KickStarter Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Shadenuat]

The first part of what you are saying is already not like the classical depiction of paladins in D&D and similar fantasy spaces

Trying to understand what is good in particular situation is simply a natural consequence of playing a good character; when tied with edicts and obligations it provides even more ground for difficult decisions.

That said, mechanically, the paladin is a pretty lousy class even in its early incarnations

AFAIK they're pretty strong in Pathfinder.

It is entirely possible to play a non-retarded Lawful Good character.

It's possible to even play evils or mixed parties provided players compromise between themselves and "click"; when they know what they are doing.

 

[Tacgnol]

Pathfinder has an archetype called the Gray Paladin which is allowed to be Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral for people who want more options when rolling a paladin. Still, most of the problems with paladins in tabletop games come from players pushing the Lawful Stupid trope too hard.

It is entirely possible to play a non-retarded Lawful Good character.

Given that the Book of Exalted Deeds spent about 30 pages iterating how NOT to be a Lawful Stupid twat, I'd say the creators of the game were well aware of where the players were taking things... :D

I think Lawful Stupid is a pretty rare trait these days with experienced players, but I think an inexperienced player picking paladin is still every DM's worst nightmare.

Still it can lead to some potentially lulzy situations for the creative DM.

 

[Tacgnol]

AFAIK they're pretty strong in Pathfinder.

This.

They are the highest tier martial class by most reckoning.

 

[Nortar]

Poor Gygax must be turing in his grave. After all these years, after all the books, guides, player's options and completes people still can't agree on what being a paladin means.

A "good christian", you mentioned, is supposed to turn his other cheek when slapped. It's written so in the christian's handbook.
I hope you won't insist that this is the modus operandi of the original D&D paladins.

But anyways, all this pluralistic shit started when they allowed non-humans to be paladins.
And soon after that can of worms was opened they started to create non-good, non-lawful paladins, paladin-atheists and paladins without code of honor. Basically people started to slap term paladin over any fighter, the way weebs would call all their swords katanas just because they think it makes them cool.

In the end, the thing is, it's now fruitless to discuss what a paladin is and is not outside of a given setting.

 

[Cael]

AFAIK they're pretty strong in Pathfinder.

This.

They are the highest tier martial class by most reckoning.

Problem being martial class. An Ordained Champion can get the vital 16 BAB for the 4th attack and still get 18 cleric caster levels, plus a bunch of things related to the War domain. That totally outclasses the Paladin.

Remember also that the original paladin's lay on hands healed a measly 2hp/level which gets completely blown out of the water by a single Heal spell. And that is good old 1st Ed. The disparity becomes worse once things like bonus attacks and weapon specialties (2nd Ed) and more and more spells (3.x) came into play.

That has always been the problem for paladins. They don't stand up mechanically, and I can roleplay the pious chivalric knight with a fighter or cleric. Heck, I can go the Quest for Glory way and play a mage that is a paladin in all but name (Erana). I don't need to be a paladin.

 

[Shadenuat]

A "good christian", you mentioned, is supposed to turn his other cheek when slapped

Make it a good christian knight.

And the way you learn what it is, you open a bunch of books, original romantic fantasy or history, and read what it meant. If that's what your setting is supposed to be about anyway and you want to ground your character in reality.

Most people probably leave at that point and decide to just copy World of Warcraft though.

 

[Lacrymas]

In the context of mechanics, Cael is right to point out that they don't stack up and they have to be divorced from simply being a personality type.

 

[Shadenuat]

Gotta play class because you like the concept, not because it has 1 more point of BAB

 

[ArchAngel]

How do we stop this? Mythologies collapsing under the weight of the designers sneering contempt of the very concept? Playing around with pantheons and archetypal myths shouldn't really be that hard or warrant instant dismissal or derision.

It would require that humans stop believing that their very existence somehow affects the entirety of of the universe. Every post-modern belief, bandwagon and cause has this as its underpinning, from the idea that humans can destroy the world through nothing but unintended carelessness to the outright idea that humans are the masters of their own fate and that nothing, not tradition, not religion/god, not even the laws of physics can stand in the way.

