Gnome Shadowknights and Erudite Warriors?

[LordRayken]

I remember this used to be a funny topic that never really made sense.

Was it ever fully established why Gnomes could be Warriors and Necromancers, but not Shadowknights? Likewise, what about Erudite's being Shadowknights and Necromancers but not Warriors?

I suppose the culture of Erudites wouldn't be one of Warriors, but Gnomes?

I also always wanted that Ogre Rogue. Those backstabs.

[Jimjam]

I'd like to open up half elf shadow knights, rogues and bards of innoruuk! As it is an innoruuk worshipping half elf can only study the ways of the warrior (and much of neriak detests the pitiful mudbloods)!

[Evia]

I've had this conversation with some eq friends about what class/race combo isn't allowed in eq, but should be.

For me, I've never understood why Iksars can't be rogues. It seems fitting to me.

[Nixtar]

For me, I've never understood why Iksars can't be rogues. It seems fitting to me.

Everything about the Iksar is either/both(Shadow knight)about domination(Shaman/Necro) and facing your opponent head on(Warrior and monk). They would never stoop to the cowardly or spiteful ways of a rogue, as their entire existence is to instill fear and terror(Cazic Thule) in their enemies, not hide away in the shadows.

Their entire culture is built around it. Note that most, if not all, exiles and pariahs are bandits or thieves further reinforce the idea these kinds of individuals are looked down upon to the point where they're shunned and cast out by the Iksar empire. In other words, the strong survive and the weak die or are cast out.

For similar reasons I do not think you'd see an ogre rogue. Wouldn't sit well with Rallos, I think.

[LordRayken]

I've never known much about EQ lore. It's interesting how deep it actually goes in the original few expansions. I wonder what it says about Gnomes and Shadowknights and or Erudites as Shadowknights/Paladins but not Warriors.

Ogre Rogue or Troll Rogue seems like it could work, obviously it's hard to imagine them sneaking though.

[Bummey]

I've had this conversation with some eq friends about what class/race combo isn't allowed in eq, but should be.


Halfling ranger.

[LordRayken]

Halfling ranger.

I'd like to play a Halfing Ranger too.

I always thought a Dark Elf Druid would be pretty cool.

[Videri]

what about Erudite's being Shadowknights and Necromancers but not Warriors?

I suppose the culture of Erudites wouldn't be one of Warriors

Yeah. I think it is mentioned somewhere in the lore that Erudites scoff at physical labor and muscle power, preferring to rely on mind and magic.

I also always wanted that Ogre Rogue. Those backstabs.

Ah, but checks and balances. :) No Silver Skeeter in RPGs... That's from an episode of Doug where Skeeter pretends to be a superhero along with Doug's rather pathetic "Quailman," but Skeeter's "Silver Skeeter" has every super-power in the book...flight, strength, laser beam vision, and on and on...and his character's overwhelming powers stifled the story. Because stories are about overcoming things, not steamrolling content.

For me, I've never understood why Iksars can't be rogues. It seems fitting to me.

I believe that would be because Iksar are Lawful Evil. :)

[LordRayken]

Hey, even if someone is Lawful it doesn't mean they can't do Rogue things. Rogues can have codes.

[Videri]

In a greater RPG sense, perhaps, but it's my perception that the EQ designers were pretty rigid in their conception of each race and class. That's part of why EQ is great - class and race choice actually matter - but the drawback is its limited customizability. EVERY rogue is chaotic/lawless, EVERY Dark Elf is evil, EVERY Erudite is haughty, etc.

[LordRayken]

I wish there was like a classic EQ lore repository or something.

[daskullicious]

didnt live allowed gnome to be SKs at some point? it ring a bell

[Videri]

And about Gnome SKs: I think EQ Gnomes are generally supposed to be insatiably curious, but not malicious or sadistic. Therefore, they investigate necromancy and disease and undeath (scientists of the dead) but they don't become shadowknights (embodiment of evil and malice).

They did eventually allow Gnome SKs (and Paladins). I don't know if they justified this via lore updates/retcons, but if I understand EQ history right, it was probably in response to popular demand.

