I never liked Alignment because it always seemed to simplify morality too much. I enjoy playing characters who are capable of both good and evil.
Uh...Alignment has never prevented you from doing this. There are numerals assigned to an alignment for the very purpose of reflecting the fact that there are "degrees" to everything. When a Chaotic Good character commits an evil act you don't immediately turn him Chaotic Evil, you shift him in that direction in degrees.
I'm not a fan of the Alignment system but this? This isn't the problem.
My problem is that I dislike the quantification of morality in such stark, binary terms. Also, numerals? I don't recall ever seeing numerals.
And I'm not talking about "shifting" towards Chaotic Evil. I'm not talking about a Good character doing something Evil and going towards Evil, and then doing something Good and going back to Good. I'm talking about not describing characters as "good" or "evil" at all.
Plus, alignment has all these assumptions about right and wrong. I'm in a D&D game now, and I wanted to play an Assassin.
DM: "No, Assassins have to be evil, no evil in this game."
Me: "But I just watched The Professional and The Killer last night? Can't I play one of those guys? You know, Assassins with a rudimentary conscience?"
DM: "No, Assassins are all Evil."
Me: (grumble) "I guess I'll be a Rogue..."
Plus Evil is always treated as Mustache Twirling Villainy. How you'd handle William Munny with the alignment system, I'll never know.
Did those guys have magic powers?
Because having magic powers is basically the only real distinction of the Assassin class.
Well, while you are right that fluff wise it is supposed to be a member of a particular assassin group, there's nothing in the abilities it gets that really points it out.
Death Attack? As a rogue I would imagine you'd get good practice at hitting the exact right spot to kill someone, and it can paralyze instead of kill which would be good for a bounty hunter type character as well.
Poisons? Not all poisons are deadly, and some of those would be perfect for again a bounty hunter type that would prefer to incapacitate rather then kill.
Spells? Rogues are one of the two classes that get UMD as a class skill. I can easily see one who's used wands of the spells on the Assassin's spell list perhaps picking up on how to cast them.
Uncanny dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge are also Rogue abilities, and I can see a very stealthy Rogue picking up the tricks to Hide in Plain Sight.
So while the Assassin class is supposed to be an Evil character, I just ignore it for my games because its fairly easy to reflavor how a character gets the abilities for any stealthy Rogue. You don't need the class levels to be an assassin, but if you are sometimes you would like to have the class levels as well.
Yeah, seriously, there's absolutely no reason to have Prestige Classes in 4e.
Paragon Paths take the place of "elite" classes of various sorts, and specific niche classes could really be covered by just adding new classes or new powers to existing classes.
Does there need to be a Wu Jen or Samurai class, for example? No. Just create new powers for the Wizard or Fighter, respectively.
On the alignment issue, I'm actually in both camps.
On the pro-allignment side, I do like that the allignments can represent the huge massize ideas that seak to mold the very planes. I like the idea of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil all locked in a titanic struggle with various factions supporting one, several, or all allignments. I'm a fan of Planescape if that wasn't obvious already and I really liked where they took alignments.
On the anti-allignment side, I pretty much dislike it whenever there is a mechancial benefit or hinderance due to allignment. Example? Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. Why oh why are certain people locked out of a class just because of a simple letter or two? For me I can see characters in a class that the rules say they don't have an allignment for.
Lawful Barbaian? A noble savage from the wilderness. He lives his life according to his tribes beliefs, laws, and mores. It's only in the heat of battle that he loses himself; otherwise he is the wise and level-headed one.
Lawful Bard? The concert player or instructor; who play the piece *exactly* the way its supposed to be.
Chaotic Monk? I'd say a drunken master or a brawler who's learned how to fight after a lifetime of getting into scrapes could fit the bill.
So I'm fine with allignment when it's just there in the background, but I'd prefer it not impact the rules.
^^Agreed. I like the idea of planes of Law/Chaos and forces of pure Good/Evil. Having divine hosts that are the embodiment of Law and seek to force everything into a rigid structure of rules is great as story material.
Applying it to mortals however was awkward, most people don't fit into those molds consistently. Everyone varies now and then but the alignment rules seemed to make that taboo. It was also incredibly hard to classify some character concepts under the twin-axis rules.
