View previous topic :: View next topic |
open up ethos for berserker |
no, leave things as they are |
|
38% |
[ 7 ] |
undecided |
|
11% |
[ 2 ] |
don't care |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
yes, open it up |
|
50% |
[ 9 ] |
|
Total Votes : 18 |
|
Author |
Message |
Davairus Implementor
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 10368 Location: 0x0000
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:24 pm Post subject: Should we open up lawful/neutral ethos berserkers for rollin |
|
|
Berserkers are the only class who are pigeon-holed into an ethos. I would like to lift this constraint to make it easier for us to add new specializations and to give them a wider choice of deities to follow and cabals to join.
FYI these are the only other ethos requirements that are imposed on classes:
* thief, bard, and vampire cannot be lawful |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tayyah
Joined: 20 May 2011 Posts: 597
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
monks cant be chaotic |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vevier Immortal
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 1642 Location: everywhere
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think we need to open bersekers to non chaotic. The currently proposed changes only require it because that's how they were skinned on release. They can easily be changed to fit the lore we have now. We should be enhancing what we have, not chopping it up to make something else work. It equally blows my mind that we allow chaotic dkns and paladins.
Ethos and align restrictions help to define a class. What's next? Evil healers who worship Darkhan for their Shadow spec? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Davairus Implementor
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 10368 Location: 0x0000
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vevier, your last line is pretty rude.
Its perfectly ok to have a strong opinion on this shit. I think its obvious to everybody as well that a druid can quite clearly be seen as a "madman from the forest" in the same way a berserker could be seen as a "madman from the wilderness" and nevertheless be of a lawful alignment. Similarly, berserkers that belong to cabals and follow the rules of those cabals are behaving in a lawful manner. Quite frankly, it seems shortsighted to me to be thinking because a persons' fighting style is to "rage", they have to be chaotics. Its just their emotions and their fighting style. Rage and anger are not exclusive to an ethos, and there is not an ethos that they belong to. They are emotions that everybody deals with, and in a berserker's case, embrace fully. This class is very obviously inspired by the vikings whose basic qualities are to be fierce and proud. Is it chaotic to be fierce and proud ? Or is it chaotic because they had their own religion system (which is not christianity or even monotheical) and thus doesn't conform to what we tend to think of as being "orderly". The berserkers are not brutes at all and I think they are being unfairly treated as such with this ethos rigidity. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vanisse Immortal
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 2793 Location: inside a tree
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The wording in the berserker helpfile suggests that berserkers originated from a chaotic tendency:
* In the camps stories were told of this apparently blind rage, in which a dwarven warrior was known to lapse into when facing odds that could not be escaped - suddenly snapping into a terrible, insane anger...
* Sacrificing finesse and complexity to focus on brute strength and reckless abandon, the guildhall of berserkers was formed.
* Berserkers are a sect of fighters that focus on a direct approach in their battles. Their members are known for their barely controllable tempers, walking a thin line between sanity and insanity.
* Lacking in self-control, they bodyslam their opponents rather than bash...
So I can understand why lawful alignment doesn't seem to jive with the RP for the class. Also, it literally says they sacrificed finesse for brute strength.