[LordRayken]

And about Gnome SKs: I think EQ Gnomes are generally supposed to be insatiably curious, but not malicious or sadistic. Therefore, they investigate necromancy and disease and undeath (scientists of the dead) but they don't become shadowknights (embodiment of evil and malice).

EDIT: I'm dumb

[Jimjam]

Everything about the Iksar is either/both(Shadow knight)about domination(Shaman/Necro) and facing your opponent head on(Warrior and monk). They would never stoop to the cowardly or spiteful ways of a rogue, as their entire existence is to instill fear and terror(Cazic Thule) in their enemies, not hide away in the shadows.

Their entire culture is built around it. Note that most, if not all, exiles and pariahs are bandits or thieves further reinforce the idea these kinds of individuals are looked down upon to the point where they're shunned and cast out by the Iksar empire. In other words, the strong survive and the weak die or are cast out.

For similar reasons I do not think you'd see an ogre rogue. Wouldn't sit well with Rallos, I think.

There are a lot of npc iksar rogues, but I guess cabalisian iksar are above that?

[Sorn]

Right, but there are no Gnome Clerics. Scientists of... Light? Life?

Bro do you even classic

Deep Muses (http://wiki.project1999.com/Deep_Muses)

[LordRayken]

Bro do you even classic

Deep Muses (http://wiki.project1999.com/Deep_Muses)

Barely.

I was only 44 during live on a single Wood Elf Druid from the period of 99 to like 2003.

Edit: edited my previous post

[drelk001]

Troll necromancer would be cool. But why can a barb be a rogue. And even a dark elf ranger. Drizzt was a ranger lol

[Jimjam]

I think dark elf ranger might have been added to live eventually.

I think it was a shame when they added Serpent's Spine they didn't add race/class combinations (as some combos only make sense being prohibited due to the culture of the PC starter city, like iksar rogue which exist as NPC not PC in Kunark).

[LordRayken]

Troll Necromancer probably doesn't work because of the intelligence, I guess.

[drelk001]

yeah... but lore wise, plus later on, didnt they stay with the dark elves for a while?

[Vibe]

Luclin enabled gnomes to be SKS, halflings to be rangers , you guys mustve forgot or didnt play that far on live....and in EQ2, any race can be any class. Gnomes monks etc

[myriverse]

I'm completely opposed to racial class restrictions.

[Nixtar]

There are a lot of npc iksar rogues, but I guess cabalisian iksar are above that?

Exactly, those who turn to rogue-like ways are cast out(the word pariah means someone who is shunned or cast out from society, for example). Then there are Iksar exiles, bandits, and marauders. The shaman epic has a mob called Iksar Manslayer which is denoted as dishonourable and having a dark soul.

So while a rogue may be able to cause terror from the shadows, the once dominant and proud Iksars of Cab simply believe it is beneath them. It is true monks have some tricks up their sleeve but ultimately it is about martial prowess and not about stabbing people in the back, and with the Necro/SK you see them coming, they destroy you over time and use fear and terror in a way you know and see who's doing it to you. A Cazic Shaman is probably more like a Defiler from EQ2 in that it focus on spiritual domination over communication.

[Jaleth]

And I've never understood no human shaman. I mean, I don't know about the rest of you guys/girls, but all the shaman I've heard about were humans.

/ponder

[Cecily]

It's just arbitrary game design decisions.

[LordRayken]

It's just arbitrary game design decisions.

I kind of disagree, there's a lot of lore behind the characters.

[rollin5k]

Classes should've been a little more restrictive IMO. Should halflings really be casting spells??
Iksars shouldn't be playable at all.
Barbarians shouldn't be rogues.
Stuff like that.
I'm sure everyone agrees

[jolanar]

It's just arbitrary game design decisions.

Yah, having game lore sure is arbitrary.

[Cen]

didnt live allowed gnome to be SKs at some point? it ring a bell

Yep. Because Gnomes can be Warriors, Clerics, and Necromancers, both ends of the hybrid scale, they opened up Gnome SK and Paladin.

