How do paladins become paladins in OOTS?

[aquablack]

The way that paladins work in the sapphire guard seems to break from 3e's description. Miko is selected to train as a paladin, whereas in core rules you cannot train to be a paladin, it either happens or it doesn't. On the other hand, perhaps you can bend those rules and say with sufficient divination magic you can predict which acolytes have paladin potential, and then train them.

I think Sir Francois's the only paladin we've seen outside the sapphire guard, too, which makes me wonder if training has a more significant effect in-universe on whether someone "answers the call" or not. But of course the insularity of the sapphire guard has its downsides for maintaining paladins as well. Perhaps it's accidental, but it's interesting that the one time we see a paladin outside of the sapphire guard within the "main" comic they are calling out adventurers for committing a home invasion by attacking goblins (#975).

Has the Giant defined anywhere how paladins become paladins within OOTS? Is training a requirement, implying that there's another order of paladins somewhere in Nowhere?

[The MunchKING]

Where does it say you can't train to be a paladin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm)?

Even in the Fluff, where they were described, I'm pretty sure they always left it open for you to have an epiphany and multiclass into Paladin.

[mucat]

The Sapphire Guard might not all be paladins in a game-mechanical sense; some might just have that as their rank or title. (Remember how frustrated Miko got trying to explain to Elan that yes, she was a Samurai, but no, she hadn't taken any samurai levels.)

[The MunchKING]

The Sapphire Guard might not all be paladins in a game-mechanical sense; some might just have that as their rank or title. (Remember how frustrated Miko got trying to explain to Elan that yes, she was a Samurai, but no, she hadn't taken any samurai levels.)

I'm pretty sure Rich has said they all had at least some Paladin levels, for the whole Honor of a Paladin thing.

[brian 333]

There are many ways one can become a paladin in 3x ed. D&D.

A devout young page can esquire to a knight and train for a decade in warfare and theology.

A worthy innocent, caught up in conflict, can be endowed by a being of Lawful Good to be a holy paragon who leads by example both on and off the field of battle.

A cleric can undertake training as a knight.

A knight can undertake training as a priest.

A character who has no taint of Evil, and who has committed no Evil acts, and has either not committed or atoned for any Chaotic acts, of any class can have an epiphany and thereafter devote himself to Law and Good.

The requirements for a character to take a level of paladin are as simple as they are difficult to achieve: be a being of pure Law and Good, and meet the attribute requirements. The requirements for a character to be banned from paladinhood are to have willfully committed any Evil act or to have committed an act of a Chaotic nature for which no atonement has been made.

A paladin does not even have to have a patron deity. Devotion to Law and Good are enough for a being to gain the status of Paladin.

I once participated in a 1st ed. campaign with a bard-beholder. I wonder if a paladin-beholder is possible?

[hamishspence]

A character who has no taint of Evil, and who has committed no Evil acts, and has either not committed or atoned for any Chaotic acts, of any class can have an epiphany and thereafter devote himself to Law and Good.


The requirements for a character to take a level of paladin are as simple as they are difficult to achieve: be a being of pure Law and Good, and meet the attribute requirements.

Given that former villains have become paladins in various D&D fluff sources, the "has committed no Evil acts" thing is not a requirement. Paladins are not created from "beings of pure Law and Good" - they're created from ordinary, somewhat Lawful and Good, people who happen to feel a calling to the paladin lifestyle.


In 3.5, unlike 3.0, a paladin who has "willingly, wilfully" committed an evil act, can still get their paladin status back - if they atone.

Where does it say you can't train to be a paladin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm)?

The lines in question are in the PHB.

No-one ever chooses to be a paladin. Being a paladin is answering a call, accepting a destiny. No-one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will. It is possible, however, to fail to recognize one's own potential, or to deny one's destiny. Occasionally, one who is called to be a paladin denies that call and pursues some other life instead.


Even in the Fluff, where they were described, I'm pretty sure they always left it open for you to have an epiphany and multiclass into Paladin.
Yup:

Most paladins do answer the call and begin training as adolescents. Typically, they become squires or assistants to experienced paladins, train for years, and finally set off on their own to further the causes of good and law. Other paladins find their calling later in life, after having pursued some other career.


But it's still "a calling" and not just "training".

[brian 333]

Semantics.

Because your character is called it seeks training, or a wise mentor recognizes the character and trains it until the potential awakens, (usually at the point of the story where the mentor sacrifices himself for the young student.

It will be retroactively assumed that the character taking a level in paladin had been previously called and not answered, or that the character's struggles to date prepared it for the calling it can now answer.

[Crimsonmantle]

The way that paladins work in the sapphire guard seems to break from 3e's description. Miko is selected to train as a paladin, whereas in core rules you cannot train to be a paladin, it either happens or it doesn't. On the other hand, perhaps you can bend those rules and say with sufficient divination magic you can predict which acolytes have paladin potential, and then train them.

I think Sir Francois's the only paladin we've seen outside the sapphire guard
There's a paladin in origin of pc's who makes the sapphire guard seem decent by comparison.

[hamishspence]

It will be retroactively assumed that the character taking a level in paladin had been previously called and not answered, or that the character's struggles to date prepared it for the calling it can now answer.

It can be - but it's within DM's discretion to say "The character just doesn't have that Calling".

"retroactive assumptions" done wrong, can make the situation seem as absurd as with Elan here -

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

the "retroactive assumption" that he's been studying with V, when he clearly hasn't.

[ZhonLord]

When lord shojo brought Miko to the sapphire guard, he told her that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) he saw power in her. That the gods needed her strength. So arguably she was chosen in that moment by the Twelve Gods, giving Shojo a vision that she was meant to be a paladin. And all her training since was to tap into that strength.

(Interestingly, this also seems to indicate they approved of Shojo's leadership in spite of his non-paladin status)

[Fyraltari]

When lord shojo brought Miko to the sapphire guard, he told her that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) he saw power in her. That the gods needed her strength. So arguably she was chosen in that moment by the Twelve Gods, giving Shojo a vision that she was meant to be a paladin. And all her training since was to tap into that strength.

(Interestingly, this also seems to indicate they approved of Shojo's leadership in spite of his non-paladin status)
I don't think that's right. It seems to me that Shojo was trying to cheer an upset child by telling her she was needed and useful. It sounds more like "the gods need your strength" as in "the church/city/people need people like you" than as in "the gods literally told me to go pick you up." Especially since Miko being utterly convinced the Twelve have a special plan for her despite all evidence to the contrary being an important part of her character.

[brian 333]

When lord shojo brought Miko to the sapphire guard, he told her that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) he saw power in her. That the gods needed her strength. So arguably she was chosen in that moment by the Twelve Gods, giving Shojo a vision that she was meant to be a paladin. And all her training since was to tap into that strength.

(Interestingly, this also seems to indicate they approved of Shojo's leadership in spite of his non-paladin status)

I seem to recall that Shojo specifically said that he allowed the Sapphire Guard to believe that he was a Paladin. It's one of the many reasons I assumed a fallen paladin could pretend to not have fallen.

[hamishspence]

Shojo's hallucination said to Belkar that he allowed them to believe he "followed the paladin's code."

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html

A point is made earlier of how he never claimed to be a paladin:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html

[Jason]

O-Chul multi-classes into Paladin at the end of How the Paladin Got his Scar. Shojo allows him to enter the order first, and says "we'll see about transitioning you to paladin later." So being a paladin is required to be a member of the Guard, but it seems a fairly simple manner for O-Chul to make the transition.

[hamishspence]

Shojo allows him to enter the order first, and says "we'll see about transitioning you to paladin later." So being a paladin is required to be a member of the Guard, but it seems a fairly simple manner for O-Chul to make the transition.

Miko was a member in that story before taking levels in paladin (a point is made of how she can't use Detect Evil, yet) - though possibly this was "trainee candidate" in a similar fashion to O-Chul.

The Giant suggested originally that it was being a divine caster that was the requirement - clerics count.


The Sapphire Guard would have been a secret society, separate but overlapping with the general clergy and paladins of the Twelve Gods. All members of the Sapphire Guard are clerics or paladins of the Twelve Gods, but not all paladins of the Twelve Gods were members of the Sapphire Guard. Only those who could be trusted with the secret of the Gate would be inducted.

[The MunchKING]

It can be - but it's within DM's discretion to say "The character just doesn't have that Calling".

the "retroactive assumption" that he's been studying with V, when he clearly hasn't.

Is a Calling an external thing, though? Or is it that by trying to be a Paladin and devoting yourself to Law and Good, you have felt the calling towards Paladinhood within yourself?

I mean you are a Main Character; your journey is by definition one of the extraordinary ones.

[KillianHawkeye]

Having a "calling" to be a Paladin is a meaningless story note. It is simply the drive to uphold goodness and law and religion above other things. Literally any Lawful Good person could find it within themselves. Literally every Paladin has already committed to that life.

The Sapphire Guard in no way contradicts the Paladin's fluff text. In fact, it's no different from any of the many other Orders of Paladins that exist in any official D&D setting.

While it's true that training alone cannot make one a Paladin, all the Paladins who exist still require training in their skills and abilities, even if it's an informal one. Perhaps the Sapphire Guard selects potential Paladins at a young age to enter the training, and those who can't cut it (i.e., can't or don't "answer the call") will simply fail or quit the program. Just assume that everyone in the Sapphire Guard are the ones who succeeded, and the others aren't important to the story enough to even mention.

[Ruck]

Having a "calling" to be a Paladin is a meaningless story note. It is simply the drive to uphold goodness and law and religion above other things. Literally any Lawful Good person could find it within themselves. Literally every Paladin has already committed to that life.

Yeah, I think this is the most sensible explanation. This paragraph is just fluff and flavor:


The lines in question are in the PHB.

No-one ever chooses to be a paladin. Being a paladin is answering a call, accepting a destiny. No-one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will. It is possible, however, to fail to recognize one's own potential, or to deny one's destiny. Occasionally, one who is called to be a paladin denies that call and pursues some other life instead.

It's D&D; I have a hard time imagining a DM telling a player "Actually, I decided your character doesn't have the calling, so you can't play a paladin, sorry."

[Laurentio III]

I consider Big Ears the best paladin in webcomics, and he didn't answered the call, he made it himself. But is a different setting, so I doubt it is a good example.

In D&D, there is no real obstacle to being a paladin other than alignment and stats. If you acted wrong in the past, repent and atone.
In OotSverse, apparently paladinship is only a matter of dedication. We have visible, even chatty gods, and they are never seen guiding someone toward becoming a paladin. Demoting one, yes, but it was an exception.

[gbaji]

Alignment and stats are a pretty big hurdle though, and it's likely that if a player didn't start out intending for a character to be a paladin or have the potential to be one in the future, it's not likely going to happen. Charisma is a biggie. It's critical for three of the major special abilities of a paladin, but let's face it, most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely "lawful good do-gooder".

Obviously, this does not preclude a character taking a level or three in paladin later in life, as some sort of character development/evolution thing, but that's always going to be more of a "great fighter/cleric/whatever, who found a calling late in life and devoted more fully to doing good" kind of character and likely wont be terribly effective at the core paladin abilities. Not all character path decisions are (or should) be made to just make the most effective character, but falls into that crazy bit we call "roleplaying".

