Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Imaro]

This boils down to "Thinking Too Hard About Fantasy".

No it really doesn't. But I'll let you know if it starts to strain my brain or become too worrisome toi handle...

In the game world there are no game classes, only labels (titles). I could be playing a Knight (class) and call myself a Paladin of Justice (title). I could be playing a Rogue (class) and call myself a Scout (Title).

Maybe in your gameworld but we are talking about the default world as presented by the rules and fluff of the gamebooks. The passage I quoted stated clearly that "the world knows paladins to be..." which implies rather strongly there are specific things in the world that are known to it's inhabitants as paladins... as opposed to clerics, fighters, etc. IMO, these things are the archetypes that more specific concepts fall under.

The fact that there are game mechanics defining a Paladin and a Scout have no relevance to the "fictional" title that I'm using.

Good for you, I'm not discussing your personal game though.

The fantasy genre, and D&D in particular, have never been internally consistent to a high degree. The exception occurs in the degree that they promote suspension of disbelief.

Neither of the examples above "break" the suspension of disbelief in the "fictional" space of the game.

Not sure about the relevance of this as I didn't claim anything about suspension of disbelief being broken. What I am saying is that there is a very strong arguement, supported by passages of fluff and the game rule for classes as recognizable archetypes... as opposed to fluffless packages of abilities... at least in so far as the default gameworld goes.

 

[Imaro]

The fluff they wrote is lame because I don't think a Paladin of Torog is going to be a champion of "lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor." He'll probably champion ideas such as imprisonment and torture! A Wizard who is into Ioun might champion those lofty ideas - and might be considered a paladin by townspeople as well as the clergy of Ioun.

Whether it's lame or not is purely suibjective and irrelevant when looking at it for our purposes. On a side note, it's interesting that the bladesinger has similar fluff that seems to point at it being a discrete and specific thing in the gameworld as opposed to a generic set of skills, abilities, etc.

As to your example... IMO, the paladin of Torog is holding up the most lofty ideas...as percieved by those who worship a god of imprisonment and sacrifice. In 4e good and evil are no longer forces that have an active and discernable effect upon the world and thus belief seems to now reside in the domain of relativity and perception... not necessarily my preference for morality in a fantasy world, but whatever, the cries of alignment sucks won out.

EDIT: I wonder if a paladin of Torog who took on quests from others in order to do what they weren't willing (torture, imprisonment, etc.) to further or protect the greater good would still be considered "evil". He's promoting the domains of his god but also doing good (at least in his and some people's minds) As an example Jack Bauer from 24, tortured people and worse... yet most people considered him a hero.

The wizard on the other hand, IMO, is not a paladin because he hasn't devoted his life and soul to promoting and championing the ideas of Ioun, and more importantly... Ioun has never empowered him like he has his true paladins... I also feel that any cleric, true paladin of Ioun, invoker of Ioun or avenger of Ioun would know this either inherently or with a religion check.

In other words, I think that, if you consider "paladin" in the text you quoted to mean the Class, it doesn't make any sense. If you consider it to mean something else - a Rogue who fights for those "lofty ideas" - then it makes sense.

Uhmm, actually, IMO, this causes the fluff to make even less sense. blackguards are specifically called out as the sinister counterparts of paladins. If you're scenario is true then a particular build of a class becomes the "sinister counterpart" of any and every class? That seems unnecessarily limiting and narrow even as just pure fluff. IMO, it makes much more sense if paladin = class (archetype) and the blackguard is the sinister counterpart of that very specific class (archetype).

 

[D'karr]

Maybe in your gameworld but we are talking about the default world as presented by the rules and fluff of the gamebooks. The passage I quoted stated clearly that "the world knows paladins to be..." which implies rather strongly there are specific things in the world that are known to it's inhabitants as paladins... as opposed to clerics, fighters, etc. IMO, these things are the archetypes that more specific concepts fall under.

I think you are reading too much into the "fictional" description of a label, and assigning it mechanical meaning, which it does not always have in the fictional gameworld.

As someone mentioned above the Paladin (class) of a god such as Torog that does not espouse those ideals would not have to fit any of the description given in the quote you mentioned.

Good for you, I'm not discussing your personal game though.

I'm sorry but you are stretching it there quite a bit. In the mechanics of the D&D Gameworld the label of Paladin(s) does not have to be "a shinning paragon who champions lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor." The game rules do not limit the paladin class in that way.