Because Halflings were allowed Cleric, Warrior, and Druid, both ends of that hybrid scale, they were allowed to be Paladins and Rangers.

Erudites can't be warriors because they can't reach the strength side of the scale. That makes sense. Paladin and SK are a dip toward that, but Erudites aren't fighters.

[Sage Truthbearer]

My one wish would be a Human Shaman.

[entruil]

Because Halflings were allowed Cleric, Warrior, and Druid, both ends of that hybrid scale, they were allowed to be Paladins and Rangers.

i get it and agree even if i dont necessarily agree with the final decisions... to me the key factor is time ... maybe live progression got that right in the sense of time and history/lore of how they became clerics/druids... (not really too familiar with it but the iksar shaman lore is what brings me to draw the comparison)...

am i wrong? didn't the iksar shaman develop out of years of... (this is what i cant remember and having a hard time finding relevant texts... i suspect its from my old kunark guide or something in-game, but...)

[Videri]

It's just arbitrary game design decisions.

Sure...and in the creation of a game, someone has to decide these things at some point. But with our beloved Everquest, one sometimes wonders if some of these decisions could have been made better. :) No?

Also, what would you guys say to Barbarian ranger?? I can see it.

[elwing]

Without these arbitrary design decisions the game would be bad, all these and the assorted lore is what makes EQ great

[LordRayken]

Sure...and in the creation of a game, someone has to decide these things at some point. But with our beloved Everquest, one sometimes wonders if some of these decisions could have been made better. :) No?

Also, what would you guys say to Barbarian ranger?? I can see it.

I could see Barbarian Druid or Ranger, really.

[Ivory]

Why can't the server staff realize that the lack of gnome SKs/Paladins are tearing this server apart?!!?!? This thread is proof!! And I didn't even start it !!

[fadetree]

Nomes I don't care about. Halfling Rangers? Abomination. Seriously, I will kill on sight.

[Bummey]

Right, but there are no Gnome Clerics. Scientists of... Light? Life?


Sinzan Zizi is the most classic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR5y_VpHp8o

Barbarians shouldn't be rogues.


fully agree

[maskedmelon]

Artificial prohibitions on player choice are stupid. All hard race-class restrictions should be removed and replaced with meaningful in-game obstacles like the absence of trainers and lower starting factions for culturally unacceptable classes in starting cities. Could also be implemented as a class change system with the same elements. Lots of ways to do it and have it make sense rather than: THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF ERUDITE BARDS, GNOME MONKS AND OGRE DRUIDS.

[LordRayken]

Artificial prohibitions on player choice are stupid. All hard race-class restrictions should be removed and replaced with meaningful in-game obstacles like the absence of trainers and lower starting factions for culturally unacceptable classes in starting cities. Could also be implemented as a class change system with the same elements. Lots of ways to do it and have it make sense rather than: THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF ERUDITE BARDS, GNOME MONKS AND OGRE DRUIDS.

I think class restrictions should be lifted for very select choices.

Of course, I also think it would be neat if Vah Shir were added in, but spawned in human cities or something, but that'll never happen.

[Borak]

Artificial prohibitions on player choice are stupid. All hard race-class restrictions should be removed and replaced with meaningful in-game obstacles like the absence of trainers and lower starting factions for culturally unacceptable classes in starting cities. Could also be implemented as a class change system with the same elements. Lots of ways to do it and have it make sense rather than: THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF ERUDITE BARDS, GNOME MONKS AND OGRE DRUIDS.

I never understood why erudites were excluded from being bards. Complex music (i.e. requiring a symphony orchestra of close to 100 musicians) is a sign of an advanced society. If anything, erudites would have a wider range of string instruments, i.e. violin, bass, harp, etc. You can probably throw high elves into this equation.

While we're at it, let the happy halflings play their mandolins, ukuleles, piccolos and steel drums to their hearts' content.

[Cecily]

Because lore. *roll eyes*

[LordRayken]

Cecily you don't have to post anymore in this thread, okay?

