oneADseven said:We have moved way past the idea of these things being available at character select. You and I agreed on a compromise 8 pages ago.
Serious question posed to all:
What would be more immersion breaking?
A highly intellectual/seasoned player who roleplays an Ogre Wizard?
Take it to the extreme. Imagine an Ogre Wizard in-game ... roleplayed to the max as an intelligent being with a firm grasp on concepts of wizardry and magic?
Or ...
A low intellectual/inexperienced player who roleplays an Elven Wizard?
Take it to the extreme. Imagine an Elven Wizard in game ... roleplayed to the max as an intelligent being with a firm grasp on concepts of wizardry and magic?
Wouldn't immersion be completely shattered when the 300 year old Elf says things like: "Doodz, plz help me finish my quest, I gotta log off at 9PM!"
The conundrum for me is that the seasoned/intellectual Ogre Wizard is being artificially restricted from existing. There are plenty of players who could pull off that role with ease and look damn good while doing it. They would add value to my experience. Meanwhile, there are other players who take on the role of an Elven Wizard that totally distort any sense of virtual reality. Should there be a prerequisite IQ or Personality test that must be completed before players are eligible to play certain combinations in the name of immersion? Come on. Immersion is a horrible argument, IMO. Just because someone "looks the part" doesn't make things more realistic. Again ... World > Game. The players are what brings life to the characters, not some made-up stereotype. Cultivate that creativity and you'll find all kinds of interesting characters in the world. You can artificially restrict that from happening but you're absolutely going to chase off some of the great roleplayers in the process. The system, as designed, is self-defeating in many ways.
I think there's a big difference between the game endorsing an option by making it available to the players and a player choosing to do some bad RP. VR can't really control what players do (up to a point), so players having the option to do something stupid in one circumstance shouldn't really justify letting anything go.
I also have an issue with the characterization of these restrictions as "artificial". There's nothing artificial about restricting players from doing things in the game that are contrary to the way VR envisions the world existing. In some cases such as the cleric and paladin, the availability of that class is heavily tied to the lore of the race and requires a certain type of relationship with a deity. In these cases, there's just no way to open it up to all races without trashing the lore of the game. That's like saying not allowing your kid to eat rat poision is artificially restricting their diet.
In other cases, the physiological characteristics of a race would make it practically impossible for a certain combination to work. If there were a realistic way to make these combos significantly worse than others to the point of the character being practically useless, then I would say go for it. Make an ogre wizard that fizzles his spells 90% of the time. But I don't think that's realistic. Any option that's given to the players will be expected to be viable outside of extreme min-maxing considerations. And I don't think the game owes it to players to allow anyone who wants to be a special snowflake that just happens to be super amazing at something that is generally considered impossible.
Riahuf22 said:Plus dark myr isn't a holy race so no paladin if your at least trying to prove a point you can at leat try to have it make sense to begin with, and I know 1AD7 will come on and reply and be like why can't a dark myr become holy, it simple they aren't holy and they can try to be good all they want but they will never be holy there's a difference
Dark Myr can be clerics though. So what you're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
zoltar said:I think there's a big difference between the game endorsing an option by making it available to the players and a player choosing to do some bad RP. VR can't really control what players do (up to a point), so players having the option to do something stupid in one circumstance shouldn't really justify letting anything go.
I'm not really suggesting that they let "anything go." As long as players have an option to break out of restrictions, I am perfectly fine with them. The option doesn't need to be easy or convenient. This isn't an attempt to draw a line in the sand and I don't want it to be misconstrued as some sort of demand. I'm just voicing what I would consider being a reasonable compromise and it should be taken with a grain of salt.
That said, let's try to keep a matter of perspective about what was being discussed. These restrictions are in place because of lore. The lore helps tell a story and they want it to be consistent. Each race is being designed around some sort of stereotype. It's in the lore and players are restricted from doing things (playing certain classes) that would contradict it. Allowing players to do other things that are far more contradictive is like having a "no knives allowed" sign on a government building while accepting that there is nothing you can do to prevent them from bringing in loaded guns. If you know ahead of time that there is nothing you can do to prevent them from bringing in loaded guns then what is the point of restricting knives in the name of safety? To extrapolate this a little further, consider the idea that there are plenty of safe/responsible "knife enthusiast" players who would consider that sort of restriction to be an arbitrary smackdown.
zoltar said:I also have an issue with the characterization of these restrictions as "artificial". There's nothing artificial about restricting players from doing things in the game that are contrary to the way VR envisions the world existing. In some cases such as the cleric and paladin, the availability of that class is heavily tied to the lore of the race and requires a certain type of relationship with a deity. In these cases, there's just no way to open it up to all races without trashing the lore of the game. That's like saying not allowing your kid to eat ra eat rat poision is artificially restricting their diet.
