Paladin and possibly Axemen Nerfs

[quijote]

This would work if your plan was to abolish the paladins guild and create lots and lots of giants and nagas. Unless this is just a part of a bigger balancing plan that you not yet have completely finished. My opinion only.

[quijote]

pallies are known to be fancy pricks anyway so most probably they'd wear their fancy whites to battle, just in case somebody is watching.

[Narhalles]

Probably Quijote.... but under thier gauntlets....

[quijote]

[quote="Minimuz":0138d]
Nah when i think of a paladin, i imagine a naked person poking bears with a stick (a cool one with a pointy stone on the end)
[/quote:0138d]

you too?

[Linda]

That's because the Greeks didn't have much in the way of armour - breastplates and sandals, pretty much, were the norm for a long, long time.

There is nothing in the, ah, "doctrine," of the Paladin that requires that he wear heavy armour, it is simply the most pragmatic thing to do. There are paladin archetypes that wear leather and cloth, just like there are fighter archetypes that do the same, and mages that go for the platemail. These may not be very common in Wyvern, but in the general realm of fantasy, they are no strangers.

[quijote]

[quote="salkand":3f398]
P.S. Today is my birthday, I am now 18 WOOT
[/quote:3f398]

Happy birthday [size=7:3f398]lucky bastard[/size:3f398]

[Linda]

Yes, a pic of [i:26e20]a[/i:26e20] Paladin from [i:26e20]one[/i:26e20] website.

The following image is how the Paladin is displayed in the Player's Handbook of D&D, which is the quintessential source for anything like Wyvern, since it was the first after Lord of the Rings.

[img:26e20]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG43_WEB.jpg[/img:26e20]

Note a complete lack of heavy or even medium armour? That's metal-studded leather, right there.

Just because the traditional image of a Paladin is in plate armour with a longsword and large shield doesn't mean that every Paladin must conform to this image. The samurai archetype, for example, is a Paladin, but traditionally, samurai wore leather and wooden armour, not heavy platemail.

[Linda]

Comparing Wyvern to reality is where you've made your mistake.

Wyvern is a fantasy game, no question there. D&D is the "golden standard" of fantasy games; say what you will, Wyvern is based heavily on it.

A Paladin is by no means a knight of any sort. A paladin is a holy warrior - that is all. A warrior is someone who fights, and holy means relating to god/s. Requiring the paladin to be constricted to just the shining armour and white steed is constricting the player, realism be cursed.

Ever heard of a Pixie or Rakshasa paladin? They really shouldn't exist, right, since Pixies are designed away from mélêe and Rakshasas aren't built for swords, but players still make them - it's breaking away from the constricted archetype. There's nothing wrong with this, since this is a fantasy game meant to let people live as something they're not - bringing realism into the matter is a mistake.

[Linda]

Rakshasas, as a race, in general, according to the D&D handbook, are evil - but in Wyvern, your alignment is determined by what monsters you kill and how many innocents you murder, not your race. I've seen Rakshasa paladins before in this game.

[Linda]

Well, as I have been corrected about Rakshasa paladins, I will say this in my defence: I have seen Pixie paladins, and Rakshasas with swords.

[Linda]

D&D has influenced every fantasy game since it came out - either for their imitation of it, or for their trying rather hard [i:cf525]not[/i:cf525] to imitate it. Wyvern is closer to the former than the latter.

There is nothing in any description of the paladin class anywhere on this earth that states anything to the effect of "they wear steel plate," because that is not a criterion of being a paladin. I say again: a knight is [u:cf525]not[/u:cf525] a paladin. The paladin is a holy warrior; that is all that is required to define it. Saying that a paladin is a knight and only a knight is like saying that a rogue is a knife-wielding backstabber and only that, while the truth is that a rogue can be a fencer or a pirate or a police officer. There is no stipulation that requires the paladin to wear armour; many people may see them as the medieval knight, but that simply is not so.

The definition you're getting from Dictionary.com is just fine - knightly doesn't have any connotation related to armour. The same website defines knightly as having the characteristics of a knight, such as nobility and courage. This word describes the epitome of the paladin.

