@Nephele Interesting thoughts and thx! I think it’s pretty unlikely we will see several (if any) changes to the matrix. Your ideas are def fun to read about though.
Nephele said:Dark Myr - add Paladin, remove Druid. Reasoning: The class definition for Paladin is along the lines of "vengeful cleric" rather than "lawful good holy warrior". Given that, it doesn't make sense to me that Dark Myr can be clerics but not paladins. As for Druids, unless there's some sort of subset of Druid abilities dealing specifically with the sea, this doesn't feel quite right to me either. That said, I'd be down with the idea of Dark Myr druids being "Sea Druids" and getting a different set of abilities to start off with based on that theme - and then they could go on to learn the ways of the land-dwellers.
I was on this train until I realized that the Dark Myr have nothing to fight for. They're not crusaders; they are conquerers. They make neither friend nor enemy. The dislike all and some loathe even their own existence. The only thing they'd be vengeful toward is Ermos and it's hardly worth starting a holy order over hatred of one being that they can't even be sure is alive. As presented, the race... doesn't have much to fervently believe in.
Zuljan said: If I did want to change the matrix, Nephs list looks pretty solid! Only thing maybe is I don’t see the dark myr as paladins. Paladins are specifically vengeful toward the undead and the history involved. The dark myr have no knowledge of undead existent as far as we know so far. The myr also have no reason or desire for vengeance. The red myr are trying to revert back to their “aboriginal form” lmaooo *takes puff from the pipe,” and the rest of the myr “back home” literally turned into dark, bitter hating creatures who simply hate all other races. They do want to restore their home to what it was, but they do not seek any form of vengeance, so the cleric separation from paladin makes sense (as they are clearly a magical race by all historical accounts in lore, and additionally paladins are plate wearers etc). Also perhaps the gnome warrior being trickiest but apart from their obvious magical origin, One can observe that morphologic attributes of races have an application to their classes (ie gnomes are small, magical, and genius/highly intelligent race so it would make sense they would be sneaky like a rogue/hobbit but not actually be a plate wearing warrior). arguments can be made of course for each side, but it does make some sense. The distinction between them not having warrior and halfings do (since both are small), to me is the historical intelligence/magic factor. Halflings which they also call wildlings I believe in this iteration are like that pan/hook type village people running about carelessly, fighting and having fun with nature but nothing specifically of high intelligence or specializing in wizardry type of magic like gnomes or other high int races have. Just nitpicking but the rest of the list is solid and to me a complete 50/50 argument. And they have made it very clear the class race matrix can change after release as the lore and world changes so even if nothing changes at launch it will most likely change in some way down the road.
the dark myr paladin nay makes sense. one could even say... animating fallen comrades is via WATER BENDING TM is abhorrent and if u trying to kill leviathans by any means necessary okay!
okay i stand by my new list for dark myr. no summoners no monks or wizards.
i'm find with druid and rogue.
druid can use kelp and seaweed to strangle some leviathans and use mangroves for healing.
rogues ehhhh there's neurotoxins and reconnaince that occurs... like navy seals can be considered rogues so i'll run with it.
Nephele said:Sorry for the slow reply, I missed this post earlier.
Here's what I think I would change right now for initial character creation, based on my understanding of each race's lore and the class definitions.
...
Archai - Summoner would not make much sense given their history/lore, they were created from another race of pure energy and bred as a nation of slaves. Their story is one of breaking the chains and coming to their own. For them to then summon beings of pure arcane energy and bind them to their will/enslave them to do their bidding would be pretty twisted, it's a bad look for sure.
Dark Myr - As I mentioned previous, Paladin would be a bad fit for Dark Myr given their races extreme devotion to Syronai. Individuals that believe themselves to be above and beyond the order of clerics, those who would shed and actively/openly go against the dogmas of the cleric, would most likely be seen as heretics who insult the very memory of Syronai herself. Druid, that I could see them losing.
Halfling - Summoner aren't really primal casters at all, in fact they deal very little with elemental power at all. I'd argue they deal with more arcane than even Wizards do. The Arcamentals (not elementals) are arcane beings summoned and bound to an element, the elemental powers they do are their own thing. The powers of the Summoner almost exclusively deals in the arcane, via summoning whatever the situation might call for with arcane power.
