Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Obviously Black Ora comes with some...restrictions. But from an RP perspective- it really is something that fits a certain breed of Paladin so well.
Yet right now, clerics are really the only ones who can use Black Ora with any regularity (and they're pures...hence can't swing). What about making it so 1604 can do a temporary uncurse? Or even casting 1625 at an already bonded weapon?
They're such interesting items- they really shouldn't be relegated to the lockers of the world. Too many hunting grounds require empty hands.
I'm rather surprised that both Neutralize (309) and Remove Curse (315) spells both remain to this day. Certainly any real discussion of that topic itself is for the cleric folder. 309 is mostly good for things like black ora weapons, they graveyard gate in WL, and non-sorcerers who want to bait their containers with cursed gems. The neutralizing component could certainly be worked into the main spell 315, perhaps depending on stance and with a lower mana cost. The only relevance at all really would be for lower level clerics between levels 9 and 15 around WL, IMO.
Although Consecrate is certainly one of the appropriate spells to consider within the Paladin Base along these lines, if it acquired the functionality of 309 in addition to what is now quite a large array of abilities, it seems so grossly over-powered compared with 309.
Something with Sanctify makes much more sense to me, since it would limit the function explicitly to a bonded weapon. If 1625 were modified in some way for black ora, I would think it should only function at full bonding, and then allow some way for the weapon to be put away. I would be comfortable to also include warrior weapon bonding along these lines for modification as well, depending on how it was implemented.
>Too many hunting grounds require empty hands.
This is another entirely different approach to consider dealing with the problem. For instance, some paladin ability to treat climbing checks (etc) as though both hands are empty when they are not, also potentially tied in with Sanctify (and again potentially warrior weapon bonding). This would definitely have a much larger range of appeal (which might justify the dev time); this is important since, I'm sorry to say that major black ora in the hands of paladins is a pretty small niche. Still, Sanctify is quite powerful as it stands, so while a little trick specifically for black ora wouldn't be much to add, making a more universal change for all users of Sanctify might be seen as too large an addition.
>clerics [. . .] can't swing
This is probably a bit simplified and potentially insulting. One could say, more fairly, that they are not designed (these days) as a primarily weapon swinging class, though.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
Although Consecrate is certainly one of the appropriate spells to consider within the Paladin Base along these lines, if it acquired the functionality of 309 in addition to what is now quite a large array of abilities, it seems so grossly over-powered compared with 309.
Something with Sanctify makes much more sense to me, since it would limit the function explicitly to a bonded weapon. If 1625 were modified in some way for black ora, I would think it should only function at full bonding, and then allow some way for the weapon to be put away. I would be comfortable to also include warrior weapon bonding along these lines for modification as well, depending on how it was implemented.
>Too many hunting grounds require empty hands.
This is another entirely different approach to consider dealing with the problem. For instance, some paladin ability to treat climbing checks (etc) as though both hands are empty when they are not, also potentially tied in with Sanctify (and again potentially warrior weapon bonding). This would definitely have a much larger range of appeal (which might justify the dev time); this is important since, I'm sorry to say that major black ora in the hands of paladins is a pretty small niche. Still, Sanctify is quite powerful as it stands, so while a little trick specifically for black ora wouldn't be much to add, making a more universal change for all users of Sanctify might be seen as too large an addition.
>clerics [. . .] can't swing
This is probably a bit simplified and potentially insulting. One could say, more fairly, that they are not designed (these days) as a primarily weapon swinging class, though.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
I've thought about this a little more, and I really feel one thing that's missing in the Paladin line is any differentiation between Lornon-themed and Liabo-themed Paladins. I think the sanctified property (and 1625) along with Black Ora (which is now found in the treasure system, so it's not that niche) might be a good way to help move in this direction.
As of now, we have Sanctified weapons that are blessed in the hands of a Paladin. But a weapon intended to kill the undead isn't very consistent with most Lornon-themed Arkati. (Why on earth would Luukos grant that?) Perhaps we could start differentiating by making Defiled weapons that Lornon-themed (i.e. bane) clerics and paladins would activate by holding in their hands. Black Ora would be an obvious candidate for this. And I can very much see it playing off of 1604.
Currently 1604 gives non-holy items plasma flares against the undead (and blesses it), and it gives double flares to existing holy items. Perhaps that should be the province of the Liabo and Neutral Paladins. Meanwhile, 1604 cast by Lornon-themed Paladins could give non-defiled weapons black ora flares against the living (in addition to any other properties the weapon might have- in the same way the black ora script can be put on top off existing flares or weighting). The trade off here is that you're losing the ability to bless an item that isn't already blessed. Cast on black ora, it would not only cause the curse to abate for the caster for the duration of the spell, but it would also give double black ora flares.
Meanwhile Sanctify/Defile (1625) would permanently abate the black ora curse for the bonded Paladin and also grant double black ora flares against the living (instead of sanct'ing the weapon)
There might be room for a nice Ensorcell tie-in here as well. Perhaps anything Ensorcelled would count as a Defiled weapon in the hands of a Lornon-themed cleric or Paladin.
As of now, we have Sanctified weapons that are blessed in the hands of a Paladin. But a weapon intended to kill the undead isn't very consistent with most Lornon-themed Arkati. (Why on earth would Luukos grant that?) Perhaps we could start differentiating by making Defiled weapons that Lornon-themed (i.e. bane) clerics and paladins would activate by holding in their hands. Black Ora would be an obvious candidate for this. And I can very much see it playing off of 1604.
Currently 1604 gives non-holy items plasma flares against the undead (and blesses it), and it gives double flares to existing holy items. Perhaps that should be the province of the Liabo and Neutral Paladins. Meanwhile, 1604 cast by Lornon-themed Paladins could give non-defiled weapons black ora flares against the living (in addition to any other properties the weapon might have- in the same way the black ora script can be put on top off existing flares or weighting). The trade off here is that you're losing the ability to bless an item that isn't already blessed. Cast on black ora, it would not only cause the curse to abate for the caster for the duration of the spell, but it would also give double black ora flares.
Meanwhile Sanctify/Defile (1625) would permanently abate the black ora curse for the bonded Paladin and also grant double black ora flares against the living (instead of sanct'ing the weapon)
There might be room for a nice Ensorcell tie-in here as well. Perhaps anything Ensorcelled would count as a Defiled weapon in the hands of a Lornon-themed cleric or Paladin.
My approach is rather simple and pretty black/white. While I understand the frustration with a sanctified black ora weapon, both the player and the character both know that the weapon of black ora is cursed so the question is why did they even both bonding to to it knowing this would be a problem? I don't see an arkati (or any "god") telling their paladin to wield a cursed weapon either of such metal with that knowledge. Now if the player still chooses to anyhow, then would they not plan ahead of going to an area where they need their hands free to get a place and thus have remove curse scrolls, or a rod etc to deal with it or even better - have a secondary weapon for such places?
It's just my thoughts of it in the first place.
But to 1604 even doing it I would disagree respectfully. Neutralize Curse is a 9th level spell and our 4th level spell is already nice with the combined guiding light option and purification.
In regards to possibly letting Uncurse being a way to permanently remove a curse from black ora: Maybe if enough lore etc is met and maybe require a potion or something on top of that as I would view it as a not so easy task to accomplish. But that's a discussion for clerics and not us.
In all honesty and logic, it shouldn't be a problem in the first place because of the knowledge of the metal being cursed. If one wishes to use it then they must have measures to counter it when they need to "uncurse it".
Just my thoughts.
| I've thought about this a little more, and I really feel one thing that's missing in the Paladin line is any differentiation between Lornon-themed and Liabo-themed Paladins. I think the sanctified property (and 1625) along with Black Ora (which is now found in the treasure system, so it's not that niche) might be a good way to help move in this direction. |
I think you've got some great ideas. Having options for Lornon converted paladins to me seems productive and conducive to the world of Elanthia. I don't think I've met a single Lornon aligned paladin. Perhaps there are so few because the mechanics of the profession don't make sense for the roleplay aspect.