By using a similar stretch to the one you are making we could say that because the paladins are shinning paragons, etc., that the description only applies to Paragon Level characters. That is, we'd be reading a mechanical meaning into a label, paragon in this case, where none is needed or intended.

Not sure about the relevance of this as I didn't claim anything about suspension of disbelief being broken. What I am saying is that there is a very strong arguement, supported by passages of fluff and the game rule for classes as recognizable archetypes... as opposed to fluffless packages of abilities... at least in so far as the default gameworld goes.

I disagree that there is any strong argument of the sort. You are tying a piece of fiction to a mechanical construct (the class), and trying to give it an absolute value. Whereas the mechanical construct has no such restrictions at all.

As mentioned a Paladin (class) of Pelor might be an example of the fluff. It doesn't mean that every Paladin (class) of every other god will be such an example.

 

[LostSoul]

Uhmm, actually, IMO, this causes the fluff to make even less sense. blackguards are specifically called out as the sinister counterparts of paladins. If you're scenario is true then a particular build of a class becomes the "sinister counterpart" of any and every class? That seems unnecessarily limiting and narrow even as just pure fluff. IMO, it makes much more sense if paladin = class (archetype) and the blackguard is the sinister counterpart of that very specific class (archetype).

If your scenario is true, then all paladins are champions of compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valour, even when they worship evil and unaligned gods who are specifically opposed to those ideals!

If you assume they meant that those who are "shining paragons who champion lofty ideals such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valor" are called paladins in the game world, regardless of their actual Class, then it does make sense: blackguards are not the sinister counterpart to the paladin Class, but instead anyone who champions the above ideals.

 

[Imaro]

I think you are reading too much into the "fictional" description of a label, and assigning it mechanical meaning, which it does not always have in the fictional gameworld.

I don't think I am and nothing you've said has proven otherwise.

As someone mentioned above the Paladin (class) of a god such as Torog that does not espouse those ideals would not have to fit any of the description given in the quote you mentioned.

Read the description again... It only really claims that paladins are shinning paragons in championing lofty ideas... now granted every paladin won't fit the particular examples they used... but to a worshipper of Torog what is a more lofty idea then the inflicting of torture and imprisonment. Lofty does not equal good.
Definition of Lofty
1
a : elevated in character and spirit : noble <lofty ideals>
b : elevated in status : superior

2
a : having a haughty overbearing manner : supercilious

3
a : rising to a great height : impressively high <lofty mountains>

To a follower of Torog he is a shinning paragon of lofty ideas when you figure that the ideas that would be most elevated in status are those concerning torture and imprisonment.

I'm sorry but you are stretching it there quite a bit. In the mechanics of the D&D Gameworld the label of Paladin(s) does not have to be "a shinning paragon who champions lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor." The game rules do not limit the paladin class in that way.

Only it does, at least upon creation.... what it doesn't do is force you to play him a certain way (except in combat ).

Using the idea of lofty as presented above. The fact that a paladin must choose a deity and faith to serve during character creation and must be the same alignment as said deity, undergo trials and rituals of worthingess to be imbued with his power as well as the fluff of his powers all point towards this. Now a DM has free reign in his own game to seperate fluff from mechanics and the player has free will to turn away from this but the above is very much what the archetype of the paladin (unless you purposefully choose to play against type) is about and the fluff and mechanics do point towards it.

By using a similar stretch to the one you are making we could say that because the paladins are shinning paragons, etc., that the description only applies to Paragon Level characters. That is, we'd be reading a mechanical meaning into a label, paragon in this case, where none is needed or intended.

I'm not even going to address this because it's nowhere near similar to what I am saying and I honestly believe you know that.

I disagree that there is any strong argument of the sort. You are tying a piece of fiction to a mechanical construct (the class), and trying to give it an absolute value. Whereas the mechanical construct has no such restrictions at all.

Eh, you're free to have your oppinion... but I didn't tie anything to anything, these are the worsds of the developers and designers that I quoted... why are they using the word paladin in fiction if not referring to the specifc class in the game? And again why are blackguards referred to as their sinister counterparts (as this also implies that blackguards are a discrete and quantifiable thing in the game world that are discernable from other things? Why aren't blackguards just considered evil warriors?