Humans - are generally written as a very adaptable jack of all trades sort of race, similar to planting humans from Earth in other universes. It fits the lore for them to have everything open (by far the least rigid culture, adaptable and open to new ideas and novelty, massive trade network), but also it works best for the largest number of players. Humans are relatable to every single player (they are pretty much always the most played race for a reason) and there is a surprising number of players out there that aren't into being other races/creatures/beings. It's the something enjoyable/relatable for everyone safety net.
Gnome - I think that would go pretty damn far against all we know about gnome and their lore; a rogue in leathers using precision stabs is one thing but to throw them in heavy armor and weaponry is a very different ballgame. They aren't loaded with arcamechanical gadgets and such as I seem to recall VR saying in the past that there won't be all those wonky gadgets and psuedo futuristic tinkering technology type stuff in this game.
Ogre - are brute strength more than swiftness, elegance, and precision. An ogre weaving in and out of ranged combat with high dexterity all while making nice with their food (animals) seems out of place to me. Would you need to bother befriending animals when you already have the strength of two bears?
Skar - monk make sense to me given they aren't about peace and tranquility. It's about finding a harmony between body and soul (which honestly might be much easier to align for a Skar), wielding the body as a living weapon (fitting for Skar espeically). The Sith to a Jedi.
Nephele said:
Ogre - add Ranger. Ogre society is about power, and imposing that power on others to prove your superiority. Mastering the beasts of the wild and using their power to attack your foes makes sense when you think of Ogres a proud, but relatively tribalistic martial culture. Plus, Ogres can already be druids, so it's not a far stretch to allow them to be rangers too.
idea.
Ogre hiding behind bush... I see you!
Ogre hiding behind rock...you /point!
Ogre hiding behind a tree...Hard not to see
Ogre holding a leaf...Yup still see you!
Ogre wrapping up in a mammoth hide....Uh huh right there!
Ogre holding his hand in front of face... RIGHT THERE!
Ogre tip toeing ...Heard you!
Ogre Hid...There!
Ogre...Yep!
Ogr...Gotcha!
Og...Spotted
O.../nod
...
Iksar said:
Humans - are generally written as a very adaptable jack of all trades sort of race, similar to planting humans from Earth in other universes. It fits the lore for them to have everything open (by far the least rigid culture, adaptable and open to new ideas and novelty, massive trade network), but also it works best for the largest number of players. Humans are relatable to every single player (they are pretty much always the most played race for a reason) and there is a surprising number of players out there that aren't into being other races/creatures/beings. It's the something enjoyable/relatable for everyone safety net.
Totally. The Humans were wealthy, powerful, had open trade and held the fame of Avendyr for a long time. The Humans being so popular (12 continents?) would have attracted the attention of all walks of life. Therefore, I can see how Avendyr's Seat is home to all of the classes.
Soaren said:
Nephele said:
Ogre - add Ranger. Ogre society is about power, and imposing that power on others to prove your superiority. Mastering the beasts of the wild and using their power to attack your foes makes sense when you think of Ogres a proud, but relatively tribalistic martial culture. Plus, Ogres can already be druids, so it's not a far stretch to allow them to be rangers too.
idea.
Ogre hiding behind bush... I see you!
Ogre hiding behind rock...you /point!
Ogre hiding behind a tree...Hard not to see
Ogre holding a leaf...Yup still see you!
Ogre wrapping up in a mammoth hide....Uh huh right there!
Ogre holding his hand in front of face... RIGHT THERE!
Ogre tip toeing ...Heard you!
Ogre Hid...There!
Ogre...Yep!
Ogr...Gotcha!
Og...Spotted
O.../node
...
Why are you quoting me in something I didn’t write? That was written by Nephele not me, though some of what Neph wrote is interesting.
(changed back to Neph on my quote but not on yours)
Iksar said:
A lot of good reasoning.
So, I want to be clear that this thread was never about my opinion but was, and is about getting everyone's opinion, and having a debate. That's why I specifically didn't post my own opinion at the beginning :)
Anyway, you make some good points that I hadn't considered Iksar - thanks for that. We won't agree on everything but I can see where you're coming from and if I think about it some more it might change my viewpoint on some of the races as well.