Chad, player of a few
I don't know if it's mechanically possible to have a Lornon paladin and change the spells per se but I recall as a cleric that there two different versions of the 2n slot. One was smite and the other was bane and it was based upon your faith.
Perhaps the paladin could do the same but for what purpose though? What would be changed? I can see the argument for a Luukos paladin not attacking undead, but when it comes to fighting demons and other creatures that require a sanctified blade what then? Even then, who's to say Sheru wouldn't sometimes go after undead things that threaten him? Granted, I play a Ronanite paladin and I know Ronan best and understand some of Luukos and Sheru and a few others though I am no expert at them all. But still.. would be changed and why exactly? Right now I think it's overall balanced as the spells assist the groups and the paladin themselves. The only argument I've seen that I could somewhat agree with is when it comes to a Luukos paladin but that's really minor if anything at all.
Maybe in the future Simu might consider making a deathknight class to serve as the "Lornon paladin" but I don't see a point to it unless there's enough to make it different than a paladin and a warrior.
Just my thoughts off top of my head.
Pure potions have a number of spell-like properties; I haven't checked it in a long time, but if I recall, they can work as 309. Pouring one on your black ora weapon should enable you to stow it away.
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
Yeah- I don't really think we need this divide to be that big mechanically. I think the smite/bane model used in clerics works well. The only thing we're really changing is the undead focus (shifting to a kill the living focus).
Right now the issue is that Paladins = anti-undead heroes of light. But- as a previous poster noted- that's inconsistent with the way Elanthia has dealt with this in the past. (read: clerics)
99% of the profession is fine- it's more up to the Paladin to RP the difference. But I do see a huge potential here using black ora/defiled mechanic to slightly adjust two of their spells (1604 and 1625) in order to help make it clear that Lornon Paladins work for something very different than Liabo/Neutral Paladins do.
Also side note- Sheru will ALWAYS support the undead. They inspire terror ;)
Right now the issue is that Paladins = anti-undead heroes of light. But- as a previous poster noted- that's inconsistent with the way Elanthia has dealt with this in the past. (read: clerics)
99% of the profession is fine- it's more up to the Paladin to RP the difference. But I do see a huge potential here using black ora/defiled mechanic to slightly adjust two of their spells (1604 and 1625) in order to help make it clear that Lornon Paladins work for something very different than Liabo/Neutral Paladins do.
Also side note- Sheru will ALWAYS support the undead. They inspire terror ;)
There are some basic factual errors in this discussion, I think. If things changed or I'm off base, naturally someone should set me straight.
>Black Ora (which is now found in the treasure system, so it's not that niche) ~SVEN2010
>In regards to possibly letting Uncurse being a way to permanently remove a curse from black ora: Maybe if enough lore etc is met and maybe require a potion or something on top of that as I would view it as a not so easy task to accomplish. But that's a discussion for clerics and not us. ~ FALAN
Impure black ora is the one popping up in the treasure system. Uncurse it once and it won't become cursed again. Pure black ora is the one that keeps cursing itself after a short time, thus having much relevance for any request of a change. See http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Black_ora for more details. As far as the basic discussion of black ora weapons for paladins, a 'change' is only sensible in the context of pure black ora, which I will still argue is a small niche. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't be having this discussion, but it's an important fact in terms of dev time IMO.)
>Pure potions have a number of spell-like properties; I haven't checked it in a long time, but if I recall, they can work as 309. Pouring one on your black ora weapon should enable you to stow it away.
Yes, yes it does. It's about 2k per pour. This is what my sorcerer did in Platinum with his pure black ora weapon. I kind of assumed everyone knew that, and was why I thought a change for pure black ora in paladin spells is very niche. I used it on an impure black ora two weeks ago. In the hands of a non-cleric, it acts like 309 in this instance. My characters almost always carry a pure potion. (Or, an impure potion from IMT if it better suits RP.)
>Currently 1604 gives non-holy items plasma flares against the undead (and blesses it), and it gives double flares to existing holy items.
Huh? As far as I know, Consecrate merely combined Purify and Guiding Light without any further changes. Consecrate does not bless anything (it can extend the duration of a bless when it acts like Purify). It can also add plasma flares to any holy weapon (which has nothing to do with the target for flares). The log I put on KP explicitly shows me using an eonake flail to get two consecutive plasma flares against a cave troll: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Consecrate_(1604)
>Better yet, have Black Ora count as a "free" tier of Ensorcellment. (So you could theoretically get Tier6 effectiveness.)
It could, and this isn't too crazy either. Sorcerers can do the temporary ensorcellment on top of permanent ones for up to effectively T6. But be ware if black ora was changed then, in principle, sorcerers could get to T7, all other things remaining equal. Another possibility would be to have black ora naturally T1 or something. Similar as to how it is naturally 2x enchanted (impure) or higher enchant for minor and major pure black ora (between 4x and 6x). I'm not sure how difficult it would be to fundamentally change the nature of the material though, including all existing items.
>Meanwhile Sanctify/Defile (1625) would permanently abate the black ora curse for the bonded Paladin and also grant double black ora flares against the living (instead of sanct'ing the weapon)
It can already do that. In fact, the only thing Sanctify doesn't do is make the black ora weapon sanctified. Here is a saved post: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Using_Sanctify_(1625)_to_bond_to_a_black_ora_weapon
>There might be room for a nice Ensorcell tie-in here as well. Perhaps anything Ensorcelled would count as a Defiled weapon in the hands of a Lornon-themed cleric or Paladin.
I would like to point out the option for the Tainted Bond CMAN ( http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_Bond ). It's not cheap to learn, but it's a definite existing option here. Someone else might need to chime in, but I think the only requirement to ensorcell a Sanctified weapon is an inky black potion from alchemy, which sorcerers sell for a couple hundred thousand silvers each.
Now I'm definitely liking the general concept to distinguish Lornon and Liabo, perhaps like clerics, in some of our spells. I don't see black ora itself as having much to do with it. The only difference is that you can't use a Sanctified weapon to kill undead, but there already seems to be logic suggesting Lornon aligned paladins don't want to do that anyway for RP reasons.
Also, it would seem to me sensible to do basic research on the functionality of the spells as they are before proposing to change them. I'm trying to make that sound as matter of fact and inoffensive as I can, and there are plenty of us happy help answer questions. Still, the discussion is much more focused that way.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
>Black Ora (which is now found in the treasure system, so it's not that niche) ~SVEN2010
>In regards to possibly letting Uncurse being a way to permanently remove a curse from black ora: Maybe if enough lore etc is met and maybe require a potion or something on top of that as I would view it as a not so easy task to accomplish. But that's a discussion for clerics and not us. ~ FALAN
Impure black ora is the one popping up in the treasure system. Uncurse it once and it won't become cursed again. Pure black ora is the one that keeps cursing itself after a short time, thus having much relevance for any request of a change. See http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Black_ora for more details. As far as the basic discussion of black ora weapons for paladins, a 'change' is only sensible in the context of pure black ora, which I will still argue is a small niche. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't be having this discussion, but it's an important fact in terms of dev time IMO.)
>Pure potions have a number of spell-like properties; I haven't checked it in a long time, but if I recall, they can work as 309. Pouring one on your black ora weapon should enable you to stow it away.
Yes, yes it does. It's about 2k per pour. This is what my sorcerer did in Platinum with his pure black ora weapon. I kind of assumed everyone knew that, and was why I thought a change for pure black ora in paladin spells is very niche. I used it on an impure black ora two weeks ago. In the hands of a non-cleric, it acts like 309 in this instance. My characters almost always carry a pure potion. (Or, an impure potion from IMT if it better suits RP.)
>Currently 1604 gives non-holy items plasma flares against the undead (and blesses it), and it gives double flares to existing holy items.