I'll leave it to others to determine how well paladins have historically been roleplayed though.

[aquablack]

Semantics.

Because your character is called it seeks training, or a wise mentor recognizes the character and trains it until the potential awakens, (usually at the point of the story where the mentor sacrifices himself for the young student.

It will be retroactively assumed that the character taking a level in paladin had been previously called and not answered, or that the character's struggles to date prepared it for the calling it can now answer.

That is a solid point, and I think answers my question in a way I can grep. Because of the self-aware nature of the world of OOTS, the fluff requirement can be handwaved. The characters in OOTS are not like NPCs in a home game, where it would beggar belief if every other NPC retroactively struggled previously and then took a level in paladin. They're closer to PCs in a home game, where things like prior training, inner calling, time, etc. to gain a level in a new class are handwaved for the sake of the fun of the game.



The Giant suggested originally that it was being a divine caster that was the requirement - clerics count.

The Sapphire Guard would have been a secret society, separate but overlapping with the general clergy and paladins of the Twelve Gods. All members of the Sapphire Guard are clerics or paladins of the Twelve Gods, but not all paladins of the Twelve Gods were members of the Sapphire Guard. Only those who could be trusted with the secret of the Gate would be inducted.

Now that is an interesting tidbit. In a way, it almost forces the Sapphire Guard to look for more patriotic paladins. Someone more independent, such as Sir Francois for example, might decide that the greater good of preserving the world might override the lawfulness of following the oath not to interfere with the other gates. I think in general, given a choice between Law and Good, paladins tend to choose Good if doing both isn't an option. The patriotism/duty towards the law probably also help fed into decisions that pushed members of the sapphire guard towards LN and LE paths (such as the slaughter of goblin children), for the Greater Good.


Alignment and stats are a pretty big hurdle though, and it's likely that if a player didn't start out intending for a character to be a paladin or have the potential to be one in the future, it's not likely going to happen. Charisma is a biggie. It's critical for three of the major special abilities of a paladin, but let's face it, most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely "lawful good do-gooder".

Obviously, this does not preclude a character taking a level or three in paladin later in life, as some sort of character development/evolution thing, but that's always going to be more of a "great fighter/cleric/whatever, who found a calling late in life and devoted more fully to doing good" kind of character and likely wont be terribly effective at the core paladin abilities. Not all character path decisions are (or should) be made to just make the most effective character, but falls into that crazy bit we call "roleplaying".

This is exactly why O-Chul's one of my favorite characters :D

[The MunchKING]

Alignment and stats are a pretty big hurdle though, and it's likely that if a player didn't start out intending for a character to be a paladin or have the potential to be one in the future, it's not likely going to happen. Charisma is a biggie.

This Isn't AD&D, Stats don't keep you from joining a class. :smallbiggrin:

[KillianHawkeye]

To clarify, you don't need any particular stats to become a Paladin. Any Lawful Good character can be one.

You won't be a particularly great Paladin with a Wisdom and Charisma of 10 or lower, but you absolutely can be one.

[littlebum2002]

Alignment and stats are a pretty big hurdle though, and it's likely that if a player didn't start out intending for a character to be a paladin or have the potential to be one in the future, it's not likely going to happen. Charisma is a biggie. It's critical for three of the major special abilities of a paladin, but let's face it, most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely "lawful good do-gooder".



:elan:Nah, that’s just what they WANT you to believe. It’s a big conspiracy, you know.

[Resileaf]

You won't be a particularly great Paladin with a Wisdom and Charisma of 10 or lower

O-Chul begs to disagree (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html)

[Fyraltari]

You won't be a particularly great Paladin with a Wisdom and Charisma of 10 or lower, but you absolutely can be one.

It's okay, being a Paladin isn't about doing things the easy way.

[MReav]

Now that is an interesting tidbit. In a way, it almost forces the Sapphire Guard to look for more patriotic paladins. Someone more independent, such as Sir Francois for example, might decide that the greater good of preserving the world might override the lawfulness of following the oath not to interfere with the other gates.

Sir Francois is not part of the Sapphire Guard and thus would not be bound by an oath not to interfere with the Gates to begin with.

That said, we might deride the Sapphire Guard for not putting aside their oaths to deal with threats to the Gates, but given how bitter everyone was when they parted ways, interfering with the other Gates might be a threat to the Gates because it would seen as a direct provocation against the side being interfered with, and now the SG is dealing with both the original threat and a hostile Gate guardian/faction.

[Ruck]

Sir Francois is not part of the Sapphire Guard and thus would not be bound by an oath not to interfere with the Gates to begin with.

Yes, but the comment is talking about what kind of paladins the Sapphire Guard would want to recruit.

[Werbaer]

I think Sir Francois's the only paladin we've seen outside the sapphire guard, too,
A dwarven paladin (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0415.html)

[littlebum2002]

A dwarven paladin (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0415.html)

Now that I think about it, it is a little weird that all of the sapphire guard paladins are human.

[Peelee]

Now that I think about it, it is a little weird that all of the sapphire guard paladins are human.

Not really, given the makeup of the city.

[Fyraltari]

Now that I think about it, it is a little weird that all of the sapphire guard paladins are human.

Orignally, they were all nobles. Baby steps.

Then again, the Sapphire Guard doesn't actually exist anymore, so I guess it won't ever have non-human members.

[brian 333]

Orignally, they were all nobles. Baby steps.

Then again, the Sapphire Guard doesn't actually exist anymore, so I guess it won't ever have non-human members.

The blatant racism toward winged buffalos is staggering.

[littlebum2002]

Not really, given the makeup of the city.

Yeah but that in itself is weird, too. That brings up an interesting question about the gods: when they create the world, do they only create stuff in the third that is under the control of their pantheon? For instance, are there only dwarves in the north because they were created by a northern god? If so, then how are the humans all over the globe?

[Keltest]

Yeah but that in itself is weird, too. That brings up an interesting question about the gods: when they create the world, do they only create stuff in the third that is under the control of their pantheon? For instance, are there only dwarves in the north because they were created by a northern god? If so, then how are the humans all over the globe?

Humans are a fantasy staple, so its entirely possible that the first thing each pantheon did is say "Ok, so I want my humans to live in this part of the continent." so that they had something to compare everything else to.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah but that in itself is weird, too.
It's not. It's Azurite Law that human ancestry is required to become a citizen.

That brings up an interesting question about the gods: when they create the world, do they only create stuff in the third that is under the control of their pantheon? For instance, are there only dwarves in the north because they were created by a northern god? If so, then how are the humans all over the globe?
It seems that they create for the entire world and then rule over one third. Dwarves being a Northern exclusivity may be part of an agreement that also has Elves being strictly Western and, most likely, a third species (ratfolk?) being purely Southern.

[brian 333]

I don't see any reason for humans to not have had multiple creators, but nothing excludes a single creation either. Unless the gods say otherwise it is an unknowable.

We do see one god creating multiple races independently; Fenris created goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and other monster races. Nothing was stopping other gods from doing the same. Tiamat and Dragon come to mind as obvious examples. Rooster may well have created Southern humans because he may not have wanted anthropomorphic chickens as his primary worshippers, (although now that I think about it, they have spread to both Family Guy and Futurama, so they had to come from somewhere.)

[Kish]

It's critical for three of the major special abilities of a paladin, but let's face it, most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely "lawful good do-gooder".
Not for the first time, I observe that "let's face it" is one of those phrases likely to be followed by a claim I find utterly bizarre.

[KillianHawkeye]

Indeed, how does a particular ability score have any bearing on a character's alignment? :smallconfused:

[Ruck]

Not for the first time, I observe that "let's face it" is one of those phrases likely to be followed by a claim I find utterly bizarre.


Indeed, how does a particular ability score have any bearing on a character's alignment? :smallconfused:

Well, Elan and Xykon are so similar...

[Laurentio III]

Indeed, how does a particular ability score have any bearing on a character's alignment? :smallconfused:
Archetype. Charisma-based build are more able to lie in a convincing way, so are less likely lawful.
Lawful Good characters can benefit from a high charisma but they are supposedly best versed in a more direct build, like fighting or spellcasting.
Mind, it's not impossible to build a charisma-based Lawful character. It's just less interesting as anything you say is bound to be true, and so doesn't really require for a high charisma to convince your opponents. I personally can't remember a single CHA-Build lawful good character in fiction, but there could be.

[pearl jam]

Well, Elan and Xykon are so similar...

It wouldn't shock me to learn that Elan radiates an aura of pure chaos that is detectable even after he's moved on. :smallbiggrin:

:elan: :xykon:




Archetype. Charisma-based build are more able to lie in a convincing way, so are less likely lawful.
Lawful Good characters can benefit from a high charisma but they are supposedly best versed in a more direct build, like fighting or spellcasting.
Mind, it's not impossible to build a charisma-based Lawful character. It's just less interesting as anything you say is bound to be true, and so doesn't really require for a high charisma to convince your opponents. I personally can't remember a single CHA-Build lawful good character in fiction, but there could be.

Persuasion doesn't need to be limited to use against opponents, nor does it necessarily require deviating from the truth even when dealing with opponents. A military leader delivering a rousing speech before the start of a battle could greatly benefit from being charismatic, for example. Numerous examples of this can be found in history and fiction, though certainly not always from leaders who might be considered to fit the Lawful Good archetype.

[Laurentio III]

Numerous examples of this can be found in history and fiction, though certainly not always from leaders who might be considered to fit the Lawful Good archetype.
That's the point.

[brian 333]

Archetype. Charisma-based build are more able to lie in a convincing way, so are less likely lawful.
Lawful Good characters can benefit from a high charisma but they are supposedly best versed in a more direct build, like fighting or spellcasting.
Mind, it's not impossible to build a charisma-based Lawful character. It's just less interesting as anything you say is bound to be true, and so doesn't really require for a high charisma to convince your opponents. I personally can't remember a single CHA-Build lawful good character in fiction, but there could be.

Laurana the Golden General of the Dragonlance series.

Sir Galahad of the Arthurian mythos.

Jason of the Argonauts.

[Laurentio III]

Laurana the Golden General of the Dragonlance series.

Sir Galahad of the Arthurian mythos.

Jason of the Argonauts.
I admit ignorance for the first one, but the others are primarily fighters with high charisma. They don't relay on charisma do to things, they kill enemies to do things.
The argument is for CHA-based builds with a LG alignment.
LG bards, aristocrats, clergymen with no spells.
If you use a sword more often than words, maybe your charisma is not so important.

[Keltest]

I admit ignorance for the first one, but the others are primarily fighters with high charisma. They don't relay on charisma do to things, they kill enemies to do things.
The argument is for CHA-based builds with a LG alignment.
LG bards, aristocrats, clergymen with no spells.
If you use a sword more often than words, maybe your charisma is not so important.

Historically, bards actually cant be lawful good, or lawful anything. In 1e they were a multiclass that included thief and druid, both of which had alignment restrictions, and in 3.5 bards are specifically prohibited from being lawful.

[Fyraltari]

I admit ignorance for the first one, but the others are primarily fighters with high charisma. They don't relay on charisma do to things, they kill enemies to do things.
The argument is for CHA-based builds with a LG alignment.
LG bards, aristocrats, clergymen with no spells.
If you use a sword more often than words, maybe your charisma is not so important.

