Lurker > KanzarisKelshen

From: muddersmilk | #017
it's how you know he isn't actually one of the players

Twostuck: making people cynics since whenever this started.

From: Sceptilesolar | #272
That sounds good enough, I suppose, but I do hope they aren't ONLY changing the wizard. CoDzilla was a term for a reason. Most of those suggestions are fine; just extend them to spellcasting in general.

From: Anagram | #265
S is a common letter! And "Shursh" wasn't her real name!

From: Anagram | #259
KanzarisKelshen posted...
That's a problem, though - you can't found an archetype based on lies. There have to be actual characters who fit it. Holger from Three Hearts and Three Lions is the basis of the Paladin archetype, and ironically he fails to fit two out of three criteria set forth for the 'one true D&D paladin' - the only one he can make work is being a knight in shining armor. No divine powers there. This kinda says all that needs to be said here - true paladins (Michael, Holger, Saint George, hell, Saint Seiya if we want to do a different kind of paladin) aren't defined by their skills, but by their morals. Hell, even originally, in AD&D, paladins were defined by their morals too.

It's not a lie, it's an archetype. The origin of the archetype? Hazy and misunderstood by most people. But most people, including most players, are going to think "King Arthur = Knight in Shining Armor with Religious Overtones = Probably Involves Goodness and Justice at some point = Paladin," and even if they're wrong, the concept of a warrior with religious overtones doesn't suffer for it.

Besides, there are multiple classes that have no famous characters that inspired them.

From: Sceptilesolar | #257
Well, she claimed to have been guided by God. No direct divine powers, certainly. But she makes a good case for paladin as Divine Leader as well, I think. Or possibly just Warlord/Paladin... Oh well.

From: Sceptilesolar | #253
But King Arthur isn't even very religious.

Isn't Joan of Arc really the archetypal paladin, actually?

Also, as for Rogue as trap-master, that's interesting and another change.

Maybe you could have a Technology power source?

From: SovietOmega | #251
A) Shining paragon of goodness and hope.
B) Has divine powers.
C) More martial than divine.

Sadly, you can't really find examples of that - it's a construct that doesn't exist.

Goku. BAM

From: Anagram | #252
KanzarisKelshen posted...
Because King Arthur isn't a shining paragon of goodness at all. He was an ass and a bastard. A bastard with the most badass sword ever and who ruled one fhe fairest kingdoms ever, but still a bastard in the end. For this same reason (also, not divine either) Grey Knights are out. Same for Bretonnians...and classes aren't exactly what I want when I ask for examples. I mean characters. By contrast, I can think of two examples, one from myth and one from modern fantasy, that come to mind instantly when I think of paladins who get aid from god: Saint George the Dragonslayer, and Michael Carpenter, Fist of God and Knight of the Cross from Dresden Files. The key characteristics of the paladin as you want them must be:

A) Shining paragon of goodness and hope.
B) Has divine powers.
C) More martial than divine.

Sadly, you can't really find examples of that - it's a construct that doesn't exist. Whereas the holy warrior archetype does exist, and has a pool of characters who embody it.

And the traps...run into the same issue as before. Why aren't those traps Artificer territory, since they have 'uses complex arcanomagical stuff' as their schtick?

King Arthur may have been an ass in the actual legends, but people who aren't familiar with him still think of him as the archetypal knight in shining armor. Maybe the truth is more complex than that, but ask a random dude on the street for a "knight in shining armor," and he's going to say King Arthur or Sir Lancelot or something. And the Grey Knights are super idealistic paladins... by the standards of 40K, in which mindraping communists who won't accept no for an answer are the closest things to good guys.

They don't have to be arcane traps, just complicated mechanical traps that normal people, without special training or skill, can't get to work as quickly as a fighter can swing a sword - but a rogue can.

From: ToukaOone | #110
I've seen everything when someone criticizes Shiki for being the worst.

From: Sceptilesolar | #241
None of those feel very archetypal. That's a problem.

From: Anagram | #242
Sceptilesolar posted...
Slay all sacred cows.