Huh? As far as I know, Consecrate merely combined Purify and Guiding Light without any further changes. Consecrate does not bless anything (it can extend the duration of a bless when it acts like Purify). It can also add plasma flares to any holy weapon (which has nothing to do with the target for flares). The log I put on KP explicitly shows me using an eonake flail to get two consecutive plasma flares against a cave troll: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Consecrate_(1604)
>Better yet, have Black Ora count as a "free" tier of Ensorcellment. (So you could theoretically get Tier6 effectiveness.)
It could, and this isn't too crazy either. Sorcerers can do the temporary ensorcellment on top of permanent ones for up to effectively T6. But be ware if black ora was changed then, in principle, sorcerers could get to T7, all other things remaining equal. Another possibility would be to have black ora naturally T1 or something. Similar as to how it is naturally 2x enchanted (impure) or higher enchant for minor and major pure black ora (between 4x and 6x). I'm not sure how difficult it would be to fundamentally change the nature of the material though, including all existing items.
>Meanwhile Sanctify/Defile (1625) would permanently abate the black ora curse for the bonded Paladin and also grant double black ora flares against the living (instead of sanct'ing the weapon)
It can already do that. In fact, the only thing Sanctify doesn't do is make the black ora weapon sanctified. Here is a saved post: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Using_Sanctify_(1625)_to_bond_to_a_black_ora_weapon
>There might be room for a nice Ensorcell tie-in here as well. Perhaps anything Ensorcelled would count as a Defiled weapon in the hands of a Lornon-themed cleric or Paladin.
I would like to point out the option for the Tainted Bond CMAN ( http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_Bond ). It's not cheap to learn, but it's a definite existing option here. Someone else might need to chime in, but I think the only requirement to ensorcell a Sanctified weapon is an inky black potion from alchemy, which sorcerers sell for a couple hundred thousand silvers each.
Now I'm definitely liking the general concept to distinguish Lornon and Liabo, perhaps like clerics, in some of our spells. I don't see black ora itself as having much to do with it. The only difference is that you can't use a Sanctified weapon to kill undead, but there already seems to be logic suggesting Lornon aligned paladins don't want to do that anyway for RP reasons.
Also, it would seem to me sensible to do basic research on the functionality of the spells as they are before proposing to change them. I'm trying to make that sound as matter of fact and inoffensive as I can, and there are plenty of us happy help answer questions. Still, the discussion is much more focused that way.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
>>Meanwhile Sanctify/Defile (1625) would permanently abate the black ora curse for the bonded Paladin and also grant double black ora flares against the living (instead of sanct'ing the weapon)
>It can already do that. In fact, the only thing Sanctify doesn't do is make the black ora weapon sanctified. Here is a saved post: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Using_Sanctify_(1625)_to_bond_to_a_black_ora_weapon
Sorry, a slight slip here on my part. Impure black ora that is Sanctified will attain guiding light flares, which have the same chance to double flare regardless of the target. Pure black ora already has flares, based on the disruption crit table; as pure black ora already has flares, it cannot gain guiding light flares. It would be very difficult, in my opinion, to argue any change in that regard. There are various materials which have natural flares or weighting, and Sanctify simply will not give flares to those materials.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
>It can already do that. In fact, the only thing Sanctify doesn't do is make the black ora weapon sanctified. Here is a saved post: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Using_Sanctify_(1625)_to_bond_to_a_black_ora_weapon
Sorry, a slight slip here on my part. Impure black ora that is Sanctified will attain guiding light flares, which have the same chance to double flare regardless of the target. Pure black ora already has flares, based on the disruption crit table; as pure black ora already has flares, it cannot gain guiding light flares. It would be very difficult, in my opinion, to argue any change in that regard. There are various materials which have natural flares or weighting, and Sanctify simply will not give flares to those materials.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
So here's my consolidated set of suggestions:
Defiled- Introducing a new "Defiled" mechanic. Lornon-aligned Clerics will now receive an alternative version of 304 known as "Defile". Casting this spell will imbue a weapon with black ora flares when used against the living in an effort to help their Arkati/Spirit gain power through the use and abuse of mortals. A Lornon-aliged Paladin who casts 1604 at a weapon before a cleric casts Defile at it can extend the number of swings before the Defiled state wears off by 50%. Defiled items are subject to the same restrictions as the bless mechanic in regards to existing flares, weighting, etc, and naturally sanctified or permablessed objects cannot be defiled in this way. Finally, though temporarily defiled weapons can harm the undead, they will not flare against them.
Some materials such as black ora and Ensorcelled items are considered to be Profane- making them naturally defiled in the hands of a Lornon-ligned Cleric or Paladin. For Lornon-aligned Paladins, casting 1604 at these holy weapons will infuse them with the possibility of double black ora flares for the duration of the spell when used against the living or the undead- but only in the hands of a Lornon-aligned Cleric or Paladin. Finally, Lornon-aligned Paladins will have an alternate version of 1625 called Profane. Casting Profane at a weapon will no longer sanctify the weapon but will give it naturally profane properties. All other aspects of the spell will be consistent with 1625-Sanctify.
Black Ora: When dealing with black ora, there are a few additional considerations. All black ora- pure or impure- is considered to be naturally Profane in the hands of a Lornon-aligned cleric or paladin. But impure black ora that has been uncursed will lose this property. CHANNELing 304 or 1604 at impure black ora will protect it from being uncursed (CHANNELing again will remove this protection). Additionally, Lornon-aligned Paladins and Clerics are immune to the curse effect of both pure and impure black ora.
Lornon-Aligned Clerics and Paladins and Sanctified Items: Eonake will no longer become blessed in the hands of a Lornon-aligned Paladin or Cleric. Though permablessed or temporarily blessed (via 304 or Voln) will continue to function as they always have.
Thoughts?
Defiled- Introducing a new "Defiled" mechanic. Lornon-aligned Clerics will now receive an alternative version of 304 known as "Defile". Casting this spell will imbue a weapon with black ora flares when used against the living in an effort to help their Arkati/Spirit gain power through the use and abuse of mortals. A Lornon-aliged Paladin who casts 1604 at a weapon before a cleric casts Defile at it can extend the number of swings before the Defiled state wears off by 50%. Defiled items are subject to the same restrictions as the bless mechanic in regards to existing flares, weighting, etc, and naturally sanctified or permablessed objects cannot be defiled in this way. Finally, though temporarily defiled weapons can harm the undead, they will not flare against them.
Some materials such as black ora and Ensorcelled items are considered to be Profane- making them naturally defiled in the hands of a Lornon-ligned Cleric or Paladin. For Lornon-aligned Paladins, casting 1604 at these holy weapons will infuse them with the possibility of double black ora flares for the duration of the spell when used against the living or the undead- but only in the hands of a Lornon-aligned Cleric or Paladin. Finally, Lornon-aligned Paladins will have an alternate version of 1625 called Profane. Casting Profane at a weapon will no longer sanctify the weapon but will give it naturally profane properties. All other aspects of the spell will be consistent with 1625-Sanctify.
Black Ora: When dealing with black ora, there are a few additional considerations. All black ora- pure or impure- is considered to be naturally Profane in the hands of a Lornon-aligned cleric or paladin. But impure black ora that has been uncursed will lose this property. CHANNELing 304 or 1604 at impure black ora will protect it from being uncursed (CHANNELing again will remove this protection). Additionally, Lornon-aligned Paladins and Clerics are immune to the curse effect of both pure and impure black ora.
Lornon-Aligned Clerics and Paladins and Sanctified Items: Eonake will no longer become blessed in the hands of a Lornon-aligned Paladin or Cleric. Though permablessed or temporarily blessed (via 304 or Voln) will continue to function as they always have.
Thoughts?
> Ensorcelled items are considered to be Profane- making them naturally defiled in the hands of a Lornon-ligned Cleric or Paladin
Ensorcelled items are not considered holy or evil, Lornon vs Liabo, etc.