What about LG Sorcerers or Warlocks?

[Keltest]

What about LG Sorcerers or Warlocks?

I believe that warlocks are also prohibited from being lawful good.

[Laurentio III]

What about LG Sorcerers or Warlocks?
Okay, we are branching.

Original thread: "CHA is important for Paladins ant they are LG. But, most characters with high CHA are not going to be LE"
This is high debatable, mainly in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder, because CHA is less a dump-stat than previous editions. Several classes can benefit from a high CHA, and only a few are banned from being LG. The reason LG character with high CHA are not common, is mainly because LG characters are not common to start.

My following argument: "If you have a CHA build - not just a characted with an high CHA, but one whose MAIN stat is CHA - then you have the advantage of being able to lie convincingly. Being bound to tell the true is an obstacle in that way (much less in OotSverse, where paladins are masters of getting around the true). So, if you have a very high Charisma, being Lawful Good is less efficient that being anything else"

Then I followed with: "Pure CHA characters who rely on Charisma more that other means - fight, magic, etc - are almost necessarily not LG because it would massively hinder their work. I can't think a name of a (breathes in) pure Charisma-based build with Lawful Good alignment character. I don't exclude they exist."

A Sorcerer has high CHA and could be LG, but the main asset is magic. There is nothing hard in being LG when you just rain fire on your enemies, you just have to check that they are evil beforehand.

[Metastachydium]

It wouldn't shock me to learn that Elan radiates an aura of pure chaos that is detectable even after he's moved on. :smallbiggrin:

I'm absolutely certain that is as factual as it gets. (Also, Elan used to like explosions. Who else likes explosions? That's right, it's Xykon!)


Jason of the Argonauts.

the others are primarily fighters with high charisma. They don't relay on charisma do to things, they kill enemies to do things.

I'm not sure what version of Iason are we talking about, and won't go into details given that most of them should count as inappropriate topics, but suffice it to say, describing the guy as Lawful or Good (let alone both) is something I find… Debatable.


What about LG Sorcerers or Warlocks?

I believe that warlocks are also prohibited from being lawful good.

That is correct. Warlocks can be Chaotic (any), Evil (any) or both. LG is off limits. (Not that warlocks are really CHA-based in the same way sorcerers or bards are; they really only need some of it to help with their UMD shenanigans.)

Edit:



My following argument: "If you have a CHA build - not just a characted with an high CHA, but one whose MAIN stat is CHA - then you have the advantage of being able to lie convincingly. Being bound to tell the true is an obstacle in that way (much less in OotSverse, where paladins are masters of getting around the true). So, if you have a very high Charisma, being Lawful Good is less efficient that being anything else"

There are 8 core skills that are CHA-based. Bluff and Disguise only amount to a quarter of these. There's nothing Chaotic about using Diplomacy; in fact, actual diplomacy revolves around rules and codes. Intimidate and Handle Animal are forms of asserting authority. They look good enough on Lawful characters. UMD can likewise be conceptualised as overpowering an item by sheer force of will, so there's no reason why it should be seen as inappropriate for a Lawful character. Perform and, again, Diplomacy are potent means of gaining goodwill and inspiring loyalty. Lawful enough. Gather Information, lastly, is perfectly neutral. It's neither here nor there.

I thereby reject the notion that Charisma is about subterfuge and deception.


Then I followed with: "Pure CHA characters who rely on Charisma more that other means - fight, magic, etc - are almost necessarily not LG because it would massively hinder their work. I can't think a name of a (breathes in) pure Charisma-based build with Lawful Good alignment character. I don't exclude they exist."

One word, my friend: Marshal.

[Fyraltari]

Warlocks can be Chaotic (any)
Isn't signing a contract their whole thing?

[Tzardok]

Isn't signing a contract their whole thing?

Not in 3.5.

The stereotypical warlock did make a pact with some force of evil or chaos (devils, demons, slaadi, fey, eladrin, whatever) in exchange for getting a wellspring of eldritch energy grafted into their soul, but the majority of warlocks are in fact people who are descended from other warlocks (this kind of malformed soul is often inheritable).

Besides that sometimes warlocks are the result of being cursed (usually by an evil deity) or are the descendants of those kinds of beings that you could make a pact with.

[mjasghar]

King Arthur wasn’t much of a fighter - definitely a high CHA
Also I’d say o’chul might have low CHA but his WiS is high
His main issue is he came to it later so he has a lot of plain Fighter levels (assuming he didn’t take a prestige class)

[aquablack]

King Arthur wasn’t much of a fighter - definitely a high CHA
Also I’d say o’chul might have low CHA but his WiS is high
His main issue is he came to it later so he has a lot of plain Fighter levels (assuming he didn’t take a prestige class)

Granted, he doesn't have much paladin levels either (4 or less, given the lack of mount... though the class and level thread has better information). So that doesn't help him out with his "paladin-ness" as much, even though he's still undeniably a very tanky character.

Still, within the world of OOTS, RP trumps optimization when it comes to selecting classes/abilities/etc. O-Chul having skill ranks in diplomacy (post 19163226, I can't link yet) doesn't make much sense for his overall build, but it makes a lot of sense for him as a character with empathy for those society has cast out or who have gone astray. I think it also shows a great example of someone who is interesting due to being diplomatic, but not much of a liar.

[Kish]

Isn't signing a contract their whole thing?
If your Whole Thing is signing a contract with something malevolent, that implies one of two things.

1) You don't mind being contracted to do evil: You are evil.
2) You are confident in your ability to escape the contract and see no moral issue in signing a contract you already do not plan to honor: You are chaotic.

[Fyraltari]

If your Whole Thing is signing a contract with something malevolent, that implies one of two things.

1) You don't mind being contracted to do evil: You are evil.
2) You are confident in your ability to escape the contract and see no moral issue in signing a contract you already do not plan to honor: You are chaotic.

I thought warlocks could have angels or fae as patrons.

[Laurentio III]

There are 8 core skills that are CHA-based. Bluff and Disguise only amount to a quarter of these. There's nothing Chaotic about using Diplomacy; in fact, actual diplomacy revolves around rules and codes. Intimidate and Handle Animal are forms of asserting authority. They look good enough on Lawful characters. UMD can likewise be conceptualised as overpowering an item by sheer force of will, so there's no reason why it should be seen as inappropriate for a Lawful character. Perform and, again, Diplomacy are potent means of gaining goodwill and inspiring loyalty. Lawful enough. Gather Information, lastly, is perfectly neutral. It's neither here nor there.

I thereby reject the notion that Charisma is about subterfuge and deception.
I agree.
But honestly, some skill is more commonly used that others. To say, Handle Animal is not worth having a very high Charisma for, unless you are pursuing a very peculiar path, while UMD is unquestionably excellent and fits you reasoning.
Still, if you are LG, you are renuncing to Bluff, which is a pretty useful skill if you happen to have high charisma.

Diplomacy is a very special situation. On one hand, being a LG diplomatic means that you can't lie and you can't admit evil, and this is a great vulnerability against morally challenged diplomats. On the other hand, your allies are not going to question your commitment, and this is particolarly useful.
A league of LG leaders would be fearsome.

About the Marshal, I had to read it and it's a funny character. But being LG is not a requirement.

[Jason]

I agree.
But honestly, some skill is more commonly used that others. To say, Handle Animal is not worth having a very high Charisma for, unless you are pursuing a very peculiar path, while UMD is unquestionably excellent and fits you reasoning.
Still, if you are LG, you are renuncing to Bluff, which is a pretty useful skill if you happen to have high charisma.
Not at all. Bluff can in fact be used by someone with a Lawful alignment. Roy has used it in the comic.

Any fictional character who is obviously LG and also a good leader or diplomat probably has a high Charisma. Arthur, Aragorn, Superman, Captain America, Obi-wan Kenobi, Spock, etc.

[Laurentio III]

Roy has used it in the comic.
I won't question the other names, even if most of them are not pure CHA build, but Roy... Roy is not the best example of a Lawful Good. There is a full page about how much not-lawlish (is it a word?) he is. True Neutral seems an harsh judgement to me, but I don't discuss devas.
Durkon, on the other hand, is a good example. "T'was a mechanical defect" is a perfectly lawful bluff.

[Resileaf]

I won't question the other names, even if most of them are not pure CHA build, but Roy... Roy is not the best example of a Lawful Good. There is a full page about how much not-lawlish (is it a word?) he is. True Neutral seems an harsh judgement to me, but I don't discuss devas.
Durkon, on the other hand, is a good example. "T'was a mechanical defect" is a perfectly lawful bluff.

True neutral was what she threatened she would have sent him to if he hadn't returned to save Elan from the bandits. Otherwise she was makng commentary on whether he would go to the neutral good afterlife or not.

[Metastachydium]

I thought warlocks could have angels or fae as patrons.

Celestial warlock is a post-3.x concept (okay, Enlightened Soul is a thing, but it's a PrC and a bad one at that). The CG/CN warlock is indeed supposed to be fey-related.


I agree.
But honestly, some skill is more commonly used that others. To say, Handle Animal is not worth having a very high Charisma for, unless you are pursuing a very peculiar path,

Having a wild cohort, animal companion or mount (from the least to the most weird pick for a LG character) is not very peculiar if you ask me.


Still, if you are LG, you are renuncing to Bluff, which is a pretty useful skill if you happen to have high charisma.

Yes, but if you never intended to use it in the first place, you lose nothing by not investing in it.


Diplomacy is a very special situation. On one hand, being a LG diplomatic means that you can't lie and you can't admit evil, and this is a great vulnerability against morally challenged diplomats.

That's the beauty of it! 3.5 Diplomacy as a mechanic is entirely separate from and much stronger than Bluff, in addition to the little detail that it can't be used on PCs at all.


About the Marshal, I had to read it and it's a funny character. But being LG is not a requirement.

It's not a good class, but an excellent dip. Anyway, my point is, it's heavily CHA-based and it's all about commanding organized and disciplined units. It's not Lawful-only as such, but its "official fluff" has a Lawful leaning to it.

(Fun fact: there's another partly CHA-based class which is Lawful only. It's the Knight. Now, its design is, khm, far from flawless, but it deserves a special mention for being the closest thing to an actual dedicated tank chassis the game has to offer. I like it a lot.)

[Tzardok]

Celestial warlock is a post-3.x concept (okay, Enlightened Soul is a thing, but it's a PrC and a bad one at that). The CG/CN warlock is indeed supposed to be fey-related.


Eladrin and slaadi were already mentioned as (albeit rare) warlock creators, at least in Complete Mage.

[KillianHawkeye]

Lawful Good characters are not prohibited from using Bluff or from being dishonest in general. Some of them might not choose to do so, but there's no rule stopping them.

It goes against the Paladin code, but other LG characters at least can lie as much as they want.

[gbaji]

There are 8 core skills that are CHA-based. Bluff and Disguise only amount to a quarter of these. There's nothing Chaotic about using Diplomacy; in fact, actual diplomacy revolves around rules and codes. Intimidate and Handle Animal are forms of asserting authority. They look good enough on Lawful characters. UMD can likewise be conceptualised as overpowering an item by sheer force of will, so there's no reason why it should be seen as inappropriate for a Lawful character. Perform and, again, Diplomacy are potent means of gaining goodwill and inspiring loyalty. Lawful enough. Gather Information, lastly, is perfectly neutral. It's neither here nor there.