This is a fair point. At the same time, how many other actions will players be able to perform that VR wouldn't want to happen in their world? Clearly, they don't want intentional training ... but they have no interest in "artificially restricting" it. Why is that? Why would they restrict one but not the other when both are undesirable? I would argue that allowing players to intentionally train others would be way more of a damaging component of gameplay than allowing ogres to be wizards. You make another great point about "some cases" -- okay, clerics and paladins have some sort of deity requirement. I think there are plenty of meaningful ways to get around this in an open-world game (remember, allowing players to develop their characters and behavior the way they see fit is widely viewed as the main appeal to open world gameplay) -- but as an aside from that, what does that have to do with all of the other classes that don't qualify as special cases? I think we both agree that allowing an ogre to be a bard or monk wouldn't trash the lore, right?
zoltar said:In other cases, the physiological characteristics of a race would make it practically impossible for a certain combination to work. If there were a realistic way to make these combos significantly worse than others to the point of the character being practically useless, then I would say go for it. Make an ogre wizard that fizzles his spells 90% of the time. But I don't think that's realistic. Any option that's given to the players will be expected to be viable outside of extreme min-maxing considerations. And I don't think the game owes it to players to allow anyone who wants to be a special snowflake that just happens to be super amazing at something that is generally considered impossible.
I disagree that they should be "practically useless" because there would be no point in allowing them to exist at all, at that point. There are a variety of games that were able to implement the general idea behind what you are suggesting here without going to that sort of extreme. Starter stats and meaningful racial passives/actives/resists could be leveraged to the point where some combinations are more "ideal" for a given role than others, especially early on. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I think the racial differences should be handled the same way as class differences, in this sense. Each tank brings a different flavor to the table where they can specialize but they aren't practically useless outside of it.
If someone wants to play a halfling warrior and make use of improved agility/dexterity at the expense of stamina/constitution, I think that is a reasonable trade-off. If someone wants to play a gnome warrior who doesn't have a naturally high score for any of the main stats for warriors, that should be fine too. Maybe gnomes have some other sort of meaningful value attached to them that might be of interest to players. Allowing players to experiment with these kinds of things, even if their choices are less than ideal, is what open-world gameplay is all about. I understand the argument of "But if you allow players to make these choices they will beg for their oddball choice to be balanced!" So you put in a disclaimer at character select. Each race has strengths/weaknesses and they are balanced around those, accordingly. Races would be viewed completely independent of class and it's up to the players to "enjoy responsibly."
As far as the "no knives allowed" analogy you made, what you're arguing for is more akin to saying that since we can't prevent a student from bringing a gun to school, we might as well give them butcher knives to carry around the halls. We could go around and around with the analogies, but the bottom line is I don't think you should justify designing bad choices into the game because players might do other bad things.
I think we both agree that allowing an ogre to be a bard or monk wouldn't trash the lore, right?
No, it wouldn't trash the lore in the way that gnome clerics would. But it would significantly lessen the realism of the world. Gnomes' quasi-physical bodies are funamentally weak. Having them start off slightly weaker and eventually become equally good tanks as an ogre warrior is just not realistic. It's not a matter of them simply being "not ideal" tanks. They should be horrible tanks because of the realities of their anatomy. So regardless of whatever "special snowflake" background they're all RP'ing to explain why they can tank, having a bunch of gnome warriors running around the world is bad for the game overall. Like I said, I'm fine with allowing gnome warriors if they have half the HP of an ogre with comparable gear at all levels of the game or an ogre wizard that fizzles his spells the majority of the time. But as you acknowledge, this would never work out because you guys want your cake and want to eat it too. You want to be able to play a race that is inherently bad at a certain role/class without actually being bad at it because you're some super special snowflake that can somehow overcome the limitations of your race.
Since it isn't feasible to have the race of a player lead to such a wide variance in ability, it makes sense to restrict options that would be poorly matched.
zoltar said:As far as the "no knives allowed" analogy you made, what you're arguing for is more akin to saying that since we can't prevent a student from bringing a gun to school, we might as well give them butcher knives to carry around the halls. We could go around and around with the analogies, but the bottom line is I don't think you should justify designing bad choices into the game because players might do other bad things.
We can certainly go round and round with the analogies but let's play fair and remember the context of what was being discussed. If you are trying to suggest that allowing oddball race/class combinations would be akin to giving everyone a butcher knife, it would make sense, then, that allowing these "approved" race/class combinations would be akin to giving everyone a loaded gun. Since we're talking about a matter of "protecting safety" as it relates to what is being allowed, think about how ridiculous that sounds. There is no expectation of safety if everyone is allowed to roleplay a friendly Skar. The bottom line is that the players will have much more of an impact on how their characters will be perceived in the world than these arbitrary restrictions.
zoltar said:No, it wouldn't trash the lore in the way that gnome clerics would. But it would significantly lessen the realism of the world. Gnomes' quasi-physical bodies are funamentally weak. Having them start off slightly weaker and eventually become equally good tanks as an ogre warrior is just not realistic. It's not a matter of them simply being "not ideal" tanks. They should be horrible tanks because of the realities of their anatomy. So regardless of whatever "special snowflake" background they're all RP'ing to explain why they can tank, having a bunch of gnome warriors running around the world is bad for the game overall.