In other words, we're fucked.

Considering that Gods/religion and laws of physics are human constructs they can all be changed and reimagined by same humans.

 

[santino27]

By the way, who's the brunette at the front?

Was wondering the same. I assume it's meant to be the PC.

 

[ArchAngel]

Btw in 5e D&D paladins don't need to be LG. Now you are a paladin of certain virtues and justice/revenge is one of those as long as you are doing it vs those that hurt innocents.

 

[Tacgnol]

AFAIK they're pretty strong in Pathfinder.

This.

They are the highest tier martial class by most reckoning.

Problem being martial class. An Ordained Champion can get the vital 16 BAB for the 4th attack and still get 18 cleric caster levels, plus a bunch of things related to the War domain. That totally outclasses the Paladin.

Remember also that the original paladin's lay on hands healed a measly 2hp/level which gets completely blown out of the water by a single Heal spell. And that is good old 1st Ed. The disparity becomes worse once things like bonus attacks and weapon specialties (2nd Ed) and more and more spells (3.x) came into play.

That has always been the problem for paladins. They don't stand up mechanically, and I can roleplay the pious chivalric knight with a fighter or cleric. Heck, I can go the Quest for Glory way and play a mage that is a paladin in all but name (Erana). I don't need to be a paladin.

Well yeah, but that's always the issue with martials. Even a badly built warpriest in Pathfinder is generally going to be more useful 90% of the time.

 

[fantadomat]

Gotta play class because you like the concept, not because it has 1 more point of BAB

You are talking to a person that plays D&D only for the combat. For him the roleplaying is picking the most practical character.

 

[Roguey]

Was wondering the same. I assume it's meant to be the PC.

It's called Kingmaker, not Queenmaker though.

 

[fantadomat]

Was wondering the same. I assume it's meant to be the PC.

It's called Kingmaker, not Queenmaker though.

Wymun can be kings now

 

[Reapa]

I am also afraid these companions are going to be NWN1/2 level of boring.
I only care for bg type companions or motb/kotor2 ones, everything in between is bad.

Being boring is the least of its problems.
Those characters are probably going to be Terrible that you can't stand them.
And the whole writing is going to be shit so not even custom characters is going to save you.

God I hope this is just a terrible marketing stunt and not everything is going to be infested.
Who is on the writing team for this game anyway?

retards, obviously. when was the last time an rpg had competent writers?

 

[ItsChon]

I don't know where the fuck this idea that Paladin's/Lawful Good characters only have to be played one way came from. You guys might just be shit roleplayers. There are so many ways you can roleplay a nuanced Paladin, even when sticking to an extremely stringent moral code. Not only are there ways to play a character like this nuanced, but it's a good way to avoid playing a shitty self-insert character. They often add a good form of variety to the party, and create an interesting dynamic where a plan has to be adapted to deal with a party members moral code; and their reaction if something unplanned happens. If you want to play a "neutral Paladin", go fuck yourself and learn to roleplay properly.

No, it isn't. There is nothing postmodern about the sujelians and identity politics, quite the contrary. Their 'grand narrative' about the West being an oppressive patriarchy under which minorities suffer is contrary to postmodernism.

Actually, identity politics is literally derived from the postmodern philosophy, whether they know it or not. One of many things that postmodernists believe is that every relationship and form of interaction is based on an element of power. In the United States, there is a "clear" unequal dynamic of power all across the country. SJW's would point to our majority white congress as an example of this. This is an inherently postmodern philosophy, and so are the SJW ideals of forced equality and "privilege" as a result of an unequal power distribution. Not only that but look at Foucault's work on writing and language, where he coined the term "language is oppression". Postmodernism is an extremely broad ideology, that can be twisted into various different ideas and belief systems, but a lot of Foucault's work and that of other prominent "Feminist theorists", are based in postmodernism; which ultimately calls into question the values and truths of Western society.