On the alignment issue, I'm actually in both camps.
On the pro-allignment side, I do like that the allignments can represent the huge massize ideas that seak to mold the very planes. I like the idea of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil all locked in a titanic struggle with various factions supporting one, several, or all allignments. I'm a fan of Planescape if that wasn't obvious already and I really liked where they took alignments.
On the anti-allignment side, I pretty much dislike it whenever there is a mechancial benefit or hinderance due to allignment. Example? Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. Why oh why are certain people locked out of a class just because of a simple letter or two? For me I can see characters in a class that the rules say they don't have an allignment for.
Lawful Barbaian? A noble savage from the wilderness. He lives his life according to his tribes beliefs, laws, and mores. It's only in the heat of battle that he loses himself; otherwise he is the wise and level-headed one.
Lawful Bard? The concert player or instructor; who play the piece *exactly* the way its supposed to be.
Chaotic Monk? I'd say a drunken master or a brawler who's learned how to fight after a lifetime of getting into scrapes could fit the bill.
So I'm fine with allignment when it's just there in the background, but I'd prefer it not impact the rules.
I always just assumed that this was one of those places where you can see the gears inside the machine. The alignment restrictions on these classes were a lazy but effective way to keep certain dual class pairings from occuring such as barbarian/monk due to the possibility of brokeness.
Alignment wouldn't have been so bad if people would have just realized that 99% of the population is True Neutral.
Eh. Personally (and it depends on how cynical I'm feeling at the moment) but I'd go with Neutral Evil. Not like mustache twirling evil, just mildly selfish most of the time.
That is what I view as the real problem people have with alignment. People don't like to think about that.
blond bard/barbarian with a greataxe that is also stringed like a guitar
yeah
fuckin' take that
There's an RPG called Metal Öpera that... well, see for yourself.
You quest for the Power of Metal.
"Metal Öpera is a game of blunt passion given an electric voice. You play an angry Rocker fighting against the oppression of the State with violence both musical and physical. A Rocker is typified by the leather-clad bad-ass weilding a smoking shotgun (with a broadsword bayonet), sparking guitar slung over his shoulder. He stands atop a pile of downed foes, a rumbling storm approaching from behind lit within by fierce lightning and without from the hellish fires below. "
That looks incredible.
I really want to play that now. I've been itching to do something metal-related in an RPG for a few weeks, and well that is awesome.
I've tried it a couple of times. If you can get some guys together that are into metal and have a sense of humor, Metal Öpera can be an awesome beer-and-pretzels RPG. 8-)
VacuumJockey on
PSN: VacuumJockey
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!"
~ Dr. Emilio Lizardo
Lawful Barbaian? A noble savage from the wilderness. He lives his life according to his tribes beliefs, laws, and mores. It's only in the heat of battle that he loses himself; otherwise he is the wise and level-headed one.
Chaotic Monk? I'd say a drunken master or a brawler who's learned how to fight after a lifetime of getting into scrapes could fit the bill.
I was always under the impression that the Lawful and Chaotic requirements to Monks and Barbarians was a mechanics thing to make those two classes mutually exclusive. On the axiomic axis, either of them could conceivably both be neutral really. I just thought that since they both represented powerful melee fighters with good defensive abilities they wanted to make sure you couldn't double dip with multi-classing. Huge hit die, damage reduction, monk armor class, evasion abilities, rage, etc.
Obviously the combination isn't so overpowered now that there are so many powerful things in Tome of Battle and various prestige classes. But compared what came out in the core 3E books, it's leagues better a combination than any other multi class I can think of. Anyone know if this has any truth to this or if I'm just mistaken?
Hmm tactical or inspiring warlord? The tactical warlord grants bonuses to attack and damage, while the inspiring warlord boosts defense and grants hitpoints. I guess it really just depends if there is another leader in the group, like a cleric, and what their specialty is.
Likely my first 4e character. Of course I'm the only one who will take the time to learn the new rules so will start off running 4e so who the hell knows when that'll be.
This is exactly why I will be so glad to see prestige classes go away and die.
How will this work exactly, though? Do we know yet?