This is another case where lore is being selectively applied to fit the bill. Players don't usually "tank" with their anatomy, do they? Isn't that what armor and shields are for? If you want to strip down an ogre and gnome completely naked and allow ogres to be superior tanks, go for it ... but that isn't what is happening. It's being suggested that gnomes could not possibly wear plate armor because of their anatomy. Is there some sort of excerpt in the lore that suggests that gnomes are highly allergic to plate mail, to the point where if their skin (or lackthereof) touches it, they would melt? Or is it being suggested that their anatomy just isn't strong enough to support plate mail? If you want to talk about arbitrary decisions that would significantly lessen the realism of the world, go ahead and try to convince me how it makes sense that they would be able to carry a full set of plate mail in their bags. They can carry broadswords and tower shields but as soon as they put on a pair of plate gloves realism suddenly falls apart?
zoltar said:Like I said, I'm fine with allowing gnome warriors if they have half the HP of an ogre with comparable gear at all levels of the game or an ogre wizard that fizzles his spells the majority of the time. But as you acknowledge, this would never work out because you guys want your cake and want to eat it too. You want to be able to play a race that is inherently bad at a certain role/class without actually being bad at it because you're some super special snowflake that can somehow overcome the limitations of your race.
Since it isn't feasible to have the race of a player lead to such a wide variance in ability, it makes sense to restrict options that would be poorly matched.
Should ogre druids/shamans fizzle their spells the majority of the time? Should gnome rogues have roughly 60% of the HP (with comparable gear) as a dwarf rogue? Is that how you would truly balance the game or are you selectively applying ridiculous penalties (with no sense of consistency) for the hell of it?
World > Game when it comes to this topic.
oneADseven you said so in several of your posts
the world is above your game
The world has its rules based on the lore of its creators (VR) it may have seemed random but they are not based on the creative process of creating this world and its lore
your game play ogre mage is not allowing in the world
world> game you say it
oneADseven said:
We can certainly go round and round with the analogies but let's play fair and remember the context of what was being discussed. If you are trying to suggest that allowing oddball race/class combinations would be akin to giving everyone a butcher knife, it would make sense, then, that allowing these "approved" race/class combinations would be akin to giving everyone a loaded gun.
You're missing the point. There is a huge difference in terms of what VR can control and what they can't control. Just because VR can't realistically enforce that RP is consistent with the world doesn't mean that they should refuse to enforce consistency when they have the option to do so. The point of the analogy had nothign to do with guns vs knives. It was about the decision to arm the students with weapons (thus proactively ensuring that violence will occur) because of the possibility that some student could bring their own weapon. If you give a kid a weapon and they hurt somebody, you're responsible. But if they sneak one in, your liability is far, far less.
In terms of the game, there is a significant difference in terms of how the player is impacted as well. If some goofball is doing some really stupid RP, I can ignore him and it isnt' really going to affect me much. However if you allow oddball race/class combinations, it feels infinitely more impactful because the game is, at its core, inconsistent. If someone is doing really bad RP that's inconsistent with the lore, I can kick them and not feel bad because they're at fault. But if I kick someone for being an ogre wizard, I'm the a-hole now. They're just playing the game as the devs intended.
Should ogre druids/shamans fizzle their spells the majority of the time? Should gnome rogues have roughly 60% of the HP (with comparable gear) as a dwarf rogue? Is that how you would truly balance the game or are you selectively applying ridiculous penalties (with no sense of consistency) for the hell of it?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I was pretty clear about how they can't realistically have a huge variance in capability based on race. So what you do is you draw a line based on what you think are reasonable combinations. Human warrior? Reasonable. Ogre warrior? Also reasonable. Under strict realism, an ogre might be twice as good of a warrior as a human, but this is a game and you can't really do that.
So I do take the posiiton that whatever race/class combos are offered to players should be viable as a matter of principle. However, I also have the position that unreasonable combos should be restricted. And given the later position, I think making an exception to the former in order to allow players to play non-viable versions of some restricted combos for RP reasons could be okay. You could try to allow for it by giving players a warning "While you might want to play this character for roleplay, be aware that it will not be considered 'viable' as it has significant weaknesses that you will not necessarily be able to overcome by leveling or gear". I would, personally, be okay with this. But if I'm in VR's shoes, I think I would just leave those combos blocked and not open this whole can of worms.
P.S. Ogre druids and shaman are completely different from wizards and summoners. In fantasy tropes, arcane conjuring is generally considered to require high intelligence and sophistication whereas nature-magic is something more accessible to more primitive races.