 

[Lacrymas]

Actually, identity politics is literally derived from the postmodern philosophy, whether they know it or not. One of many things that postmodernists believe is that every relationship and form of interaction is based on an element of power. In the United States, there is a "clear" unequal dynamic of power all across the country. SJW's would point to our majority white congress as an example of this. This is an inherently postmodern philosophy, and so are the SJW ideals of forced equality and "privilege" as a result of an unequal power distribution. Not only that but look at Foucault's work on writing and language, where he coined the term "language is oppression". Postmodernism is an extremely broad ideology, that can be twisted into various different ideas and belief systems, but a lot of Foucault's work and that of other prominent "Feminist theorists", are based in postmodernism; which ultimately calls into question the values and truths of Western society.

This is quite a twist of postmodernism. While both groups derive some of their philosophies from power dynamics, it's not the same thing at all. While sujelians will say that they must band around the identity to gain political traction as a group, postmodernists will say that that identity is in of itself oppressive and should be deconstructed and destabilized. Most feminists hate the postmodernists for this reason, they believe that they can't politically lobby for women if the whole concept of womanhood is called into question. Judith Butler is the only postmodern feminist I know, maybe also Julia Kristeva. The two groups talking about power hardly means they are the same thing or even similar, the French Revolutionaries also talked about power.

 

[Payd Shell]

Actually, identity politics is literally derived from the postmodern philosophy, whether they know it or not. One of many things that postmodernists believe is that every relationship and form of interaction is based on an element of power. In the United States, there is a "clear" unequal dynamic of power all across the country. SJW's would point to our majority white congress as an example of this. This is an inherently postmodern philosophy, and so are the SJW ideals of forced equality and "privilege" as a result of an unequal power distribution. Not only that but look at Foucault's work on writing and language, where he coined the term "language is oppression". Postmodernism is an extremely broad ideology, that can be twisted into various different ideas and belief systems, but a lot of Foucault's work and that of other prominent "Feminist theorists", are based in postmodernism; which ultimately calls into question the values and truths of Western society.

Dude even Peterson is smart enough to call his opponents postmodern-neomarxists because simply calling them postmodern doesn't make any sense. You're confusing intersectionality with postmodernism. If you're going to parrot someone at least do it correctly.

 

[Shadenuat]

I don't know where the fuck this idea that Paladin's/Lawful Good characters only have to be played one way came from

It comes from same players who heavily misinterpret alignments.

 

[Mikeal]

Life of the Party A Russian take on an extremely American concept.

By the way, who's the brunette at the front? Did they realize that

isn't what anyone who isn't a vatnik would describe as a "supernatural beauty"?

For a tranny it's pretty good.

 

[jungl]

judging from lets plays it seems casters suck ass in this game. Caster classes fare better in turn based DnD combat like temple of elemental evil but you only see that strength when the games practically over due to the low level cap. Even then sometimes all you want is a fighter type that can muscle through encounters.

 

[Shadenuat]

Might be just low levels.

 

[Lacrymas]

I don't know where the fuck this idea that Paladin's/Lawful Good characters only have to be played one way came from

It comes from same players who heavily misinterpret alignments.

The depictions of Paladins in games doesn't help, though.

 

[Trashos]

I've never liked the usual representation of Paladins as people who are exceptionally beautiful and knights in shining armor. Beauty on the outside meaning beauty on the inside is so ...Ancient Greek. My problem stems from the whole "devoted to good and champion of justice" thing, I kind of don't know what that means from a practical standpoint and as a realistic personality. What would such a person be in real life? What would they do? And how would they look like? I don't picture handsome men killing dragons to save maidens somehow, or beautiful women riding into battle to avenge peasants.

Indeed, Socrates was an intellectual, but he kept telling everyone to hit the gym in order to have the most good looking body possible. Be the best you can be at everything (while you can!). I think that's the gist of it.

There are things that are complex and it is hard to make out what the "best" outcome is, what to strive for. Justice, for example, is an extremely complex thing. Other things are simpler (surface beauty in this case), so it's an improvement that is easy to make and set you on the right path (although, make no mistake, Ancient Athenians were great admirers of surface beauty in its own right). Why don't you like it?