The reason why evil paladins don't work

[Maxperson]

The definition of paladins as lawful good has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian theology and everything to do with chivalry.

Wrong. Look back at first edition. Gygax created clerics to be priests that could not draw blood. Do you know where that came from? It came from a Pope during the Crusades who had the mace created in order for him to be able to fight and kill without drawing blood that he was forbidden to do. Paladins were the Knights Templar and other Catholic orders of Religious Knighthoods. While the restrictions on clerics left with third edition, the paladin class is much the same as it ever was. Gygax used Judeo/Christian philosophy when creating them, and it's time that it was thrown by the wayside in favor of a true polytheistic view of paladinhood.

[Maxperson]

Real-world standards, whether modern America's or ancient Rome's, have no bearing whatsoever on D&D's alignment system, which is wholly foreign to anything that exists in the real world, or at least anything existing that we can detect. In D&D, there are things that are, objectively and without question, Evil. I would argue that there are also such things in the real world, but that's neither here nor there.

I agree with everything you said here. I used those real world example to illustrate a point, not imply that they had any real bearing on D&D. That good and evil exist, though, does not mean that paladins need to be tied to either extreme with their dedication. Any extreme dedication, whether to an alignment OR to a God will do.

[MeklorIlavator]

No it isn't, because while D&D doesn't use real world moral philosophies, it does use the English language.

But word can change as time goes on. Look at the word wealth. It used to mean happiness as well as material possessions, but as time went on it lost the former definition. Why couldn't the same thing happen with DnD? A Paladin is a Holy Warrior who is devoted to law and goodness. Why can't the latter part of that definition be lost?

[Maxperson]

So then why are we using real world standards(definitions) to define what a paladin is? It seems a double standard is in effect.

Bingo! We're using real world standards on a class based on real world Knights Templar.

[Renegade Paladin]

Wrong. Look back at first edition. Gygax created clerics to be priests that could not draw blood. Do you know where that came from? It came from a Pope during the Crusades who had the mace created in order for him to be able to fight and kill without drawing blood that he was forbidden to do. Paladins were the Knights Templar and other Catholic orders of Religious Knighthoods. While the restrictions on clerics left with third edition, the paladin class is much the same as it ever was. Gygax used Judeo/Christian philosophy when creating them, and it's time that it was thrown by the wayside in favor of a true polytheistic view of paladinhood.
Actually, the cleric class was modeled after the Knights Hospitaller; the paladin's inspiration lies with Charlemagne and Arthur. I read an essay on this subject some time ago; I'll see if I can dig it up again.

[Maxperson]

No it isn't, because while D&D doesn't use real world moral philosophies, it does use the English language.

You forget, it has already been pointed out that D&D CHANGES definitions to fit what it wants. Yes it uses the word paladin, but the definition of paladin in D&D differs now from what it meant in the Middle Ages.

[Renegade Paladin]

But word can change as time goes on. Look at the word wealth. It used to mean happiness as well as material possessions, but as time went on it lost the former definition. Why couldn't the same thing happen with DnD? A Paladin is a Holy Warrior who is devoted to law and goodness. Why can't the latter part of that definition be lost?
Because, as I said before in this thread, the evolution of languages is not an excuse to simply redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. You would do just as well to start adding common grammar mistakes to the language so they aren't mistaken anymore; doing such a thing intentionally would make a mess of communication.

[Rutee]

Because, as I said before in this thread, the evolution of languages is not an excuse to simply redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. You would do just as well to start adding common grammar mistakes to the language so they aren't mistaken anymore; doing such a thing intentionally would make a mess of communication.

DUde this is pretty much the definition of Semantic drift; a word picking up meanings it has been associated with for several different reasons.

Chamberlain-type thing (Original definition in latin) -> Knightly Champion (Medieval semantic drift) -> Holy Warrior (Roland + 12 Peers) -> Soldier of the Gods. "Quit yer complainin'", as the kids say.

[Maxperson]

Because, as I said before in this thread, the evolution of languages is not an excuse to simply redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. You would do just as well to start adding common grammar mistakes to the language so they aren't mistaken anymore; doing such a thing intentionally would make a mess of communication.

We haven't. This has been done by Wizards itself. First you had paladins and anti-paladins( later called black guards). Then, you had a prestige class put out that was a CG paladin(I forget the name of the prestige class). Later, you had 3 new paladin classes of differering good alignments listed in I believe the Unearthed Arcana. All of this shows that Wizards does NOT view paladins to be as the definition in the dictionary states.

[Dervag]

The definition of paladins as lawful good has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian theology and everything to do with chivalry.Or rather with the idealized forms of chivalry found in certain cultures.

The idea of a supremely honorable "holy warrior" who goes around doing good deeds is not unique to any one culture. There are probably cultures where you can't find examples of that, but I doubt there are many of them.

So yeah, it's not a Judeo-Christian idea as such. There's no reason why you couldn't have a Native American warrior "paladin" or a mythical Indian kshatriya who gains holy powers through the purity of his own conduct.


Wrong. Look back at first edition. Gygax created clerics to be priests that could not draw blood. Do you know where that came from? It came from a Pope during the Crusades who had the mace created in order for him to be able to fight and kill without drawing blood that he was forbidden to do. Paladins were the Knights Templar and other Catholic orders of Religious Knighthoods. While the restrictions on clerics left with third edition, the paladin class is much the same as it ever was. Gygax used Judeo/Christian philosophy when creating them,You might be right but it doesn't matter. Because while the fluff of 1st Edition Gygaxian paladins might be implicitly Christian (not Judeo-Christian; there were no Hebrew Knights Templar), the fluff of 3rd or 4th Edition paladins isn't.