While ensorcelling is aided by necromancy lore, which is often considered "evil", it's essentially the life force gathered from creatures (living, undead, humanoid, beast, and some of those killed are 'evil' themselves), I see ensorcellment as a tool, and a tool is neither good nor evil on its own. As players cannot kill the 'innocent' (townspeople, NPCs, other players, etc) for ensorcellment, you're generally gathering energy from creatures already hunting the lands of Elanthia, and those creatures are going to be somewhere from evil to hostile humanoid to dumb beast. From a monk-ish perspective, I could also describe it as turning an evil/hostile force back on the attackers.
Ensorcell != profane.
Morden, player of.
Except that sanctified items currently need special preparation to be Ensorcelled- which suggests that the two concepts aren't super mixy. Also, Ensorcelling is about taking death energy from living things and storing it in a weapon. Lornon isn't always about being "evil" per se- it's just about gaining power from the use and abuse of mortal beings. That's pretty much Ensorcelling to a 'T'.
Though certainly the Ensorcelling aspect of this is the least interesting/important part of the whole concept.
Though certainly the Ensorcelling aspect of this is the least interesting/important part of the whole concept.
Both sanctified and fusion items need an extra potion to be either enchanted or ensorcelled. I don't see this "aren't super mixy", but as a way to increase difficulty of the project. This started with enchanting, and was continued to ensorcelling.
The energies gained by ensorcell can also be used defensively (in armor). My sorcerer is not my main character, but I do enjoy it, but I don't think we're in agreement as to what ensorcellment is, and where the energy comes from. Sorcerers in general are not the most politically correct of Elanthia, but I don't see the gaining power aspect as an abuse of mortal beings... especially when those beings may be already dead, are trying to kill you, and you're gathering the leftover energies from their demise, release, etc.
You're welcome to your own opinion, but I don't see ensorcelling as the malevolent spell you do.
This should go without saying, but this is not a critique or discouraging anyone from playing an Lornon Paladin: go for it, have fun, RP, and should I run into, I hope to enjoy your RP of it as much as you do. Part of this thread suggests adding "darker" aspects of the paladin, such as double flares against the living, when there is no counterpart for Liabo: there are no double-flares against the undead, or variances for Charl and whosits like the clerics do.
Guiding Light does plasma flares against living and undead.
1615 does plasma flares against living and undead.
1630 has deity specific messaging as well as different damage type (that I think was very well done), but also hits living and undead equally.
In short, the spells support your selecting Liabo or Lornon equally.
Morden, player of.
1604 and 1625 give a chance for double flares against the undead when talking about a weapon in the hands of a paladin. Hence the suggestion that the Defiled versions give double flares against the living. It's actually about ensuring consistency. That's also why in the concept includes allowing defiled weapons to attack the undead without flares as blessed weapons can attack the living but the flares are useless.
Ahhh, I see the issue here.
If you look at my post- the double flares apply to both living and undead when using 1604/1625 on a Profane object that is in the hands of a Lornon Paladin (specifically because 1604/1625 currently do the same). It's only the temporarily defiled weapons that only had flares against the undead (again, to mirror bless mechanics)
So I don't see what Lornon is getting that Liabo isn't in this case. But if there is something- that obviously needs to be ironed out.
If you look at my post- the double flares apply to both living and undead when using 1604/1625 on a Profane object that is in the hands of a Lornon Paladin (specifically because 1604/1625 currently do the same). It's only the temporarily defiled weapons that only had flares against the undead (again, to mirror bless mechanics)
So I don't see what Lornon is getting that Liabo isn't in this case. But if there is something- that obviously needs to be ironed out.
>So I don't see what Lornon is getting that Liabo isn't in this case.
Robert put it plainly... I don't know how to be more clear.
With existing 1604 and 1625 mechanics, a paladin of any alignment can get flares (or double flares) against both living and undead. The flares are plasma, and work equally against living and undead. They aren't "useless" against the living.
Morden, player of.
>1604 and 1625 give a chance for double flares against the undead when talking about a weapon in the hands of a paladin.
As I stated, the target does NOT matter. Here's the example I'd posted to KP some time ago, since there was no messaging. It's a cave troll. There's a double flare! (I also just refuted this claim above...)
>You swing a maple-hafted eonake flail at a cave troll!
AS: +205 vs DS: +136 with AvD: +39 + d100 roll: +25 = +133
... and hit for 20 points of damage!
Torn muscle in the cave troll's right leg!
* Your eonake flail pulses with a burst of plasma energy! *
... 10 points of damage!
Stinging burn to the cave troll's hand.
* Your eonake flail sprays with a burst of plasma energy! *
... 25 points of damage!
Stinging burn to the cave troll's hand.
Roundtime: 5 sec.
>It's actually about ensuring consistency.
It's already consistent.
>That's also why in the concept includes allowing defiled weapons to attack the undead without flares as blessed weapons can attack the living but the flares are useless.
Maybe you're thinking of the holy water flares from Bless Item (304). That's entirely different from Consecrate flares. Any detailed discussion of that belongs in the Cleric folder, as it has nothing to do with paladin spells. But sure, I can see a totally fair argument that Bless Item could have different options depending on alignment.
>Guiding Light does plasma flares against living and undead.
Yes. Consecrate does plasma flares, regardless of the target. It can double flare, also regardless of the target. These flares only work for Paladins and Clerics, though.
>1615 does plasma flares against living and undead.
Slightly false, see below.
>1630 has deity specific messaging as well as different damage type (that I think was very well done), but also hits living and undead equally.
Correct.
Divine Strike and Judgment do what on KP I've called Holy damage. It might have equally been called 'unholy damage'. It was just information spaced out on different paladin and cleric related pages which I wanted to consolidate with some kind of quick-and-easy name. http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Damage
The messaging for Divine Strike, Crusade, and Judgment, depend on the alignment of the paladin (and each spell has its own flavor messaging). The critical type for Divine Strike and Judgment (but not Crusade) also depends on the alignment, and thus affects which targets are damaged. Consider, for instance, that Lorminstra provides cold criticals, but greater moor wights are immune to cold. In this instance, a Liabo-aligned paladin cannot effectively use these spells against an undead target. Another similar case can be a Voln-aligned or Eorgina-aligned paladin have fire criticals for 1615/1630, which will probably not harm a firephantom but will get two hits on most trolls. Thus, they definitely hit targets without regard to their being living or undead, although there might be some kind of statistical factor at work (number of Lornon with puncture criticals, which aren't very effective against golems, which are preferentially undead), but I think we can ignore that fact.
I should also just make the caveat that, it could be that I was mistaken about impure black ora weapons which are Sanctified gaining Consecrate flares. I'm pretty sure they would (although Consecrate directly would not offer the flares because the item is not holy), but I've never tested it. We know from the saved post they get the enhacive bonuses from 1625. If you ask me, it's pretty moot, because impure black ora is pretty crappy (it's a whopping 2x). However, if it turns out that impure black ora doesn't get Consecrate flares from 1625, I'll fully stand behind that being changed if it's possible (there might still be some weird restriction on the item being holy which 1625 normally does but fails for black ora). In a couple months, I'll be bonding to a different weapon (my perfect flail is between 6x and 7x enchant right now), and I have an impure black ora flail in a locker, so I'm willing to test this at that time (since it only needs a T1 bond).
As to ensorcell, I don't tend to think it's evil, but opinions will vary. Voln armor cannot be ensorcelled, which is probably the only real case to be made. For myself, I was going to have my sorcerer get the necromantic power from killing undead to ensorcell my Voln-paladin's weapon, since then I cannot see any RP issue.
>Black Ora: When dealing with black ora, there are a few additional considerations. All black ora- pure or impure- is considered to be naturally Profane in the hands of a Lornon-aligned cleric or paladin. But impure black ora that has been uncursed will lose this property. CHANNELing 304 or 1604 at impure black ora will protect it from being uncursed (CHANNELing again will remove this protection). Additionally, Lornon-aligned Paladins and Clerics are immune to the curse effect of both pure and impure black ora.