Using how EQ2 worked with allowing races to betray to the other side. I betrayed an Iksar to be a Paladin and it was fun but it made sense in the EQ2 lore because there were two main factions in the world. Both main cities were able to accomdate whatever race because they had all the class areas.
The Pantheon World, there seems to be a racial cities like EQ so how would that work for an all/all? Well Each city would need a class trainer for each class or other races would have to have access to other racial cities with that trainer or some common city. Also since they say trainers will be found out in the world, perhaps that could be an avenue as well.
Will races in Pantheon be KOS to each other? I mean they might not have to be since they are were all threw into this new world. I think that alone would make races want to work together or at least tolerate each other in trying to understand this new world.
I think an all/all discussion really relies on how races interact with each other.
Just like in EQ2 betraying took along time to do but it was aweosm to be an Iksar Paladin so if someone wanted an Ogre Wizard well looks like they would have to search out a trainer which would add more difficulty to playing the chosen class. Now will an Ogre Wizard be as good as a Elf? No, due to racial stats but I bet that Ogre Wizard could take more AOE damage before dying, which means less healing and perhaps useful for certain fights.
Aich said:Using how EQ2 worked with allowing races to betray to the other side. I betrayed an Iksar to be a Paladin and it was fun but it made sense in the EQ2 lore because there were two main factions in the world. Both main cities were able to accomdate whatever race because they had all the class areas.
@Aich this already exists to an extent with some of the races in VR’s matrix. There will be good humans and evil humans. And perhaps with more ‘neutral’ Gnomes as we see the Gnome Necro. Though for example, Ogres and Skar will be evil-aligned races due to the deities that created them and due to their racial natures.
I mean, I don’t think we would have seen an Uruk-Hai Orc fighting with Aragorn, Legolas, and the good men of Rohan in the battle of Helms Deep. That would have been odd for sure. Like in LoTR; lore, factions, deities and different races will play critical roles in the world of Terminus. I think it’s importent to remember that humans are the human race in this world. Ogres, Skar, and Dark Myr are different races altogether and at least have enough in common to form an ‘evil’ alliance. Just as Elves, Halflings etc are completely different races too. We all are looking at this from the human perspective and that’s most likely why humans can adapt to and accept all classes.
zoltar said:You're missing the point. There is a huge difference in terms of what VR can control and what they can't control.
Fair point. Just like there is a huge difference in terms of what VR can control and what they should control to help tell their story. VR could prevent Skar from grouping with Elves, the same way that WoW prevents Horde grouping/communicating/trading with Alliance. If an Elf walks up to the Skar village ... would it be fair to assume that they are KoS? Why are Elven PC's allowed to interact with Skar PC's differently than NPC's? Should an Elf have to grind a bunch of Skar faction before they can group with them? People talk about how important the story is ... and how this is a roleplaying game ... but where is the consistency? This is the main problem with trying to socially engineer character development and putting our stories on rails. If you allow players to break from the unrealistic stereotypes that govern the entire NPC population of a given race, it then becomes plausible that players of opposing races can interact with each other in ways that might contradict established lore.
It sounds like you want every player to be a special snowflake. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. You buy into this philosophy that these restrictions add a sense of realism to the world but there is no consistency with how these things are enforced. That is why these restrictions are being called artificial/arbitrary. Elves/Skar will be able to group, trade, and get married even though these things could easily be restricted. There comes a point where you have to weigh the relative cost of imposing these restrictions and my argument is centered around the idea that pigeonholing race/class options will lead to countless creative/fun casualties. It's obvious that "fun" is subjective, but for many, the "fun" is absolutely being sapped from the experience. Again ... the main appeal of open-world gameplay is allowing players to develop their characters and their behavior the way they see fit. I understand that rules and restrictions have a place but I think it's a bit obnoxious to arbitrarily bombard players with them during what should be a fun/interactive/creative character creation screen.
zoltar said:The point of the analogy had nothign to do with guns vs knives. It was about the decision to arm the students with weapons (thus proactively ensuring that violence will occur) because of the possibility that some student could bring their own weapon.
The point of the analogy was absolutely related to guns vs knives seeing that I was the first one to bring them up. You quoted me ... using my context, and then spun it into your interpretation of what I was arguing for. It's not fair to do that and then suggest that my context was irrelevant from the start.
zoltar said:This is a significant difference in terms of how the player is impacted as well. If some goofball is doing some really stupid RP, I can ignore him and it isnt' really going to affect me much. However if you allow oddball race/class combinations, it feels infinitely more impactful because the game is, at its core, inconsistent. If someone is doing really bad RP that's inconsistent with the lore, I can kick them and not feel bad because they're at fault. But if I kick someone for being an ogre wizard, I'm the a-hole now. They're just playing the game as the devs intended.