For example, do you have to choose a paragon path at 10/11 that you're stuck with through 20? What if, to use an above example, your Rogue who chose a Swashbucklin' path at 10/11 made some contacts with the Assasin's Guild around level 15? "Sorry guys, I'm busy" :P Or can you sortof hop around? All I know is that it covers what you're doing in your middle ten levels.
edit~ Also, where is this warlord goodness? For some reason I'm only seeing old stuff.
This is exactly why I will be so glad to see prestige classes go away and die.
How will this work exactly, though? Do we know yet?
For example, do you have to choose a paragon path at 10/11 that you're stuck with through 20? What if, to use an above example, your Rogue who chose a Swashbucklin' path at 10/11 made some contacts with the Assasin's Guild around level 15? "Sorry guys, I'm busy" :P Or can you sortof hop around? All I know is that it covers what you're doing in your middle ten levels.
edit~ Also, where is this warlord goodness? For some reason I'm only seeing old stuff.
Thanks for that, that had totally gone under my radar. I love the idea of a class based on leadership traits and abilities, rather than just dabbling in them.
This is exactly why I will be so glad to see prestige classes go away and die.
How will this work exactly, though? Do we know yet?
For example, do you have to choose a paragon path at 10/11 that you're stuck with through 20? What if, to use an above example, your Rogue who chose a Swashbucklin' path at 10/11 made some contacts with the Assasin's Guild around level 15? "Sorry guys, I'm busy" :P Or can you sortof hop around? All I know is that it covers what you're doing in your middle ten levels.
edit~ Also, where is this warlord goodness? For some reason I'm only seeing old stuff.
You'd be stuck with Swashbuckler, but you're kind of looking at it the wrong way. Swashbuckler is merely a refinement of the skills you already had and were focusing on, some additional powers, not a new class per se. What's more, say you get contacts with the Assassin's Guild. Okay, what precisely is stopping you from being an assassin Swashbuckler? You're still a rogue, you can still sneak, etc.
I'm actually looking at it from a GM's standpoint, and when and what options need to be laid out for the PC's. Especially considering that the PC's will likely be hitting the Ppath levels at the same time, I would prefer some flexibility on this front. "Uh, you're level 9 and a half so the mages guild, assasin's guild, and a secluded monastary all start leaving notes under your doors. They're recruiting. Also you find a hidden cult of guys who worship demons. Who are also recruiting." This is something to be avoided I would prefer to stretch this out over a good long period, I suppose I'll just start early so they have lots of options by the time they need them. I'd probably let people bank xp until they found a paragon they liked, too.
I'm actually looking at it from a GM's standpoint, and when and what options need to be laid out for the PC's. Especially considering that the PC's will likely be hitting the Ppath levels at the same time, I would prefer some flexibility on this front. "Uh, you're level 9 and a half so the mages guild, assasin's guild, and a secluded monastary all start leaving notes under your doors. They're recruiting. Also you find a hidden cult of guys who worship demons. Who are also recruiting." This is something to be avoided I would prefer to stretch this out over a good long period, I suppose I'll just start early so they have lots of options by the time they need them. I'd probably let people bank xp until they found a paragon they liked, too.
This right here, as I understand it, is doin' it wrongz by 4E logic. A Paragon Path isn't supposed to be about a profession/guild membership but rather what already existent skills you've chosen to specialize in and further develop on your own. A Cavalier is just a fighter who does the mounted combat thing and decides to BAM kick it up a notch, etc.
This is how I've taken it from their descriptors at least, which I hope is the case because that would negate exactly the problem you're talking about.
Yeah, Im with Fiaryn here. I think the problem here is that prestieges are not paragon paths. They are not the same thing. A prestiege is like a job. You choose to take it and it gives you benefits as long as you stay with the job. The Paragon Path is just your raw skills that you have honed through long levels of adventuring. Think of it more like the Rogue who uses wands so much he can actually start casting some spells rather than the Rogue who joins a guild and they give him magic.
Yeah, Im with Fiaryn here. I think the problem here is that prestieges are not paragon paths. They are not the same thing. A prestiege is like a job. You choose to take it and it gives you benefits as long as you stay with the job. The Paragon Path is just your raw skills that you have honed through long levels of adventuring. Think of it more like the Rogue who uses wands so much he can actually start casting some spells rather than the Rogue who joins a guild and they give him magic.
Atleast thats how I see it.