It kind of sounds to me like you want to discuss the spell Curse (715) more than black ora. That should be discussed under sorcery, and although the spell already has a huge array of features, I don't suppose sorcerers would be overly opposed to some extra bling or flares, etc, from cursed weapons. In any case, impure black ora that was ever uncursed could be cursed again by a sorcerer, so that spell definitely comes into play.
Personally I'd be more in favor of dealing with black ora (pure and impure) more directly and not based on if it is or isn't cursed. Giving it some kind of natural flare, etc, could definitely be neat. Especially since so much impure black ora is, as pointed out, in the treasure system now.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
As I stated, the target does NOT matter. Here's the example I'd posted to KP some time ago, since there was no messaging. It's a cave troll. There's a double flare! (I also just refuted this claim above...)
>You swing a maple-hafted eonake flail at a cave troll!
AS: +205 vs DS: +136 with AvD: +39 + d100 roll: +25 = +133
... and hit for 20 points of damage!
Torn muscle in the cave troll's right leg!
* Your eonake flail pulses with a burst of plasma energy! *
... 10 points of damage!
Stinging burn to the cave troll's hand.
* Your eonake flail sprays with a burst of plasma energy! *
... 25 points of damage!
Stinging burn to the cave troll's hand.
Roundtime: 5 sec.
>It's actually about ensuring consistency.
It's already consistent.
>That's also why in the concept includes allowing defiled weapons to attack the undead without flares as blessed weapons can attack the living but the flares are useless.
Maybe you're thinking of the holy water flares from Bless Item (304). That's entirely different from Consecrate flares. Any detailed discussion of that belongs in the Cleric folder, as it has nothing to do with paladin spells. But sure, I can see a totally fair argument that Bless Item could have different options depending on alignment.
>Guiding Light does plasma flares against living and undead.
Yes. Consecrate does plasma flares, regardless of the target. It can double flare, also regardless of the target. These flares only work for Paladins and Clerics, though.
>1615 does plasma flares against living and undead.
Slightly false, see below.
>1630 has deity specific messaging as well as different damage type (that I think was very well done), but also hits living and undead equally.
Correct.
Divine Strike and Judgment do what on KP I've called Holy damage. It might have equally been called 'unholy damage'. It was just information spaced out on different paladin and cleric related pages which I wanted to consolidate with some kind of quick-and-easy name. http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Damage
The messaging for Divine Strike, Crusade, and Judgment, depend on the alignment of the paladin (and each spell has its own flavor messaging). The critical type for Divine Strike and Judgment (but not Crusade) also depends on the alignment, and thus affects which targets are damaged. Consider, for instance, that Lorminstra provides cold criticals, but greater moor wights are immune to cold. In this instance, a Liabo-aligned paladin cannot effectively use these spells against an undead target. Another similar case can be a Voln-aligned or Eorgina-aligned paladin have fire criticals for 1615/1630, which will probably not harm a firephantom but will get two hits on most trolls. Thus, they definitely hit targets without regard to their being living or undead, although there might be some kind of statistical factor at work (number of Lornon with puncture criticals, which aren't very effective against golems, which are preferentially undead), but I think we can ignore that fact.
I should also just make the caveat that, it could be that I was mistaken about impure black ora weapons which are Sanctified gaining Consecrate flares. I'm pretty sure they would (although Consecrate directly would not offer the flares because the item is not holy), but I've never tested it. We know from the saved post they get the enhacive bonuses from 1625. If you ask me, it's pretty moot, because impure black ora is pretty crappy (it's a whopping 2x). However, if it turns out that impure black ora doesn't get Consecrate flares from 1625, I'll fully stand behind that being changed if it's possible (there might still be some weird restriction on the item being holy which 1625 normally does but fails for black ora). In a couple months, I'll be bonding to a different weapon (my perfect flail is between 6x and 7x enchant right now), and I have an impure black ora flail in a locker, so I'm willing to test this at that time (since it only needs a T1 bond).
As to ensorcell, I don't tend to think it's evil, but opinions will vary. Voln armor cannot be ensorcelled, which is probably the only real case to be made. For myself, I was going to have my sorcerer get the necromantic power from killing undead to ensorcell my Voln-paladin's weapon, since then I cannot see any RP issue.
>Black Ora: When dealing with black ora, there are a few additional considerations. All black ora- pure or impure- is considered to be naturally Profane in the hands of a Lornon-aligned cleric or paladin. But impure black ora that has been uncursed will lose this property. CHANNELing 304 or 1604 at impure black ora will protect it from being uncursed (CHANNELing again will remove this protection). Additionally, Lornon-aligned Paladins and Clerics are immune to the curse effect of both pure and impure black ora.
It kind of sounds to me like you want to discuss the spell Curse (715) more than black ora. That should be discussed under sorcery, and although the spell already has a huge array of features, I don't suppose sorcerers would be overly opposed to some extra bling or flares, etc, from cursed weapons. In any case, impure black ora that was ever uncursed could be cursed again by a sorcerer, so that spell definitely comes into play.
Personally I'd be more in favor of dealing with black ora (pure and impure) more directly and not based on if it is or isn't cursed. Giving it some kind of natural flare, etc, could definitely be neat. Especially since so much impure black ora is, as pointed out, in the treasure system now.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
>>1615 does plasma flares against living and undead.
>Slightly false, see below.
For the distinction of plasma vs deity specific flares, I stand corrected. For the primary topic that they flare equally against living and undead, we are in agreement.
Re: Krakipedia: the term "Holy Damage" seems to be specific to K.P. A quick glance of the spell docs didn't mention it. Perhaps a rename to "DeityDamage", as the damage is neither holy or unholy, and affects living and undead equally?
To the OP:
Are there any other concerns, beliefs, or potential misunderstandings that Paladins of Liabo have a mechanical advantage over those of Lornon?
Morden, player of.
>Re: Krakipedia: the term "Holy Damage" seems to be specific to K.P. A quick glance of the spell docs didn't mention it. Perhaps a rename to "DeityDamage", as the damage is neither holy or unholy, and affects living and undead equally?
As I stated, I literally made it up. "Deity Damage" sounds a little janky to me. I don't stand that much behind "Holy Damage" but it feels slightly more natural. I dunno, it could have been "Arkati Flares" or some other things, too. I figured that the damage was "holy" to the relevant subject. Being a Luukosian and considering yourself "unholy" is just backwards to me. Then again, I (almost) always considered that Zelia was tricksy, because who was insane enough to worship Z but sane enough to bother...
Obviously anyone on KP can move the "Holy Damage" page to a new name, but I won't move it to "Deity Damage." Still, I'm not overly impressed with the name I gave it on the fly, so I'm certainly open to different names!
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
As I stated, I literally made it up. "Deity Damage" sounds a little janky to me. I don't stand that much behind "Holy Damage" but it feels slightly more natural. I dunno, it could have been "Arkati Flares" or some other things, too. I figured that the damage was "holy" to the relevant subject. Being a Luukosian and considering yourself "unholy" is just backwards to me. Then again, I (almost) always considered that Zelia was tricksy, because who was insane enough to worship Z but sane enough to bother...
Obviously anyone on KP can move the "Holy Damage" page to a new name, but I won't move it to "Deity Damage." Still, I'm not overly impressed with the name I gave it on the fly, so I'm certainly open to different names!
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
Separated my posts on purpose.
>To the OP:
>Are there any other concerns, beliefs, or potential misunderstandings that Paladins of Liabo have a mechanical advantage over those of Lornon?
(And I'm not the OP, but I'll answer to my end.)
I think it's very clear that, in general, paladins, and especially clerics, have mechanical design aspects to at least favor killing undead. The GS3 to GS4 conversion really balanced clerics a lot more. I also think that while the Paladin Base review was extremely well done, it's fair to say that this particular aspect wasn't addressed. I also think that there wasn't a huge call for that beforehand. So in all this I want to give the GMs a lot of credit, definitely; continuing the discussion is not irrelevant, though. And paladins with Lornon, and black ora as a material, can be a relevant part of the discussion, but might not need to be a linchpin as the OP suggests.
