Paladins and alignment

[Darth Cyric]

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.

Wizard

NOUN: 1. One who practices magic; a sorcerer or magician. 2. A skilled or clever person: a wizard at math. 3. Archaic A sage.

Now, if Wizards of the Coast printed a rogue-type class and called it a wizard, would anybody be defending the class name on the basis of the second definition? Of course not; both the first definition and historical D&D use firmly establish the expectation that wizards do magic.

So, let's look at the definition for paladin:

Paladin

NOUN: 1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion. 2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: “the paladin of plain speaking” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.). 3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

Are 4e's divine defernders by definition heroic champions and adhere to a code with at least a passing resemblance to chivalry? Do they resemble the D&D paladin class as it was portrayed in the D&D tradition? Well, then, they aren't paladins, whatever Wizards of the Coast is calling them.

"One who practices magic" in D&D could be a Cleric, a Paladin, a Warlock, a Druid, a Shaman, or a Bard.

"A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion" in D&D could be, well, anything. At least the first definition for Wizard establishes a game mechanic.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

P.S quoting dictionary definitions is not going to get her to agree, its D&D not the real world

Curse those pesky people who expect words to hold meaning and that meaning to be relevant to the discussion at hand. Lets all just forget about those pesky words that are used a lot, after all words that are used a lot loose their meaning and stuff.

The idea that the only way to be chivalrous is to be Lawful and Good is silly, consider that Lancelot, Gawain, and Galahad are all considered chivalrous, and at least one of them isn't going to cut it in the LG stakes. Its about time DnD abandoned that notion.

Further to that its clear that 4E is moving the definition of Paladin to "Warrior in the name of a God/Cause" and Cleric to "Leader in the name of a God/Cause". I'm very much at a loss as to why a "Warrior in the name of X" has to be restricted to 1 alignment. Just because a word has been incorrectly tied to 1 alignment in the past, doesn't mean that cannot be repaired, and I'm pleased 4E has done so.

I've played characters dedicated to the idea of Justice, who couldn't be Paladins because they were not concerned with doing good (by the PHB definition of good), despite being chivalrous. 4E says I can play a Paladin of Justice and it really doesn't care what alignment they are - for me that is a lot less restrained.

But then I'm not hung up on alignment, and the fact its been removed from mechanical importance means it can finally be pretty much ignored (ie Unaligned) unless the character concept specifically calls for a tighter definition such as Good or Lawful Good (or even Evil or CE).

 

[hong]

All that said, I cannot believe I'm - well, no, I can EASILY believe this. But I find it hilariously dumb that this entire argument is revolving around someone going "NO CIRNO, SHUT UP, YOUR OPINION IS WRONG. WRONG, DAMMIT. MY IDEA FOR PALADINS ARE AWESOME, YOU YOU MUST, BY HOLY MANDATE, ADMIT THAT THEY ARE BETTER THEN YOURS. NOW I MUST UNITE THE INTERNET TO PROVE IT!" Take a chill pill. Relax. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean you have to dislike it too. We're allowed to have a difference of opinions.

No, that is not how you defend an opinion.

 

[Ginnel]

Curse those pesky people who expect words to hold meaning and that meaning to be relevant to the discussion at hand. Lets all just forget about those pesky words that are used a lot, after all words that are used a lot loose their meaning and stuff.

Words do hold meaning otherwise we would not be able to have this discussion, but when D&D presents its dictionary er I mean PHB and then puts Paladin and Wizard in there together with a description or what it means, thats how refering to the Oxford dictionary isn't going to help.

What we're looking at now is D&D rewriting its dictionary, I think this is great as stated in my previous post but it'd also be nice if they included what their former definition was as a side bar.

 

[FireLance]

Curse those pesky people who expect words to hold meaning and that meaning to be relevant to the discussion at hand. Lets all just forget about those pesky words that are used a lot, after all words that are used a lot loose their meaning and stuff.

Playing a little fast and loose with the meanings of words, eh? I hope I didn't lose you with my last sentence.

 

[Shabe]

Isn't this question solved by a few word changes.

Change Paladin to Crusader
Make a LG Crusader a Paladin.
Refer the player of a Paladin to the D&D xED version of Paladin Code of Conduct (If this isn't in the PHB).

Solved, not that painful was it?

 

[ObsidianCrane]

I'm just noting that at least one poster in this thread isn't happy with words being given a meaning that is counter to their position, or casts their position in a more negative light. A person who is arguing a position of opinion, without even having a the new definition of that word at had - dnd or otherwise.

Real world dictionaries are perfectly valid places to draw meaning from, especially when the meaning being drawn is collaborated by what is known of the 4E game definition of the word as well.

Of course Ginnel is right Cirno's opinion isn't going to be changed by quoting a dictionary, which was the point of the emoticon.
(I suspect nothing short of actually informing Cirno by providing the 4E rulebooks and allowing some time playing with them unmodified will change Cirno's opinion anyway.)

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Isn't this question solved by a few word changes.

Change Paladin to Crusader
Make a LG Crusader a Paladin.
Refer the player of a Paladin to the D&D xED version of Paladin Code of Conduct (If this isn't in the PHB).

Solved, not that painful was it?

I guess the sacred cow of the class name just wasn't tasty enough - so they kept it and broadened its meaning. Its not really painful anyway. Actually I quite like the change, so its only painful in a pleasurable way

 

[Ginnel]

I'm just noting that at least one poster in this thread isn't happy with words being given a meaning that is counter to their position, or casts their position in a more negative light. A person who is arguing a position of opinion, without even having a the new definition of that word at had - dnd or otherwise.

Real world dictionaries are perfectly valid places to draw meaning from, especially when the meaning being drawn is collaborated by what is known of the 4E game definition of the word as well.

Of course Ginnel is right Cirno's opinion isn't going to be changed by quoting a dictionary, which was the point of the emoticon.
(I suspect nothing short of actually informing Cirno by providing the 4E rulebooks and allowing some time playing with them unmodified will change Cirno's opinion anyway.)

Opps I should have included some more smilies, here have some pie and maybe a cookie.

 

[lutecius]

I always hated the Paladin Code. It caused player vs. GM arguments and penalized characters with no bonus in return.

It's hard to say for sure, because each class had it's own advancement table, but i think back in the days, the paladin code and alignment (LG is arguably the most restrictive) were actually meant as balancing factors (ah...gallant...guardian...chevalier...memories!)

Of course now classes are balanced purely in terms of combat efficiency. So it wouldn't make sense to penalize paladins. But fluff wise, I do like the idea of an elite order being somehow more selective than your average marauding troop. Any code of honor would do, not just LG.

A good approach would be to impose restrictions on a power by power basis.
For example divine challenge would stop as soon as the paladin tries to elude direct confrontation (DC should be clarified anyway)
Paladins could have a bonus to diplomacy because of their status and a malus to bluff because of that guilty look on their face.
Stabbing a tied up, disarmed adversary in the back while he's asleep would give the paladin a penalty on his next attack, whereas showing mercy (cancel a killing blow and let an aversary go "bye bye xps! have a nice life, just don't give the alert and come back with reinforcement") would give him a bonus because he'd feel so good about himself.

That would offer lots of tactical options as the paladin would have to decide what is more to his advantage.
And that would make plenty of "free feats" to publish in the years to come because the paladin could take them at any point in his carreer if they're balanced in terms of bonus vs malus. They would just add to flavor.

Edit:sorry, i didn't know flogging could mean that too.