One can only wonder what this means for all the fluff in future 4e supplements. Complete Paragonal Warrior, now with more life decisions!
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Aren't they already working on supplements? I've heard something about Martial Powers Handbook or something like that. Has powers, feats, paragon paths and epic destinies for the inner badass in everyone.
I'm really hoping they're not just going to publish spellbooks. I do like the idea of where they're going with this though. Can't wait to see the swordsage if/when he comes out. I'm sort of hoping that the monk absorbed him, but the monk can use martial art weapons instead of just his fists. Maybe there is the acetic monk and the militant monk. Wise gets wisdom bonus to attacks, militant gets, uh, whatever.
So the Paragon system, if I'm right, is a little like the character-building phases in something like Fate? The character goes through steps in their profession/life that expands on their existing specialities.
So the Paragon system, if I'm right, is a little like the character-building phases in something like Fate? The character goes through steps in their profession/life that expands on their existing specialities.
That's pretty damn neat.
I dunno about fate, but this is the way I see the paragon paths and epic destinies. I could be wrong though.
A Cavalier is just a fighter who does the mounted combat thing and decides to BAM kick it up a notch, etc.
That's cool and alleviates some of my concern, but at the same time I would like to tie in some options to the world around the players rather than it be entirely internalized, and I doubt I'm alone. And even that cavalier needs a horse
So the Paragon system, if I'm right, is a little like the character-building phases in something like Fate? The character goes through steps in their profession/life that expands on their existing specialities.
That's pretty damn neat.
I don't know. I'm not that impressed with it myself. Part of the draw to a Prestige Class to me at least was the lore and such behind it, particularly those PrC that had organizations attached to them. It kind of gave the prestige classes a little more than a gateway into allowing a player to do "cool things that they couldn't do otherwise". Maybe there will still be some of that feeling, I can't say for sure because I haven't seen the finished product and such, so this is just my little opinion and speculation and whatnot.
The use of a "paragon" model seems to insulate the numerics of character development from the game world itself. Maybe it's a good thing in some respects: at least now you don't have to try and figure out how the hell some obscure PrC can fit into your game world, or where/when/how/why a member of the Sect of the Triple Pronged Sword came in contact with a party member to instruct them in their ways or whatever.
But it just seems like a move that makes D&D less... D&D.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
That's along similar lines to what I was saying... but it's not like there is anything stopping a GM from providing player benefits for being part of organizations in the world even if that's not what defines them as it did in 3.x... maybe they came to the same conclusion while developing 4e?
If you want to attach the Paragon paths with specific organizations, it would be an excellent time to insert out-of-game knowledge into the game. If the player wants his character to become a Horizon Walker(Using the name of a 3e PrC cause I haven't read much on actual paragon paths) for example, whom you want to all be a part of the same group of inter-plane travelers. Instead of the character getting invitations from various guilds they instead have to hunt down an existing member of that group, or someone who can get them into contact with them.
Though I think that an organization asking a player to join should always be a pretty rare thing, and that it should usually be the other way around anyways(The player has to ask the organization if they can join).
I am really wondering if there will be any consideration for hybid paths, like arcane hierophant Druid/Wiz combo of goodness. I know that with healing being completely different and with no word on how wild shape will work, this might not be an issue, but I liked the utility.
ElderCat on
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I'm a big fan of just asking the player for some ideas on where the character wants to end up and then giving the character opportunities (or the potential to seek opportunities) to get to the point where they would be able to make those choices.
I am NOT a big fan of "all the guilds send all the players a letter", unless it works really well in the plot. Like early on in the Wheel of Time series:
When Rand gets invitations from ALL of the noble houses of whatever kingdom he's in as a mysterious young lord...and having to decide who to reject and who to accept, whether to burn them or send a polite response back etc, and potentially make ALOT of enemies whatever he decides
But ya. Pretty much I think most of these discussion should be OOC, and then the results should filter through to the game world. Really, this would be like roleplaying character creation. "Okay, now what class do you want to be at level 1? The fighter's guild sends you a letter, but so do the mages...".