In my personal opinion, mechanics were done to make it non-trivial to worship the bad guys. They are canonically and implicitly evil! Now if one is religious in real life (I'm not), maybe being true to the good things is supposed to be difficult and submitting to evil ways easy. In games, especially social games which have choices of players, I always figured it was easier to be good that evil. If you see a dead guy do you help him? Well, if not, you shouldn't expect much help the next time you die, etc.
I'm not just imagining, I've tried to play Luukosians. I just couldn't do it. When I die I want help, and I love rescuing people in game. I give huge kudos to anyone who even makes a rough stab at Lornon, but it was never for me. It's a challenge I'd like to take up at some point within the game, but I've not done it yet. As such, I do hope my endless words posting here aren't taken too seriously (beyond the mechanics...most if not all of those are right...).
Still, it's clear that the paladin profession doesn't really offer too much for Lornon alignment, at least in the basic sense of asking how well we kill undead vs. killing living. From an RP perspective, it can be reasonable to suggest that the best fallen paladin is actually made as a warrior class; I'm not saying this IS the warrior class, I'm just saying, it might be the case.
Sanctify (1625) could have a name that is suggestive. It actually does favor Liabo over Lornon, albeit slightly. I haven't been convinced on this thread that it's a problem but I certainly haven't gone as far to argue against it (beyond misunderstanding of mechanics). You don't need black ora to do your deeds, that's just an RP woohoo sort of thing! (Honestly man, get a perfect steel WEAPON at 0x, then to 4x, then to whatever...or a fel-hafter, a claid...whatever is your mojo. If you want to be diehard with impure black ora, sorry that's your deal. Get a perfect steel and make its grip black ora or something.)
I guess if the OP seemed to have really understood black ora and have made anything like a good case for it, I might argue more on that side. Coming in with minimal mechanics to ask for changes was far too much, for me. (It's hard to be like "sorry for being so blunt and such and such when I'm not really sorry? Still, I want to encourage discussion, clearly, from the time to make my posts. I don't want that taken the wrong way like "screw off" though.)
I'm cool to open a new door at any time. But as long as it's in the paladin thread, I don't want to see overt amounts of ideas with clerical and sorcery stuff -- it just isn't the place.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
>To the OP:
>Are there any other concerns, beliefs, or potential misunderstandings that Paladins of Liabo have a mechanical advantage over those of Lornon?
(And I'm not the OP, but I'll answer to my end.)
I think it's very clear that, in general, paladins, and especially clerics, have mechanical design aspects to at least favor killing undead. The GS3 to GS4 conversion really balanced clerics a lot more. I also think that while the Paladin Base review was extremely well done, it's fair to say that this particular aspect wasn't addressed. I also think that there wasn't a huge call for that beforehand. So in all this I want to give the GMs a lot of credit, definitely; continuing the discussion is not irrelevant, though. And paladins with Lornon, and black ora as a material, can be a relevant part of the discussion, but might not need to be a linchpin as the OP suggests.
In my personal opinion, mechanics were done to make it non-trivial to worship the bad guys. They are canonically and implicitly evil! Now if one is religious in real life (I'm not), maybe being true to the good things is supposed to be difficult and submitting to evil ways easy. In games, especially social games which have choices of players, I always figured it was easier to be good that evil. If you see a dead guy do you help him? Well, if not, you shouldn't expect much help the next time you die, etc.
I'm not just imagining, I've tried to play Luukosians. I just couldn't do it. When I die I want help, and I love rescuing people in game. I give huge kudos to anyone who even makes a rough stab at Lornon, but it was never for me. It's a challenge I'd like to take up at some point within the game, but I've not done it yet. As such, I do hope my endless words posting here aren't taken too seriously (beyond the mechanics...most if not all of those are right...).
Still, it's clear that the paladin profession doesn't really offer too much for Lornon alignment, at least in the basic sense of asking how well we kill undead vs. killing living. From an RP perspective, it can be reasonable to suggest that the best fallen paladin is actually made as a warrior class; I'm not saying this IS the warrior class, I'm just saying, it might be the case.
Sanctify (1625) could have a name that is suggestive. It actually does favor Liabo over Lornon, albeit slightly. I haven't been convinced on this thread that it's a problem but I certainly haven't gone as far to argue against it (beyond misunderstanding of mechanics). You don't need black ora to do your deeds, that's just an RP woohoo sort of thing! (Honestly man, get a perfect steel WEAPON at 0x, then to 4x, then to whatever...or a fel-hafter, a claid...whatever is your mojo. If you want to be diehard with impure black ora, sorry that's your deal. Get a perfect steel and make its grip black ora or something.)
I guess if the OP seemed to have really understood black ora and have made anything like a good case for it, I might argue more on that side. Coming in with minimal mechanics to ask for changes was far too much, for me. (It's hard to be like "sorry for being so blunt and such and such when I'm not really sorry? Still, I want to encourage discussion, clearly, from the time to make my posts. I don't want that taken the wrong way like "screw off" though.)
I'm cool to open a new door at any time. But as long as it's in the paladin thread, I don't want to see overt amounts of ideas with clerical and sorcery stuff -- it just isn't the place.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
>> I dunno, it could have been "Arkati Flares" or some other things, too
>Sounds like a mixed drink. Any SimuCon attendees that can confirm if it's already been invented?
Cry cry, I want to come to SimuCon one of these years!
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
>Sounds like a mixed drink. Any SimuCon attendees that can confirm if it's already been invented?
Cry cry, I want to come to SimuCon one of these years!
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
| DAID |
| Being a Luukosian and considering yourself "unholy" is just backwards to me. |
I agree. This is not entirely on topic and this is more of a language semantics issue, but I really hate the holy vs. unholy debate. The definition of holy is "connected to a god or a religion." Unholy's definitely can vary from "not showing respect for a god or a religion : not holy" to "sinful; wicked". By definition, a Luukosian Cleric or Paladin is just as holy as a Lorminstra Cleric or Paladin. Due to their opposing beliefs, one may be unholy to the other, but they're both still holy.
GameMaster Estild
Perhaps the flavor of the anti-paladin is as simple as just changing the plasma flare messaging for 1604 and 1625 for Lornon converts?
1604 becomes Desecrate in name only but the flares get a different message than the Consecrate flares? For example, instead of Your eonake handaxe pulses with a burst of plasma energy! it becomes Your black ora sword shrieks as it releases dark plasma energy! instead. All other aspects of the spell could remain the same. I don't see a need for a Lornon paladin to "rot" consumables though it would be neat. The same with 1625, just a simple change to the flare message.
Well, that and the prep/cast/success messages of 1604 and 1625 to give them more of a dark evil unholy ritual feel.
Chad, player of a few
1604 becomes Desecrate in name only but the flares get a different message than the Consecrate flares? For example, instead of Your eonake handaxe pulses with a burst of plasma energy! it becomes Your black ora sword shrieks as it releases dark plasma energy! instead. All other aspects of the spell could remain the same. I don't see a need for a Lornon paladin to "rot" consumables though it would be neat. The same with 1625, just a simple change to the flare message.
Well, that and the prep/cast/success messages of 1604 and 1625 to give them more of a dark evil unholy ritual feel.
Chad, player of a few
I'd expect the 1615, 1630, and Crusade have their "deity flavor" already in.
Honestly thought I'm surprised this debate is still going on. ultimately a paladin is a just knight for their deity. The anti paladin would depend on the point of view of good vs evil. From a Lornon point of view, the anti paladin can be the Ronanite/Lorminstra etc and vice versa.
I think everything is where it needs to b right now and hopeful we can come up with a good idea for the 50th slot to seal everything up. Some of the ideas I read I'm hoping for more elaboration but they sound interesting.
