Kevmann10583:
“niteshade6, the reason that the "because it has always been like that" argument is a bad one is because one should look at ideas with a fresh mind. It is kind of like the ranger two weapon fighting thing. There is no reason for a ranger to have two weapon fighting, nothing in a wilderness fighter/rogue type or roleplaying has anything to do with two weapon fighting, yet there it is. Sure D&D is based on previous editions, but everything should make logical sense, that is just how it goes. The paladin core class may have been good for a fledgling AD&D, but now that people are playing more and more realistic campains (IE campains with just as much if not more evil then good, even in every day life) this heroic stereotypical class should go prc, along with the blackguard.”
I must quote from an earlier thread I did post on:
“We also see that the of Paladin used in D&D is just that... the D&D idea of Paladin, which has always been (since its conception) the lawful good "Crusader" (see PHB entry of "lawful good"). Thus any argument outside of that definition, stating that the Paladin "should" be anything other than what it is (in D&D) is merely subjective (subject to our own opinions, perceptions, or ideas of what we want the paladin to be), and thus all arguments pertaining thereto are equally valid... and invalid at the same time. Thus, sorry to say, each is pointless WHEN or IF trying to convince another individual (whose subjective view is not like your own) that your subjective argument or view is (absolutely) more valid or better than their own. At best, those with different opinions can merely recognize the merits of the supposed arguments that others give.
Me? I like Paladins they way they are, and truly, I see no point in trying to change what a Paladin is. As others have said, you would merely be creating a new concept, or taking a different existing one, and calling that "Paladin", when the term is already used to describe it's current concept.”
We can also note that this (above) leaves the burden of proof on anyone who would argue for a change to the current system, which anyone has failed to do. And yes, changing it to a PrC would change it.
Kevmann10583:
“Your Batman-style avenger of unjust in the night paladin actually may not have been a paladin at all. According to the code of conduct and alignment, the paladin should have worked WITH the law of the town. If the said system was corrupt, they would have started by cleaning up the law system first, then moving on. The type of paladin you describe, that use their detect evil ability to see if someone is evil the kill or arrest them, actually is not abiding by the law, and therefore is not lawful, and therefore gets no powers.”
What? Batman did NOT work “against” the law. I remember him being a good friend of the police-chief, and always working against lawbreakers. He simply did what law enforcement could not.
… and to again quote an earlier post within a thread on Paladins:
unless this D&D philosophical system can be applied to reality (which we can very easily argue that it cannot be…), we cannot truly categorize any person existent or conceived outside the system using the same definitions (defining characteristics) given therein.
Kevmann10583:
“"Posing as a normal mercenary” I am sorry, but at some time he would have had to lie to keep this a secret, especially amongst a party which he traveled and stayed with for months at a time. If anyone said, "so Hal, what’s your story?" If he said anything else other than "I was brought up as a holy warrior of blah, blah, blah." He was lying, and if he lies he breaks the code of conduct, and therefore is forfeits his powers. Oh yea, and not saying anything and saying a half truth is just as bad as lying. It’s like watching someone murder another person, if you don't say anything to the police, you are just as bad as the other guy.”
No, he would not have to say “I was brought up as a holy warrior.” Paladins do not have any one specific upbringing . It is also not required that they be called by a god, but rather strive to further the cause of good, so their “stories” may be identical to what a good aligned fighter’s would be. (did anyone see Regdar’s story in the D&D dvd adventure?)
Kevmann10583:
“You see, why should good be able to have a core champion and neutrality and evil left out, having to wait at least six levels. If a paladin is called to do good, then why can't a person be called to do evil, or to keep the balance of good and evil in the game? This is yet another reason why this doesn't make sense. We can have a prc champion for every alignment and people wouldn't care, that is the point of prcs, to have alot of specifications everywere. But it is unbalanced and unfair that good gets a core champion and evil/neutral does not. So, their is only two options, ether create two new core classes that are champions of evil/neutrality or just make the champion of good a prc, which one is easyer?”
“If a paladin is called to do good, then why can't a person be called to do evil,”
Quite simply, and logically, no one has to be called to do evil. It comes naturally from selfish desire. If some-one really desires to hurt others, then they are psychotic, not a champion. And, if they serve an evil deity, they are only short-sighted, and again, selfish. They would serve for the promise of reward, power…
I really hope “the call to serve good” does not need spelled out for anyone…
Kevmann10583:
“MY GOD, killing anyone in cold blood without proof of a crime is EVIL. Your telling me that seeing a palden in the street slaughtering people as they walk by should be a normal sight? What kind of pills are you takeing. And there is at least one spell I know of that makes you apear as though you had another alignment. I am sorry, you realy need to think about what you just said.”
Foremost, Paladins do not, or should not walk around using “detect evil” on everyone.
While I do agree that Divine authority comes above and before mortal authority, we must remember that it IS the Divine authority Telling the Paladin to Follow mortal authority, therefore, to disobey mortal authority IS to disobey Divine authority.
Yes, this authority needs to be legitimate, and since he is ordered to obey authority, the Paladin should view authority as legitimate unless he has reason to do so otherwise. Remember, there are other ways of dealing with “things” (even evil things) than destroying them (as stated above, redemption, etc.…)
Kevmann10583:
“Also, there is a difference between heros and epic heros. People like Joan of Arc are epic heros, the players in a D&D game are normaly just adventurers, that may stumble into somthing grand. Epic heros may have extraordinary powers or luck, but epic heros are very different from your standard party. So why should paladin be a standard core class?”
We should to remember the argument stating: “unless this D&D … system can be applied to reality (which we can very easily argue that it cannot be…), we cannot truly categorize any person existent or conceived outside the system using the same definitions (defining characteristics) given therein.”
And I think it is quite absurd to suggest that any mortal being from our history has ever acquired the equivalent in “skill” that an Epic (when referring to the specific rules for characters above 20th level) character would have.
It seems as though no one has provided any examples of the Monk, druid, and select other classes, that show that these Core classes are any “less restrictive” role play-wise (in comparison to the Paladin).
“... He was made a paladin by his god because his judgment is sound, his heart pure, and his hand firm. He doesn't argue legal niceties. He smites.”
-Lord Pendragon
I just have to say that I love this quote Lord Pendragon.
