetype that I actually think of when I picture an 0e fighting man.
I guess I would use the cleric class, as a class, to describe a knight in one campaign, a templar in another campaign setting (say, around 1,000 AD+) or a paladin in another (say, 9th Century Gaul and Germany).
The more I think about these things and the more I play 0e the more basic and archetypal the three classes become for me. Everything else seems like flavor or campaign-specific terminology.
Just my 2cp.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 20, 2015 18:48:53 GMT -6
howandwhy99, thanks for your follow ups to my query. FM get gp and XP through fighting mechanics. MU get gp and XP through magic use. I cannot see how a CL gets gp and XP directly through alignment and morale gaming. I mean, I think it is an important sub-game. Indispensable. I could even see that the CL has a special relationship to it. I would go so far as to give CLs, as a class, a bonus to morale when "preaching" to his/her particular "choir." (In fact, I really like that idea, I think I am going to use it right away!) But I cannot see how this alignment-morale "sub-game" very directly affects the central game: finding treasure and accruing XP. This is not a criticism of your view. I am expressing my curiosity. I am open to learning! Show me the way!
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 20, 2015 20:26:07 GMT -6
But I cannot see how this alignment-morale "sub-game" very directly affects the central game: finding treasure and accruing XP. This is not a criticism of your view. I am expressing my curiosity. I am open to learning! Show me the way! Killing people and taking their stuff is not D&D at all. That may not be what you're saying, but it's a commonplace prejudice held by many ignorant people who'd rather hate the game than learn about it. But let's think about XP. Just as clearly defining when initiative should be called for, or the earlier mentioned morale check, or a To Hit roll, or a Saving Throw, what XP is awarded for is a very important design in the game. XP tells the players what behaviors qualify as roleplaying their class well. Just as the XP Score is the score of the game for each individual roleplayer. (If they're playing more than one class, they choose by session and gain in the focus they chose.) Original D&D doesn't get into class-specific XP, but it should have to help differentiate the game for players. It simply rewarded XP for treasure and beating monsters. ...But by a liberal interpretation of "What is a monster?" and "What is treasure" all kinds of game elements qualify in the game. What counts in the case of tracked Experience improvements depends upon the point of view (or role) one focuses on. Personally, I do not reward XP for treasure. Treasure is any defined game resource and gaining XP for gaining it has nothing to do with advancing in a role. ( Usually, how a Thief gains treasure matters). Besides, a game resource is its own reward, literally. Overcoming a challenge however, which has nothing to do with killing people, occurs when a player demonstrates game mastery. Yes, it could be accidental that they beat the ogre, but it's not the referee's role to judge player intention, only game results. How does this relate to clerics and their game system? Well when clerics Encounter any "Monster" they might gain XP by "besting" them by convincing them to cooperate with (lawful), ignore (neutral), or obey them (chaotic). That's one way to do it and its all under the standard (Encounter, Confrontation, Reaction, etc.) mechanical game process. But I'm sure there are other ways to reward clerics too.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 21, 2015 9:02:31 GMT -6
Tetramorph wrote: Either gaming conventions (ac, attack matrix, saves, abilities etc.) or outward appearance inform our application of 'flavor or campaign specific terminology'. The fighting man archetype suits the characters of Howard and Leiber; it also suits the historical templar or romanticized knight errant we think of as a paladin. Templars can be approached much the same way the dervish works for holy nomads in the 3LBBs or the military order for knights in Chainmail. Templars, like dervishes, are fanatical warriors. Paladins are fighting men granted spell-like abilities, rather than the modification of a shared mechanic like morale (see dervish or knight within a military order) or the addition of a skill (see thief). In our campaign we dispensed with the spells altogether, finding them redundant in conjunction with a paladin's acquired abilities. The limitation of strict conduct demanded of a paladin suffices for their acquired gifts, rather than a diminished placement as a cleric on the attack matrices. It is true sword and sorcery heavily inform the images we associate with Oe; being fantasy rather than simulation, the archetypes of Oe through 1st edition, however, play host to the coexistence of many milieus and genres if you will.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 21, 2015 14:58:01 GMT -6
sepulchre, I agree at core and I think I get your point. My main point is just this: the three core classes are good enough for me. A "paladin" for me can just be another name for a lawful cleric. I don't have any attraction to extra rules. A lawful cleric already has to remain lawful to keep the benefits of his class. A rose by any other name. That was really my only point. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 21, 2015 15:32:48 GMT -6
tetramorph wrote: I see what you are driving at here. I am one of those who cleaves closely to the fighting man as the core class, while all else takes the form of a standard or expert hireling. Clerics are a version of Father Brown, the non-combatant, so I have a bit of a bias.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 21, 2015 15:48:31 GMT -6
As far as medieval clerics go, you don't need to look after knightly orders as the Templars or the Hospitallers to find some armor-wearing, weapon wielding "badass priests": archbishop Turpin for litterature , but also Philip of Dreux , bishop of Beauvais (the Ur-mace wielding bishop), John III of bayern , bishop of Liega (a-k-a "John the Merciless") or Absalon od Denmark for historiacl references. Those all were "secular" clerics and yet accomplished warriors.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 21, 2015 21:57:24 GMT -6
But could they cast Cure Light Wounds?
|
|