I wouldn't overreach on this whole subject. No one (well not me) was arguing that Lornon Paladins are evil but, rather, that the current overarching concept behind them is built out as a "Battler of Evil Undead"- which is inconsistent with similar systems and the lore in GS.
Remember, clerics already have a smite/bane divide to help differentiate. The Elanthian lore strongly supports the idea that Liabo is concerned about undead and Lornon generally profits from them. Paladins are oddly and inconsistently one-dimensional in this regard.
So this isn't a good vs evil thing- it's all about Arkati goals. It's living vs undead. Lornon Arkati and Spirits get their power from the use and abuse of mortal creatures- NOT the destruction of the undead. So it makes sense that they would arm Their followers in a way that would make it easier for them to control the living and less of a concern with dealing with the undead- who are often another source of power for them. Likewise, Liabo Arkati and Spirits generally interest themselves in protecting mortals from Lornon- and the undead are a creation of Lornon to help Them feed on mortals.
I also look at this as an opportunity to enhance RP in Gemstone. If we have Permablessed and Sanctified weapons/items to help battle the undead, why miss the opportunity to have symmetrical items on the other side of the spectrum? Black Ora already exists- why not make IT the Lornon version of Sanctified? True Black Ora is the Lornon version of permablessed, and impure black ora is the Lornon version of sanctified. And there's not even a need here to change the name of Sanctified and Blessed if we don't want (it was more for reference). Simply make it so that a Lornon bless functions differently- as we would expect it to- than a Liabo bless. And Eonak and Black Ora function differently depending on your allegiance. (And there's already ground work laid for that too- true black ora gets testy with Liabo converts)
Remember- a LOT of the Elanthian backstory, major event plotlines, and even character-to-character RP have been based on the differentiation between Lornon and Liabo. Enhancing that in a smart way is a good thing.
Hope that clarifies the starting point for all of this.
Remember, clerics already have a smite/bane divide to help differentiate. The Elanthian lore strongly supports the idea that Liabo is concerned about undead and Lornon generally profits from them. Paladins are oddly and inconsistently one-dimensional in this regard.
So this isn't a good vs evil thing- it's all about Arkati goals. It's living vs undead. Lornon Arkati and Spirits get their power from the use and abuse of mortal creatures- NOT the destruction of the undead. So it makes sense that they would arm Their followers in a way that would make it easier for them to control the living and less of a concern with dealing with the undead- who are often another source of power for them. Likewise, Liabo Arkati and Spirits generally interest themselves in protecting mortals from Lornon- and the undead are a creation of Lornon to help Them feed on mortals.
I also look at this as an opportunity to enhance RP in Gemstone. If we have Permablessed and Sanctified weapons/items to help battle the undead, why miss the opportunity to have symmetrical items on the other side of the spectrum? Black Ora already exists- why not make IT the Lornon version of Sanctified? True Black Ora is the Lornon version of permablessed, and impure black ora is the Lornon version of sanctified. And there's not even a need here to change the name of Sanctified and Blessed if we don't want (it was more for reference). Simply make it so that a Lornon bless functions differently- as we would expect it to- than a Liabo bless. And Eonak and Black Ora function differently depending on your allegiance. (And there's already ground work laid for that too- true black ora gets testy with Liabo converts)
Remember- a LOT of the Elanthian backstory, major event plotlines, and even character-to-character RP have been based on the differentiation between Lornon and Liabo. Enhancing that in a smart way is a good thing.
Hope that clarifies the starting point for all of this.
I have to disagree.. there's no need for this as the paladin class (at least my opinion) is already balanced and nothing favors more Liablo than Lornon and vice versa.
We don't rely on 1615/1630 either although they are nice but they are used (least for me) to make them kneel to hit the opponents easier and they are deity flavored in description.
The weapon.. it does plenty as is. With your weapon returning at Rank 5, being able to have guiding flares within automatically, being able to infuse spells within your blade, and of course.. the argument being made of being sanctified. Why would you not want your weapon sanctified when betrayers come and go from Lornon as Lore history has shown? Do you not think it would also make sense for you to have the ability to strike the undead decide to not obey your Lornon master since you have the means to strike them?
Your argument, is your Lornon weapon does more damage to living versus being sanctified. But to be more fair and thorough, we all have 1605, and Crusade that does that for each of us for all enemies which nullifies the need for such a divination with our class effectively. We are still primary a melee class that is able to cast spells on the side to aid our melee abilities.
Further, you can always modify your weapon through Ebon's and other raffles when it comes to Banes (ie Demon Bane, Giant Bane, etc etc), and don't forget the new Rotting Flares (which I don't think Ronan or any Liablo would care for but that's me). You could always choose what weapon to bond to and thus if it has blood gore scripts, and bloody flares of some sort, then you've chosen those flares over the guiding light flares.. or (in my case) I chose crit weighting over flares with my katana being my bonded weapon of choice.
Hoping this helps.
.
| 1604 becomes Desecrate in name only but the flares get a different message than the Consecrate flares? |
I'd like for this not to be inherent to deity alignment but to black ora specifically, regardless of wielder.
Ambient messaging for pure black ora supports the idea that it is a partially sentient metal. We don't know how it came to be; its existence likely predates the Liabo/Lornon split. It inherently hates being held by mortals and tries to kill those who lay hands on it, either directly or through enhancing their bloodthirst and paranoia. My hypothesis is that it has some ability to feed on souls similar to how Luukos draws his power, so that many mortals make that connection even though black ora has a will of its own. Leave it up to the player to decide why they might use it: I can imagine, for example, a devoted servant of Lorminstra who spends his life attempting to master a black ora weapon in order to overpower its will and release the soul of a loved one trapped within.
>I wouldn't overreach on this whole subject. No one (well not me) was arguing that Lornon Paladins are evil but...
You know, after me being such a dick on mechanics (though I'm still a little wonk on a certain point), I do always like to state clearly when I agree. This post is really nice I think, as far as it's form and concepts.
I'd still separate it into two blocks, which the original subject suggests: Paladins and Black Ora (two things separated). I feel like some of the riff raff comes in trying to discuss those two together in too certain terms!
Impure black ora might have a little more bling. (Pure black ora has enough OOW...WHAT ::grumbles::)
Paladins do have more stuff to cater to killing undead. I do like the clerical difference where paladins don't see it. I think Bless Item (304) was fairly indicted as without a counter part, though.
For paladins, this should be quite limited, though, since we are semis, right? I think in that sense you nailed Consecrate (1604) and Sanctify (1625) as the main culprits (and many have flavors for alignment). Honestly most the rest are various 'buff' spells and friends that don't really have too much to do with it. It could also be tricky to cram more features into any two paladin spells as those two.
It's probably fair to ask for something there, but not too much. For Consecrate, how about in addition to extending a bless on a generic item, it could extend also an E-blade (411). I know it's not a really specific thing to Lornon, but one must consider such generic items that could be blessed could be e-bladed and...well, there's not a lot else. And sure, "guiding light" flares on black ora weapons, too, for Lornon aligned.
With Sanctify, hmm. I guess my only uncertainty is the Guiding Light flares for impure black ora. I did really like this concept that a bonded weapon could be negated for climbing checks for everyone...if stowing a pure black ora weapon was a thing...no players could argue. It was just something I tossed out as a general concept, but it seems pretty powerful and definitely no reason (to me) warriors can't do it do. (Climb the rockslide with your claidhmore in your teeth...no idea!)
As to the black ora part, well...I'm yet to be convinced it needs too much discussion here, as long as it's impure. The impure stuff is pretty bad. If you want to throw a fit, my wife won some major white ora raffle for an edged weapon at EG two years ago and turned to me with a "duh" look. I said, "Well, if you'd like to sell it, I guess you go for a waraxe. If you want to keep it, it's like the sweetest dagger for skinning and fletching you'll ever have!" Yeah, she still has that stupid parazonium that does all this zesty idle stuff she whips out of the vruul skin boots I gave her...when she skins stuff. Hahahah, I guess I didn't lie at all.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
You know, after me being such a dick on mechanics (though I'm still a little wonk on a certain point), I do always like to state clearly when I agree. This post is really nice I think, as far as it's form and concepts.
