Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[Alhandra]

With a couple of minor modifications to those statements ie Good/Right for things more appropriate to other alignments, I can say, pretty much every fanatic of every alignment will sacrifice himself/herself for whatever he/she believes.

Well, I can tell you from first-hand experience, that when Neutrals and Evils and Chaotics see Death staring them in the eye, and all that lies between them and survival is their sense of 'honor', 99% of the time, they turn tail and run and survive to fight another die.

Or at least that's what they convince themselves at that split-second soul-defining moment in time.

 

[Lela]

"Main Entry: pal·a·din
Pronunciation: 'pa-l&-d&n
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Italian paladino, from Medieval Latin palatinus courtier, from Late Latin, imperial official -- more at PALATINE
Date: 1592
1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause"



Hrm.. i dont see "Good" in there anywhere..... however i do see "champion of a cause".


Causes can be good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or even neutral.

joe b.

This One fits a little better. Go by the first definition. But, I admit, it doesn't use the word "Good" anywhere. And there are of course, Evil characters who practice chivalry though they aren't all that common. And evil gods would consider their Blackguard to be a heroic champion. And I've known a Wizard to cast Fly on a pig in order to get a date with a princess.

We can twist words however we want to. In D&D, the Paladin is a champion of virtue; a defender of the defenseless. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't have your own class. Or adapt the Paladin to fit other alignments in your house rules.

But I doubt they'd change it. The core classes, at least concept wise, are part of what makes D&D, well, D&D. It would be dangerous to go and change it.

Oh, and for those who don't want to use the link.

pal·a·din Pronunciation Key (pl-dn)
n.
A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
A strong supporter or defender of a cause: “the paladin of plain speaking” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin paltnus, palatine. See palatine1.]

 

[Alhandra]

If your character wishes to be a champion of some god, who does not accept LG followers then they have no choice in the core books but to start out as a cleric, or some other class. Why should only those gods that allow LG followers get a core class? All gods have some cause or vision.

Well, LG gods for the most part realize that thier Way is not the only Way to do good in this flawed world we live in.

That's why they allow followers who are one step in alignment away from them.

TPTB even allow paladins to be not in complete agreement with their chosen diety's alignment.
It is the Paladin's indidvidual approach and mind-set that requires LG-ness.

But you know 3E, why should I be having to say this?

Could you state your problem with 3E paladins more succinctly, perhaps?
I'd be glad to debate it with you.

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm getting sick and tired of literalists.

"Definition" is less than 10% of what a word means.

So stop looking at the dictionary, pick any 10 reasonably literate people, and ask them to tell you what "paladin" means. If you come away with anything other than a Galahad-ish warrior or knight who epitomizes Lawful Good, I'll be shocked.

/RANT ON/ And im getting sick and tired of people who supposedly play a fantasy role-playing game based upon medieval concepts that dont understand that the word "Paladin," as they understand and use it, was coined by Mr. Gygax when he wrote the D&D book. Im sorry dude, but you're wrong. Paladin, is defined as what the dictionary says.

And by the way, dictionaries are usually written by "reasonably literate people," who understand the language and its history much more than role-players who'd never seen the word before DnD.

As much i as truly appreciate Mr. Gygax's gift to all of us, he is far from an authority concerning language. I find it silly that your argument is based off one man's choice years ago to pick the word "Paladin" to define a "LG holy warrior with certain abilities" when he could have as easily chosen "Holy Warrior", "Templar", "Paragon" or any of the other possible choices that could describe what he was looking for.

Gygax's use of the word may have popularized your perception of the definition of the word, but the word remains as defined. Using it in other manners is what is called "Slang."

/RANT OFF/

joe b.

 

[Darkness]

Re: In the 4th Edition, or Edition 3.1 whatever, should the Paladin be scrapped?

First of all: I think that the paladin should be a prestige class. OTOH, I don't see a particular need for similar prestige classes for each of the other 8 alignments; Blackguard and Holy Liberator are good enough for now IMO. (I wouldn't mind them, either, though.)
A general "holy warrior" class - whether core or prestige - would also be okay. (Or else just use the Sohei and/or Divine Champion for the role.)

I think a more general Holy Warrior core class would be better. One designed to be flexible enough to serve a god of any religion. What do you all think?

Me, I'd prefer the paladin to be a prestige class. Other than that, I can live both with or without a holy warrior core class.

I think they should put the Blackguard, Paladin, and Holy Liberator on the same footing.

Either all of them are prestige classes, or all of them core classes.

Hmm... I think that's a good point, too.

