Regardless of the RL opinions about religion in the GH setting it is clear that paladins are "holy warriors" that receive special abilities due to the favor of their divine patron or patroness.
Warriors can have morals and be heroic but for the positive karma such warriors are still not paladins. Paladins receive their abilities and maintain a "state of grace" through believe and adherence to the strict spiritual ethos of the divine whatever that might be.
It is sad times when passing ruffians have to be politically correct in a role playing game. I was thinking about this very subject around a year ago. I went into a local gaming store one night, and a D&D game was going on. The group had 5 players and a GM. So i watched for around 10 mins. The cleric had no god? So i asked how he got his spells? He said it was karma. I did the hole....blink..blink.. and moved on. Now i dont know what house rules were going on or something else.
It is sad times when passing ruffians have to be politically correct in a role playing game. I was thinking about this very subject around a year ago. I went into a local gaming store one night, and a D&D game was going on. The group had 5 players and a GM. So i watched for around 10 mins. The cleric had no god? So i asked how he got his spells? He said it was karma. I did the hole....blink..blink.. and moved on. Now i dont know what house rules were going on or something else.
I wish I could travel back in time and give you a machete and some PCP.
In my years of gaming, we have developed a term called a WDK: Wolf Dragon King.
Here is an example: Dark Kaiser is an elven ninja who at first level wanted two katana swords, one that could instantly take life, the other to give it back. He had a wand of fireballs in his house, in his plumbing, to give him hot water. He wanted to port this character over to my game.
He had an entire hand dissolved by the acid from a giant insect, and then I believe he was eaten by zombies...I do not fully remember. The player quit because in another game his sorcerer got mad because I doused his torch (while as a player) to keep pirates from seeing the light and he would not quit bitching so I sundered his spell component pouch and then killed his character.
A WDK is a character that wants to start out at 1st level being as bad as he wants to be. In chat RPG's he's the guy who wants to start with a Demonic sword and never admits to getting hurt. I am not insinuating anyone here is like that, I just thought you would all appreciate the term.
The term literally comes from an old roommate of mine who wanted to play his Everquest character in DnD, but did not want to take the time to earn his badass.
Every one has a right to play the game the way they want to. However karma powers for paladins and clerics seems like someone expanded on the monk a bit. I have seen games where you can spend karma you earn to get a bonus to hit damage or succeed at a task. It did not grant additional abilities just allow you to enhance the ones you already have.
I think what those karma loving enthusiast should do is run a game based on Buddhism, or Taoism. Thus coming up with a karmic knight though if they follow either of these philosophies fighting talents would not be high on the list.
I agree that it is silly to try to play a Paladin or Cleric in D&D without a god. Nevertheless, in RL there are many people who simply don't want to even pretend to believe in a fictious god (atheists and people of faith, both!).
If that's how people want to play and they can find a group that is okay with it, then D&D is able to adapt. Again, pesonally, I think it's silly. I also think it's silly to play a Dragonborn, Goliath, Tiefling, etc. as a beginning player. However, none of us can force a player to play the way we think they should play.
Have fun is the cardinal truth and people should not be forced to behave a certain way - it defeats the purpose of the game. The game has several class options to avoid the issue if the player decides that is how he wants to play. However to specifically choose a class that highlights the spiritual aspect of the game and then expect no issues seems rather strange.
Like an atheist marching into a church and asking to be ordained but then becoming offended that the priest is baffled by the request.
All I can say is that such persons should invent another character "term."
By that I mean, no one in D&D invented the terms/names "Cleric" or "Paladin," they come from the Real World and they mean a "real" thing. Both are associated with service to a God and always have been, for centuries.
If you want to use "Karma," that's fine. But they need to invent another "term" for their character, because he/she is not a true Cleric, or a Paladin, if they don't serve a God.
Yes, I have run into this phenomenon as well. So far it has only been one player and a younger one at that. He always played paladins and he never wanted his character's powers bestowed by a deity. I know he got the idea from the 2E Paladin's Handbook and really took to the idea that a concept or force, with enough devotion, can bestow miraculous powers.
To me, having a deity is a powerful role-playing tool. However, it does strike me that having a devotion to a force or concept can create some interesting role-playing opportunities. Of course, that is me playing devil's advocate .
Anyway, that was the only time I have run into that. That player no longer plays with us, mostly because we all had a difficult time opening him up to other possibilities in gaming, like playing something other than paladin
It seems strange to me that a cleric/priest/or paladin would not be beholdin' to a diety. It seems to me as if a great role-playing opportunity is lost in this.
Priests and paladins, in my humble opinion (no acronyms for me tonight) are probably the most challenging and interesting characters to play as they start off with a somewhat established role in society:
1. They start off as (lowly) members of a hierarchy.
2. Their very nature requires them to preach their faith
3. They are very visible members of any community.
1. Warriors, rogues, and wizards do not have to belong to any organization, and few are the starting characters who want a boss! They want to be their own bosses (I know the feeling in real life) and collect treasure for themselves. A priest or paladin, however, is a member of a church's hierarchy. This means that he can be compelled to do things, and also that he has to listen to his superiors. He generally does not accrue massive amounts of wealth for the sake of doing so, and is answerable to higher authorities. of course this heirarchy provides access to resources from simple healing spells through accumulated lore and perhaps muscle.
2. Unlike the other characters, the priest is expected to interact with the local community beyond provisioning for the next foray and finding rooms at the Inn. Part of almost all priests and paladin's remit invovles spreading the worship of their diety, and there are numerous ways that they can do this, wether by preaching sermons at their local church, running a soup kitchen, or otherwise interacting with the population at large.