You could take that same fluff and apply it to an order of Japanese samurai? And it would work. Or you could apply it to Indian kshatriya, or to any other warrior subculture that has a rigid code of conduct as an ideal. So it doesn't matter what Gygax was trying to evoke when he "invented" the paladin, because things have already moved past that.

The real question is not whether or not paladins are suitably 'polytheistic', but whether they're something that is unique to the alignment of Lawful Good (just as rogues are necessarily non-lawful). And it's hard for me to say whether or not that's true.

[Maxperson]

The real question is not whether or not paladins are suitably 'polytheistic', but whether they're something that is unique to the alignment of Lawful Good (just as rogues are necessarily non-lawful). And it's hard for me to say whether or not that's true.

Rogues are just non-lawful good, not non-lawful. In any case, THAT particular question has been answered since the Unearthed Arcana provides paladins that are not lawful good. It clearly is not a LG matter. Other D&D books put Paladins as followers of certain gods. Since they clearly are not based on a specific alignment AND they can be paladins of specific gods, then it follows that most gods will have them in some form or another. They would just have differing abilities from the PH version, since the PH version only lists the abilities for lawful good.

[The Rose Dragon]

Rogues can be of any alignment. What are you people talking about, 2nd Edition?

[Telonius]

Because, as I said before in this thread, the evolution of languages is not an excuse to simply redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. You would do just as well to start adding common grammar mistakes to the language so they aren't mistaken anymore; doing such a thing intentionally would make a mess of communication.

Splitting infinitives hasn't caused much of a problem. So why is it a problem to simply redefine words when necessary? :smallwink:

More seriously, the issue goes back to small-p paladins versus big-P Paladins. Wizards is redefining the class, not the rest of the word.

[Maxperson]

Rogues can be of any alignment. What are you people talking about, 2nd Edition?

Re-read your 3.5 players handbook. Rogues can be any alignment BUT lawful good.

[Rutee]

Re-read your 3.5 players handbook. Rogues can be any alignment BUT lawful good.

"Alignment: Rogues follow opportunities, not ideals. Though they are more likely to be chaotic then lawful, they are a diverse bunch, so they may be of any alignment"

Always check the book before you make a statement like that.

[Scintillatus]

Says "Alignment: Any" in mine, too.

I'd post proof if I thought little pictures of the book were kosher.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Re-read your 3.5 players handbook. Rogues can be any alignment BUT lawful good.

Actualy sir...

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/rogue.html
Pls read as it says any alignment.. generaly though if your playing a steal-y rogue you will prolly not be LG as stealing is a "evil" act...

[Renegade Paladin]

Re-read your 3.5 players handbook. Rogues can be any alignment BUT lawful good.
What are you on about? (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=2364) :smalltongue:

[Maxperson]

"Alignment: Rogues follow opportunities, not ideals. Though they are more likely to be chaotic then lawful, they are a diverse bunch, so they may be of any alignment"

Always check the book before you make a statement like that.

Fair enough. I could have sworn this was the case in 3.5, and I'm usually very good about remembering these things. I'll check when I get home from work to see what I was thinking of ;)

[Maxperson]

Actualy sir...

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/rogue.html
Pls read as it says any alignment.. generaly though if your playing a steal-y rogue you will prolly not be LG as stealing is a "evil" act...

I'd also like to say that theft is not an evil act, because wrong does not equate with evil. I will go out on a limb and say that most of the time, theft is not a good act, but that's as far as I'll go. The same goes for breaking and entering, vandalism, and a host of other roguish activities.

[GammaPaladin]

The definition of paladins as lawful good has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian theology and everything to do with chivalry.
Um, you can't separate the two. The Chivalric code is highly dependent on a Christian morality, and therefore the person you are replying to is correct.

[Renegade Paladin]

Um, you can't separate the two. The Chivalric code is highly dependent on a Christian morality, and therefore the person you are replying to is correct.
Yes, you can. The chivalric code is only peripherally related to Christianity; most of its provisions deal with the treatment of nobles, ladies, and lessers by those in high stations. In short, it was a tool to keep medieval baronies from constantly tearing each other apart, not an instrument of theology.

[GammaPaladin]

Meh. You're fixated on your concept of the Paladin and don't think anyone should be able to play anything called a paladin in a way that doesn't fit into your definition. There's obviously no point in debating it with you.

[Scintillatus]

Let's start our own bitchy 4e thread, with blackjack, and hookers.

You know what, forget the bitching.

[Renegade Paladin]

Meh. You're fixated on your concept of the Paladin and don't think anyone should be able to play anything called a paladin in a way that doesn't fit into your definition. There's obviously no point in debating it with you.
Well, if that's the way you feel about it, concession accepted. Not that I quite understand how stating a historical fact is a trigger for saying I'm fixated, but whatever.

[Citizen Joe]

I made a couple motivational posters for paladins.

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~jpettit/BrockSamson.jpg

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~jpettit/Robocop.jpg

[Rutee]

Well, if that's the way you feel about it, concession accepted. Not that I quite understand how stating a historical fact is a trigger for saying I'm fixated, but whatever.

You know, ti's generally not kosher to call "Forget it, we're never going to agree" a concession in any serious sense.


I made a couple motivational posters for paladins.
And they are awesome.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Because, as I said before in this thread, the evolution of languages is not an excuse to simply redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. You would do just as well to start adding common grammar mistakes to the language so they aren't mistaken anymore; doing such a thing intentionally would make a mess of communication.

ILMAO! If evil paladins are your threshold for a "mess of communication", your life must suck. Do you get confused when someone says "I could care less" rather than what they actually mean which would be "I couldn't care less"? No sir, I'm sure that you don't get confused when someone uses that phrase, and I'm just as sure that you and everyone else will have no trouble understanding evil paladins in 4e. "Paladin=dedicated warrior" is not a mess of communication; a mess of communication would be "paladin=turnip".