I think it should remain. It helps emphasize that the game is focused more on the heroic side of things.

Yeah, other than the "unheroic" 1e with its assassin class.

Paladings give LG gods their champions their own Core class. ... I see no need for such a specific core class.

Right.

Originally posted by Alhandra (Righteous IC indignation snipped for brevity. )

LG is a unique alignment.
Unlike any other.

The same goes for the other 8 alignments. In fact, the chaotic alignments are probably even more unique - that's the point of chaos, after all.

The concept of self-sacrifice is fairly unknown to ANY other alignment.

You seem to be unaware of the existence of the NG and CG alignments, then. So... How about a similar NG class, then? (CG already has the Holy Liberator - a prestige class, I'd like to point out.)
(Still, I don't see why a class based on self-sacrifice should be a core class; after all, all the other classes based on sacrifice are - supposedly - prestige classes in the Book of Vile Darkness. )

 

[Kalanyr]

Honour is a lawful trait, standing around and dying for honour is pointless to anyone but a Lawful, I said for what they believe in.

For example a Chaotic might sacrifice himself/herself to overthrow the tyrant who is crushing his Kingdom with an iron fist.

 

[Alhandra]

Re: Re: In the 4th Edition, or Edition 3.1 whatever, should the Paladin be scrapped?

You seem to be unaware of the existence of the NG and CG alignments, then. So... How about a similar NG class, then?

You seem to be unaware of a Paladin's Code of Conduct.

Without a Lawful AND a Good component, the Code of Conduct is hardly a binding thing.

It is the dual nature of Paladins and the sheer difficulty of upholding the Code that makes Paladins a popular enough and interesting enough class to rate as a prestigious Core Class....

... the Few, the Proud, the Core!

Chew on that, Chaotic-Supplement-Boy! *yelling to that flighty pointy-eared Holy Liberator from DotF*

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

/RANT ON/ And im getting sick and tired of people who supposedly play a fantasy role-playing game based upon medieval concepts that dont understand that the world "Paladin," as they understand and use it, was coined by Mr. Gygax when he wrote the D&D book. Im sorry dude, but you're wrong. Paladin, is defined as what the dictionary says.

And by the way, dictionaries are usually written by "reasonably literate people," who understand the language and its history much more than role-players who'd never seen the word before DnD. ...

Read the books Gygax was stealing from, and the much better books he wasn't. Paladin has been used that way for a long time.

I work with linguists. They are not "literate" people. They are literAL people. There's a HUGE difference.

Also, LANGUAGE EVOLVES. By your strict interpretation, no one has used anything but slang in about 1000 years. Unfortunately, when all you've been doing with your dictionaries for a century or so is cut and paste, you rapidly lose relevance. Even some linguists will admit that.

 

[Chun-tzu]

I picked up Book of the Righteous last week, and it's a really good book. I like the Holy Warrior, and I'd use it in my campaign (were I running one). That said, there IS something wrong with replacing the Paladin with a more generic Holy Warrior.

The Paladin is an archetype. True, it's a very specific form of an archetype, but every culture has it's champions, and that is the Paladin's role. Examples of Paladin-like characters are all over. Holy Warrior does not have the same familiarity; it has no meaning within the collective unconscious.

Let me put this in EN World terms. How many Paladin threads have we seen over the months, years? How many heated and fascinating discussions on the challenge of being a Paladin? There's a reason for that. And the Holy Warrior can't possibly inspire that same level of interest, because it's really a watered down version of the Paladin. There's nowhere near the same kind of role-playing challenge.

Don't get me wrong. I love diversity, and I especially love customizability of characters. And there are plenty of mechanical reasons why Paladins might work better as a prestige class, or as a holy warrior. But doing so would take a lot away from the Paladin, and in this case, the mechanical considerations don't justify it (IMHO).

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: In the 4th Edition, or Edition 3.1 whatever, should the Paladin be scrapped?

....Right.The same goes for the other 8 alignments. In fact, the chaotic alignments are probably even more unique - that's the point of chaos, after all. ...

But in practice, they all end up looking the same. Hypothetical example: Lawfulness in the broad sense yields a cooperative community that allows for specialization of skills and abilities. Chaos in the broad sense yields a bunch of independent survivalists who each have to master all the skills necessary for survival, so while they may have widely divergent personalities, they're really all interchangeable, functionally.

In game, you don't get this, of course. You get "I can act purely on whim because I'm Chaotic. ::drools::" At least Lawful characters have different codes and structures so their characters are meaningfully unique.

Can you tell I'm biased a touch?