D&D General Deleted

[Kaiyanwang]

Note: I use "lawful stupid" with love and nostalgia!

Probably the next question should be - what MADE a Paladin Lawful Stupid, and is every LG paladin actually LS?
Because forgive me if I misunderstood you, this is what you seem to imply in the first part of the post - if the class wasn't "broadened" then it would have remained LS.
LG non-LS can exist, right? If yes, how?

 

[Chaltab]

I'm talking more about the idea/ideal than about the term - I mean, the class could have been called Knight Errant, or even (perhaps in a slightly different RPG) True King, and I think many of the same concerns would arise.

In imagination we can try and divorce the idea of a holy questing knight from the historical reality that enlivens the archetype, but that doesn't stop the archetype having the connotations that it has.

Sticking to the questing knight, how would we create a RPG where the quest is analogous to a Grail Quest without linking that to righteous violence, assumptions about which places are to be treated as subordinate to other places, understandings of whose claims to truth and right really count, etc? I don't think it's easy, especially when we consider the extent to which interpersonal violence is such a prominent component of most FRPGing.

I think the problem is that we just disagree on what the archetype is here. A Paladin to me isn't a questing knight looking for a grail, it's someone who either fights against a specific type of evil (or good) such as the destruction of nature or an invading enemy, or seeks to defend a lofty (or baelful) ideal. Someone who seeks to defend innocents from devils, or stop angels from interfering with the plans of their evil god.

People whose primary goal is to go somewhere else and take a thing for thesmelves are just treasure hunters no matter how they dress up their quest.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Probably the next question should be - what MADE a Paladin Lawful Stupid, and is every LG paladin actually LS?
Because forgive me if I misunderstood you, this is what you seem to imply in the first part of the post - if the class wasn't "broadened" then it would have remained LS.
LG non-LS can exist, right? If yes, how?

D&D -- especially 3.x -- has some very wonky definitions of Lawful and specifically Lawful Good.

Lawful is somehow the worst described component of the entire disaster of the alignment descriptions: a fetid pile of ideas that don't necessarily go together: civilization, honesty, honor, law-abiding, ordered, regular, blah, blah blah.

Then the examples of Lawful entities is worse: literal robot men who fight the concepts of change and freedom with extreme, unrelenting brutality.

Then-then the iconic Paladin is straight up a psychopath, described as 'fighting evil without mercy' and the Paladin code paints a picture of a very unpleasant person who can't work with your standard home invaders with a mandate D&D party who can't step out of line even once or the DM is carefully instructed to punish them.

All in all, it's a miracle that ANY reasonable Paladins got played, because the instructions clearly tell you to play one of the worst kinds of people: a holier than thou hypocrite who murders when they don't get their way for fear of God giving them a spanking for not doing so.

 

[Mistwell]

I’ve certainly seen the (+) be used in similar ways and was told the last time I made a thread of a similar topic that I should have made it a (+) thread. Not that it’s had any effect on this thread. More people are telling me that I’m wrong and Paladins are fine than are giving suggestions to alter them.

You've been asked repeatedly where in the class they make that connection which would need altering. Point to the rule that's bothering you and we'd be happy to make suggestions on a house rule. You seem to be saying "the concept itself is objectionable" without being able to point to text which supports that view of the concept. If it's just the name, OK say that and we can offer plenty of alternate names. If it's something in the PHB description, point to that text.

[Edit - see next post]

 

[Mistwell]

This thread was a mistake and I’m abandoning it for the foreseeable future. I don’t think it has the capacity for the type of discussion I was aiming for. I would prefer if it were closed. Some day I might return to this topic with more research, better citations, and in a different, more polished form. But for now I’m taking a break from this site.

Ah, had not seen this before my reply. OK, sorry you're leaving. Hope you return.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But the problematic archetype is connected with a certain organized religion. In a specific historical moment.

Yes. The OP's initial concern was, very specifically, that that legacy remains too strong in the existing thing.

If what you say is correct (not solely organized religions), the Paladin stops to be a problem.

Not at all. The claim--which I don't agree with, but take far more seriously than you do--is that merely dropping the "it's specifically Christians fighting specifically Muslims and declaring them Pure Evil to be Destroyed Without Mercy" isn't enough. I would draw analogies to other archetypes that one could compare, but...well, I mean, by definition they're going to be deeply inflammatory because that's the whole point, that this archetype has roots that are necessarily Extremely Bad and we should think about what that means.

My conclusion is that for other reasons than you claim (because I dispute those reasons, but not other reasons), the Paladin is fine. It has genuinely grown both beyond and apart from its origins to the point that it's a distinct thing now.

What is next step, ban clerics? This is utterly ridiculous.

If you'd read even one of my earlier posts, you would know how I feel about this, and would never have said such a thing. If you're going to claim to be arguing seriously, it behooves you to actually engage with the things others have said. I have repeatedly said that I think the Paladin has grown beyond its roots.

 

[James Gasik]

D&D -- especially 3.x -- has some very wonky definitions of Lawful and specifically Lawful Good.

Lawful is somehow the worst described component of the entire disaster of the alignment descriptions: a fetid pile of ideas that don't necessarily go together: civilization, honesty, honor, law-abiding, ordered, regular, blah, blah blah.

Then the examples of Lawful entities is worse: literal robot men who fight the concepts of change and freedom with extreme, unrelenting brutality.

Then-then the iconic Paladin is straight up a psychopath, described as 'fighting evil without mercy' and the Paladin code paints a picture of a very unpleasant person who can't work with your standard home invaders with a mandate D&D party who can't step out of line even once or the DM is carefully instructed to punish them.