Hey, I'm not arguing otherwise, I'm just telling you the facts. And regardless, "knight in shining armor who lives to do justice" is more of an archetype than half of the classes.

Then give that to the paladin too. But I think the cleric's leadership is poorly defined in the first place, and therefore no difference really exists.

The cleric's leadership role is calling down divine powers from his god to aid his allies directly. That's not really something you expect from a knight in shining armor.

Because it's idiotic. It's a limitation on what you're allowed to roleplay for no reason except that it's just the way things have always been.

No, it's a limitation on the class' archetype because the archetype is "justice knight."

I wasn't really treating Shadow as intrinsically magical. I just don't want to stick the Rogue into Martial because it'll cause bloat; it steps on the Ranger's and the Monk's toes and I don't see how all three can be represented. Giving the Rogue a more shadowy bent gives it its own identity, and Rogue + blatant magic covers the Assassin too. That seems to make it the most elegant solution.

There is no elegant solution, I'm afraid. You could maybe try to make the rogue a partial controller, with like caltrops and traps and stuff, but that's all I've got.



And the Avenger is a good archetype, Scep. Combine it with like Pathfinder's Inquisitor and you have the Solomon Kane/Van Helsing class.

From: Sceptilesolar | #237
I just don't know if the Avenger, Warden, Battlemind, or Ardent add enough to be worth making separate classes for them.


Also, it seems I will also be back late for any potential noncanon session, most unfortunately. It's too bad, I had made a silly Gladiator Joe's encounter with the SA D&D LPers.

From: Anagram | #231
KanzarisKelshen posted...
I'm not sure if a theme, but a Paladin should definitely be who you are, not what you choose to be. After all, the original paladin D&D is based on was a modern day secret agent (yes, really).

And I'd pay close attention to those quotes on 'created', honestly - it was more like twisting the universe into a new shape, and at the cost of millions upon millions of lives.

Well, it sounds like you oppose having a class for paladins at all. I don't know what to say - if the paladin class does exist, then I think it should be Lawful Good only.

You're just splitting hairs if you're going to argue the difference between Amy and Val working together creating a universe or remaking the existing one - either way, millions of new lives are created.

From: metroid composite | #080
My gut reaction has been that he is all around kinda dumb.

The whole flying with a cape thing always seemed kinda silly to me. (I've since learned that apparently flying came when the cartoon didn't want to animate him jumping anymore; a jumping superman sounds much cooler than a flying one).

The whole "he's invincible" thing just seems unexciting. I liked watching the X-Men cartoon where there were relative power levels for characters. Actually, as far as that goes, I liked watching DBZ where there were relative power levels for the characters. Superman just reminds me of those childhood arguments where someone says "is not times infinity plus one". I get the impression there's no scale to Superman, it seems like...set a bar, and he's higher than that bar.

Also: glasses? Really? Glasses fool everyone?

From: Dark Young Link | #074
Superman? A mostly outstanding good guy, but he's rather boring due to his borderline god mod powers preventing any real harm to him. Even if he dies he just comes back somehow.



Captain Marvel? I've heard of him but I don't know much about him. Is he a weaker, old school version of Superman? Probably a nice guy as well.

From: TVontheRadio | #029
KanzarisKelshen posted...
He's a character who has tapped out. The well of stories you can draw from Superman is actually pretty rich, but the issue is that they're better suited to long novels that can spend lots of time on internal monologues, motivations, and small talk than comic books. He's a character who doesn't really work on his medium, because his good stories rely on addressing philosophical and ethical issues that arise from having such immense powers for the most part, and less on action and eye-candy. Comics (mostly) can't balance the need to include action and a fast-moving plot with the sort of delicate, profound treatment of t he issues of humanity and power Superman needs. So, he ends up being boring. Contrast with Batman and other less powerful (or more proportionately powered compared to their enemies) heroes, who can afford to include lots of action that doesn't rely on random nerfing of the character's powers, stupidity, or flimsy justifications of holding back.