Playing the game as the devs intended is the opposite of encouraging emergent gameplay. There is still the matter of inconsistency that was discussed above (they most likely intend for Elves/Skars to kill each other on sight unless you're a special snowflake) and I'm okay with that ... but if we're going to cite realism or logic then both of them need to be applied with consistency in order for this illusion to actually become believable. If you don't want to be perceived as an a-hole for kicking an ogre wizard then just don't invite them in the first place? If they are "enjoying responsibly" then they should understand that there will be a-holes out there who would be willing to kick them because of a couple of stat points. Some players love that sort of thing -- they want to be the underdog because it feels extra gratifying when they overcome the odds that are stacked against them and look damn good while doing it. If someone wants to kick them because they have a shallow mind ... hey, that's their loss! This might sound like a crazy concept but there are players out there who can use skill/knowledge to overcome these sorts of deficiencies.
zoltar said:No, that's not what I'm saying. I was pretty clear about how they can't realistically have a huge variance in capability based on race. So what you do is you draw a line based on what you think are reasonable combinations. Human warrior? Reasonable. Ogre warrior? Also reasonable. Under strict realism, an ogre might be twice as good of a warrior as a human, but this is a game and you can't really do that.
So I do take the posiiton that whatever race/class combos are offered to players should be viable as a matter of principle. However, I also have the position that unreasonable combos should be restricted. And given the later position, I think making an exception to the former in order to allow players to play non-viable versions of some restricted combos for RP reasons could be okay. You could try to allow for it by giving players a warning "While you might want to play this character for roleplay, be aware that it will not be considered 'viable' as it has significant weaknesses that you will not necessarily be able to overcome by leveling or gear". I would, personally, be okay with this. But if I'm in VR's shoes, I think I would just leave those combos blocked and not open this whole can of worms.
We sort of agree on this. I appreciate your stance that combos that are made available should be made "viable" as a matter of principle, even if some are more/less ideal than others. The only area where I disagree with you is when it comes to determining what is considered reasonable/unreasonable. I think the act of conditioning players to believe that racial essentialism is not only realistic but actually unwavering truth, is distasteful, even in a fantasy setting. It could be argued that this would be more of a "species essentialism" situation but this is something I addressed in a previous post. We don't have the option to play gelatinous cubes or giant beetles. The races are all humanoid and it's a design goal to help players find friends, group up, and form longlasting/meaningful relationships. There is an expectation that we look at each player and treat them like a human being before we entertain what race their character is. I'm going to quote Brad here, and while I will admit that this quote is out-of-context (It's from his matchmaking blog) of what is being discussed here ... the underlying principle speaks volumes to me and should still apply.
"Taking a proactive stance unlike EQ which just threw you to the wolves so to speak. But also most certainly not some of the more 'modern' systems that just bring people together to do an instance and then, afterwards, those people spread about by the wind, no reason to speak during the instance, nor afterwards ... no reason to really even talk much if at all. Total, even blatant disregard for shared experiences and how incredibly powerful and memorable, due to the way our brains are wired, they truly are."
Our player characters are more than their origins. Some of the most incredibly powerful memories I have from previous MMO's included these oddball race/class combos. Allowing players to express their character identity as creatively as possible served as a great reason for people to communicate. Unlike what many folks have suggested on this thread ... seeing those combinations was extremely rare. (That's why I remember them so vividly!) In that sense, this very much comes down to "concept vs implementation." If there are games out there that prop up race choice as nothing more than a cosmetic skin, I can't really speak on those because I didn't play those games. I spent time in worlds where if you saw a gnome warrior or an ogre wizard, it would be sure to catch your eye. This is because they were balanced in a way where they were "less than ideal" without being practically useless. We all know how much emphasis the current generation of gamer places on chasing the meta. It would be a breath of fresh air to see a return to the days where our character personas aren't defined by their stat pools. Make it challenging and inconvenient. In this day and age where the vast majority wants to follow the path of least resistance ... when you see someone who clearly went against the grain and still managed to overcome the same challenges as everyone else, that right there serves as a great catalyst to get people talking and building rapport. Let's not restrict players from "enjoying responsibly." (Or ... if you are going to, at least allow them a chance to break free from them as a compromise.)
I would also cite this from the F.A.Q:
"Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days, but rather to pick and choose those which make sense and are needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game."
It's right there at the top of the list so surely it must be important, right? I'm not right or wrong for voicing my opinion on what helps accomplish that goal, the same as anybody else here.
zoltar said:Riahuf22 said:Plus dark myr isn't a holy race so no paladin if your at least trying to prove a point you can at leat try to have it make sense to begin with, and I know 1AD7 will come on and reply and be like why can't a dark myr become holy, it simple they aren't holy and they can try to be good all they want but they will never be holy there's a difference
Dark Myr can be clerics though. So what you're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Not all clerics are holy though, not even in description do they even point to being holy, they are just strongly believe in a deity to become a cleric much like how a dark elf could be a cleric in EQ and couldn't pick a holy deity and only evil ones are you going to say a cleric dark elf was holy and therefore should be able to be paladins as wll? Again of your going to try to make a point try to make it make sense
Syrif said:I mean, I don’t think we would have seen an Uruk-Hai Orc fighting with Aragorn, Legolas, and the good men of Rohan in the battle of Helms Deep. That would have been odd for sure.