I will say it once more: A paladin is a devoted, holy warrior. Frequently they are depicted as wearing the traditional knight's garb (plate armour, large shield, and a longsword), but this is not a requirement. Forcing players to conform to a particular archetype, as would a rule forcing paladins to wear only heavy armour, is against the purpose of a fantasy game. It's like any MMO on the market; you play World of Warcraft and you're a paladin, you better believe you'll be wearing heavy armour, else you won't be living very long. A game like D&D (sorry to bring it up again), you can be a paladin with a pickaxe and hide armour and you'll be fine.

[Linda]

Interestingly enough, platemail only weighs about 40 lbs - a fraction of modern body armour . . . but this is off-topic.

I referenced WoW in my post, as a matter of fact . . . it is not something you want to bring forward if you're looking for an argument; it's a very conformist game. You can't be a light-armour wearing paladin in WoW because of the way it's designed; it's plate armour or nothing, essentially.

Please don't accuse me of generalization - that is exactly what I am arguing against. You sarcastically say that no one has had an original idea since D&D, but the point that I am making is that by forcing all paladins to be plate-wearing longswordsmen, you are stifling any creativity. A new idea is a paladin with a trident who wears giant sea-shells.

I see that we have gotten into a circular argument, and as arrogant as it may seem, until you decide to read my posts and see what I'm saying, I am stepping out of this debate, because I am tired of repeating myself. If you make a point against me, I'll respond, but thus far, I haven't seen very many.

[Linda]

While it is true that Wikipedia can have false information, it is actually a very good resource and should not be scorned.

My argument is not that paladins must be restricted from heavy armour, simply that they must not be restricted [b:6533d]to[/b:6533d] it. I have no problem with the archetypical knight-in-shining-armour, the only thing that I am saying is that there should be be allowances for other types.

While a common view of the paladin is the standard European man-at-arms, others - such as the Japanese samurai - also fit the requirements.

A paladin doesn't "have to be anything," but it shouldn't have to be [i:6533d]one[/i:6533d] thing.

I apologize for my error relating to World of Warcraft; I haven't played a tremendous amount of it ($15 monthly is more than I can spare), but what I have experienced of it strikes me as a very typical, cookie-cutter every-character-is-pretty-much-the-same game.

[Linda]

Possible. The main point that I am trying to argue is that there should be no restrictions preventing paladins from using anything other than heavy armour, and a major branch of that is that the term paladin is not related to the attire, but the mindset.

A Christian who wears mismatching clothes is not a paladin, he is a believer. A paladin is a crusader - one who fights, in a physical sense (clerics and priests do the philosophical battling) for his beliefs. The Islamic suicide-bombers are closer to the title of "paladin" than yourself.

[Linda]

Spam healing could be halted a variety of ways, very few of which require changes to the armour - anything from putting a cooldown time for casting to increasing the amount of spell-points it takes to cast. The armour-induced bungling just doesn't make sense to me.

And aye, argument is enjoyable.

[Linda]

Adventuring shouldn't be about whether or not you can stand there and heal yerself as you get shot - that destroys the party mechanic; there's no need for a party healer (I always love clerics, because they're beloved members of the party).

[Fredd]

Paladins in any context have been defenders of their faith. They are trained in weapons, and being able to use any type of armor, as any knight/warrior should. The bonus's they recieve have the drawback of being lost, if they stray from the path their diety layed out for them.
In wyvern, without a specialized skill set, the basic pally can survive longer than another player, with the ability to self heal. It is a great bonus, but like I said, it has drawbacks.
The brute force guilds, like Axemans, and Caveys, rely on hp bonuses, and weapon bonuses, to survive.
People have developed great training skill sets, for most any character class. Game designers just try to make stats/bonuses for the different guilds to be advantageous for just a basic simpleton like me to be able to survive longer, thus profiting from joining a guild. But any guild is just to create a more playable character. So Sir Galahad who found +10 agility clothing, just because its not plate mail, does not mean he is a unworthy fighter, it just means he takes advantage of what he can get.

[Linda]

You are your own undoing.

If a paladin can be a spirited orator, then he can be a light-armour wearing warrior, too. If we follow the definitions and quotes you have posted, there is no valid reason to restrict them to heavy armour.

[Linda]

Absurd declarations?

Urgh. A paladin is a holy warrior, that's [i:ca4dd]all[/i:ca4dd] it is, what else would you say?

[Ovrlndnsea]

Mabye require this and give a booster in another area to the affected guild(s)?