So, good post! I would love to hear other people's takes on why certain classes do (or don't) make sense for the various races. I think that sort of discussion helps us all as well as the developers.
Thread cleaned up, posts that included racism removed as were all posts quoting it. Please do not post about racism, even in a joking manner or under a false banner of /sarcasm/ as it will be taken seriously and further actions may be taken against your account.
The matrix is something we will be moving further into testing with so we can look at balance and numbers per race/class combo so until then, expect the current matrix to remain the same. We have taken the feedback on board and will see how we go with larger testing phases before we look into it more closely.
In the meantime, please be respectful of each other.
Iksar said:Nephele said:Sorry for the slow reply, I missed this post earlier.
Here's what I think I would change right now for initial character creation, based on my understanding of each race's lore and the class definitions.
...
Archai - Summoner would not make much sense given their history/lore, they were created from another race of pure energy and bred as a nation of slaves. Their story is one of breaking the chains and coming to their own. For them to then summon beings of pure arcane energy and bind them to their will/enslave them to do their bidding would be pretty twisted, it's a bad look for sure.
Dark Myr - As I mentioned previous, Paladin would be a bad fit for Dark Myr given their races extreme devotion to Syronai. Individuals that believe themselves to be above and beyond the order of clerics, those who would shed and actively/openly go against the dogmas of the cleric, would most likely be seen as heretics who insult the very memory of Syronai herself. Druid, that I could see them losing.
You make a good point about the Archai, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Perhaps having summoning arcamentals be looked down upon by a large segment of the Archai population could be an interesing narrative point.
I have to disagree with you regarding the Myr. With Syronai being dead, that seems like an impetus for some of her followers to become Paladins. This is true on several levels. First, with her being dead they would perhaps feel less obligated to continue in the same manner as when she was alive. More importantly, the fact that they couldn't protect her seems like it would motivate some of them to study arms & combat to better protect their remaining gods. And finally, it would make sense for them to do this in order to seek vengance upon the Nytherian Red sect that killed Syronai (and maybe some undead in their offtime lol)
Iksar said:Archai - Summoner would not make much sense given their history/lore, they were created from another race of pure energy and bred as a nation of slaves. Their story is one of breaking the chains and coming to their own. For them to then summon beings of pure arcane energy and bind them to their will/enslave them to do their bidding would be pretty twisted, it's a bad look for sure.
Interesting. I know another story of someone who was famous for breaking chains and then doing things that were considered "twisted." So what? Roleplaying is about developing a character and telling your story. As I mentioned previously, we may as well consider Pantheon an MMO(<50%RP)G if players are going to have the majority of their options stripped from them at character select screen.
Iksar said:Dark Myr - As I mentioned previous, Paladin would be a bad fit for Dark Myr given their races extreme devotion to Syronai. Individuals that believe themselves to be above and beyond the order of clerics, those who would shed and actively/openly go against the dogmas of the cleric, would most likely be seen as heretics who insult the very memory of Syronai herself. Druid, that I could see them losing.
Pantheon, Rise of the Stereotypes? There are plenty of great stories where certain characters are viewed as heretics, but to the reader, we understand that the accusers are irrational and can appreciate that this particular character was willing to think for themselves. Any race that isn't capable of independent thought instantly becomes less attractive, to me. I'm not a sheep and I wouldn't want to play one either.
Iksar said:Humans - are generally written as a very adaptable jack of all trades sort of race, similar to planting humans from Earth in other universes. It fits the lore for them to have everything open (by far the least rigid culture, adaptable and open to new ideas and novelty, massive trade network), but also it works best for the largest number of players. Humans are relatable to every single player (they are pretty much always the most played race for a reason) and there is a surprising number of players out there that aren't into being other races/creatures/beings. It's the something enjoyable/relatable for everyone safety net.