I'm actually looking at it from a GM's standpoint, and when and what options need to be laid out for the PC's. Especially considering that the PC's will likely be hitting the Ppath levels at the same time, I would prefer some flexibility on this front. "Uh, you're level 9 and a half so the mages guild, assasin's guild, and a secluded monastary all start leaving notes under your doors. They're recruiting. Also you find a hidden cult of guys who worship demons. Who are also recruiting." This is something to be avoided I would prefer to stretch this out over a good long period, I suppose I'll just start early so they have lots of options by the time they need them. I'd probably let people bank xp until they found a paragon they liked, too.
You're looking at this wrong. Remember in 4e simulationism BAD!
Ideally the transition between 9 and 10 will be the end of a Heroic adventure that shades into a Paragonical adventure. This is the closing of a chapter in the PC's story. At this point people notice that these local guys who were pretty cool are so much more. They stopped [Insert Evil Threat Here], proving they are so much more than just Heroes.
Naturally as the PCs realize this transition they need to step up their own game which is really what Paragon Paths are.
Posts
Especially since, in Planescape, there was a heck of a lot of gray area going around despite it.
3E-style Alignment, however, is just obnoxious.
:^::^:
Did those guys have magic powers?
Because having magic powers is basically the only real distinction of the Assassin class.
It wasn't just an Assassin, it was a Guild Assassin who had special magic powers you could only gain by being a member of the guild.
A guy who kills specific individuals for money is an assassin, but that doesn't make him an Assassin.
The people who couldn't understand that difference hurt my head.
I don't need to be a Fighter to be a soldier, or a Bard to be a musician, I certainly don't need to be an Assassin to be an assassin.
Death Attack? As a rogue I would imagine you'd get good practice at hitting the exact right spot to kill someone, and it can paralyze instead of kill which would be good for a bounty hunter type character as well.
Poisons? Not all poisons are deadly, and some of those would be perfect for again a bounty hunter type that would prefer to incapacitate rather then kill.
Spells? Rogues are one of the two classes that get UMD as a class skill. I can easily see one who's used wands of the spells on the Assassin's spell list perhaps picking up on how to cast them.
Uncanny dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge are also Rogue abilities, and I can see a very stealthy Rogue picking up the tricks to Hide in Plain Sight.
So while the Assassin class is supposed to be an Evil character, I just ignore it for my games because its fairly easy to reflavor how a character gets the abilities for any stealthy Rogue. You don't need the class levels to be an assassin, but if you are sometimes you would like to have the class levels as well.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Paragon Paths take the place of "elite" classes of various sorts, and specific niche classes could really be covered by just adding new classes or new powers to existing classes.
Does there need to be a Wu Jen or Samurai class, for example? No. Just create new powers for the Wizard or Fighter, respectively.
On the pro-allignment side, I do like that the allignments can represent the huge massize ideas that seak to mold the very planes. I like the idea of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil all locked in a titanic struggle with various factions supporting one, several, or all allignments. I'm a fan of Planescape if that wasn't obvious already and I really liked where they took alignments.
On the anti-allignment side, I pretty much dislike it whenever there is a mechancial benefit or hinderance due to allignment. Example? Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. Why oh why are certain people locked out of a class just because of a simple letter or two? For me I can see characters in a class that the rules say they don't have an allignment for.
Lawful Barbaian? A noble savage from the wilderness. He lives his life according to his tribes beliefs, laws, and mores. It's only in the heat of battle that he loses himself; otherwise he is the wise and level-headed one.
Lawful Bard? The concert player or instructor; who play the piece *exactly* the way its supposed to be.
Chaotic Monk? I'd say a drunken master or a brawler who's learned how to fight after a lifetime of getting into scrapes could fit the bill.
So I'm fine with allignment when it's just there in the background, but I'd prefer it not impact the rules.
Applying it to mortals however was awkward, most people don't fit into those molds consistently. Everyone varies now and then but the alignment rules seemed to make that taboo. It was also incredibly hard to classify some character concepts under the twin-axis rules.
Nah, a lot of my favorite fantasy fiction has muddled lines of right and wrong.
I always just assumed that this was one of those places where you can see the gears inside the machine. The alignment restrictions on these classes were a lazy but effective way to keep certain dual class pairings from occuring such as barbarian/monk due to the possibility of brokeness.
That is what I view as the real problem people have with alignment. People don't like to think about that.
Please don't be about alignment.
I think the 4th Edition Warlord stuff that was just posted is much more interesting.