PS: For example, if Superman started killing for good reason and with lasting effects (AKA no resurrections until at least 10 IRL years pass, knows enough to keep this meting out of justice to irredeemable villains and so on), that'd be a character arc that could be explored to great effect. Because of the medium he's in though, this can't really happen.

you seem to be answering as if you have read the comics based on the statements you make but then this topic shouldn't even be for you

and if you haven't read the comics, then i don't think you should be making any sort of statements regarding how a character can't work in the actual medium

i can stomach the easy opinions the others gave about the character but to say such a big claim that he can't be given the proper treatment in comics if you haven't read any is utterly ridiculous

From: Anagram | #222
KanzarisKelshen posted...
From: Anagram | #219
You don't have to literally be a paladin to be so good that you act like one. Also, Valerian's perfect antithesis would more likely be Amy.
No, Amy is Valerian's enemy, not his antithesis. An antithesis stands in contrast with the thesis, and their reconciliation engenders a new truth, the creation of something greater than the simple sum of its parts. Amy and Val working together doesn't create, it destroys.

Also, Valerian pretty much IS a Paladin in all but name. He has the overwhelming zeal, the inhuman charisma, the unflinching convictions, teetering between darkness and light and being besieged by temptations at every turn, and even his own version of Detect Evil. This doesn't make him so good he acts like a paladin, it just makes him a paladin in action.

Don't quite know how to tell you this, but Amy and Val working together "created" a new universe. Also: it sounds like you feel like paladin shouldn't be a class and should be, like, a theme.

From: tereziWright | #014
BONUS QUESTION: If you are even aware of who he is, what is your opinion of Captain Marvel?

http://geekdraw.com/picture/alex-ross-captain-marvel-1.jpg?pictureId=7620016&asGalleryImage=true

From: tereziWright | #001
Interested in what public perception of the character seems to be.

I'm not gonna mock you or correct you or tell you why you're wrong about what you think of him or anything, because the whole point is to see what people think who don't read Supes, not inform them about him.

I would prefer a reasoning for your thought, positive or negative.

From: Anagram | #219
You don't have to literally be a paladin to be so good that you act like one. Also, Valerian's perfect antithesis would more likely be Amy.

From: UltimaterializerX | #041
Talking about how you used to act in Dota, though that was a long time ago and you've grown up a lot since. I mean if you still don't snap whenever anything goes wrong I apologize, but I seriously doubt this is the case until I see it for myself.

From: Lopen | #043
Well I know a couple of years ago FD seriously flipped out on me and a few other b8ers when we forfeited without an inhibitor going down because we were getting stomped (and the inhibitor was about to go down anyway). I've played a few unranked/custom games with him since and I'm pretty sure he's mellowed out though.

In any case yeah it's really easy to just shrug off things. I'd say like 95/100 games where people rage I just completely ignore it/roll with it even if it's directed at me (and the other 5 just have me getting slightly irritated, not so much flipping out). But if you're prone to rage or depression or low self esteem as most who are involved with it seem to be (particularly the rage part) then yeah it's a terrible genre to get involved with.

From: Sceptilesolar | #217
I also don't think paladins are particularly tied to a deity, 4e or otherwise; 'idealistic warrior' seems a better fit.

And personally I think paladins would make more sense as a cleric subbuild, but that's just me.

From: Anagram | #214
I know you guys are going to disagree with me, but whatever.

I hope 5E only allows paladins to be Lawful Good. I think the class should be a class of Goodness and not just "warrior of a deity," which is more the cleric's gimmick. Either shaft Evil and give it no class, or give it its own unique class like, I don't know, Evilcaster or something. Good and Evil don't need to be mirrors of each other, paladins should be champions of Good who may or may not use a deity for that end.

From: Dristin | #013
UMvC was ALL their fault. I mean look at that. MvC3 is one of their top 5 selling fighter which would have defiantly been more if they took a SF4 pacing to it. Now they wont support a thriving community because they refuse to own up to a mistake instead of fixing it.

Don't know where they went wrong with SFxT though. Something there aint right that much is certain but I can't put my finger on it.