Well like I said it all depends on the lore and how each race treats each other. Also exceptions to the rule make for great stories so I could see the Orc fighting with them if he was raised as a baby to be a different way, ever seen Tarzan? :) Or even the new Godzilla movies and Jurassic Park, T-Rex and Godzilla are now protectors in a sense. It all depends on the lore and backstory, with that anything can work.
And as for the Dark Myr, they wern't created evil, in fact the their deity who created them gave up Immortality to try and save them. Their behavior is a product of the enviroment and not being created evil. So as an exception I can see a Myr living among others.
So if there is an all/all option the the Races will need access to all the class trainers so the racial factions need to have a matrix to allow that but I don't think it should be easy. Those cobinations should be rare as it takes more effort like in EQ2.
Aich said:Syrif said:@Aich this already exists to an extent with some of the races in VR’s matrix. There will be good humans and evil humans. And perhaps with more ‘neutral’ Gnomes as we see the Gnome Necro. Though for example, Ogres and Skar will be evil-aligned races due to the deities that created them and due to their racial natures.
I mean, I don’t think we would have seen an Uruk-Hai Orc fighting with Aragorn, Legolas, and the good men of Rohan in the battle of Helms Deep. That would have been odd for sure. Like in LoTR; lore, factions, deities and different races will play critical roles in the world of Terminus. I think it’s importent to remember that humans are the human race in this world. Ogres, Skar, and Dark Myr are different races altogether and at least have enough in common to form an ‘evil’ alliance. Just as Elves, Halflings etc are completely different races too. We all are looking at this from the human perspective and that’s most likely why humans can adapt to and accept all classes.
Well like I said it all depends on the lore and how each race treats each other. Also exceptions to the rule make for great stories so I could see the Orc fighting with them if he was raised as a baby to be a different way, ever seen Tarzan? :) Or even the new Godzilla movies and Jurassic Park, T-Rex and Godzilla are now protectors in a sense. It all depends on the lore and backstory, with that anything can work.
And as for the Dark Myr, they wern't created evil, in fact the their deity who created them gave up Immortality to try and save them. Their behavior is a product of the enviroment and not being created evil. So as an exception I can see a Myr living among others.
That’s true but the Myr will have enough in common with Ogres and Skar to form an evil alliance. Take for example the necro and DL and just where these races find themselves. I again want to point out that the few people on here calling for ‘all/all’ are looking at this from the human perspective. That‘s why humans accept and can adapt to all classes in Pantheon. Ogres, Skar etc are different races altogether. Ogres are incapable of the arcane. Skar grow claws; sorry Humans: you are a different race .. figure it out. Humans will have to accept that they can’t change other races, and to expect them to have the same abilities, norms, customs, and capabilities as Humans is their view. That is the nature of Humans. It is not the nature of completely different races though. This is roleplaying in an entirely different world with entirely different races. I highly doubt we will see all/all in Pantheon. Of course, we will see ‘all classes’ with Humans though. I like some of your thoughts Aich, and I don‘t mean to direct this at you, but just wanted to remind this to others on the thread. :)
Syrif said:That’s true but the Myr will have enough in common with Ogres and Skar to form an evil alliance. Take for example the necro and DL and just where these races find themselves. I again want to point out that the few people on here calling for ‘all/all’ are looking at this from the human perspective. That‘s why humans accept and can adapt to all classes in Pantheon. Ogres, Skar etc are different races altogether. Ogres are incapable of the arcane. Skars grow claws, sorry humans: you are a different race .. figure it out. Humans will have to accept that they can’t change other races and to expect them to have the same abilities, norms, customs, and capabilities as humans is their view. That is the nature of humans. It is not the nature of completely different races though. This is roleplaying in an entirely different world with entirely different races. I highly doubt we will see all/all in Pantheon. We will see ‘all classes’ with Humans though of course. I like some of your thoughts Aich, and I don‘t mean to direct this at you, but just wanted to remind this to others on the thread. :)
It's all good. I don't expect to see it either nor do I really want it one way or another but I could accept an all/all option if the exceptions were difficult to attain and not just at character select.
I'll be an Elf anyways and the classes I am playing well are elf so I don't have a dog in this fight.