That said, with the new dragon ancestry helpfile the story is that certain gods chose to imbue different berserkers with different powers because they were impressed by their actions. The gods should be able to choose whoever they want representing them on the mortal plane, so class ethos restrictions shouldn't really matter in terms of the berserker's dragon ancestry. As the helpfile says, Davairus the blood god isn't choosing the destruction-focused berserker because they are upholding laws, but rather because they are smashing skulls and he likes that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vevier Immortal
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 1642 Location: everywhere
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry if what I said offended you, but that's how I feel about this change. Bersekers being chaotic is as core to me as healers being good. It's a really bad idea to mess with core concepts like that just because you want to theme a spec in a certain way, especially when we have lore-appropriate themes for that spec. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olyn Immortal
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 3252 Location: Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm for opening berserkers to all ethos. Every time we've opened more ethos/align/race/class options, our playerbase has stepped up and showed us why we were right to do it. I'd personally love to see someone with solid RP chops pull off a lawful dwarf zerker. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vevier Immortal
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 1642 Location: everywhere
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why not open everything then? All classes all races all aligns, if you're right everybody will come back. But I don't think you are and I think that allowing berserkers to be lawful is bad for the game. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nycticora
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 2277
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
is a compromise the right thing to seek here? What if it was behind the reputable wall to play these off-ethos berserkers so the default berserker remains canonically chaotic? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vevier Immortal
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 1642 Location: everywhere
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone pretty much is reputable, except troublemakers and new players. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Moondog
Joined: 10 Aug 2015 Posts: 24
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gnome Berserker |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lorne Immortal
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 Posts: 456
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I'd be ok with opening it back to neutral ethos like before but definitely not lawful. From our lore, as Vanisse pointed out, berserkers are very much from chaotic roots. Berserkers are definitely brutes, using sheer power and wild strikes over a warrior's trained and calculated strikes. It wouldn't really make sense for them to be lawful, it's not in their genes.
I can see some RP tendency to perhaps play a well thought neutral ethos berserker, but even that isn't for beginners.
A good comprise is what Vanisse suggested, perhaps for their specs, they have the ability to choose Davairus even if they are not neutral of lawful ethos. Or alternatively, we can change that part of the lore and alter the dragon ancestors that fit our current alignment/ethos grid that is established. I don't think this berserker spec thing should be uprooting our status quo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Davairus Implementor
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 10368 Location: 0x0000
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Davairus on Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Davairus Implementor
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 10368 Location: 0x0000
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
The thread shows that we are definitely not all on the same page with what a lawful ethos even means, so the end result of the poll is probably kinda meaningless. But that said, this doesn't seem to have been an entire waste of time. We've found out that we aren't all on the same page. Hopefully now we can get on it and stop fighting |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kalist19 Emissary
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Posts: 1155
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the forgotten realms series they have berserker tribes that are honorable and have a structure to their society (I think of this as lawful) but who enter a berserker rage when in battle. Forgotten realms is my inner compass and I think if something exists there then there is no problem with it existing in AR.
The epitome of a lawful berserker in my mind would be Wulfgar Battlehammer. He has a sense of honor, duty, community and the common good. He was maybe a bit chaotic in the spine of the world when he was drunk with his buddy Morik the rogue but he was going through a tough time. Normally he's basically the poster child (er poster badass mofo) of lawful berserker.
If my good friend Bob (i.e. R. A. Salvatore - we are good buddies because I tweeted at him once and he liked it, so now we are on a first name basis) thinks that's a viable guy then I'm all for it |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Davairus Implementor
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 10368 Location: 0x0000
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For some background. If I recall correctly, the neutral ethos berserkers were removed from the game because Burzuk wanted to force them to suck up the problems caused by being a chaotic (which is being flagged into "common criminal" after like 2 flags and being unable to pay flags off). I'm pretty sure that is the same reason why the neutral ethos giants were removed from the game, and also lawful storm giants. It was to make these races deal with those issues. The problem is that those problems became totally inconsequential because the playerbase shrunk enough they don't really run any risk of getting flagged. In addition, getting flagged at all is not expected of them. To remind you, Burzuk did want the game to have a very strictly "lawful=obey the laws of seringale" lawful ethos and not have the level of sophistication of a real dnd lawful ethos available for play. No insult intended by him, but I know that simplification of the game was occuring because he didn't give you guys the credit of being able to understand and roleplay that ethos competently - even though our competitors are already doing it.
Chaotics are like the best ethos hands down because of wild weapons and cheap gambling, which are bonuses unmitigated by a real downside. Chaotic and evil are kind of the same in that they both enjoy roleplaying freedom and access to exclusive and really good equipment. But evil has its huge downside, which is that you are a hated person and 1/3 of your PK range enjoys protection spell against you. Chaotics are not dealing with anything more than upsetting people because of unmet expectations. If alignment and ethos are supposed to be on an equal footing then where is the downside of being chaotic. I think even suggesting that opening up a neutral ethos for berserkers would leave the typical player scratching their head because, evidently, why would you ever roll it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|