...Okay maybe I'm being a little extreme. Maybe the idea of an evil paladin really does throw your brain into poor twisted knots, so I should probably spell out exactly what I meant with my first statement in this post: I'M LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!

(Because this thread really is funny as all get-out!)

[Fhaolan]

Yes, you can. The chivalric code is only peripherally related to Christianity; most of its provisions deal with the treatment of nobles, ladies, and lessers by those in high stations. In short, it was a tool to keep medieval baronies from constantly tearing each other apart, not an instrument of theology.

Quick check, by your posts you're equivalenting Paladin and Chivalry, right?

What about figures such as Mordred? He held to the chivalric code, as far as I can tell. In fact, he very deliberately used that code to destroy Arthur and his court. In most versions of the tales, he was evil. Lawful Evil, even. Chivalry doesn't mean you can't be power-mad.

The chivalric code was a legalistic tool, as you say. The various versions I've seen seem to define the lawful/chaotic axis much more than the good/evil axis.

[Renegade Paladin]

ILMAO! If evil paladins are your threshold for a "mess of communication", your life must suck. Do you get confused when someone says "I could care less" rather than what they actually mean which would be "I couldn't care less"? No sir, I'm sure that you don't get confused when someone uses that phrase, and I'm just as sure that you and everyone else will have no trouble understanding evil paladins in 4e. "Paladin=potentially evil" is not a mess of communication; a mess of communication would be "paladin=turnip".

...Okay maybe I'm being a little extreme. Maybe the idea of an evil paladin really does throw your brain into poor twisted knots, so I should probably spell out exactly what I meant with my first statement in this post: I'M LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!

(Becaus this thread really is funny as all get-out!)
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/lutherrcp.jpg

Seriously. Take a look at what the post says. I said that redefining words willy-nilly would make a mess of communication, not doing it to the one word. The problem becomes this: The argument used for simply redefining the word "paladin" (instead of using one of the myriad suitable terms) allows for redefining pretty much anything, which would make a mess of communication. Saying that "languages evolve, so we get to change whatever we want" invalidates all rules of spelling and grammar; after all, if it's just going to evolve anyway, why bother with it if you're following that line of reasoning?

[Dode]

I like Renegade Paladin because he thinks and argues that Renaissance and Romance-era fairy tale Paladins that D&D Paladins are based on were instead based on history and real people in ye olde medieval times. And not some 16-19th Century wistful fantasy literature, also, insists that WotC respect his definition for the sake of "English grammar."

[Renegade Paladin]

I like Renegade Paladin because he thinks and argues that Renaissance and Romance-era fairy tale Paladins that D&D Paladins are based on were instead based on history and real people in ye olde medieval times. And not some 16-19th Century wistful fantasy literature, also, insists that WotC respect his definition for the sake of "English grammar."
Do you have anything to add, or are you just going to sit there making snarky comments?

[Citizen Joe]

Do you have anything to add, or are you just going to sit there making snarky comments?
You know who else made snarky comments? Hitler.

That's right... I just went Godwin's Law on you and this whole thread.

[Dode]

Why would I want to add to this thread? It's terrible.

[Renegade Paladin]

Why would I want to add to this thread? It's terrible.
Then why are you posting in it?

[Rutee]

Do you have anything to add, or are you just going to sit there making snarky comments?

"He who sits in a glass house shouldn't throw stones"

[Renegade Paladin]

"He who sits in a glass house shouldn't throw stones"
Seeing how I've been participating in the debate whereas he's just been sniping at all and sundry without even trying to raise a point, I fail to see how that applies.

[Rutee]

You have been 'participating' by blanketly saying only the dictionary definition counts, blithely ignoring the concept of semantic drift and/or the evolution of language, and completely ignoring any form of mythic root of the term. I don't think you can claim to be doing any better.

[Neon Knight]

Mr. Renegade Paladin, sir, I respect you. Your opinions usually seem to be fairly well thought, at least by my assessment. However, here, I think you are somewhat wrong.

It seems to me that you think the Paladin is all about chivalry. That's all good and fine; but what is chivalry?

Chivalry is an odd word. In the medieval period, its meaning seems to have varied from author to author, region to region, and time period to time period. And the modern usage is entirely different from the medieval one. There is considerable debate about what precisely it meant in any context other than the most recent usage.

So I ask you; if the Paladin is an exemplar of chivalry, what does that mean? On a side note, saying that Chivalry is divorced completely from Christianity isn't the most precise statement. After all, the story you quoted Sir Gawain and the Green Knight seems to indicate that admitting and confessing your sins is something a good chivalrous knight would do, which is most certainly a Christian tie in. But, of course, since chivalry is a nebulous and undefined concept in the first place, I suppose it is separate from Christianity since it is subjective in nature.

Incidentally, another part of the definition you like, heroic champion, is also subjective. What makes a hero is one of the most subjective things of all. The Nietzschen scholar and the Kantian philosopher will have massively different ideas about what makes a hero.

Instead of using definitions, I invite you to state what you believe in a different manner:

You believe the paladin's class sole purpose, fluff wise and mechanically, was to represent the archetype of the White Knight, such as Sir Galahad.

This was true of 3.5 paladin in the Player's Handbook, but expansion material took that class far beyond the reaches of the archetype. The Grey Guard, The UA variants; all these and many more made the paladin not a class exclusively for the most pure and infallible knight to ever live. Surely you can see that?