I thereby reject the notion that Charisma is about subterfuge and deception.

Since I made the initial statement that launched this sub-discussion, I'll point out that my initial claim was "most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely "lawful good do-gooder"" (exception obviously being characters intended to be paladins from the start, since the point I was making was the low likelihood of any other character choosing to take levels in paladin later on actually having a high CHA).

And I stand by that statement. Setting aside other classes that use CHA as a primary stat, let's look at the list of skills you provided. Sure, while some of them can absolutely be useful in some ways to a character that is lawful good, I think that's looking at it backwards.

Let's say I'm creating a rogue character. Sneaky. Underhanded. What skills would I want to be good at? Obviously, I want dex for various physical abilities, but my second best stat in most cases? Charisma. The skill list is a literal list of things you want to be to be a sneaky type. Bluff, disguise, gather information. Top choices. Perform might give me an easy way to hide in plain sight (take a job as a local entertainer while spying on the audience for example). Diplomacy skill for managing the intricacies of various thieves guild politics and keeping myself from being killed because I accidentally insulted the local mafia don. Intimidate when I have to occasionally keep the local riff raff reminded that I'm the big talent key to the "big score" and not them and maybe get them to provide information or assistance in another way. UMD for being able to augment my stealthy skills with magic as needed. The only thing that's kinda out there is handle animal, but I'm pretty sure I could train a couple of weasels to help me out of a few scrapes if needed.

While all these skills are in the "could be useful" to other types of characters, they are pretty much "must haves" (or at least "useful in a core way") for most sneaky type characters. And those are going to tend to not be lawful good. I'm not making an absolute statement, just pointing out a general trend.

[brian 333]

Rangers do well with the skill list given for many of the same reasons. Lawful Rangers have been a thing since the class was first ripped from Aragorn.

[Tzardok]

Snip

In short, your original statement was reversed. You stated "high charisma characters are likely to be sneaky types", and now you gave reasons for "sneaky type characters are likely to be high charisma", which is a) not the same; and b) less likely to invite counter-claims.

[Metastachydium]

Let's say I'm creating a rogue character. Sneaky. Underhanded. What skills would I want to be good at? Obviously, I want dex for various physical abilities, but my second best stat in most cases? Charisma.

Hard disagree there. I'd say it's INT.


Gather Information (…) Perform (…) Diplomacy (…) Intimidate

As you'd put it, these skills "can be useful" to sneaky types, but often enough only when they can't, in fact, act sneaky. One has to somewhat expose oneself to use them to the point of actively drawing attention to themselves or to that of openly confronting others.

Meanwhile, INT has things like Search (the skill of being nosy without interacting with others), Disable Device (for subtle sabotage and the like), Knowledge (local) (passively know thy surroundings to find what you want and avoid what you'd better avoid), Decipher Script (to break codes and the like) and Forgery (self-explanatory (and don't look at me, it's not like anyone uses Disguise either)). Plus it gives you MORE skill points for MORE stealth, skill tricks and whatnot.

[Kish]

Hard disagree there. I'd say it's INT.
Indeed. And even assuming that the super stereotyped rogue there has enough skill points for these social skills along with Sleight of Hand, Open Locks, Disable Device--you know, the actual Super Styereotyped Rogue skills--despite having an Intelligence that's at best third-highest, which classes and stereotypes really do go with "maximum charisma"? Classes: Sorcerer, bard, paladin, cleric. Stereotypes: Diplomat, "party face."

Admittedly a bard literally can't be Lawful Good, but this "high charisma=safe bet you're a slimeball" stuff is wholly unsupportable.

[KillianHawkeye]

Charisma as a stat for Rogues is 50/50. You can make a Rogue with high Charisma or you can make it your dump stat depending on your play style. The Rogue class presents so many options, it's impossible to take them all.

Then again, some players will put their second or third best stat into Charisma because they like to be the party face no matter what class they're in. Again, it comes down to play style.

[Resileaf]

You're either the edgy, brooding rogue who stands in darkness and looks myserious at people, or you're the charming swindler who could bluff a lock to open without a key.

[gbaji]

In short, your original statement was reversed. You stated "high charisma characters are likely to be sneaky types", and now you gave reasons for "sneaky type characters are likely to be high charisma", which is a) not the same; and b) less likely to invite counter-claims.

Ok. But now we're getting caught up in game mechanics. As a player in 3.5, assuming we're using point buy system for stats (the default IIRC), then you're going to start with what kind of character you want to make, including starting class, skill, feats, etc, and probably some idea of level/skill/feat progression from that point forward as well, and you're going to pick stats that align with that plan. Obviously, if we are projecting ourselves into the mind of the character, they just arrive at young adulthood with stats that provide benefits in some things and less so for others, so their choices are from the opposite direction.

Both viewpoints are valid and presumably part of character creation considered by the player. Especially when considering what alignment to choose for said character. From the player perspective, you chose to give your character a high CHA. If you did that, but didn't specifically choose a class that benefits from high CHA as a class feature (like Paladin or Sorcerer), then it was likely for the skills. I was examining the thought process of the player creating the character and why they might give their character a high Charisma. The same process still works in reverse if we assume a young adult with a high Charisma, choosing a profession to pursue, but not wanting to get into spell casting, nor having a calling towards being a Paladin.

I'm also trying to avoid hard assumptions about class as well (except to presume this wasn't about making a Paladin either at start, or as an intended character growth potential). It's about "what might you want to use these skills for so much so that you stated up CHA to make your character more effective at them, and what alignment might that tend you towards". We're still going to largely be looking at a set of characters who will tend away from lawful good as their alignment. Most Charisma based skills and effects in the game are about manipulating or fooling other characters in some way. Given the tendency for many players to avoid lawful good as an alignment anyway, and plentiful RP options for those who do want to play a do-gooder type character, and the host of other better stats and skills that better synergize with those character types, I still see a very low probability for a character not designed to be a paladin at start, later choosing to be one, and just happening to have a high CHA stat to boot.

It doesn't at all mean that you cant do this. It's just not going to be very common IME. Which was all I was saying.

Oh. For those who commented on this, I did forget about INT. My bad. Obviously, INT is also a useful stat for a sneaky type characters (although arguably a decent INT is useful for just about any type of character). But the same point still stands. We're not examining what other stats the player chose to give the character, but specifically why a high(ish) CHA. Our assumption is that the player actually chose to sacrifice points in other stats that might have been useful in order to put points in CHA. Outside of class requirements, you've got to *really* want to utilize the CHA based skillset to make that choice. And I'm still left with "I want to make someone who can play a strong social game". And (again to me anyway), that does not lend itself towards a LG alignment.

[gbaji]

Admittedly a bard literally can't be Lawful Good, but this "high charisma=safe bet you're a slimeball" stuff is wholly unsupportable.

Bit of a strawman (with a side of false dilemma). No one said that high Charisma equals "slimeball". There's a whole lot of alignments that don't equate to "slimeball", but are *also* not Lawful Good. Most of them, in fact.

[WanderingMist]

Laurana the Golden General of the Dragonlance series.

Sir Galahad of the Arthurian mythos.

Jason of the Argonauts.

Bold to call Jason Lawful Good considering what he did to Pelias and Medea.

[brian 333]

Bold to call Jason Lawful Good considering what he did to Pelias and Medea.

Pelias imprisoned Jason's father and usurped his throne. When Jason and Pelias met Pelias sent him on a quest intending that he die in trying or be publicly shamed for refusing. Either way, Jason would not be able to take away his usurped throne.
Jason organized a company of heroes and undertook the quest. Arriving at the location of the plot item, he asked it's owner for it and was told to perform tasks, which he did. The questgiver then refused to give the promised reward.
Madea convinced him she could help him steal the plot item if Jason would marry her. He promised to marry her and, (gasp,) be faithful to her.
After retrieving the plot item, Jason and Madea escaped, but she took her half brother hostage to secure their retreat. The tactic didn't work, so she chopped her sibling into pieces and chucked him in the water, forcing her father to stop and collect the pieces while Jason got away.
After returning to Pelias, it was discovered that Jason's parents had either committed suicide, or more likely been executed. Pelias also refused to honor his agreement.
Thinking she should have been queen, but instead getting nothing, Medea either killed or had Pelias killed by tricking his daughters into the deed. Pelias's son took the throne and banished Jason from his father's kingdom.
In all the deeds of Jason, save one, it was Medea who committed crimes, and Jason bore the responsibility for them. His one crime was to be attracted to a princess.
Madea poisoned her, and her father by accident, then murdered two of Jason's sons in revenge.

Compared to virtually every other Greek Hero, Jason was a saint. What did he do that indicates he was less than Lawful Good?

(Personally, I'd say he should have shoved Madea overboard when she killed her brother, but I like to wargame scenarios.)

[WanderingMist]

Pelias imprisoned Jason's father and usurped his throne. When Jason and Pelias met Pelias sent him on a quest intending that he die in trying or be publicly shamed for refusing. Either way, Jason would not be able to take away his usurped throne.
Jason organized a company of heroes and undertook the quest. Arriving at the location of the plot item, he asked it's owner for it and was told to perform tasks, which he did. The questgiver then refused to give the promised reward.
Madea convinced him she could help him steal the plot item if Jason would marry her. He promised to marry her and, (gasp,) be faithful to her.
After retrieving the plot item, Jason and Madea escaped, but she took her half brother hostage to secure their retreat. The tactic didn't work, so she chopped her sibling into pieces and chucked him in the water, forcing her father to stop and collect the pieces while Jason got away.
After returning to Pelias, it was discovered that Jason's parents had either committed suicide, or more likely been executed. Pelias also refused to honor his agreement.
Thinking she should have been queen, but instead getting nothing, Medea either killed or had Pelias killed by tricking his daughters into the deed. Pelias's son took the throne and banished Jason from his father's kingdom.
In all the deeds of Jason, save one, it was Medea who committed crimes, and Jason bore the responsibility for them. His one crime was to be attracted to a princess.
Madea poisoned her, and her father by accident, then murdered two of Jason's sons in revenge.

Compared to virtually every other Greek Hero, Jason was a saint. What did he do that indicates he was less than Lawful Good?

(Personally, I'd say he should have shoved Madea overboard when she killed her brother, but I like to wargame scenarios.)

Jason broke his vow to Medea, which was a far more serious crime, considering Medea leaves on a chariot gvien to her by Helios even after all the things she did, yet Hera withdrew her protection from Jason for abandoning Medea.

[brian 333]

Jason -1
Medea -8

Jason had to pay the price for Medea's misdeeds at every turn. Of course a deity whose portfolio includes marriage and jealousy over infidelity blamed Jason, (he did break his promise.) And of course Grandpa loaned his grandaughter the car so she could escape rather than face Jason after having murdered his sons.
But the one act of infidelity does not erase a lifetime of courageous, honorable service. He just married the wrong princess.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: This conversation is butting right against the line of real-world religion. Let's move it away from that.

[Socksy]

I once participated in a 1st ed. campaign with a bard-beholder. I wonder if a paladin-beholder is possible?