It's horrible. I have zero interest in playing a human in a high-fantasy game but they appear to be the only ones that are capable of independent thought. In that sense, they are the only ones I can relate to. Now ... if humans were to have some of their options removed, that would make zero sense -- as humans, we know better. We know that we can think for ourselves. We know that stereotypes are hogwash and it would be immersion-breaking to suggest otherwise. This safety net "makes sense" -- too bad players who appreciate the idea of playing a race that is capable of independent thought would all be funneled down the same drain.
Iksar said:Gnome - I think that would go pretty damn far against all we know about gnome and their lore; a rogue in leathers using precision stabs is one thing but to throw them in heavy armor and weaponry is a very different ballgame. They aren't loaded with arcamechanical gadgets and such as I seem to recall VR saying in the past that there won't be all those wonky gadgets and psuedo futuristic tinkering technology type stuff in this game.
And? Freedom of choice is important. Creative liberty is important. There are two types of roleplaying -- you can take on an existing role, or you get to make up your own character. It's quite obvious that Pantheon will be a game where we get to create our own character. If we were being forced to roleplay Juthe the Teller or Qelos the Unburdener then it's completely fair to force rigid personality restrictions. You can pick their hair color and eye color for me. You can determine that he's grumpy, traditional, and old. If I am making my own character I should be the story teller. I should be the one deciding everything from hair color to personality.
Iksar said:Ogre - are brute strength more than swiftness, elegance, and precision. An ogre weaving in and out of ranged combat with high dexterity all while making nice with their food (animals) seems out of place to me. Would you need to bother befriending animals when you already have the strength of two bears?
Lore should be used to tell the story of the world, not dictate how I tell my story. More on that with Skar.
Iksar said:Skar - monk make sense to me given they aren't about peace and tranquility. It's about finding a harmony between body and soul (which honestly might be much easier to align for a Skar), wielding the body as a living weapon (fitting for Skar espeically). The Sith to a Jedi.
A lot of things seem to "make sense" or "not make sense." Skar are "suicidally vicious." How far should we take this lore game? If someone plays a Skar in a group, they should play them "suicidially vicious" in order for things to "make sense" right? That means Skar Monk shouldn't get Feign Death because they are suicidally vicious -- they aren't there to play tricks, they are willing to die! According to the lore, there are several races that can't stand each other. In order for things to "make sense" then players in this situation should refuse to group up with each other, right? If I'm playing as a Skar and see another Skar, I should try to train them so that I can eat them.
Wait ... would that be bad for the game? If we started looking at every excerpt of lore as justification for how we should think/act in game? I respect Istuulamae a great deal and have thoroughly enjoyed reading the lore for this game. But his lore shouldn't be chains that bind us. If anything, we should be able to look at it as a source of inspiration. We can either follow the path that he has laid out for us, or purposely go down a different path for reasons X/Y/Z. Independent thought is a beautiful thing and players should be able to leverage that if we don't want this to be Pantheon: Rise of the Stereotypes.
Zuljan said: People really want that myr pally! they all but literary say they are pure evil, with no desire for vengeance on or for syronai and on the contrary the original dark myr did not disagree or show any sign of discomfort when the red did kill syronai. to me it’s clear through context that her actions were always out of survival at any cost, to the point where she would deform and change the very existence and physical vessels of her people as opposed to allowing the warriors to die honorably in battle, being a “warrior race.” She always wanted more, but for selfish reasons.
I really appreciate how much you sound like a Myr, here. :)
also, thanks for the info Kils
oneADseven said:Iksar said:Archai - Summoner would not make much sense given their history/lore, they were created from another race of pure energy and bred as a nation of slaves. Their story is one of breaking the chains and coming to their own. For them to then summon beings of pure arcane energy and bind them to their will/enslave them to do their bidding would be pretty twisted, it's a bad look for sure.
Interesting. I know another story of someone who was famous for breaking chains and then doing things that were considered "twisted." So what? Roleplaying is about developing a character and telling your story. As I mentioned previously, we may as well consider Pantheon an MMO(<50%RP)G if players are going to have the majority of their options stripped from them at character select screen.
Iksar said:Dark Myr - As I mentioned previous, Paladin would be a bad fit for Dark Myr given their races extreme devotion to Syronai. Individuals that believe themselves to be above and beyond the order of clerics, those who would shed and actively/openly go against the dogmas of the cleric, would most likely be seen as heretics who insult the very memory of Syronai herself. Druid, that I could see them losing.
Pantheon, Rise of the Stereotypes? There are plenty of great stories where certain characters are viewed as heretics, but to the reader, we understand that the accusers are irrational and can appreciate that this particular character was willing to think for themselves. Any race that isn't capable of independent thought instantly becomes less attractive, to me. I'm not a sheep and I wouldn't want to play one either.
Iksar said:Humans - are generally written as a very adaptable jack of all trades sort of race, similar to planting humans from Earth in other universes. It fits the lore for them to have everything open (by far the least rigid culture, adaptable and open to new ideas and novelty, massive trade network), but also it works best for the largest number of players. Humans are relatable to every single player (they are pretty much always the most played race for a reason) and there is a surprising number of players out there that aren't into being other races/creatures/beings. It's the something enjoyable/relatable for everyone safety net.
It's horrible. I have zero interest in playing a human in a high-fantasy game but they appear to be the only ones that are capable of independent thought. In that sense, they are the only ones I can relate to. Now ... if humans were to have some of their options removed, that would make zero sense -- as humans, we know better. We know that we can think for ourselves. We know that stereotypes are hogwash and it would be immersion-breaking to suggest otherwise. This safety net "makes sense" -- too bad players who appreciate the idea of playing a race that is capable of independent thought would all be funneled down the same drain.
Iksar said:Gnome - I think that would go pretty damn far against all we know about gnome and their lore; a rogue in leathers using precision stabs is one thing but to throw them in heavy armor and weaponry is a very different ballgame. They aren't loaded with arcamechanical gadgets and such as I seem to recall VR saying in the past that there won't be all those wonky gadgets and psuedo futuristic tinkering technology type stuff in this game.
And? Freedom of choice is important. Creative liberty is important. There are two types of roleplaying -- you can take on an existing role, or you get to make up your own character. It's quite obvious that Pantheon will be a game where we get to create our own character. If we were being forced to roleplay Juthe the Teller or Qelos the Unburdener then it's completely fair to force rigid personality restrictions. You can pick their hair color and eye color for me. You can determine that he's grumpy, traditional, and old. If I am making my own character I should be the story teller. I should be the one deciding everything from hair color to personality.
Iksar said:Ogre - are brute strength more than swiftness, elegance, and precision. An ogre weaving in and out of ranged combat with high dexterity all while making nice with their food (animals) seems out of place to me. Would you need to bother befriending animals when you already have the strength of two bears?
Lore should be used to tell the story of the world, not dictate how I tell my story. More on that with Skar.
Iksar said:Skar - monk make sense to me given they aren't about peace and tranquility. It's about finding a harmony between body and soul (which honestly might be much easier to align for a Skar), wielding the body as a living weapon (fitting for Skar espeically). The Sith to a Jedi.
A lot of things seem to "make sense" or "not make sense." Skar are "suicidally vicious." How far should we take this lore game? If someone plays a Skar in a group, they should play them "suicidially vicious" in order for things to "make sense" right? That means Skar Monk shouldn't get Feign Death because they are suicidally vicious -- they aren't there to play tricks, they are willing to die! According to the lore, there are several races that can't stand each other. In order for things to "make sense" then players in this situation should refuse to group up with each other, right? If I'm playing as a Skar and see another Skar, I should try to train them so that I can eat them.
Wait ... would that be bad for the game? If we started looking at every excerpt of lore as justification for how we should think/act in game? I respect Istuulamae a great deal and have thoroughly enjoyed reading the lore for this game. But his lore shouldn't be chains that bind us. If anything, we should be able to look at it as a source of inspiration. We can either follow the path that he has laid out for us, or purposely go down a different path for reasons X/Y/Z. Independent thought is a beautiful thing and players should be able to leverage that if we don't want this to be Pantheon: Rise of the Stereotypes.