[Renegade Paladin]

You have been 'participating' by blanketly saying only the dictionary definition counts, blithely ignoring the concept of semantic drift and/or the evolution of language, and completely ignoring any form of mythic root of the term. I don't think you can claim to be doing any better.
I have not blithely ignored the concept of semantic drift; I said that semantic drift, a natural process that usually takes place over centuries in a language, is not an excuse to blithely ignore definitions. Neither did I say that only the dictionary definition counts; you may notice that I cited it, and then went on to cite literary precedent... which was roundly ignored by all and sundry in favor of irrelevant sniping, an implicit concession of the point. I think I can claim to be doing a lot better.

Mr. Renegade Paladin, sir, I respect you. Your opinions usually seem to be fairly well thought, at least by my assessment. However, here, I think you are somewhat wrong.

It seems to me that you think the Paladin is all about chivalry. That's all good and fine; but what is chivalry?

Chivalry is an odd word. In the medieval period, its meaning seems to have varied from author to author, region to region, and time period to time period. And the modern usage is entirely different from the medieval one. There is considerable debate about what precisely it meant in any context other than the most recent usage.

So I ask you; if the Paladin is an exemplar of chivalry, what does that mean? On a side note, saying that Chivalry is divorced completely from Christianity isn't the most precise statement. After all, the story you quoted Sir Gawain and the Green Knight seems to indicate that admitting and confessing your sins is something a good chivalrous knight would do, which is most certainly a Christian tie in. But, of course, since chivalry is a nebulous and undefined concept in the first place, I suppose it is separate from Christianity since it is subjective in nature.

Incidentally, another part of the definition you like, heroic champion, is also subjective. What makes a hero is one of the most subjective things of all. The Nietzschen scholar and the Kantian philosopher will have massively different ideas about what makes a hero.

Instead of using definitions, I invite you to state what you believe in a different manner:

You believe the paladin's class sole purpose, fluff wise and mechanically, was to represent the archetype of the White Knight, such as Sir Galahad.

This was true of 3.5 paladin in the Player's Handbook, but expansion material took that class far beyond the reaches of the archetype. The Grey Guard, The UA variants; all these and many more made the paladin not a class exclusively for the most pure and infallible knight to ever live. Surely you can see that?
I believe that the class's sole purpose is to represent a champion of the causes of law and good. I also believe that not having other classes to fill that role for other alignments is a bad mistake. I further believe that said other classes should have different abilities, in some cases radically different, from those of the paladin. Therefore, using the name "paladin" for classes of champions of all alignments would simply create confusion if nothing else, since a chaotic evil champion should have wildly different class abilities and if they shared the same name with champions of law and good, it would create a confusion of terms.

I stated as such back when I started in this thread, and to my memory no one gainsaid me. Since then, I have simply been supporting why I think the lawful good champion should retain the name of "paladin."

[DraPrime]

*coughpotentialflamingthatmayeventuallygetthisthre adlockedcough*

That was one hell of a lung spasm.

[Dode]

Then why are you posting in it?Why not?

Do you really think arguments like "Why 4E doesn't work according to 3.5E canon" and "How a word derived from 'palace guard' solely means "holy wandering champion of goodness, NO CHANGING OF DEFINITIONS ALLOWED" are really worth debating?

[Starbuck_II]

"He who sits in a glass house shouldn't throw stones"

Okay, a rant, but: Who seripusly would live in a glass house?
What are they cheaper to build? I mean, I never understood that phrase as making since.

It would be like saying, "People in live in turnip houses shouldn't eat turnips near them".
Yes, you shouldn't eat your house, but when would this even come up?

I have no issues with evil paladins. That is what blackguards have always represented to me... why does this seem like a change?

[malcolm]

I have no problem whatsoever with a non-LG paladin. Call it a blackguard or whatever you want, but I believe that both the class mechanics and fluff are well suited to diametrically opposing flavors.

But since this thread is a trainwreck already, I'll leave everybody with the wisdom of our lord Dark Helmet:

"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

[an kobold]

i think paladins is a pretty cool guy. eh smites evil and doesn't afraid of anything.

But seriously, nine different classes for each of the alignments? That's just a use of resources and playtest time for a specialized niche that not everyone wants to play. For better or worse, paladin has become a catch all term for a dedicated warrior for any cause, not just the lawful good and chivalric ideal, both in and out of RPGs.

[Flickerdart]

Paladins were made so LG didn't suck. Now that LG no longer exists, Paladins have lost their "niche" and can be made into a decent class now.

Although...think about it. A Paladin that believes he is working for justice but is actually being ordered to do evil deeds by an evil master or code. Te Paladin firmly believes everything is going to be better as soon as he kills another 10 million unstatted commoners to make room for his people to graze cows or something. That's a pretty evil act, done for a "paladinly" cause.

It helps to visualize the concept if you think of a Paladin slowly "falling", starting from Lawful Good into nondescript "my cause is for the greater good, therefore my enemies are evil and I kill them" territory, from where it's possible to stretch the concept to "no being is righteous enough to comply with my ideal world and so I kill them all". Does this analogy help a bit?

Again, you Evil Paladin nonbelievers should read the supplements for the Paladin of ______ classes (and even the Greyguard).

[Neon Knight]

I stated as such back when I started in this thread, and to my memory no one gainsaid me. Since then, I have simply been supporting why I think the lawful good champion should retain the name of "paladin."

To be honest, sir, I don't feel you are quite correct on this point either. "Heroic champion" and "chivalry" are both very subjective terms, as I said. I would call the best hobgoblin soldier in a particular tribe a heroic champion of the hobgoblin ideal. A hobgoblin hero is different from an orc hero. An elven hero is different from a dwarvish hero. In fact, hero seems most often used, at least in my experience, as a synonym for champion. A society labels individuals it likes as heroes, whatever qualities it has. Different societies have different favored qualities and ideals. A hero of 1930's America is different from one of 2000's America.

I've already stated my piece on chivalry. Neither of these two advocate good. Lawful, perhaps, but not good. One man's "courteous treatment of a lady" is another's "demeaning attitude." One man's lady is another's tramp. There is too much relativity, too much subjectiveness to in good conscience claim that a chivalrous, heroic champion will in all cases be good. I could call a Knight of Hextor who risks danger on the front lines to preserve his realm from ogre raiders both heroic and chivalrous, if the society he represent considers his attributes to be desirable.

This may be inferring or assuming on my part, and I know this is impudent, arrogant, and presumptuous, but it seems to me that you might have a problem assigning anything you view as a positive attribute evil characters. Personally, I feel that virtue should be recognized regardless of the rest of the character of the individual. I don't like to demonize people like that.

That was probably overstepping my boundaries, and I do beg your apologies. But I feel that if you do possess the above attitude, and you never realize or address it, this debate will be limited. If I have offended you, I apologize. If I misinterpreted or misread you, I apologize doubly. But If I'm right, I feel that exploring that particular tendency could lead to reconciliation and understanding from both parties.

And to be truthful, in the common use, Paladin seems to be used most often as a synonym for exemplar.

[DraPrime]

Okay, a rant, but: Who seripusly would live in a glass house?
What are they cheaper to build? I mean, I never understood that phrase as making since.

It would be like saying, "People in live in turnip houses shouldn't eat turnips near them".
Yes, you shouldn't eat your house, but when would this even come up?

Humans have a remarkable talent for making a completely insane and stupid statement sound wise. I blame it on the fact that we're stupid, not just the things we say.

[Rutee]

I have not blithely ignored the concept of semantic drift; I said that semantic drift, a natural process that usually takes place over centuries in a language, is not an excuse to blithely ignore definitions. Neither did I say that only the dictionary definition counts; you may notice that I cited it, and then went on to cite literary precedent... which was roundly ignored by all and sundry in favor of irrelevant sniping, an implicit concession of the point. I think I can claim to be doing a lot better.

I'm pretty sure that not only does this qualify as centuries, as the last major definition before "Warrior of the Gods" would have been with Roland, but that it can indeed be significantly shorter.

Anyway, someone around here has a true quote in their sig: When arguing in a game system, you can't use real life (Or legal, or other) definitions, if the term is defined in game. You use the game's definition. You can argue that "Paladin" is a bad choice of words and have ground, but as I recall, you agreed with EE's declaration that "Paladins can't be evil", then said "Because of their real world definition" (Which you've still ignored the fact that "Knightly Champion" is also one of those definitions).

Literary precedent? I know you don't mean "Roland and the Twelve Peers". Because as awesome as they are, they're champions for the Holy Roman Empire, and as protagonists to boot... I think it's pretty clear what flavor they'll take.

[GammaPaladin]

I further believe that said other classes should have different abilities, in some cases radically different, from those of the paladin.
Why? Also note that beliefs are subjective ;)

[Fhaolan]

While I admit that I'm not posting much on this thread, I'm getting the weirdest feeling that I'm on some peoples' ignore lists.

Have I said something offensive?

[Citizen Joe]

Ack! It was on its final leg... dying and heading off the front page... how could you bring it back!

Die, alignment thread, DIE!

[StGlebidiah]

You know who else made snarky comments? Hitler.

That's right... I just went Godwin's Law on you and this whole thread.

Too late... I did that already, and I was being serious =D

[ZekeArgo]

Die, alignment thread, DIE!

Wait... so this thread is the new explanation module between editions?

[an kobold]

While I admit that I'm not posting much on this thread, I'm getting the weirdest feeling that I'm on some peoples' ignore lists.

Have I said something offensive?

Not that I can tell. You seemed pretty polite and inoffensive compared to most posters in this thread, myself included.

[Demented]

Since I only saw this thread just now, at the top of the page...

I'm an Evil Paladin.

>=D

[Nebo_]

This thread is just getting (more) stupid. Y'know what would be great? No more alignment threads.

[Roderick_BR]

Wait... so this thread is the new explanation module between editions?
More like a thread about theories. Should paladins be allowed to be evil at all? Is the 4E paladin like the 2nd/3.x paladin? Is he like the ToB's crusader with some divine abilities? The ShadowWotC knows. Or maybe not even them know for sure...

[Artanis]

This thread is just getting (more) stupid. Y'know what would be great? No more alignment threads.
Wouldn't that be one of the signs of the apocalypse?

[EvilElitest]

Contention A) The working and conceptual definitions of a "Paladin" will remain largely unchanged in the new system.

Contention B) These selfsame definitions contradict material that has been stated to be put into place in 4E.

Conclusion: Wizards of the Coast is evil and hates Gary Gygax.

Now, that would be all well and good, except for the first contention, which is an absurd assumption in light of what WotC has posted. It's far more reasonable to assume the existence of change than of a contradiction.

E.G. here's a better syllogism:

Contention A) Paladins in the old system could intrinsically not be evil.

Contention B) Paladins in the new system intrinsically can be evil.

Conclusion: Paladins in the new system are intrinsically different.

Remember: Occam's Razor. Down the road, not across the street.

Here is the thing however, The new paladin concept isn't new, it is the old knight concept painted to look like a paladin. the 4E paladin is a knight (or crusader) with a fancy knew name. What i'm saying is that isn't what hte paladin is (was) suppose to be. If they called it the knight, or the crusader, and left paladins out entirely i'd be miffed, but content. It is like the change in Wizard's upsetting, but still understandable



Right, except their alignment AND their regional laws are the source of the conflict. They are both "lawful".

Also, why do they come into conflict over the issue? If one is in the others kingdoms, the laws of the land still apply; thus if Bob is visiting Jim's kingdom he still follows the law and doesn't go rape-crazy; as a member of a different LE society, he knows all too well what happens to violators of the law.

And why exactly are they killing each other? More important, where are they killing each other?

1. The only source of conflict is that they are lawful and abid by their own laws. However under evil, no innate conflict emerges as their is nothing that evil considers "immoral"
If i'm a LG paladin and i am in some situation where torture is a possible option, i don't resort to torture because it is immoral. its wrong. Its evil.
However if i'm an LE person, and i see a beggar on the side of the road, me giving him a coin out of a whim isn't by evil's standards "immoral". Nothing is immoral going by evil itself, through evil people in particular people might have morals
2. Who's land it takes place in doesn't matter, because the only alignment difference it will make will be based upon the lawful part of their alignment, not the evil.
I've never claimed he can't have lawful paladins




Welcome to why UA was a terribad book. I can't name any part of it that wasn't poorly-written or made of pure gouda. Or boring. Except like..the dice-rolling variants. But that's it
It had great ideas , i enjoyed it, but your right you really can't take it at face value





1. Um, paladins don't have to worship any gods at all, as their powers don't come from gods. Except in FR, but even then the code isn't instated by the gods
2. only guidelines in general behavior, not in actions you realize, because actions have aligment with them, for example rape is always evil
3. Not really, because paladins are the paragons of an aligment, not a particualar cause. In that sense, LG is the best aligment suited to those requirements >>

1) you are correct, they don't have to. However, this does not mean that many do in fact worship gods, and that those who worship say Zeus, would be LG. It's all about what cause they dedicate themselves to, USUALLY it's a god.

2) This only matters if the cause or god you are dedicated to(enough to receive divine aid), is one that is good. A paladin who is dedicated to the Church of Cyric wouldn't balk at, or be hurt by a rape.

3) This again, is YOUR narrow perception. As has been pointed out to you countless times, the definition of paladin is broader than you paint it, and ThAT'S the narrow Judeo/Christian version of it. Judeo/Christian anything, has no place in D&D which is a polytheistic society. To limit yourself to that view defies reason.
1. Except gods make no difference upon the paladin's code or abilties. Paladins worshiping gods are no different than wizards or bard who worship gods
2. Sign. Paladin of Cyric isn't a paladin, he is basically a knight. Now here me out. Paladins don't draw their powers from gods, unlike clerics there code is not tied to one of a god but one of an alignment. Now in D&D, good and evil are real, and as of such certain actions have good and evil effects. This is absolute. Now knights don't have to give a damn about their alignment, just their dedication to a cause. As of such, a knight of Cyric would basically be just like a cleric of Cyric in terms of code, as long as he doesn't go against his god's wishes he is fine.
3. BS frankly. The paladin being bound to an alignment has nothing to do with Judo-Christian values. A Paladin is bound to an alignment, unlike a knight. Ergo, what makes them different from knights or crusaders. This has nothing to do with the Judo-Christian values. where in the Book of Exalted Deeds, or the PHB, or any other source is the paladin required to believe in one almighty God, or in Jesus Christ, or that he must be baptized?
You are right, within D&D a Christian knight would have a hard time finding a place in D&D, and i mean no offense to Christians, Jews, or any other real world religion, i just mean to say that the D&D paladin as written is not a Christian knight, nor a Jewish knight, nor any other religion in real life. It is its own concept.



You seem to be applying modern American standards to this. If the paladin were in ancient Rome, a society MUCH closer to the ones in which we play(being medieval), sex with young boys would be accepted and not evil at all. Nor do I actually consider it "evil" in modern terms. Evil is 100% intent based, and if a molester is doing what he does without malice or evil intent, then it is wrong by society's(and my)standards, but not evil.

I will agree with you that if someone continues doing what he percieves is evil, then no amount of good actions will change that.
I am not, WotC is. in D&D morals are absolute. Good and evil are clearly defined forces, and are absolute. Rome would be evil, for many reasons. So would the real world Middle age societies (generally). However good and evil are real clearly defined forces and still are, as 4E isn't changing that. 4E isn't making alignments go away and making all moral relative. As long as you have alignments, you will have absolute morals. And with alignments, come paladins.



We haven't. This has been done by Wizards itself. First you had paladins and anti-paladins( later called black guards). Then, you had a prestige class put out that was a CG paladin(I forget the name of the prestige class). Later, you had 3 new paladin classes of differering good alignments listed in I believe the Unearthed Arcana. All of this shows that Wizards does NOT view paladins to be as the definition in the dictionary states.
1. Anti paladins are different from paladins, they are just failed paladins
2. Black Guards are simply evil warriors who use paladin powers. they do not have any code however, and in fact not true paladins, good or evil
3. And all three of those variant paladins classes are rather absurd in nature. the paladin of Freedom might have some leniency, but the other two are as i already said, quite frankly badly done and don't make sense.


I'd also like to say that theft is not an evil act, because wrong does not equate with evil. I will go out on a limb and say that most of the time, theft is not a good act, but that's as far as I'll go. The same goes for breaking and entering, vandalism, and a host of other roguish activitie
Theft is a minor evil, that can be justified enough to be considered neutral, like killing.



Meh. You're fixated on your concept of the Paladin and don't think anyone should be able to play anything called a paladin in a way that doesn't fit into your definition. There's obviously no point in debating it with you.
No he just realizes the difference between a paladin and a knight within the context of D&D


Do you have anything to add, or are you just going to sit there making snarky comments?
Its Dode, can you expect less?



Why would I want to add to this thread? It's terrible.
and trolling is somehow suppose to make it better? If you don't add to anything, and call a thread horrible without backing it up (much like any of your own points you don't back up), then why waste everybody's else's time




You have been 'participating' by blanketly saying only the dictionary definition counts, blithely ignoring the concept of semantic drift and/or the evolution of language, and completely ignoring any form of mythic root of the term. I don't think you can claim to be doing any better.

1. when it is relevant to D&D, the defintion helps.
2. Any more than your statements of ignoring any relevant use of the time? I don't think you can claim to do any better.



But seriously, nine different classes for each of the alignments? That's just a use of resources and playtest time for a specialized niche that not everyone wants to play. For better or worse, paladin has become a catch all term for a dedicated warrior for any cause, not just the lawful good and chivalric ideal, both in and out of RPGs.

Ignoring the fact that i think that would be extremely cool (Hey renegade, want to try a homebrew?) if they simply made this new paladin a knight then the problem will be solved


While I admit that I'm not posting much on this thread, I'm getting the weirdest feeling that I'm on some peoples' ignore lists.

Have I said something offensive?
I don't ignore people as a rule, so i'm still with you



This thread is just getting (more) stupid. Y'know what would be great? No more alignment threads.

Well we still have alignment thread. And now we have the "Unaligned Alignment" so we are going to be having them for a longggg time



from
EE

[Yahzi]

"He who sits in a glass house shouldn't throw stones"
Ya, but people in stone houses can throw glasses all day long.

So there!

:smallbiggrin:

[EvilElitest]

Ya, but people in stone houses can throw glasses all day long.

So there!

:smallbiggrin:
touche
from
EE

[Dode]

mountain of words built on fundamentally flawed premise

good times

[Nebo_]

midden of words built on fundamentally flawed premise

good times

Fixed.

WHITE TEXT!!!

[JBento]

Damn! I'm out of Internet connection for a week (and it's still shaky at best) and something like THIS pops up... I'm not going to read all eleven pages due to time constraints, and therefore I apologise if any of the following has been said, tackled, shot and dismembered.

AGAIN: THIS IS OP RESPONSE ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For starters, I'll assume that we're dealing with the Core setting. As such, both clerics and paladins have no need of gods, and can get their goodies from a Cause (interestingly, this means in Core, I can be a Cleric of myself if I believe in myself enough - and if I'm going out facing ogres and dragons, oh my, with the power of belief, you can bet your ass I am VERY believing).

In other settings, such as FR, gods are a necessity for both clerics and paladins. As it's often said, your mileage may vary.

Also, for the sake of the discussion, let us assume that the alignment system ISN'T horribly, terribly, and irrevocably botched.

The Cleric ISN'T a champion of the god's wishes. He's a devout follower of the god's ideals, and he gets some major mojo for being so.

A paladin does in fact represent his alignment. This however, can be construed as his cause, but this is minor nitpicking.

The idea of being good is not "not doing evil deeds." That's certainly a part of it. But the idea of being good is DOING GOOD DEEDS! Not doing evil deeds is not even required: as the alignments stand, all you have to do to be good is do much more good deeds than evil ones. Odd, but true.

The idea that you do anything that you feel like it is the CHAOTIC Evil. LAWFUL Evil, OTOH, isn't quite so free. Lawful Evil people are still bound by their code of honour and the laws of the land.

Also, I assume that by now someone has thrown the "But they're paladins! They have to be good, because they're paladins!" argument log to the fire, so I'll say this: No they don't. Historically, paladins were not devoted to the objective Good as defined by WotC. They were devoted to a cause which, 90% of the time, fit perfectly with what the SUBJECTIVE good was at the time (ofc, it would be impossible otherwise, cause the Real World doesn't have the artificiality objective morality of D&D). IIRC (and I'm sure someone will be quick to correct if I'm not), the original paladins were the 12 peers of Charlemagne and they conformed to the time's ideals of good and honour.

And those are my 2 cents. I await for them to be buried under everyone else's.:smallcool:

[Daimbert]

I think that there is a major issue here that's kind of being danced around which does show that evil paladins don't make a lot of sense.

Take the traditional LG paladin. That paladin -- with respect to good -- has a list of things that they simply cannot do. Intent may come into play, but in general it doesn't; good intentions do not excuse evil acts. This means that a good paladin has to be very careful to maintain their paladin status, and watch what they do. This is again because the principle of good GENERALLY says that you can't claim that you did something evil for good intentions and have it continue to be good.

For evil, it's the other way around. There are almost no actions that an evil character cannot take that cannot be considered evil, depending on the intentions of the character. It's ALL about intent. Give to charity? It increases my status and image and makes people think I'm not (or are less) evil. Don't slaughter that major enemy? I didn't want to get blood on my tunic. Kill the evil guy who's out to destroy the world? To quote Xykon "Some of my best evil is done in the world, so I'd miss it if it was gone". And the fact that intent matters almost exclusively for evil characters is proven by the fact that you can have epic adventures to save the world with evil characters in the party who DON'T have to act out of character; they only need a selfish reason to participate.

Let me highlight the difference with an example: Imagine that you have a totally evil character setting up a plan to destroy the world hiding in a village, who has brainwashed the village into giving up their lives to defend him. A good paladin cannot justify slaughtering the entire village because of the "greater good" of getting rid of the BBEG and expect to remain a paladin. There's a moral issue here for the good paladin. For the evil paladin, he can indeed do that. Or not. Heck, the evil paladin can kill an entire village of EVIL people holding a GOOD character hostage and justify it on the basis of having any selfish intent, such as "I like that guy. He makes me laugh." An evil character need not ever defend evil causes or evil characters in power; a simple "I don't like them" or even "I don't feel like it" suffices as a rationalization for not doing it and still being evil.