Now that I think about it, it is a little weird that all of the sapphire guard paladins are human.

It may be the case that Azure City is a little behind the times.


Only a human may become a paladin. He must have minimum ability scores of Strength 12, Constitution 9, Wisdom 13, and Charisma 17.

(Emphasis mine).

[Resileaf]

Or maybe Azure City is a human city with human citizens and as such the elite secret organization of paladins that is composed of handpicked promising citizens will be entirely formed of humans.

[wilphe]

There are 8 core skills that are CHA-based. Bluff and Disguise only amount to a quarter of these.

Bluff and Disguise are not chaotic, either

Carrot (to the Chief Fool): I was given an order just before I came in here. If you do not comply, I will have no choice but to obey that order. Of course, I will do so with the greatest reluctance.

Dr. Whiteface, appalled: Listen! If I shout, I can have a dozen men in here.

Carrot: Believe me, that will only make it easier for me to obey.

"Sergeant Colon was lost in admiration. He'd seen people bluff on a bad hand, but he'd never seen anyone bluff with no cards."

[gbaji]

Bluff and Disguise are not chaotic, either

At the risk of beating a broken horse (and maybe tying this back to the subject of Paladins), 5 out of the 8 Alignments which are not Lawful Good, are also not Chaotic, and (again at the risk of re-railing this) therefore disqualify said character from taking a level in Paladin.

[Kish]

Bit of a strawman (with a side of false dilemma). No one said that high Charisma equals "slimeball". There's a whole lot of alignments that don't equate to "slimeball", but are *also* not Lawful Good. Most of them, in fact.
And if you hadn't also said "do-gooder" as something that somehow goes against high Charisma, you wouldn't be arguing against an accurate (if perhaps blunter than you like now that you've gotten this amount of pushback to your claim) paraphrase.

"Sneaky" and "underhanded" also pop up in your "rogue who goes for Charisma right after Dexterity" example, so...if you want to back off to "if you're not a paladin you're not a paladin," I'd suggest doing so and not trying to retrieve your initial claim.

As I said:

which classes and stereotypes really do go with "maximum charisma"? Classes: Sorcerer, bard, paladin, cleric. Stereotypes: Diplomat, "party face."

One of those four classes is incompatible with being Lawful Good; zero of them is incompatible with being a do-gooder. One among the many Charisma-based skills is anything but a perfect fit for someone who is Lawful Good, a do-gooder, or both (Bluff), and as other people have pointed out it's still not forbidden to paladins, just very slightly off the class stereotype. I don't know what games you've been playing in where Charisma goes with [dishonesty/selfishness/insert whatever you won't call a strawman for linking it to not being a do-gooder].

[tomandtish]

Lawful Good characters are not prohibited from using Bluff or from being dishonest in general. Some of them might not choose to do so, but there's no rule stopping them.

It goes against the Paladin code, but other LG characters at least can lie as much as they want.

And even Paladins can be misleading in their answers. Take O-Chul's answer to how the Azure City gate was destroyed in comic 633 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0663.html).

Hinjo: "I see. Then you were the one who made the decision to destroy the gate rather than let it fall into Xykon's clutches".

O-chul: "I did make that decision and it was my blade that did the deed".

O-Chul VERY softly: "I will say no more about it lest I speak ill of the dead". (It appears Hinjo didn't hear this part).

[The MunchKING]

Or Hinjo respected O-Chul's choice and agreed with the honor system that would prevent speaking ill of the dead. Like there wasn't any real point in dragging Mike further through the mud, so Hinjo just accepts it and moves on.

[tomandtish]

IF he heard O-Chul (and that's definitely an if), it still doesn't change the fact that O-Chul's initial statement was misleading (if technically true).

[Laurentio III]

IF he heard O-Chul (and that's definitely an if), it still doesn't change the fact that O-Chul's initial statement was misleading (if technically true).
Missleading is a trademark of paladins.
When you can't lie (or you lie very badly, like O-Chul), you can still tell vague truism and let people fill the wrong hole.

[brian 333]

At the risk of beating a broken horse (and maybe tying this back to the subject of Paladins), 5 out of the 8 Alignments which are not Lawful Good, are also not Chaotic, and (again at the risk of re-railing this) therefore disqualify said character from taking a level in Paladin.


Missleading is a trademark of paladins.
When you can't lie (or you lie very badly, like O-Chul), you can still tell vague truism and let people fill the wrong hole.

Prevarication is still a lie, as is a lie of ommission.

A paladin may lie, or not, as his code dictates. For most paladins a lie is undesirable, but not enough to cause a fall. Habitual deception in any form is another issue.

However, when dealing with a paladin's code violations one should consider both the spirit and the letter of the issue.

A lie that helps someone, "You can do it, champ! You can be anything you want if you work for it!" Is distinctly different from a lie that hurts someone, "You're a failure, and you'll never amount to anything!"

So a lie can be Good or Evil, but a lie is always Chaotic. A rare, seemingly necessary, lie is not a big deal. Habitual lies are.

But all lies are not equal. A paladin telling his significant other that those jeans do not make her look fat is distinctly different from a paladin falsely relaying his lord's orders. No matter the intent behind those two, one is not a clear violation of virtually every Paladin's Code about which I've ever read.

[Keltest]

O-Chul wasnt lying though, even by omission. He directly said that there was more to the story that he was refraining from saying out of respect for the dead. He wasnt trying to mislead anyone, he was trying to drop the conversation specifically to avoid being put in an uncomfortable spot.

[KillianHawkeye]

I suppose it's time to point out that the Bluff skill has uses besides just lying?

I don't think feinting in combat is against the Paladin's Code? It's a legitimate fencing technique. Or creating a diversion? Or speaking in code to relay secret information? All perfectly fine for anyone to do.

[Metastachydium]

there wasn't any real point in dragging Mike further through the mud

Mike? Who's Mike? Does he work for Xyklon?


I suppose it's time to point out that the Bluff skill has uses besides just lying?

I don't think feinting in combat is against the Paladin's Code? It's a legitimate fencing technique. Or creating a diversion? Or speaking in code to relay secret information? All perfectly fine for anyone to do.

Too true! It's also handy for keeping secrets while not looking like someone who keeps secrets and generally projecting a public image (e.g. of hopeful calm in a dire situation). There's nothing Lawful about sweating a lot, looking very nervous or wrecking morale via the inability to stop one's teeth from chattering.

[gbaji]

And if you hadn't also said "do-gooder" as something that somehow goes against high Charisma, you wouldn't be arguing against an accurate (if perhaps blunter than you like now that you've gotten this amount of pushback to your claim) paraphrase.

Um... When I write a phrase, I don't just add extra words for fluff or something. The phrase was "lawful good do-gooder". Taking half the words (2/3rds?) out of the phrase and quoting it back at me and using that new phrase literally is a textbook strawman technique. Please stop dong that. Haley and Elan are both "do-gooders", yet neither is qualified for the Paladin class. Right? Both have decent to high Charisma stats, too. I was very specifically making a point about the probability of someone who has a high charisma being able to later take levels in Paladin.

That phrase was itself in the context specifically of characters who were not created as paladins, or with the intention of becoming paladins. Here's the full quote:

"Alignment and stats are a pretty big hurdle though, and it's likely that if a player didn't start out intending for a character to be a paladin or have the potential to be one in the future, it's not likely going to happen. Charisma is a biggie. It's critical for three of the major special abilities of a paladin, but let's face it, most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely "lawful good do-gooder"."

My core point is that if you don't start out intending to be a paladin, you're not likely to take a level later, and if you do you're unlikely to have the best stat configuration for the paladin class. This is because the most restrictive requirement is having a lawful good alignment. I'd also argue you also have to have a character personality that "fits" with becoming a paladin as well (RP thing, so just being lawful good isn't really enough).

I then zeroed in on the CHA stat, because while we can imagine a lot of "lawful good do-gooders" who take levels in fighter (for example), who might later decide to dedicate themselves fully to a cause and become a paladin, those characters (like O-Chul) are unlikely to have a high CHA, simply because it would not have been terrifically important for them in their previously chosen class.

I then followed up with a comment about what sorts of character types (and I was specifically trying to avoid specific classes here, but focus on RP) who might chose to have a high CHA. And those tend away from lawful good alignment (except, of course for actual paladins). I'm talking probabilities here, which is what the topic is about. Nothing is absolute.


"Sneaky" and "underhanded" also pop up in your "rogue who goes for Charisma right after Dexterity" example, so...if you want to back off to "if you're not a paladin you're not a paladin," I'd suggest doing so and not trying to retrieve your initial claim.

I'm not "back(ing) off". That was literally the point I was making. The topic is about how people become paladins. I was talking about that.

Someone brought up the question about characters having some change of heart/direction/purpose and taking levels of paladin later in life. I was responding to that question. So yes, it is very specifically about characters not starting out intending to be paladins, but later choosing to take levels in the class, and how difficult/rare that would be, and how effective they would be at some paladin abilities (CHA based specifically) as a result. I went with "fighter type becomes paladin", but the same argument (with different stat(s)) can be made for other classes too. I was just giving one example case.



One of those four classes is incompatible with being Lawful Good; zero of them is incompatible with being a do-gooder. One among the many Charisma-based skills is anything but a perfect fit for someone who is Lawful Good, a do-gooder, or both ...

And again, you are laboring under the false assumption that the phrase "lawful good do-gooder" means people who are either "lawful good" *or* "do-gooders" *or* "both". No. It means "both". Always. It is do-gooders who have a lawful good alignment and absolutely nothing else. "Lawful good" is a modifier to "do-gooder". Period. It tells us what kind of do-gooder we are talking about. Lawful good ones. Apologies if English isn't your first language, but that's the basic rules of adjectives in effect here.

Are there charisma based skills that can be used for good? Absolutely. And we have lots of character examples in the comic of just this happening. The odds of that character also being lawful good alignment and thus qualified to take a level in paladin later on if they choose, are pretty darn low though. Do Durkon or Roy regularly use charisma based skills? No, they don't. Do Haley and Elan? Yes, they do. And which alignments are those two sets of characters? Both pairs of characters are "do-gooders". Only one pair is also "lawful good", and it's the pair that didn't focus on the CHA stat and CHA based skills as part of their build(s).

Admittedly, character builds in OotS are remarkably sub-optimal, but in this case, that's actually something that does make sense and does follow a pretty clear "what do you want this character to be good at" concept that naturally follows from the rules in 3.5 D&D.

[Kish]

Um... When I write a phrase, I don't just add extra words for fluff or something.
And yet when you said "most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely 'lawful good do-gooder'" and then responded to the obvious pushback you got to this claim by saying you could imagine a sneaky, underhanded rogue (like that actually indicated anything except that you didn't choose to imagine an upstanding sorcerer diplomat...), and then objected to my paraphasing this as equating high charisma with being a slimeball, your objection didn't mention the rogue or the do-gooder part--it was just "There's a whole lot of alignments that don't equate to 'slimeball,' but are *also* not Lawful Good.'

There is no correlation between high Charisma and whatever alignment incompatibility you will not protest "strawman" to saying you claimed. You have weird ideas about D&D. Durkon is a very nonstandard cleric in having a Charisma penalty, Roy has high Charisma, and Haley likely has Charisma as her third highest stat at most. No one here has agreed with your claim because your claim is goofy.