Riahuf22 said:zoltar said:Riahuf22 said:Plus dark myr isn't a holy race so no paladin if your at least trying to prove a point you can at leat try to have it make sense to begin with, and I know 1AD7 will come on and reply and be like why can't a dark myr become holy, it simple they aren't holy and they can try to be good all they want but they will never be holy there's a difference
Dark Myr can be clerics though. So what you're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Not all clerics are holy though, not even in description do they even point to being holy, they are just strongly believe in a deity to become a cleric much like how a dark elf could be a cleric in EQ and couldn't pick a holy deity and only evil ones are you going to say a cleric dark elf was holy and therefore should be able to be paladins as wll? Again of your going to try to make a point try to make it make sense
I thnk you are confusing the word "holy" with "good"... and nowhere in the class descriptions are the words, "holy", "good", or "evil" even used any way... In reality, even a Satan worsihpper is "holy" to their cause/beliefs - to use your own words... just "like how a dark elf could be a cleric in EQ". To be "holy" simply means to worship a particular god/pantheon. Again... using lore to argue the race/class matrix is simply BS.
Darch said:Riahuf22 said:zoltar said:Riahuf22 said:Plus dark myr isn't a holy race so no paladin if your at least trying to prove a point you can at leat try to have it make sense to begin with, and I know 1AD7 will come on and reply and be like why can't a dark myr become holy, it simple they aren't holy and they can try to be good all they want but they will never be holy there's a difference
Dark Myr can be clerics though. So what you're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Not all clerics are holy though, not even in description do they even point to being holy, they are just strongly believe in a deity to become a cleric much like how a dark elf could be a cleric in EQ and couldn't pick a holy deity and only evil ones are you going to say a cleric dark elf was holy and therefore should be able to be paladins as wll? Again of your going to try to make a point try to make it make sense
I thnk you are confusing the word "holy" with "good"... and nowhere in the class descriptions are the words, "holy", "good", or "evil" even used any way... In reality, even a Satan worsihpper is "holy" to their cause/beliefs - to use your own words... just "like how a dark elf could be a cleric in EQ". To be "holy" simply means to worship a particular god/pantheon. Again... using lore to argue the race/class matrix is simply BS.
Tell me if your so right than why can't dark mrys be paladins than, boom because they aren't holy and think you can believe in Satan and think you ate holy is well backwards, even people who probably believe in Satan probably know they aren't holy and are okay with that.
And to be holy means to be divine, which means defiantly not Satan by any means.
Plus you guys realize that the dark myr killed their mother right, like the goddess who gave them life and than savrafice her immortality to give them lungs and legs to walk on Terminus when they were all dying on the beach and than in return they slaughtered her for doing such a thing and than after she died their hearts became twisted and full of hatred to everything.
So tell me where is this entire description do you see paladin, I mean you can keep saying lore is BS *cough* Darch *cough* but seriously why would a race full of hatred want to be a paladin, they WOULDN'T it simple that simple and the sooner we can agree with this the faster we can agree that class restriction will make sense.
Riahuf22 said:Plus you guys realize that the dark myr killed their mother right, like the goddess who gave them life and than savrafice her immortality to give them lungs and legs to walk on Terminus when they were all dying on the beach and than in return they slaughtered her for doing such a thing and than after she died their hearts became twisted and full of hatred to everything.
So tell me where is this entire description do you see paladin, I mean you can keep saying lore is BS *cough* Darch *cough* but seriously why would a race full of hatred want to be a paladin, they WOULDN'T it simple that simple and the sooner we can agree with this the faster we can agree that class restriction will make sense.
I can. The Myr were created initially, and I quote, "Syronai fashioned the Myr, a race with kingly hearts and furious might. The Myr struck against the leviathans with abandon, breaking them from war and driving the terrors back into their abysses."
They were created to be warriors with a goal, which is what Knights are. As I stated above Myr are twisted and due to the poisioning of their ocean they turned to darker ways. A Myr could learn about their orginal ways and turn to be a force for good. A Paladin is nothing more then a Knight serving your Lord/Master, same as a Samurai. They use healing magic and preventive magic. Easy simple.
Aich said:Riahuf22 said:Plus you guys realize that the dark myr killed their mother right, like the goddess who gave them life and than savrafice her immortality to give them lungs and legs to walk on Terminus when they were all dying on the beach and than in return they slaughtered her for doing such a thing and than after she died their hearts became twisted and full of hatred to everything.
So tell me where is this entire description do you see paladin, I mean you can keep saying lore is BS *cough* Darch *cough* but seriously why would a race full of hatred want to be a paladin, they WOULDN'T it simple that simple and the sooner we can agree with this the faster we can agree that class restriction will make sense.
I can. The Myr were created initially, and I quote, "Syronai fashioned the Myr, a race with kingly hearts and furious might. The Myr struck against the leviathans with abandon, breaking them from war and driving the terrors back into their abysses."
They were created to be warriors with a goal, which is what Knights are. As I stated above Myr are twisted and due to the poisioning of their ocean they turned to darker ways. A Myr could learn about their orginal ways and turn to be a force for good. A Paladin is nothing more then a Knight serving your Lord/Master, same as a Samurai. They use healing magic and preventive magic. Easy simple.