I'd still separate it into two blocks, which the original subject suggests: Paladins and Black Ora (two things separated). I feel like some of the riff raff comes in trying to discuss those two together in too certain terms!
Impure black ora might have a little more bling. (Pure black ora has enough OOW...WHAT ::grumbles::)
Paladins do have more stuff to cater to killing undead. I do like the clerical difference where paladins don't see it. I think Bless Item (304) was fairly indicted as without a counter part, though.
For paladins, this should be quite limited, though, since we are semis, right? I think in that sense you nailed Consecrate (1604) and Sanctify (1625) as the main culprits (and many have flavors for alignment). Honestly most the rest are various 'buff' spells and friends that don't really have too much to do with it. It could also be tricky to cram more features into any two paladin spells as those two.
It's probably fair to ask for something there, but not too much. For Consecrate, how about in addition to extending a bless on a generic item, it could extend also an E-blade (411). I know it's not a really specific thing to Lornon, but one must consider such generic items that could be blessed could be e-bladed and...well, there's not a lot else. And sure, "guiding light" flares on black ora weapons, too, for Lornon aligned.
With Sanctify, hmm. I guess my only uncertainty is the Guiding Light flares for impure black ora. I did really like this concept that a bonded weapon could be negated for climbing checks for everyone...if stowing a pure black ora weapon was a thing...no players could argue. It was just something I tossed out as a general concept, but it seems pretty powerful and definitely no reason (to me) warriors can't do it do. (Climb the rockslide with your claidhmore in your teeth...no idea!)
As to the black ora part, well...I'm yet to be convinced it needs too much discussion here, as long as it's impure. The impure stuff is pretty bad. If you want to throw a fit, my wife won some major white ora raffle for an edged weapon at EG two years ago and turned to me with a "duh" look. I said, "Well, if you'd like to sell it, I guess you go for a waraxe. If you want to keep it, it's like the sweetest dagger for skinning and fletching you'll ever have!" Yeah, she still has that stupid parazonium that does all this zesty idle stuff she whips out of the vruul skin boots I gave her...when she skins stuff. Hahahah, I guess I didn't lie at all.
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
Just for the record, we should figure out if Consecrate flares are offered to impure black ora with 1625.
I can offer to do it, as I said, once Aurla is done with my perfect flail enchanting. Flail is, for now, fully bonded to a 4x superior one, and has an impure one in his locker.
If someone has that data already, I'd like logs of lots of swings or some hilarity...
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
I can offer to do it, as I said, once Aurla is done with my perfect flail enchanting. Flail is, for now, fully bonded to a 4x superior one, and has an impure one in his locker.
If someone has that data already, I'd like logs of lots of swings or some hilarity...
>An officer of the Sorcerer Guild arrives and glances around. "Ah, there you are, Vathon!" he says in a slightly agitated tone. "I have come to formally declare that your membership privileges have been revoked."
| I also look at this as an opportunity to enhance RP in Gemstone. If we have Permablessed and Sanctified weapons/items to help battle the undead, why miss the opportunity to have symmetrical items on the other side of the spectrum? Black Ora already exists- why not make IT the Lornon version of Sanctified? True Black Ora is the Lornon version of permablessed, and impure black ora is the Lornon version of sanctified. And there's not even a need here to change the name of Sanctified and Blessed if we don't want (it was more for reference). Simply make it so that a Lornon bless functions differently- as we would expect it to- than a Liabo bless. And Eonak and Black Ora function differently depending on your allegiance. (And there's already ground work laid for that too- true black ora gets testy with Liabo converts) |
I thought about this but to be truly symmetrical you would need a class of "holy" creatures. Call them sepharim, soldiers of light. They would only be able to be hit by Desecrated weapons, black ora weapons in the hands of a Lornon paladin, and Sanctify would make any weapon the Lornon paladin bonded with strike them.
Unfortunately the idea of using "living" creatures would give the Lornon paladin an advantage over every other class.
This is a great topic though! Lots of good discussion.
Chad, player of a few
>>The messaging for Divine Strike, Crusade, and Judgment, depend on the alignment of the paladin (and each spell has its own flavor messaging). The critical type for Divine Strike and Judgment (but not Crusade) also depends on the alignment, and thus affects which targets are damaged. Consider, for instance, that Lorminstra provides cold criticals, but greater moor wights are immune to cold. In this instance, a Liabo-aligned paladin cannot effectively use these spells against an undead target. Another similar case can be a Voln-aligned or Eorgina-aligned paladin have fire criticals for 1615/1630, which will probably not harm a firephantom but will get two hits on most trolls. Thus, they definitely hit targets without regard to their being living or undead, although there might be some kind of statistical factor at work (number of Lornon with puncture criticals, which aren't very effective against golems, which are preferentially undead), but I think we can ignore that fact.
I will add that as a Lorminstra paladin my supposed cold flares for 1615/1630 do not in fact have any issues with undead. The criticals are plasma in theme and I do get both damage lines. Greater Moor Wights I specifically hunted for a number of levels. So either Lorminstra is incorrectly catagorized as cold or the spells aren't working as we think, right?
Undead:
You gesture at a decaying Citadel guardsman.
A pillar of swirling white radiance manifests around a decaying Citadel guardsman.
CS: +255 - TD: +168 + CvA: -2 + d100: +53 == +138
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the Citadel guardsman's body!
... 33 points of damage!
... 10 points of damage!
A curling tongue of blue flame sears the skin on the Citadel guardsman's stomach.
The Citadel guardsman is driven to her knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Living:
You gesture at a jungle troll.
A pillar of swirling white radiance manifests around a jungle troll.
CS: +255 - TD: +93 + CvA: +25 + d100: +63 == +250
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the jungle troll's body!
... 59 points of damage!
... 55 points of damage!
Whiplike blast of plasma creates a gaping hole in the jungle troll's lower back!
The jungle troll is stunned!
The jungle troll is driven to its knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
I will add that as a Lorminstra paladin my supposed cold flares for 1615/1630 do not in fact have any issues with undead. The criticals are plasma in theme and I do get both damage lines. Greater Moor Wights I specifically hunted for a number of levels. So either Lorminstra is incorrectly catagorized as cold or the spells aren't working as we think, right?
Undead:
You gesture at a decaying Citadel guardsman.
A pillar of swirling white radiance manifests around a decaying Citadel guardsman.
CS: +255 - TD: +168 + CvA: -2 + d100: +53 == +138
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the Citadel guardsman's body!
... 33 points of damage!
... 10 points of damage!
A curling tongue of blue flame sears the skin on the Citadel guardsman's stomach.
The Citadel guardsman is driven to her knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Living:
You gesture at a jungle troll.
A pillar of swirling white radiance manifests around a jungle troll.
CS: +255 - TD: +93 + CvA: +25 + d100: +63 == +250
Warding failed!
Waves of sacred energy tear through the jungle troll's body!
... 59 points of damage!
... 55 points of damage!
Whiplike blast of plasma creates a gaping hole in the jungle troll's lower back!
The jungle troll is stunned!
The jungle troll is driven to its knees!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
> So either Lorminstra is incorrectly catagorized as cold or the spells aren't working as we think, right?
I thought I remembered a change to this a year or two ago, where 1615 damage is treated as plasma. There may be deity specific messaging, but they are treated as plasma.
This is why I stated 1615 as such yesterday, with DAID's minor correction, but perhaps we were both right: The damage is plasma, the messaging is deity specific.
Morden, player of.
I thought I remembered a change to this a year or two ago, where 1615 damage is treated as plasma. There may be deity specific messaging, but they are treated as plasma.
This is why I stated 1615 as such yesterday, with DAID's minor correction, but perhaps we were both right: The damage is plasma, the messaging is deity specific.
Morden, player of.