3. Preists and paladins are visible representatives of their church. This means that they are held to a different standard of ethics, and have to work (i.e. roleplay) very hard to maintain that standard. This provides scope for numerous ethical and moral challenges. Additionally, people will seek out such a character to help them with quests large and small (slay dragons, get cat out of tree).
I just cannot see replacing church and god with karma in the above statements. If "karma" works for some, so be it, but with Greyhawk's well developed pantheon and the effects it has on the world, it seems a poor poor fit for oerth.
Priests and paladins, in my humble opinion (no acronyms for me tonight) are probably the most challenging and interesting characters to play as they start off with a somewhat established role in society:
Until I started playing D&D, I had never even heard of an "evil" Paladin. The Paladins of our mythology were -- supposedly -- "Lawful Good."
To put that simply, they were "without sin" and on their way to sainthood. Anyone here think they've ever actually known anyone like that? And for me, therein lies the difficulty in playing a Paladin, the player is almost always going to fall short of that, well all want revenge, in one way or another. And the DM -- as the PC's "god" -- gets to punish him/her for "falling short."
That's what made, and makes, Paladins fun to play -- the challenge of "living up to that" in our role-playing.
"Karma" is also taken from our world and not the world of D&D. It has been taught in the Real World for centuries too. Karma is True Neutral. How can a Paladin based on such a belief system be either Lawful Good, or Lawful Evil, when that which imparts power to him/her is True Neutral?
Some here might well say; "Well, Karma can be any alignment in D&D."
In that case, you need to call it something else, because Karma is a term and belief system that comes from our world and its True Neutral. So you need to invent another term to use for your game play, because "real" karma doesn't fit your game's "belief" description. Sorry.
To be a DM or a Player, you are a writer -- you write short story fiction every time you play. So write! Create another word for yourself besides Karma -- or Paladin, or Cleric. Be inventive and creative. Be a DM or Player. _________________ Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
It's interesting that no one yet has mentioned the D&D boxed set rules from 1983 since in those rules paladins/avengers (like an AD&D anti-paladin) and clerics might not get their spells from a diety but could be interperted to get them from the nonsentient forces of law or chaos.
Sometimes I get the impression that many of the OD&D crowd back in the early seventies might not have worried too much about the details of how a cleric got his or her spells or which diety if any was declared by the player. How many people worry about how the magic-user got his or her first spell book?
It's interesting that no one yet has mentioned the D&D boxed set rules from 1983 since in those rules paladins/avengers (like an AD&D anti-paladin) and clerics might not get their spells from a diety but could be interperted to get them from the nonsentient forces of law or chaos.
Sometimes I get the impression that many of the OD&D crowd back in the early seventies might not have worried too much about the details of how a cleric got his or her spells or which diety if any was declared by the player. How many people worry about how the magic-user got his or her first spell book?
Well, conjecture aside, non-sentient forces of law and chaos still denote the presence of faith. The proper analogy for your wizard comment should have been, "How many people worry about whether or not the magic-user needs his or her spell book."
If you are going to dismiss any one particular class feature, why not dismiss them all? Once you play DnD and change something like that, you are adapting a change to your whole world setting. The character classes represent a particular vision of a fantasy world, and though it was encouraged you change it, you have to consider if the end product is still the same as the original, just slightly altered. What is the purpose of a Paladin? I am not talking party role, either.
You are a man or woman of devotion to your faith that has forsaken your own life in favor of serving your god. You have been empowered with skills to battle evil in your god's name. There is no paladin school. Characters do not turn 16, then get a choice of which class they want to be as a doorway to adulthood. A lawful good deity is not going to bestow powers upon someone who is not a sure thing. You would need more than the desire to fight evil, too. You have to have reason, responsibility, bravery, and compassion. I have had players playing a paladin screw the party because they would not yield in killing an evil enemy. Compassion in allowing evil to redeem itself is part of that package. You are not following chivalry. Most players, that I have met personally, play the Lawful part of the paladin, far more than the Good part.
Until 3.0, and its dastardly, wily ways, paladins were hard to get. I have heard that ranger and paladin were meant to be prestige classes in 3.0, and they should have been.
Paladin and cleric are a package deal. You want the powers, you play by the rules. Otherwise, play a fighter.
I understand what's being said by Raymond and others. But Magic User and Paladin can't really be compared like that -- Karma versus Magic.
In the World of Greyhawk, magic has been compared to our Real World "dark matter." It has been postulated that "dark matter" is the "jello" in which the stars and planets -- a.k.a. "pieces of fruit" -- float. It is what holds our universe together.
It was always understood by anyone I ever played with that -- in Oerth's universe -- magic serves the same purpose. And it is said that Magic Users -- and Sorcerers -- tap into that power. Personally, I don't "see" two distinct types of "dark matter" in Oerth's universe. So are your Paladins tapping into the same "power source" as Magic Users and Sorcerers?
If so, their powers are certainly not clerical, so they must be nothing more than . . . sword wielding Magic Users . . . then . . . ?
What do the "new rules" call them . . . Sword Mage or something?
I only ask because I don't remember Magic Users or Sorcerers being any great shakes at . . . healing, which is a clerical power, granted by a god or goddess.
"Dark matter" -- a.k.a. magic -- can do some great things, but healing was never really one of them. We usually had to turn to our Cleric or Paladin for that.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
and moved on. Now i dont know what house rules were going on or something else.
.