All in all, it's a miracle that ANY reasonable Paladins got played, because the instructions clearly tell you to play one of the worst kinds of people: a holier than thou hypocrite who murders when they don't get their way for fear of God giving them a spanking for not doing so.

Even more so when you go back and find some of the "Paladin falls" threads, where the worst examples of code of conduct enforcement lurk, all because it was thought that giving a player an RP straightjacket that basically states that if you don't conform to the DM's moral standard you are penalized was a valid balancing mechanic- in a system where, at various times, if you can be penalized (with level loss no less) for not conforming to an already inscrutable morality system.

Basically if your DM is the kind of person who is always looking to see if you lose your powers, you shouldn't play a Paladin. Because it's pretty much inevitable that yes, you will lose your powers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D -- especially 3.x -- has some very wonky definitions of Lawful and specifically Lawful Good.

Lawful is somehow the worst described component of the entire disaster of the alignment descriptions: a fetid pile of ideas that don't necessarily go together: civilization, honesty, honor, law-abiding, ordered, regular, blah, blah blah.

Then the examples of Lawful entities is worse: literal robot men who fight the concepts of change and freedom with extreme, unrelenting brutality.

Then-then the iconic Paladin is straight up a psychopath, described as 'fighting evil without mercy' and the Paladin code paints a picture of a very unpleasant person who can't work with your standard home invaders with a mandate D&D party who can't step out of line even once or the DM is carefully instructed to punish them.

All in all, it's a miracle that ANY reasonable Paladins got played, because the instructions clearly tell you to play one of the worst kinds of people: a holier than thou hypocrite who murders when they don't get their way for fear of God giving them a spanking for not doing so.

Yep. The Paladin had always been far too heavy on the "destroy anything that deviates" and putting...basically zero emphasis on being a good person. 3.x just made this phenomenon dramatically worse because of the presentation and the specific implementation of failing to uphold one's alignment.

Well, that and the rules almost cried out for DMs to be bungholes about it too. "Be lawful or be good, either way you're f---ed" is a stereotypical Bad DMing Horror Story for a reason.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D paladin is rooted in the Crusades, stories based off the Crusades (Arthurian Knights) and other medieval stories about chivalric knights fighting Muslims. The "lawful good holy warriors" of D&D are based off of the knights of the middle ages that killed thousands of innocent people.

Paladins are a Christian power fantasy rooted in one of the most horrific series of wars of the Middle Ages. Since I've learned more about the Crusades and made this connection, Paladins just feel different. Ickier, for the lack of a better word. They don't feel the same as back when I was a teenager playing make believe with fantasy monsters. Knowing about the atrocities that inspired them and their representation throughout D&D history as holy warriors of good that must purge the evil just feels gross now. I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but this thread is largely about how learning about the medieval roots of paladins has sort of ruined them for me. I'm not saying that they should be removed from the game. I think that Paladins can be fixed for me if they change enough, it may require a new name and broadening/changing their identity. If they didn't borrow as much of their identity from medieval knights, it wouldn't be as much as a problem. The Oath of Heroism for example, which is more inspired by demigod heroes of Greek mythology don't have as much of the gross Crusader theme to them.

So, any suggestions? How can you have a holy warrior knight-in-shining-armor class without this connection to the Crusades and similar real world atrocities? Is the problem mainly with the paladin, or Gygax's version of always-evil races? How might Paladins be changed to make them feel less gross.

There is a darkside to the Paladin class tropes, namely religious violence.

With regard to medieval history generally, context is important. The crusades were a Christian holy war in response to an Islamic holy war that was aggressively invading Europe both thru Spain and thru East Europe. Meanwhile, pretty much everyone was under the influence of the Roman Empire that was extraordinarily brutal.

Historically, the term "paladin" refers to the founding of the Holy Roman Empire. But in English it comes to mean any kind of champion and advocate for any kind of noble cause.

So within the D&D tradition, one can focus on letting the player define which cause to champion. 5e does this by the class flavor focusing on an Oath. The Oaths are an ideal without necessarily being religious. It is easy to a play a Paladin without any hint of "purging" or hatecrimes.

Also, the Paladin class is incredibly versatile. I use it for many magical warriors, rather than "holy" warriors. The class is excellent for Tolkien Gandalf (a mount-summoning two-weapon warrior who lacks a spellbook and relies on Charisma for modest spells, heals, and turns fiends and undead). Allowing Lightning-Thunder Smite to replace Radiant, the Paladin also makes an excellent nature being Thórr. Using Force or Psychic can make an excellent Jedi.

Generally, to focus on a magical warrior − the gish − is a great way to evade the alignment-defined "holy" warrior darkside.

 

[James Gasik]

Yep. The Paladin had always been far too heavy on the "destroy anything that deviates" and putting...basically zero emphasis on being a good person. 3.x just made this phenomenon dramatically worse because of the presentation and the specific implementation of failing to uphold one's alignment.

Well, that and the rules almost cried out for DMs to be bungholes about it too. "Be lawful or be good, either way you're f---ed" is a stereotypical Bad DMing Horror Story for a reason.

No doubt, there were more than a few DM's who seemed to take quite a bit of joy in putting the Paladin in Catch-22 situations. 3e was also the edition that really soured me on good alignment by introducing mechanics that actively penalized you for being good, like unholy blight. I prefer to play Good alignments, but getting tagged with some nasty effect that hinders you more for daring to write "good" on your sheet, while neutral characters can be massive jerks or do pretty much anything they want with no real downside, was enough for me to be pretty much done with alignment.