Your Pal,
Horseshoe
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!"
~ Dr. Emilio Lizardo
I was always under the impression that the Lawful and Chaotic requirements to Monks and Barbarians was a mechanics thing to make those two classes mutually exclusive. On the axiomic axis, either of them could conceivably both be neutral really. I just thought that since they both represented powerful melee fighters with good defensive abilities they wanted to make sure you couldn't double dip with multi-classing. Huge hit die, damage reduction, monk armor class, evasion abilities, rage, etc.
Obviously the combination isn't so overpowered now that there are so many powerful things in Tome of Battle and various prestige classes. But compared what came out in the core 3E books, it's leagues better a combination than any other multi class I can think of. Anyone know if this has any truth to this or if I'm just mistaken?
Likely my first 4e character. Of course I'm the only one who will take the time to learn the new rules so will start off running 4e so who the hell knows when that'll be.
How will this work exactly, though? Do we know yet?
For example, do you have to choose a paragon path at 10/11 that you're stuck with through 20? What if, to use an above example, your Rogue who chose a Swashbucklin' path at 10/11 made some contacts with the Assasin's Guild around level 15? "Sorry guys, I'm busy" :P Or can you sortof hop around? All I know is that it covers what you're doing in your middle ten levels.
edit~ Also, where is this warlord goodness? For some reason I'm only seeing old stuff.
Warlord article
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
You'd be stuck with Swashbuckler, but you're kind of looking at it the wrong way. Swashbuckler is merely a refinement of the skills you already had and were focusing on, some additional powers, not a new class per se. What's more, say you get contacts with the Assassin's Guild. Okay, what precisely is stopping you from being an assassin Swashbuckler? You're still a rogue, you can still sneak, etc.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
This right here, as I understand it, is doin' it wrongz by 4E logic. A Paragon Path isn't supposed to be about a profession/guild membership but rather what already existent skills you've chosen to specialize in and further develop on your own. A Cavalier is just a fighter who does the mounted combat thing and decides to BAM kick it up a notch, etc.
This is how I've taken it from their descriptors at least, which I hope is the case because that would negate exactly the problem you're talking about.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Atleast thats how I see it.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
I'm really hoping they're not just going to publish spellbooks. I do like the idea of where they're going with this though. Can't wait to see the swordsage if/when he comes out. I'm sort of hoping that the monk absorbed him, but the monk can use martial art weapons instead of just his fists. Maybe there is the acetic monk and the militant monk. Wise gets wisdom bonus to attacks, militant gets, uh, whatever.
That's pretty damn neat.
I dunno about fate, but this is the way I see the paragon paths and epic destinies. I could be wrong though.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
That's cool and alleviates some of my concern, but at the same time I would like to tie in some options to the world around the players rather than it be entirely internalized, and I doubt I'm alone. And even that cavalier needs a horse
The use of a "paragon" model seems to insulate the numerics of character development from the game world itself. Maybe it's a good thing in some respects: at least now you don't have to try and figure out how the hell some obscure PrC can fit into your game world, or where/when/how/why a member of the Sect of the Triple Pronged Sword came in contact with a party member to instruct them in their ways or whatever.
But it just seems like a move that makes D&D less... D&D.
Though I think that an organization asking a player to join should always be a pretty rare thing, and that it should usually be the other way around anyways(The player has to ask the organization if they can join).
I am NOT a big fan of "all the guilds send all the players a letter", unless it works really well in the plot. Like early on in the Wheel of Time series:
But ya. Pretty much I think most of these discussion should be OOC, and then the results should filter through to the game world. Really, this would be like roleplaying character creation. "Okay, now what class do you want to be at level 1? The fighter's guild sends you a letter, but so do the mages...".
Ideally the transition between 9 and 10 will be the end of a Heroic adventure that shades into a Paragonical adventure. This is the closing of a chapter in the PC's story. At this point people notice that these local guys who were pretty cool are so much more. They stopped [Insert Evil Threat Here], proving they are so much more than just Heroes.
Naturally as the PCs realize this transition they need to step up their own game which is really what Paragon Paths are.
If it is ever used in a core book I will not buy it. Paragonical.
I'm not positive it's a real word. I think I'm done screwing around M-W looking for the proper word.