[Cecily]

I'll post where I like. Thanks for your input.

[LordRayken]

I'll post where I like. Thanks for your input.

Okay, then stop mocking discussion in the threads. We understand your feelings on lore and "arbitrary decisions."

Your arbitrary opinion on lore is silly and just derailing.

[Cecily]

It's as valid as any other opinion regarding in depth discussion of elves and their vocations.

[LordRayken]

It's as valid as any other opinion regarding in depth discussion of elves and their vocations.

It's about as valid as saying "I like to eat toast."

Every decision in a game is arbitrary when it comes to a design choice. Literally every race and class exists in this game because of lore, and that's based on arbitrary decisions. Your discussion has been all about rolling your eyes and mocking lore.

So obviously, you have nothing to say.

[Cecily]

You sound like someone whose religion just got mocked. Or like an atheist with "because science." What specific lore are you referring to? I'm guessing... class design would come before lore. And any lore after the fact would just serve as an explanation. But, yeah it's really just an arbitrary game design. That's a not a bad thing. It does kind of derail your special snowflake discussion though, which is obviously way more interesting. Please continue.

[LordRayken]

It does kind of derail your special snowflake discussion though, which is obviously way more interesting. Please continue.

Wow, you're just an asshole.

[maskedmelon]

Okay, then stop mocking discussion in the threads. We understand your feelings on lore and "arbitrary decisions."

Your arbitrary opinion on lore is silly and just derailing.

Well, her opinion on lore is no different than your desire to have an ogre rogue^^ Lore is the reason there are no Erudite warriors or gnome shadow knights. You don't like part of it, she doesn't like any of it. Personally, I don't like any of the artificial restrictions such as race-class or even armor/weapons. It doesn't make any sense why someone would be physically incapable of putting on a particular article clothing unless it was too small, or in rare cases, restricted by magic. Sure, it could be less effective on some than others and it might actually be detrimental to some, but make it that way rather than some artificial restriction ^^

[LordRayken]

Well, her opinion on lore is no different than your desire to have an ogre rogue^^ Lore is the reason there are no Erudite warriors or gnome shadow knights. You don't like part of it, she doesn't like any of it. Personally, I don't like any of the artificial restrictions such as race-class or even armor/weapons. It doesn't make any sense why someone would be physically incapable of putting on a particular article clothing unless it was too small, or in rare cases, restricted by magic. Sure, it could be less effective on some than others and it might actually be detrimental to some, but make it that way rather than some artificial restriction ^^

Yeah, I get that. It's just everyone in the thread seemed to grasp we were talking about lore and the theme behind certain race/class combos. Cecily had to come in twice and make comments that had nothing to do with the discussion.

Most of us realize it's for balance reasons and probably also for in game mechanics, but we were still talking about lore.

[fadetree]

Good games are actually more about what you can't do than what you can. When you start allowing too much, the game thins out and dies.

[maskedmelon]

Good games are actually more about what you can't do than what you can. When you start allowing too much, the game thins out and dies.

It's about meaningful restrictions and creative Liberty, fades. There's no reason why a lithe elf warrior would be physically unable to put on the same robe as her high elf companion. It may not be a good idea, it may not be effective, it might even diminish her standing with her people, but it doesn't make any sense why it would be a physical impossibility.

I'm not talking about contemporary delusions of class balance wherein every class receives a slightly different flavor of the same ability and extensive class specific equipment so that class choice is effectively meaningless. That doesn't make any more sense than artificial limitations.

What does make sense is implementing strong deterrents and profound obstacles to substantiate lore and then allow players to make those decisions. Too many gnomes becoming monks to confirm with lore? Make it more difficult for gnomes to become monks or find suitable equipment (they are tiny after all). Plenty of ways to herd the flock without shoving them single file down a fenced aisle.

[mr_jon3s]

Luclin allows gnome shadowknights , gnome paladins, halfling paladins, and halfling rangers.