I'm glad you actually tried to prove Iksar wrong on all these points but yet he used lore to actually back up his claim and all you did is basically say freedom of choice is better but is it? WoW listened way to much to their community or at least the one complaining the most and made a game most people don't like playing, other games tried to mimic WoW and simply failed while making the game and changed their gane a bit by listening to much to their community, Let VR MAKE THEIR GAME AND HAVE US BEND TO THE WAY VR WANTS US TO PLAY IT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET VR TO BEND TO US BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH IT. It is literally one of the few things outside of making zones and gameplay that they have in stone and you want it to be changed and you haven't even played the game yet to see the quest and the inside of the history of rhe cities or anything and you think making every race can be every class is good? Shot if you wanted that I could literally make one race with adjustable stats to full your needs and wouldn't jave to worry but it cause there's only one race. STOP TRYING TO MAKE RACE SELECTION A COSMETIC FEATURE WITH A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN WHAT PASSIVE/ACTIVE YOU WANT TO USE.
We aren't sterotyping them that is what they are, it's their lore it is literally who they are, just like you can play a Dark Elf on EQ and be the friendliest player on the server but that doesn't change the fact you are still a evil race much like the skar on Pantheon you can be the friendliest player but your lore will still depict you are a bloodthirsty killer and love pain it simply is what it is. WE aren't playing DnD you can't make a dark elf and try to depict a Drizzt Ur'Den clone and change literally everything about t he race that was put Into lore and try to make it make sense in a mmorpg, it simply just make people scratch their heads and be like how does this make sense.
@Riahuff
And you just brought up WoW multiple times as if it has anything to do with my post. You just used Capslock and caused me to skip right past every part of it as it comes off like shouting. I wasn't trying to prove Iksar wrong, but rather highlight why it isn't a good idea to allow lore to dictate how our characters interact with the world. If you had actually read my entire post you would see that a Skar using FD actually goes against written / established lore. There was context and build-up. You seemed pretty livid while you typed all that up. Take a breath and relax.
Anyway, this was just addressed by Kils and nothing is going to be decided until larger testing phases. All we know at this point is that this is/was the vision for the game. We're fighting over the vision. Oh well.
oneADseven said:@Riahuff
And you just brought up WoW multiple times as if it has anything to do with my post. You just used Capslock and caused me to skip right past every part of it as it comes off like shouting. I wasn't trying to prove Iksar wrong, but rather highlight why it isn't a good idea to allow lore to dictate how our characters interact with the world. If you had actually read my entire post you would see that a Skar using FD actually goes against written / established lore. There was context and build-up. You seemed pretty livid while you typed all that up. Take a breath and relax.
The post wasn't about WoW it was about a company listening to much to the community and change something special that makes the game special all for the sake of "I want it this way instead of that way" type of mentality. There's nothing wrong with it and never was. You want to defy lore to make sense that a ogre can be a wizard, but I'd you do that than in the lore made they would literally have to change it to make it to where wizards are allowed because it's their lore, it's literally their history, all of it. The devs aren't simply going to make a lore and than go oh yeah that doesn't matter.
That's like in the lore the gnomes were so fascinated by magic that they pretty much became magic, but if gnomes weren't able to be any caster type classes that wouldn't make sense right? Of course it wouldn't because it is literally in their lore that they defjnatelt should be able to be those classes, but to have a gnome become a monk defjnatelt doesn't because they made themselv ed incorporeal beings.
Though I can say of they made it to where some gnomes decided that they didn't want to get rid of their physical forms to be some of these different classes I would accept it because again it fits inside the lore of what was giving to them, not because some people just wanted it that way.
@Tigersin
Agreed. Things will be decided in later testing phases. Until then, we are free to continue discussing things in a civil manner as long as it doesn't breach forum guidelines. As I mentioned previously, open world MMORPG's are what traditional roleplayers dreamed of. You don't have to follow the golden path. You don't have to roleplay a preconceived character and reenact their story. When it comes to character development and storytelling, players should follow their own vision. If there is an expectation that we should follow the social norms of a given race then there would be far more restrictions in place than what class someone could play. It would be dictated to us how we should interact with each other, where we should travel, and give us a list of "appropriate names" to choose from. We wouldn't have a meaningful faction system that allows us to change ally to foe and vice versa. We would be following a prescribed storyline. We would buckle up in our cart and start the ride of rails.