As mentioned a Paladin (class) of Pelor might be an example of the fluff. It doesn't mean that every Paladin (class) of every other god will be such an example.

You keep saying this, but again "lofty" doesn't mean good.


EDIT: And as LostSoul has made me realize... when referring to the "paladin" they are in fact refering to the cavalier. So with that in mind it seems to make for an even stronger argument that a class is a fictional construct with a value and actually addresses many of the issues you bring up above since the cavalier actually does mechanically support all of this.

 

[Imaro]

If your scenario is true, then all paladins are champions of compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valour, even when they worship evil and unaligned gods who are specifically opposed to those ideals!

This is false because you are assuming they've listed every lofty idea a paladin can champion... and since lofty does not necessarily mean good we know for a fact that they haven't. So all paladins do not have to be champions of these particular ideals... only champions of "lofty" ideas.

If you assume they meant that those who are "shining paragons who champion lofty ideals such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice, and valor" are called paladins in the game world, regardless of their actual Class, then it does make sense: blackguards are not the sinister counterpart to the paladin Class, but instead anyone who champions the above ideals.

Eh, Upon further reflection...I believe they are referring specifically to the essentials paladin or cavalier. He follows the virtues (we already have sacrifice and valour in HotFK). But ultimately by the designers and developers doing this it still supports the argument that these classes are discrete things. Blackguards and Cavaliers (paladins) are counterparts in the fictional world to each other and thus are recognizable and discernable in the default world and again... not just generic packages and abilities to substitute for anything.

 

[D'karr]

You keep saying this, but again "lofty" doesn't mean good.

Since I have said nothing about "lofty" and have not focused on anything about it, except to quote your example, let's focus on the actual quote.

The world knows paladins to be shinning paragons who champion lofty ideas such as compassion, nobility, sacrifice and valor.

What part of compassion would a Paladin (class) of Torog espouse?

 

[LostSoul]

Eh, Upon further reflection...I believe they are referring specifically to the essentials paladin or cavalier. He follows the virtues (we already have sacrifice and valour in HotFK). But ultimately by the designers and developers doing this it still supports the argument that these classes are discrete things. Blackguards and Cavaliers (paladins) are counterparts in the fictional world to each other and thus are recognizable and discernable in the default world and again... not just generic packages and abilities to substitute for anything.

I just looked up the Cavalier - I tend to stick to the PHB stuff so I'm not familiar with Essentials Classes - and I think you're right from that point of view. It does make sense that those two classes would be counterparts to one another, and that is what they meant when they wrote "paladin" in the blackguard fluff:

A cavalier is a paladin who has embraced one of the heroic virtues, such as compassion, justice, sacrifice, or valor.​

 

[Imaro]

Since I have said nothing about "lofty" and have not focused on anything about it, except to quote your example, let's focus on the actual quote.



What part of compassion would a Paladin (class) of Torog espouse?

First...Did you read my edit? This is referencing the cavalier or essentials paladin, not the core rulebook paladin. Part of their mechanics is that they must pick a virtue to follow... so if a player chose to run a paladin of Torog it would be up to him which virtue he chose and how it related to Torog.

As a DM facing your challenge I would say a paladin of Torog probably wouldn't follow compassion... but as Torog is the god of jailers... he has leeway for compassion. Many people view imprisonment as a more compassionate alternative to outright execution, maiming, etc..

 

[Imaro]

I just looked up the Cavalier - I tend to stick to the PHB stuff so I'm not familiar with Essentials Classes - and I think you're right from that point of view. It does make sense that those two classes would be counterparts to one another, and that is what they meant when they wrote "paladin" in the blackguard fluff:

A cavalier is a paladin who has embraced one of the heroic virtues, such as compassion, justice, sacrifice, or valor.
​

Yeah, though admittedly WotC could have been a little more precise in their usage of language... then they wonder why some poeople find the current set up confusing.

EDIT: But I still believe this supports my position that classes aren't (at least by default and by the developers/designers of the game) considered generic packages of abilities and skills but instead specific archetypes (on the class level) and concepts (on the build level)... which is why I don't like combat role (a game element that has nothing to do with concept or archetype) being tied into them. it creates a choice that shouldn't be there. If I want to experience gameplay as a striker but like the fiction of the cavalier and not the blackguard... I'm stuck having to choose one over the other.