[gbaji]

And yet when you said "most players who create a character with a high Cha are likely going in a direction with that character that isn't likely 'lawful good do-gooder'" and then responded to the obvious pushback you got to this claim by saying you could imagine a sneaky, underhanded rogue (like that actually indicated anything except that you didn't choose to imagine an upstanding sorcerer diplomat...), and then objected to my paraphasing this as equating high charisma with being a slimeball, your objection didn't mention the rogue or the do-gooder part--it was just "There's a whole lot of alignments that don't equate to 'slimeball,' but are *also* not Lawful Good.'

Yes. Because you were creating a false dilemma between "lawful good do-gooder" and "slimeball". As if there's nothing in between those two. Is Haley a "slimeball"? How about Elan? Yet, both have high charisma. So clearly, there is a whole range of potential characters, with high charisma, who make use of the charisma based skills, but who are neither "slimeballs" nor "lawful good". Let's not forget, the slimeball characterization was not mine. I never used that term. "sneaky" is not the same as "slimeball". There are lots of lovable and fun "sneaky" characters out there.

Literally, all I'm saying is that those characters (high charisma but not starting out as or intending to be paladins) are unlikely to be of "lawful good" alignment. And even more narrowly "lawful good alignment folks who also choose to become paladins later in life". That's a rare combination already. Is it possible? Absolutely. But it's going to be extremely rare.


There is no correlation between high Charisma and whatever alignment incompatibility you will not protest "strawman" to saying you claimed. You have weird ideas about D&D. Durkon is a very nonstandard cleric in having a Charisma penalty, Roy has high Charisma, and Haley likely has Charisma as her third highest stat at most. No one here has agreed with your claim because your claim is goofy.

Instead of just declaring that I have "weird ideas about D&D", or that no one agreed with my claim because it's "goofy" (appeal to popularity, so you're up to three different fallacies at this point), why not actually make an argument *for* your position and provide some sort of logic and rationale for it? Positive arguments. Not just negative ones. Try it out.

And yeah, OotS characters are odd examples (cause they're not terribly optimized), but according to class and level geekery, Cha is tied for Roy's 5th or 6th stat (despite him being "decent" in it). It's Elan's best, and Haley's 3rd (and is listed as having a likely much higher level than Roy's). Durkon is just strange, but he's a smelly dwarf, so whatever. He focused very much on Con and Wis.

What's interesting is that Roy is actually an example of your point (or I suppose, counterpoint). He *could* be a decent paladin (stats kinda spread out quite a bit). But his personality type precludes him wanting to be one. He's not particularly religious, and doesn't seem to be one to sign on to a commitment to a cause like that (despite the whole oath bit, of course). He apparently doesn't have enough of a stick up his backside, I guess.

I'll fully admit that my 3.5 D&D experience is somewhat old and not that broad. While I've certainly played that edition more than any other since 1st edition (played zero 4th, and only 5th I think twice), that's still a smallish percentage of my total RPG experience. I'm more than willing to acknowledge there may be combinations of character builds, classes, and concepts that I'm not considering. And I'd love for someone to actually present those and show how they would negate the claim I made.

But again, in my experience, when a player creates a character with a high charisma, it's usually because they are creating a paladin or a sorcerer. They might take a "decent" charisma as a cleric as well, but are more likely to use their 3rd or 4th stat choice on Charisma when playing a rogue (and will definitely stat it up higher as a bard). And of those other classes, rogue and bard are out, and while we could speculate a lawful good sorcerer, that's a very odd class to later take levels in paladin. Cleric is the most obvious choice, so we could presume a lawful good cleric might take levels in paladin later in life, but I'd almost argue that this could very well be by design for the character anyway (you start out as a devout follower of your god, and then later take a step to be an even more devout follower by joining the order of paladins).

Uh. There's also some odd issues with being a cleric/paladin. A cleric becoming a paladin sacrifices spell progression to get a few special abilities, and not a lot more. It's certainly more conceptually acceptable than the sorcerer/paladin. I remember specifically looking at a cleric/paladin combo back in the day and determined that you were better off being pure cleric or pure paladin instead. Heck taking a level or two of fighter or ranger worked better from a synergy point of view (for either clerics or paladins) than mixing cleric and paladin themselves. I suppose it's a "character concept" versus "character performance" question here though.

This leaves us with "other classes for whom charisma isn't that terribly important" as potential candidates. And yes, we could imagine just about anyone choosing to do this. But again, I'm left with the alignment issue. Setting aside the assumed 1 in 9 odds of any random person being lawful good (cause that's just a cop out argument IMO), we're still left with "what character personality type tends to stat points in charisma"? And yeah, I'm still inclined towards the assumption that high charisma characters are going to tend towards personalities that aren't lawful good. There's just too many of the skills in that set that are social/manipulation type skills. I make this assessment both from a roleplay and a game play perspective.


So yeah. That's my thinking. What's yours?

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm also just making a note here: Characters can change alignment.

So even if a character with high Charisma didn't start out as Lawful Good, nothing stops one from making the shift if they later decide they're the kind of person who could be a paladin. Do we even know for a fact that O-chul, or any of the other paladins for that matter, have been Lawful Good their whole lives?

[Fyraltari]

I'm also just making a note here: Characters can change alignment.

So even if a character with high Charisma didn't start out as Lawful Good, nothing stops one from making the shift if they later decide they're the kind of person who could be a paladin. Do we even know for a fact that O-chul, or any of the other paladins for that matter, have been Lawful Good their whole lives?

If children have alignment, I doubt O-Chul pinged as LG while in the care of his biological parents.

[Ruck]

If children have alignment, I doubt O-Chul pinged as LG while in the care of his biological parents.

Heh, I was thinking the same thing (including the question of the premise).

[aquablack]

I'm also just making a note here: Characters can change alignment.

So even if a character with high Charisma didn't start out as Lawful Good, nothing stops one from making the shift if they later decide they're the kind of person who could be a paladin. Do we even know for a fact that O-chul, or any of the other paladins for that matter, have been Lawful Good their whole lives?

Spoiler from good deeds gone unpunished:

O-Chul specifically has not been Lawful Good his entire life. Although he was certainly LG by the time of GDGU, after 12 years in the sapphire guard he only has 3-4 levels of Paladin. Miko had been a paladin for about the same time, and she had at least 10 levels of paladin. It would not surprise me if it took a few years for O-Chul to receive "the call" and become a paladin. Meanwhile, Miko was scouted specifically due to her potential, so she probably received the call not long after the events of GDGU.

Although you may explain some of that by the fact that Miko was often sent away on missions since people didn't like her that much (per Hinjo), the same was likely true for O-Chul near the beginning.

Incidentally, OOTS has always had themes of people choosing their own alignment, or choosing to do good or bad things, regardless of what the alignment says in their stat block. Perhaps there is a certain amount of choice involved in the world of OOTS when it comes to paladin levels. Possibly, O-Chul had to "work" towards the call, much like he had worked towards being a better person.

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler from good deeds gone unpunished:

O-Chul specifically has not been Lawful Good his entire life. Although he was certainly LG by the time of GDGU, after 12 years in the sapphire guard he only has 3-4 levels of Paladin. Miko had been a paladin for about the same time, and she had at least 10 levels of paladin. It would not surprise me if it took a few years for O-Chul to receive "the call" and become a paladin. Meanwhile, Miko was scouted specifically due to her potential, so she probably received the call not long after the events of GDGU.

Although you may explain some of that by the fact that Miko was often sent away on missions since people didn't like her that much (per Hinjo), the same was likely true for O-Chul near the beginning.

Incidentally, OOTS has always had themes of people choosing their own alignment, or choosing to do good or bad things, regardless of what the alignment says in their stat block. Perhaps there is a certain amount of choice involved in the world of OOTS when it comes to paladin levels. Possibly, O-Chul had to "work" towards the call, much like he had worked towards being a better person.

O-Chul is accepted into the Sapphire Guard at the end of the story. I think his fewer levels in Paladin are due to him already having a bunch of levels in another martial class after his time in the Azurite Military.

[Manga Shoggoth]

O-Chul is accepted into the Sapphire Guard at the end of the story. I think his fewer levels in Paladin are due to him already having a bunch of levels in another martial class after his time in the Azurite Military.

Specifically, fighter. 12 levels of it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html).

[Fyraltari]

Specifically, fighter. 12 levels of it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html).

You earn a level per year?

[Manga Shoggoth]

You earn a level per year?

You'd earn the first levels quite quickly, but it would slow down asymptotically.

...Yeah, misread it...

[Metastachydium]

Specifically, fighter. 12 levels of it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html).

The CLG thread posits he has 8+ fighter levels (based on his paladin level (as it could be gleaned from his lacking a mount) and his presumed number of levels compared to Hinjo's).

[WanderingMist]

Specifically, fighter. 12 levels of it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html).

Huh. O-Chul totally made up those defenses for Girard's Gate yet he was pretty much spot-on.

[Kish]

He really wasn't. No riddles. The only parts he was right about amounted to, "In the dungeon set up by the illusion guy, there will be illusions and it's a dungeon."

[Sigako]

The way that paladins work in the sapphire guard seems to break from 3e's description. Miko is selected to train as a paladin, whereas in core rules you cannot train to be a paladin, it either happens or it doesn't. On the other hand, perhaps you can bend those rules and say with sufficient divination magic you can predict which acolytes have paladin potential, and then train them.

I think Sir Francois's the only paladin we've seen outside the sapphire guard, too, which makes me wonder if training has a more significant effect in-universe on whether someone "answers the call" or not. But of course the insularity of the sapphire guard has its downsides for maintaining paladins as well. Perhaps it's accidental, but it's interesting that the one time we see a paladin outside of the sapphire guard within the "main" comic they are calling out adventurers for committing a home invasion by attacking goblins (#975).

Has the Giant defined anywhere how paladins become paladins within OOTS? Is training a requirement, implying that there's another order of paladins somewhere in Nowhere?

Easiest explanation: prospective youths are trained en masse to gain required levels, then the ones who get the call and answer it join the paladin corps, the ones who don't before a certain point are shuffled to other duties. If one of the latter gets the call later in life they already have the requisite training and can be easily rotated. If someone without training gets the call, they're given crash course, like O-Chul.

[brian 333]

There is another explanation:

The Calling is less formal than has been assumed, and there are many paths which lead one to become a paladin.

A peasant discovers a dying knight in a ditch. "Take up my sword and complete my holy quest," the knight says. The next thing you know there is a young knight running around performing miracles and beating up on enemy knights who have trained for years.

A young nobleman has been raised with the traditions of service and devotion. As he is dubbed a knight a beam of light shines down upon him and heavenly voices sing.

The church trains all 13 year olds in basic martial skills just in case the militia is called up. Those who show aptitude receive further training as militia leaders in their 14th year. The best of these are given advanced combat training at 15, and at age 16 the best of these are esquired to one of the orders of knighthood for a possible career. The very best of these become paladins while the rest are knights in service to the church.

A young person raised in a monastery learns devotion and discipline in equal measure. What seems ordinary to her, having grown up amongst monks, appears miraculous to those she meets.