[Videri]

I think the class limitations actually help make the lore "real." If you could make Troll necromancers, people would stop thinking of Trolls as stupid/backward/simple-minded, weakening the differentiation between races. Paladins are zealous, pious crusaders - not the mentality of a shire-dwelling, pipe-weed-smoking, foot-combing halfling. If you let people make Halfling paladins, they will, and Halflings will lose their reputation as such and just become short Humans with better stats.

I'm not saying they made all perfect choices, though. I can't justify no Halfling rangers, no Erudite bards (too fun for Erudite society?), Barbarian rangers/druids, etc.

And while we're fantasizing about this fantasy, the idea about creating class/race restrictions via other means sounds intriguing. You would still see the differentiation because of practical reasons, but every so often, that Dark Elf ranger that stuck it out just like Drizzt, or a Dwarf that went bad - really bad - and became a shadowknight.

[fadetree]

It's about meaningful restrictions and creative Liberty, fades. There's no reason why a lithe elf warrior would be physically unable to put on the same robe as her high elf companion. It may not be a good idea, it may not be effective, it might even diminish her standing with her people, but it doesn't make any sense why it would be a physical impossibility.

I'm not talking about contemporary delusions of class balance wherein every class receives a slightly different flavor of the same ability and extensive class specific equipment so that class choice is effectively meaningless. That doesn't make any more sense than artificial limitations.

What does make sense is implementing strong deterrents and profound obstacles to substantiate lore and then allow players to make those decisions. Too many gnomes becoming monks to confirm with lore? Make it more difficult for gnomes to become monks or find suitable equipment (they are tiny after all). Plenty of ways to herd the flock without shoving them single file down a fenced aisle.

I know what you mean, but I don't fully agree. Even more or less random stuff can function in that critical role. It's like a movie, how much disbelief are you willing to suspend? Eventually you can reach a spot where stuff is just too dumb and it breaks 'immersion', but I don't think EQ is anywhere near that. Usually people complaining about restrictions that they don't think logically follow really means that they are irritated about that particular restriction for some reason. I'm not accusing you of that, I'm just saying I've noticed that over the years. First comes the irritation, and then the accusation of 'no reason behind it'.
'meaningful' is a tricky term. I do agree though that it can be taken too far.

[Nixtar]

You sound like someone whose religion just got mocked. Or like an atheist with "because science." What specific lore are you referring to? I'm guessing... class design would come before lore. And any lore after the fact would just serve as an explanation. But, yeah it's really just an arbitrary game design. That's a not a bad thing. It does kind of derail your special snowflake discussion though, which is obviously way more interesting. Please continue.

In all but the most rare cases(usually shitty mobile games) lore and game world is designed before mechanics. You may very well have an idea how your game should be played(like the extreme basic version before you add abilities classes etc)but to start designing classes without a creative direction is a really really backwards way of doing it(and would take A LOT more time).

The beauty of Everquest is that choices do have an impact. They did not design each race to be nothing but a random skin to choose from. Each races have a different kind of culture and the classes we can be is affected by this, as well as which cities we are welcomed in(before faction work).

In other words, saying it is an arbitrary decision is not true at all. However, unlocking race/class combos as the game went on probably was. Then it was all about making sure a very loyal and stubborn audience would stay busy playing and for whom making these weird class/race combos were the most fun. So even that wasn't really arbitrary but a decision made to make people play for longer. With it went class recognition and certain races styles.

Sadly this set the precedent for modern MMOs and we now have a market who cannot deal with anything other than zero impact choice and cannot live without instant rewards. When we end up with the ability to choose everything, choice becomes meaningless.

[Expediency]

Erudites should have been able to be monks. At launch only human can be monk which is weak sauce.

[fadetree]

It's the tradeoff for those majestic foreheads.

[jolanar]

You sound like someone whose religion just got mocked. Or like an atheist with "because science." What specific lore are you referring to? I'm guessing... class design would come before lore. And any lore after the fact would just serve as an explanation. But, yeah it's really just an arbitrary game design. That's a not a bad thing. It does kind of derail your special snowflake discussion though, which is obviously way more interesting. Please continue.

Move this thread to rants and flames and be done with it.