Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
Dragonbait the paladin saurial, a type of creature from another prime material plane, introduced in the novel Azure Bonds in 1988:
isn't that the sort of thing that causes apoplexy on some people

nooo you can't be anything other than human/elf/dwarf noooo
Although the paladin class is normally restricted to humans, since saurials originate from a different prime material plane I suppose an argument could be made that different rules apply there. :M
clearly we are going by chrono trigger rules and there's a 50% chance of either saurians or apes becoming the human paladins (dominant species) of every 'verse
 

Nortar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,450
Pathfinder: Wrath
How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?
I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.
The paladin used to be a model human. The human.

Other races could dual-class though.
The next best (or even better) thing to paladin would be fihter/cleric.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?
I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.
even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things
 

La vie sexuelle

Learned
Joined
Jun 10, 2023
Messages
2,099
Location
La Rochelle
How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?
I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.
even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things
Games are arbitrary by their nature. Different buffs, debuffs and limitations are reasons for experimentation. Without that you get something bland like Pathfinder. "Oh golly! Now I can make druid-mage dwarf!" quickly lost its charm.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?
I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.
even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things
Games are arbitrary by their nature. Different buffs, debuffs and limitations are reasons for experimentation. Without that you get something bland like Pathfinder. "Oh golly! Now I can make druid-mage dwarf!" quickly lost its charm.
I don't totally agree. Games are reasoned by nature. Designers decide the strengths and limitations of every aspect of their worlds, as to create an experience that rises above sandboxy make believe. Wether the game feels arbitrary or not is a factor of novelty multiplied by the quality of that reasoning.

To someone who's only known a given version of D&D then humans being the only paladins comes across as natural as a matter of fact, in the archetypical 'humans can be anything' sense or in the 'well, thats what paladins are, holy human knights'. To someone else who's familiar with a given version of a D&D setting, then there could be an in-universe reasoning for why only humans can be paladins. There's also a third reasoning that arises purely from rules design, similar to how meta-humans can multi-class while humans can dual-class. But none of these instances are actually arbitrary.

Even when decisions start on a whim in a campaign run in Lake Geneva, then the guy in charge will ground that decision with some reasoning. 'Why clerics can't use bladed weapons? I dunno man I just went to the public library and got myself a crusades comic to read so uh it's because they are holy and generally refuse to draw blood ok'.

I say this because there's a horde of dumbasses online who will demand rules changes on account of 'player agency'. So drawing a line between arbitrary, poorly formulated choices and well reasoned ones is important.
 
Last edited:

La vie sexuelle

Learned
Joined
Jun 10, 2023
Messages
2,099
Location
La Rochelle
How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?
I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.
even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things
Games are arbitrary by their nature. Different buffs, debuffs and limitations are reasons for experimentation. Without that you get something bland like Pathfinder. "Oh golly! Now I can make druid-mage dwarf!" quickly lost its charm.
I don't totally agree. Games are reasoned by nature. Designers decide the strengths and limitations of every aspect of their worlds, as to create an experience that rises above sandboxy make believe. Wether the game feels arbitrary or not is a factor of novelty multiplied by the quality of that reasoning.

To someone who's only known a given version of D&D then humans being the only paladins comes across as natural as a matter of fact, in the archetypical 'humans can be anything' sense or in the 'well, thats what paladins are, holy human knights'. To someone else who's familiar with a given version of a D&D setting, then there could be an in-universe reasoning for why only humans can be paladins. There's also a third reasoning that arises purely from rules design, similar to how meta-humans can multi-class while humans can dual-class. But none of these instances are actually arbitrary.
Art is rooted in life. Art without life is mere abstract, yes. But art, games especially, always have an abstract aspect and in games this aspect is limited by pleasure that the players got. What give pleasure to the players? Well, that's arbitral, just I wrote ;)
Even when decisions start on a whim in a campaign run in Lake Geneva, then the guy in charge will ground that decision with some reasoning. 'Why clerics can't use bladed weapons? I dunno man I just went to the public library and got myself a crusades comic to read so uh it's because they are holy and generally refuse to draw blood ok'.

I say this because there's a horde of dumbasses online who will demand rules changes on account of 'player agency'. So drawing a line between arbitrary, poorly formulated choices and well reasoned ones is important.
All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
Art is rooted in life.
All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D.
You've proved my point. No I don't remember the exact inspirations for every single thing in D&D. But wether Gygax and co based their decisions on Conan or Robin Hood, then the decision was not arbitrary. It was reasoned. And it was based on the designer's lives. Basing clerics off of Friar Tuck, a character they read about in childhood, is as far away from arbitrary as you can go.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
12,726
All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.
The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
villainous vampire Sir Fang
reminds me of my favorite boss from world of warcraft

Zbx0ahiFcOjA7h0i7bxqq1K4JB2wseCBffUmZiprNy0.jpg
 

Tyranicon

A Memory of Eternity
Developer
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
7,410
754 pages for a game that supposedly no codexer awaits. Quite an impressive feat.
Larian has some bright looking years ahead.
I guarantee you that it will win the codex goty.

It's not like we have a bumper crop of RPGs or anything. The only competitors right now are maybe Starfield (lol) and Colony Ship.

Hell, maybe even Caves of Lore.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom