Jump to content

Battleguard kit for Branwen


Miloch

Recommended Posts

Split from this topic.

...she [branwen] can't be true neutral as a cleric of Tempus, and she must be chaotic (good, neutral or evil) to be a Battleguard...
By PnP Battleguard requirements, you might be correct (I don't know). However, BG2 does not adapt AD&D 2E rules exactly, and there is no Battleguard kit in unmodded BG2.
That is correct by PnP requirements, as I've cited from Faiths & Avatars (and Tempus is a Forgotten Realms deity, and the FR is a realm created through PnP). The fact that BG2 does not adapt the rules faithfully is not a great argument by any standards. There are three reasons why BG2 might not have followed the rules: ignorance, engine limitations or because the rule did not make sense. And despite the fact many PnP rules don't make sense, you'll probably find that's the least likely of the three reasons. In this case, the implication is straightforward: Tempus is a chaotic deity and therefore requires his specialty priests to be chaotic.

 

This is the initial description of Battleguards of Tempus from Faiths & Avatars (p. 160):

Specialty Priests (Battleguards)

Requirements: Strength 14, Wisdom 12

Alignment: CG, CN, CE

Weapons: All bludgeoning weapons (wholly Type B), the spiked glove, plus one other weapon of choice

Armor: Any

Major Spheres: Animal, chaos, combat, divination, elemental, healing, necromantic, protection, war, weather

Minor Spheres: All, guardian, summoning, sun, wards

Magical Items: Same as clerics, plus magical versions of individual "chosen" weapons

Req. Profs: None

Bonus Profs: Armorer, blind-fighting, charioteering, weaponsmithing

Divine Remix is supposed to be a faithful adaptation of the PnP source material, but already we see some differences. Some of the major spheres have been bumped to minor, and the DR Battleguard kit allows the true neutral alignment. I guess I can kind of see the reasons for these. The first is possibly because some of the PnP kits are otherwise a bit overpowered (though elsewhere, the DR authors said they didn't change kits on this basis). The second I suppose is a compromise for the component Add Battleguard of Tempus kit to Branwen for those purists who don't want to fudge her alignment. I guess I could live with that if they also offered a component to make Branwen chaotic neutral (Tempus's alignment, and a legal alignment for Battleguards as per the PnP resources DR is supposed to adhere to).
I've seen a number of different adaptations of the Battleguard kit/prestige class... it's easy to imagine a Battleguard of almost any alignment...
If this is leading toward making your own mod yet again along the lines of something that already exists, then I would disagree with that as usual. We don't need umpteen versions of the same mod, whether they differ slightly or even significantly, when there's fresh content out there waiting to be written. If you wanted to do a new "Valkyrie of Battle" kit for her, I'd probably support that. At least you're not spinning off something FR/PnP (and FR *is* PnP despite what anyone thinks). We should at least try to resolve any disagreements with the existing DR Battleguard kit and its component to assign it to Branwen, and there are a few things that could be improved but they're fairly minor in the scheme of things.

 

Let's also be clear on another point: all deities have clerics and they have specialty priests. Tempus's general clerics can be any alignment but neutral. His specialty priests (Battleguards) must be chaotic.

Also, Branwen is a *very* unusual cleric of Tempus - for starters, she's a woman.
I haven't read of any gender restrictions on Tempus's clergy or specialty priests anywhere in the published literature, not even the suggestion that men are better suited. It might be there somewhere (who knows, maybe in the multitude of FR novels) but the first I heard of it was in BG1 NPC. Tempus's own deputy, the Red Knight (a "quasi-deity") is in fact female.
Link to post

You and I have very different perspectives on modding.

 

The fact that DR has implemented a Battleguard kit does not exert any binding influence over my decision to create or not create a Battleguard kit for Branwen. As always, and as every modder should, I will do whatever I wish in whatever fashion I wish. Many of us like choice, and a mod that does something first does not necessarily do it best. See Morrow Gate for a good example of my philosophy in action. I snub PnP rules, alter BG2 game rules, and implement my own versions of concepts already included in other mods. Doing what you want with your game is the very heart of modding.

 

I don't think there's much point to continuing to discuss this matter when such a gulf exists between our axioms.

 

aWL

 

As a final thought concerning the topic itself, my personal preference is that, defining Law as legislation or statutory law, Battleguards may be of any non-Lawful alignment (like Berserkers).

Link to post

Hmm... I just noticed that you placed this thread in the Divine Remix forum after splitting it from its parent topic. I was under the impression that we were discussing the Battleguard and Branwen in general. My arguments above certainly don't apply to DR in any way. I think General Mod Discussion would be a better home for this thread.

 

aWL

Link to post
I think General Mod Discussion would be a better home for this thread.
It hardly matters, when, as you say, "I don't think there's much point to continuing to discuss this matter when such a gulf exists between our axioms." It's at least as fitting here as in BG1 NPC, and there is an existing component for what you're talking about, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

 

But honestly, why even bother producing something under the guise of a name that comes from FR PnP yet does not make any attempt to conform to that same FR PnP concept, when you could come up with your own name for it instead? Why bother trying to implement your own conception of an existing NPC, when you could simply come up with your own? Rhetorical questions I suppose, in light of your views, since you could argue them however you want. But I do know one thing: coming up with new content is a hell of a lot easier than trying to conform to pre-existing notions or insert additions into existing material (and I, at least, would have more respect for original vs. pseudo-FR content).

Link to post
Guest Guest

I view PnP as inspiring rather than binding, and I don't consider it disrespectful to modify and implement a PnP concept (as opposed to adhering to its PnP incarnation).

 

Blame it on my love of the classic White Wolf products (NOT the new stuff, I'm talking about First and Second Edition World of Darkness), but I've never been one for strict adherence to a rigid set of rules. Strict enough for structure, loose enough for fun. That's my ideal. :cool:

 

aWL

Link to post

I'm not a rules nazi, at least not when it comes to rules that make no sense. But why reinvent the wheel? A Battleguard kit that can be chaotic or true neutral on one hand, and a Battleguard kit that can be chaotic or any neutral on the other... hmm. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. When you're talking about shades of difference between one kit and another, it just makes it confusing for the player, regardless of doing whatever you want as a modder (and yes, of course you have that right, I never said you didn't). Yeah, I guess you could add more components to your kit just to make it different, but it seems a bit forced. I know you'd rather have sovereign control over your content, but if you must have your own version, I'd rather see something like:

Install Component [battleguard of Tempus kit]?

1) PnP version (sort of :p) (Andyr, NiGHTMARE)

2) Rules-to-the-breeze version (:p) (Wounded_Lion)

Despite anything else, there'll be awkwardness when people install two versions of the same kit with the same name, unless you implement checks for that in both mods. And you know people will do it, either intentionally or not. I'm all for flexibility in modding, but I'm also for avoiding redundancy and making it easier on the players who install the mods.
Link to post
Guest Guest

All kits in DR use the 3rd Edition alignment restrictions for priests. That is, they must be within one step of their deity's alignment.

 

IIRC we made this decision because the 2E rules were a little to restrictive; plus, BG2 already has several aspects of 3E anyway (the barbarian, monk, and sorcerer classess being the most obvious examples).

Link to post
Guest Guest

Yeah, one of the most irritating aspects of the specialty priests is their very restrictive alignments in 2E (most only allow one alignment, usually the one exactly matching the deity).

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...