The Calling can be that a devout person was in the right place at the right time, that training awakened a latent ability, or that a lifetime of service and devotion led to paladinhood. It does not always mean a god had a conversation with a mortal and said, 'I choose you.'

[Peelee]

A peasant discovers a dying knight in a ditch. "Take up my sword and complete my holy quest," the knight says. The next thing you know there is a young knight running around performing miracles and beating up on enemy knights who have trained for years.

Oh, hello there, guaranteed backstory for if I ever roll well enough to do a paladin.

[The MunchKING]

Mike? Who's Mike? Does he work for Xyklon?

I blame auto-correct. :smallmad:

[Metastachydium]

I blame auto-correct. :smallmad:

(Eh, don't mind me, the Mike thing it was just funny enough that I couldn't not take the cheap shot.)

[Ruck]

Oh, hello there, guaranteed backstory for if I ever roll well enough to do a paladin.

I'm not particularly versed in the subject, but this feels like more or less the Green Lantern's origin story.

[Aquillion]

Now that I think about it, it is a little weird that all of the sapphire guard paladins are human.IIRC, in 2e Paladins were required to be human. It could be a holdover / reference to that, or it could be that that still defines the intuitive sense of what a Paladin is.

[Tzardok]

Or it could be because, well, did you see any non-humans in Azure City? If the population from which you recruit doesn't include any non-humans, where would they get any?

[Resileaf]

IIRC, in 2e Paladins were required to be human. It could be a holdover / reference to that, or it could be that that still defines the intuitive sense of what a Paladin is.

Or it could be that Azure City was a human city and that the Sapphire Guard was formed of citizens of the city.

Edit: Ooh, my first ninja on this forum

[Tzardok]

Or it could be that Azure City was a human city and that the Sapphire Guard was formed of citizens of the city.

Edit: Ooh, my first ninja on this forum

You mean, the first one you noticed. :smallbiggrin:

[Laurentio III]

Or it could be that Azure City was a human city and that the Sapphire Guard was formed of citizens of the city.

Edit: Ooh, my first ninja on this forum
Out of curiosity I checked the later Sapphire Guard (the one fighting Xykon). All of them are apparently human. Gender is almost equally distribuite. Two should be sorcadins.
And, if you die missing an eye your ghost will miss one eye, while if you die with an eye recently stabbed, your ghost is fine. Weird consistency.

[brian 333]

I'm not particularly versed in the subject, but this feels like more or less the Green Lantern's origin story.

{scrubbed}

[dancrilis]

And, if you die missing an eye your ghost will miss one eye, while if you die with an eye recently stabbed, your ghost is fine. Weird consistency.

I am not sure if you are calling this inconsistent or noting that it is consistent?

[Ruck]

Or it could be because, well, did you see any non-humans in Azure City? If the population from which you recruit doesn't include any non-humans, where would they get any?


Or it could be that Azure City was a human city and that the Sapphire Guard was formed of citizens of the city.

Edit: Ooh, my first ninja on this forum


Out of curiosity I checked the later Sapphire Guard (the one fighting Xykon). All of them are apparently human. Gender is almost equally distribuite. Two should be sorcadins.
And, if you die missing an eye your ghost will miss one eye, while if you die with an eye recently stabbed, your ghost is fine. Weird consistency.
Don't you have to be human to qualify for citizenship in Azure City?

[Laurentio III]

I am not sure if you are calling this inconsistent or noting that it is consistent?
I'm calling it weird.
As a rule, all recent wounds are cancelled, but old one aren't.
Could have something to do with how you view yourself at the moment of dead. We know it's the case in the afterife.

[Kish]

Don't you have to be human to qualify for citizenship in Azure City?
Rather, you need to have human blood. Half-elves and half-orcs could qualify.

Azure City was racist, a fine old tradition Gobbotopia carries on.

[tomandtish]

I'm calling it weird.
As a rule, all recent wounds are cancelled, but old one aren't.
Could have something to do with how you view yourself at the moment of dead. We know it's the case in the afterife.

I think you and comic 498 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0498.html) explain it nicely. Everyone has their image of themselves. People who have had an injury a long time have incorporated it into their image. People who got a serious injury in the course of dying haven't done that yet. It's basically the same principle that shows why Roy's grandfather has the sword and not Roy.

[WanderingMist]

Being called to something doesn't mean "only special people get in". A calling is something you want to do, and will devote yourself to. It means being a paladin is a way of life, something fundamental to your worldview, not just a job, like being a rogue or fighter or ranger might be.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think you and comic 498 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0498.html) explain it nicely. Everyone has their image of themselves. People who have had an injury a long time have incorporated it into their image. People who got a serious injury in the course of dying haven't done that yet. It's basically the same principle that shows why Roy's grandfather has the sword and not Roy.

I really liked the term they used in The Matrix, "residual self-image".

[Kish]

Given that former villains have become paladins in various D&D fluff sources, the "has committed no Evil acts" thing is not a requirement. Paladins are not created from "beings of pure Law and Good" - they're created from ordinary, somewhat Lawful and Good, people who happen to feel a calling to the paladin lifestyle.
And "attribute requirements" went the way of the dodo when 3.0ed came out. O-Chul spelled out that he used Charisma as a dump stat.

[Ruck]

Rather, you need to have human blood. Half-elves and half-orcs could qualify.

Ah, I couldn't remember which it was. And I even tried remembering Therkla's position, but I couldn't remember if her loyalty to Kubota was because she wasn't a citizen of Azure City or because of the more general racism she experienced there.

[gbaji]

I think you and comic 498 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0498.html) explain it nicely. Everyone has their image of themselves. People who have had an injury a long time have incorporated it into their image. People who got a serious injury in the course of dying haven't done that yet. It's basically the same principle that shows why Roy's grandfather has the sword and not Roy.

Well. And Roy didn't wander around the afterlife with a mass of broken bones, crushed ribcage, and other physical issues representative of the sudden stop at the end of the fall that killed him.

[brian 333]

Well. And Roy didn't wander around the afterlife with a mass of broken bones, crushed ribcage, and other physical issues representative of the sudden stop at the end of the fall that killed him.

Self image is the key. If one dies in a horrible meat grinder incident, one does not wander the afterlife as sausage.

Roy's mom had grey hair and a bun when she died, but was a nineteen year old hottie when Roy interrupted her visit with the gentleman who had an accent.

[Metastachydium]

Self image is the key. If one dies in a horrible meat grinder incident, one does not wander the afterlife as sausage.

But what if they've always seen themselves as a sausage?

[Peelee]

But what if they've always seen themselves as a sausage?

Then I would imagine they would find the afterlife quite pleasant.

Also, apropos of nothing, but this system happens to be incredibly nice for the trans community.

[brian 333]

But what if they've always seen themselves as a sausage?

The breakfast foods world was #3,429,843. It was destroyed by the invasion of brunch foods and their over-reliance on exotic ingredients. In particular, the Vanilla Beanfield Wars resulted in multiple rifts. The last enclave of Eggs and Bacon was defeated when Toast betrayed them to the Quiche Consortium. Lesson: never trust Toast with an accent.

[Gurgeh]

Rather, you need to have human blood. Half-elves and half-orcs could qualify.
Hang on, really? Where was this established? I've had a re-read of GDGU and Rich's Patreon Q&A posts but neither makes any mention of it.

[hamishspence]

Back page of War & XPs: (travel guide entry on Azure City):


While simply called Azure City, this nation controls a vast tract of land beyond the city walls, including farms, forts and mines in the nearby mountains.
...
Population: 530,000 (90% human, 5% half-orc, 5% half elf. Approximately half the population resides within the walls of Azure City itself. While the city is open to travelers from all lands, the law only grants citizenship to those with human blood. Tip: That human blood must be inside the human for it to count.
...
Cities: Azure City is the only true city within Azurite territory, though there are several other towns and dozens of villages spread out across several valleys.

[Laurentio III]

Back page of War & XPs: (travel guide entry on Azure City):
Laurentio self-proclaimed ogre.
Laurentio find Azure City's laws very lenient!
Laurentio can have blood of human inside Laurentio easy.
Azure City full of human full of human blood!
Laurentio not fond of liquid diet, but it good for health!

[Bacon Elemental]

Being called to something doesn't mean "only special people get in". A calling is something you want to do, and will devote yourself to. It means being a paladin is a way of life, something fundamental to your worldview, not just a job, like being a rogue or fighter or ranger might be.

This is a key point about callings. People talk about "Finding their calling" all the time, its not necessarily an inherent from-childhood thing.

[brian 333]

A middle-aged priest has to evacuate her congregation in the face of an invading army. Out of desperation she dons armor and shield and stands with the defenders as the non-combatants flee. In the morning only she remains alive. Her faith sustained her and the ferocity of her defense inspired a rag-tag handful of defenders to break the van of the invaders' army.

A youthful delinquent is mentored by a pious elder. The youth comes to terms with his past and finds the ability to forgive the wrongs done to him. He dedicated his life to seeking out those who, like him, were born into bad circumstance but would become better people with an example of how.

In the slave pens of the Underdark an enslaved priest secretly works to heal the sick and ease suffering. A young girl rats him out for a crust of bread. For the next seventy-seven days she is visited by evil and good outsiders who tempt and test her. On the morning of the seventy-eighth day she wakes and heals the painful wounds of a lashing victim. Thereafter she takes the priest's place and suffers torment herself to save others from it.

[Fyraltari]

break the van of the invaders' army.

I'm sorry, the what?

[Keltest]

I'm sorry, the what?

Presumably short for Vanguard, as in the front.

[KillianHawkeye]

The vanguards guard the van, obviously! :smallamused:

[brian 333]

The vanguards guard the van, obviously! :smallamused:

Correct. And as we all know, the van is where the cool kids ride, drinking their strawberry milkshakes and using foul language like "gee-willakers" and "daddy-o".

I assumed 'van' was used more regularly than it apparently is as a short version of vanguard, the leading part of the army, presumably composed of the most experienced and able troops.

What is the leading part of an invading army called in French, and does it translate into English?

[Fyraltari]

Correct. And as we all know, the van is where the cool kids ride, drinking their strawberry milkshakes and using foul language like "gee-willakers" and "daddy-o".

I assumed 'van' was used more regularly than it apparently is as a short version of vanguard, the leading part of the army, presumably composed of the most experienced and able troops.

What is the leading part of an invading army called in French, and does it translate into English?

Avant-garde, literally "front-guard". Rearguard meanwhile, is arrière-garde whose literal meaning I'm sure you can guess on your own.

English military terminology is basically just French military terminology, but with an accent. The only exception I can think of is "marine" which does not have a corresponding French word, despite literally being the French word for "related to the sea"/"the navy".

[pearl jam]

Yeah, vanguard is just the Anglicanized version avant-garde. The reason for so many French military words is the same as the reason that so many culinary words in English also come from French, of course. French speakers people took over England and brought their words with them. lol

[Keltest]

Yeah, vanguard is just the Anglicanized version avant-garde. The reason for so many French military words is the same as the reason that so many culinary words in English also come from French, of course. French speakers people took over England and brought their words with them. lol

Yeah, you guys really have nobody to blame but yourselves. Yall took over a perfectly good german variant and infected it with your german-influenced french variant.