Congratulations on reading the first two paragraphs and not the rest of the lore, where it clearly said after killing their mother that their hearts became wicked and full of hate, like I said on the quote you literally replied to, which obviously counters the entire statement you made which was what happen once they landed on pantheon, and brutally slaughters there goddess, the one who made them and made them wth kingly hearts, which therefore as stated that they lost once she died?
Yeah nice try, but it didn't work, next time read the whole lore and not just the part where it seems to make you right when if you would of read the rest of it, it would of clearly said that the first to paragraphs is who they were, not who they are now there is a clear difference.
Riahuf22, once again you don't know WTF you are talking about. As Darch pointed out, you're using a completely made up, nonsensical idea of a paladin being "holy" and a cleric not. Paladins and clerics are literally in the exact same religous order. Paladins are simply clerics that decide to focus on combat rather than strictly following the dogma of the order. If anything, the paladins would be considered less "holy" because they're more focused on vengance than prayer.
Riahuf22 said: but seriously why would a race full of hatred want to be a paladin, they WOULDN'T it simple that simple and the sooner we can agree with this the faster we can agree that class restriction will make sense.
Oh, i don't know, perhaps because HATRED IS A CORE PART OF THE PALADIN. From the class description: "Perhaps most iconically, the Paladin is driven by an unquenchable hatred of Undeath". And they use WRATH as a class resource for goodness sake!
"Tell me if your so right than why can't dark mrys be paladins than, boom
Probably because the primary object of Dark Mry hatred is the Nytherian Red (see below) moreso than undead. My entire argument for Dark Mry paladins is that it's not necessary to draw this distinction (hating undead vs hating something else). Dark Mry clerics taking up arms to seek vengance should make them paladins regardless of whether their vengance is fixated solely on the undead or the undead and some other group.
you guys realize that the dark myr killed their mother right
Wrong. It was a different sect of the Mry (the Nytherian Red) that did this. The Nytherian Red were devoted to another Mry god who had already sacrificed himself to try to save them. They considered Syronai's action to be blasphemy towards their favored god, so they struck her down in vengance. Hmm, sounds quite paladin'ish. Anyway, the Dark Mry were the remaining group of Mry after the Nytherian Red ran off. So none of the Dark Mry had anything to do with killing Syronia.
Riahuf22 said:Aich said:Riahuf22 said:Plus you guys realize that the dark myr killed their mother right, like the goddess who gave them life and than savrafice her immortality to give them lungs and legs to walk on Terminus when they were all dying on the beach and than in return they slaughtered her for doing such a thing and than after she died their hearts became twisted and full of hatred to everything.
So tell me where is this entire description do you see paladin, I mean you can keep saying lore is BS *cough* Darch *cough* but seriously why would a race full of hatred want to be a paladin, they WOULDN'T it simple that simple and the sooner we can agree with this the faster we can agree that class restriction will make sense.
I can. The Myr were created initially, and I quote, "Syronai fashioned the Myr, a race with kingly hearts and furious might. The Myr struck against the leviathans with abandon, breaking them from war and driving the terrors back into their abysses."
They were created to be warriors with a goal, which is what Knights are. As I stated above Myr are twisted and due to the poisioning of their ocean they turned to darker ways. A Myr could learn about their orginal ways and turn to be a force for good. A Paladin is nothing more then a Knight serving your Lord/Master, same as a Samurai. They use healing magic and preventive magic. Easy simple.
Congratulations on reading the first two paragraphs and not the rest of the lore, where it clearly said after killing their mother that their hearts became wicked and full of hate, like I said on the quote you literally replied to, which obviously counters the entire statement you made which was what happen once they landed on pantheon, and brutally slaughters there goddess, the one who made them and made them wth kingly hearts, which therefore as stated that they lost once she died?
Yeah nice try, but it didn't work, next time read the whole lore and not just the part where it seems to make you right when if you would of read the rest of it, it would of clearly said that the first to paragraphs is who they were, not who they are now there is a clear difference.
Lol, I quoted what I did because thats the orginal purpose of the race. And trust me I've read the whole lore. Locking races into a single idology is borning. And let me clarify, I'm not for all/all on character select but the player has to sacrifice something in order for other players to recongize that and accept them as different. Who you were, who you are and who you can become. Living breathing world.
But I'm not gonna get into an heated debate over this, that was the old Aich :) I appriciate your points and the dialog.
Syrif said:I think it’s safe to say that in the world of Terminus the Paladin will be a good-aligned, virtuous tank whereas the Dire Lord will certainly be evil-aligned (same with the Necromancer).
Thats true but shoun't the class define the race "player" not vice versa? :) Maybe an chance for the Progeny system to allow for all/all. (How MUDs did it)