[Metastachydium]

English military terminology is basically just French military terminology, but with an accent. The only exception I can think of is "marine" which does not have a corresponding French word, despite literally being the French word for "related to the sea"/"the navy".

Well, that mostly depends on how you define "military terminology". Stuff like fireteam, smoothbore, rifle(d), armoured (e.g. 9th Armoured Division), paratrooper, fighter/bomber/attack (aircraft), tank destroyer &c. doesn't sound particularly French to me.

[Fyraltari]

Well, that mostly depends on how you define "military terminology". Stuff like fireteam, smoothbore, rifle(d), armoured (e.g. 9th Armoured Division), paratrooper, fighter/bomber/attack (aircraft), tank destroyer &c. doesn't sound particularly French to me.

"Fireteam", "smoothbore", "rifle", "fighter" and "tank destroyer" I'll give you (then again, "rifle" and "fighter" are way more generic than just military). But "armoured" comes from "armour" which comes from armure, "paratrooper" comes from "trooper" which comes from "troop" which comes from troupe, "bomber" comes from "bomb" which comes from bombe, "attack" comes from attaque and "aircraft" comes from "air" which comes from well... air.

Edit: While we're on the subject: "military", "victory", "defeat", "battle", "war", "tactic", "strategy", "army", "force", "general", "soldier", "hostile", "ally", "enemy"... It just keeps going, really.

Edit2: "destroyer" comes from "destroy" which comes from de(s)truire.

[Metastachydium]

"Fireteam", "smoothbore", "rifle", "fighter" and "tank destroyer" I'll give you (then again, "rifle" and "fighter" are way more generic than just military). But "armoured" comes from "armour" which comes from armure, "paratrooper" comes from "trooper" which comes from "troop" which comes from "troupe", "bomber" comes from "bomb" which comes from bombe, "attack" comes from attaque and "aircraft" comes from "air" which comes from well... air.

Well, the way I put it left it wide open for that parry, but if marine counts, armoured (=/= blindé), paratrooper(=/= parachutiste militaire) and aircraft (looks… kind of not too much like its French counterpart) should likewise do so. Edit: The point being, they might have French-derived components (or more) but they aren't derived from their French equivalent (with a silly accent).


Edit: While we're on the subject: "military", "victory", "defeat", "battle", "war", "tactic", "strategy", "army", "force", "general", "soldier", "hostile", "ally", "enemy"... It just keeps going, really.

Yes, yes, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here; English is but a silly dialect of French.

[Rodin]

And French is just a silly dialect of Latin. The Romans were in England well before the French.

Whether the individual words were taken from Roman soldiers or from the later Normans is an activity for someone more historically inclined than I.

[Metastachydium]

And French is just a silly dialect of Latin.

Too true!


Whether the individual words were taken from Roman soldiers or from the later Normans is an activity for someone more historically inclined than I.

Spoiler alert: it's mostly the latter. (Heck, if memory serves, most direct borrowings from Latin are Modern Period scientific terms and the like.)

[Fyraltari]

And French is just a silly dialect of Latin. The Romans were in England well before the French.

Whether the individual words were taken from Roman soldiers or from the later Normans is an activity for someone more historically inclined than I.

The Angles and the Saxon pretty much ridd the isle of Roman influence (besides Roman presence was comparatively short only lasting around 400 years) while the current lords are still of Norman descent, almost millenium later.

[Peelee]

"Fireteam", "smoothbore", "rifle", "fighter" and "tank destroyer" I'll give you (then again, "rifle" and "fighter" are way more generic than just military). But "armoured" comes from "armour" which comes from armure, "paratrooper" comes from "trooper" which comes from "troop" which comes from troupe, "bomber" comes from "bomb" which comes from bombe, "attack" comes from attaque and "aircraft" comes from "air" which comes from well... air.

Edit: While we're on the subject: "military", "victory", "defeat", "battle", "war", "tactic", "strategy", "army", "force", "general", "soldier", "hostile", "ally", "enemy"... It just keeps going, really.

Edit2: "destroyer" comes from "destroy" which comes from de(s)truire.

Psh. French is just Latin dressed up in a snooty accent with needless vowels thrown in for fun.

And French is just a silly dialect of Latin.
Ninja'd, but I think I put it better. :smallwink:

[brian 333]

I love the fact that 90% of English has been stolen from all the other languages. Cross pollination creates strong flowers.

Besides, if you want to express an idea, you need a word for it. English just uses the word the guy who thought of it used. Saves time, and you don't need a word that is a sentence of it's own like the Germans do.

[WanderingMist]

I love the fact that 90% of English has been stolen from all the other languages. Cross pollination creates strong flowers.

Besides, if you want to express an idea, you need a word for it. English just uses the word the guy who thought of it used. Saves time, and you don't need a word that is a sentence of it's own like the Germans do.

Mostly German and Latin, with random borrowings from other languages, like "moose" from Algonquin, and much more recently, "tsunami" from Japanese. Weirdest thing about reading Old English is when words that happened to survive into modern English are there, like "other" or "word". It's like someone went back in time and just replaced the Old English equivalent with a modern one for a joke.

[pearl jam]

Rifle is also from French.

[Gurgeh]

Re: Azure City citizenship: yikes.


Yes, yes, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here; English is but a silly dialect of French.
Eh, this is a bit of an overstatement. Modern English is a Germanic language; it has a huge pile of loanwords from French (and Latin, and Spanish, and... a bunch of others), but its grammar is very distinct from the Romance languages (note also the very different use of articles).

[Laurentio III]

Eh, this is a bit of an overstatement. Modern English is a Germanic language; it has a huge pile of loanwords from French (and Latin, and Spanish, and... a bunch of others), but its grammar is very distinct from the Romance languages (note also the very different use of articles).
We can save times naming the languages English didn't sleep with and fled away with the pockets full of words in the morning.

[Fyraltari]

I love the fact that 90% of English has been stolen from all the other languages. Cross pollination creates strong flowers.

Besides, if you want to express an idea, you need a word for it. English just uses the word the guy who thought of it used.
Mate, that's all languages. French is an amalgamation of Latin, German, Gaul, Greek and English (sometimes loaning back words you loaned from us in the first place, like "tennis" or "budget"). Ain't nobody out there inventing words out of thin air.

Eh, this is a bit of an overstatement. Modern English is a Germanic language; it has a huge pile of loanwords from French (and Latin, and Spanish, and... a bunch of others), but its grammar is very distinct from the Romance languages (note also the very different use of articles).

French is most germanized of the Romance languages and English is the most latinized of the Germanic languages.

[Metastachydium]

Cross pollination creates strong flowers.

[Happy little blue flower vocalisations.]


Saves time, and you don't need a word that is a sentence of it's own like the Germans do.

I like the German way better, personally.


Eh, this is a bit of an overstatement. Modern English is a Germanic language; it has a huge pile of loanwords from French (and Latin, and Spanish, and... a bunch of others), but its grammar is very distinct from the Romance languages (note also the very different use of articles).

Well, Modern English is a language so fiercely analytical that its grammar is not much to write home about.


Ain't nobody out there inventing words out of thin air.

Out of thin air? No. Otherwise? Meet Icelandic.

[nespunkt]

Mate, that's all languages. French is an amalgamation of Latin, German, Gaul, Greek and English (sometimes loaning back words you loaned from us in the first place, like "tennis" or "budget"). Ain't nobody out there inventing words out of thin air.
No, doing so wouldn't be cromulent, after all.

[Peelee]

No, doing so wouldn't be cromulent, after all.

Then how will you be embiggened?

[brian 333]

[Happy little blue flower vocalisations.]



I like the German way better, personally.



Well, Modern English is a language so fiercely analytical that its grammar is not much to write home about.



Out of thin air? No. Otherwise? Meet Icelandic.

Though the versitudity of English is limited, it's dexitidity, (excuse me my brother,) dexitudity, is unconfrontating.

(Thank you, and my apologies Damon Wayans!)

[WanderingMist]

Ain't nobody out there inventing words out of thin air.


Well, somebody has to be, or we wouldn't have words in the first place.

[Metastachydium]

Well, somebody has to be, or we wouldn't have words in the first place.

(Cognitive linguists argue that not even conventionally assigning meaning to given strings of speech sounds happens truly at random.)

[Laurentio III]

(Cognitive linguists argue that not even conventionally assigning meaning to given strings of speech sounds happens truly at random.)
The egyptian name for cats is a crude imitation of meowing
Does in count as random or intentional?

[Tzardok]

"Meow" is a crude imitation of meowing. What's special about that?

[Metastachydium]

The egyptian name for cats is a crude imitation of meowing
Does in count as random or intentional?

Whether it's intentional or not is largely immaterial; my point is, "pulling words from thin air to denote concepts" might not be quite as common as Saussure&co. would seem to have had it.

[Cazero]

We really should try pulling words out of thin air more. I'm sure there's plenty of quality words we could make this way.

[Metastachydium]

That might be a more difficult stunt than you realize.

[Laurentio III]

Not in the Astral Plane. There, is kind of a simple task.

[Fyraltari]

Well, somebody has to be, or we wouldn't have words in the first place.

Obviously not an expert, but I suspect that should you climb the etymology of any word far enough, you'll end up on an onomatopeia eventually.

[WanderingMist]

Obviously not an expert, but I suspect that should you climb the etymology of any word far enough, you'll end up on an onomatopeia eventually.

Not an expert myself either but from what I recall, "run" is an English original, as in, from Old English, and I cannot figure out how that could have come from an onomatopoeia. Take that, spellchecker, spelled it without needing your help to double-check.

[Laurentio III]

Not an expert myself either but from what I recall, "run" is an English original, as in, from Old English, and I cannot figure out how that could have come from an onomatopoeia. Take that, spellchecker, spelled it without needing your help to double-check.
Oxford Languages says it's german, but the main question stays.
Why a very old german throught that "irnan" was a good sound for someone running?

"Old English rinnan, irnan (verb), of Germanic origin, probably reinforced in Middle English by Old Norse rinna, renna . The current form with -u- in the present tense is first recorded in the 16th century."

[Metastachydium]

Obviously not an expert, but I suspect that should you climb the etymology of any word far enough, you'll end up on an onomatopeia eventually.

Unlikely (although examples surely abound). What I'm driving at is somewhat more, for lack of a better term, abstract. There are these psycholinguistic experiments where participants have to associate meaningless "words" with shapes. It's been demonstrated that people are more likely to, say, associate "harder" sounds such as dental and especially velar plosives with angular or jagged shapes and "softer" ones such as bilabial or palatal consonants with more rounded forms. Now, if there is some kind of subconcious criterion based on which how appropriate a form for a given meaning can be measured, words are certainly not pulled out of thin air, but rather conform to (admittedly loose) baked-in guidelines. And that's before we'd get into more "visible" rules such as phonological constraints and phonotactics.

[Laurentio III]

And the there Is sheer malice, like "stutter" or "dyslexia", which are hard for the intended user.

[Crimsonmantle]

Oxford Languages says it's german, but the main question stays.
Why a very old german throught that "irnan" was a good sound for someone running?


The meaning of the word has changed over time - the original meaning is preserved in phrases like "blood ran down his face" or "the river runs east to west here". Though the process was well underway when German and English first started getting written.