So we have the idea of a paladin being turned on its head if the character is evil. Traditionally (and please recall that before talking about 4ed being different; until we know what those changes are, we can only work with the traditional values) paladins were more than warriors with spells, since LG paladins had to work within a strict code of conduct where what they did mattered more than their intentions, which made them characters where the potential for moral conflicts between what is ultimately and absolutely good and what is good and expedient might and were likely to come up and mean more than simply a crisis of conscience. That's all missing from evil paladins; moral conflict is basically non-existent. Evil paladins are warriors with spells, devoted to some cause perhaps that they try to fulfill. But even that leads to limited moral choices, especially since there are many ways all types of paladins can miss promoting their cause and yet remain paladins.

If you disagree, then please show me an example of how you'd make an evil paladin fall for not being evil enough (and if it's already been raised in this thread, forgive me, but I skipped some of the pages because it's really quite wrong, just point me to it). It's going to be very, very hard to do and require special circumstances, which is not the case for good paladins. In short, good paladins will run the risk of falling in almost every campaign at least once, whereas evil paladins simply won't. And this, to me, cheapens paladins as a roleplaying entity; without the risk of falling, paladins aren't interesting.

One can claim that 4ed will change things so that they are indeed more tightly died to a god. Fair enough. But then either they should work like clerics -- similar abilities no matter what alignment, but a choice in how they act -- or they should be customized to their gods. If we argue that they are the fighting wing of the god -- similar to the Church Knights in David Eddings' Elenium and Tamuli series -- then all their abilities should be focussed on fighting, which means that evil paladins should be able to heal and good paladins should be able to harm, since that's all useful in fighting. If we don't agree that they all have that shared role, then their role (and abilities) should be personalized to their god (and that will never happen ... too many gods [grin]).

The best compromise would be something like domains for the personalization and general abilities for everything else. That doesn't sound like what we're getting.

And if anyone wants to say that Good characters CAN choose to do evil actions for the greater good, note that they only have to worry about alignment, and one evil action "for the greater good" does not change alignment. But if they ALWAYS chose the evil action whenever it even came a smidgen over the line of "greater good", and felt no moral compunction about it, wouldn't we start calling them "Neutral" instead of "Good"?

[Jayabalard]

This thread is just getting (more) stupid. Y'know what would be great? No more alignment threads.That doesn't sound all that great. A much better solution would be: people who don't want to debate alignment issues should not read or post to those threads. That way we avoid disruptive comments like "This thread is stupid" or "You people should just shut up and not debate this" so that the people who want to discuss alignment can do so in peace. It also makes the people who don't care alignment issues happy because they aren't wasting their time reading. The only people that this would make unhappy are the ones that like to go into threads and make snide comments that don't do anything for the discussion at hand.

[Citizen Joe]

It is VERY SIMPLE.

Take the morality/alignment part OUT of the paladin's code. Give him a set code, dictated by the religious precepts of his organization and let him follow those precepts TO THE LETTER!

If he's a paladin of an evil organization then he can be evil, so long as he follows the code. If he's a paladin of a good organization he can STILL be evil so long as he follows the code. Of course, most good organizations construct codes which exclude evil behavior.

Now, evil organizations are also less likely to have paladins because paladins follow the Code and not an individual. Evil organizations usually have a head honcho that wants loyalty to HIM and not to some ideal that he doesn't necessarily follow.

Stop being lazy and trying to pigeon hole everyone into a narrow set of alignments that nobody can agree on and just WRITE THE CODE. Include a bunch of ideals that the paladin (of that code) should try to achieve, a bunch of stuff he should avoid (needs to atone for), and then some things that will immediately and irrevocably strip him of his title. If you want periodic testings on the 'evildar' then make it part of the code. If you want a minimum reading on the 'candyosity' meter, put it in the code. If he's got to pass the 'void comp test' then that should be part of the code.

[Jayabalard]

It is VERY SIMPLE.

Take the morality/alignment part OUT of the paladin's code. Give him a set code, dictated by the religious precepts of his organization and let him follow those precepts TO THE LETTER! Nope, it's not that simple. Some people have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of evil paladins. Most of them would be fine with evil warriors of a diety, even if they gained virtually identical powers to the paladin, as long as you labeled it something else instead of "Evil Paladin".

[Daimbert]

It is VERY SIMPLE.

Take the morality/alignment part OUT of the paladin's code. Give him a set code, dictated by the religious precepts of his organization and let him follow those precepts TO THE LETTER!

If he's a paladin of an evil organization then he can be evil, so long as he follows the code. If he's a paladin of a good organization he can STILL be evil so long as he follows the code. Of course, most good organizations construct codes which exclude evil behavior.

Now, evil organizations are also less likely to have paladins because paladins follow the Code and not an individual. Evil organizations usually have a head honcho that wants loyalty to HIM and not to some ideal that he doesn't necessarily follow.

Stop being lazy and trying to pigeon hole everyone into a narrow set of alignments that nobody can agree on and just WRITE THE CODE. Include a bunch of ideals that the paladin (of that code) should try to achieve, a bunch of stuff he should avoid (needs to atone for), and then some things that will immediately and irrevocably strip him of his title. If you want periodic testings on the 'evildar' then make it part of the code. If you want a minimum reading on the 'candyosity' meter, put it in the code. If he's got to pass the 'void comp test' then that should be part of the code.

This would seem to be somewhat difficult to do in a standardized way that WotC could publish in books. After all, every organization would have its own code and its own principles, and so the code would be totally unique for the organization in the world. WotC, therefore, couldn't do it without making entire books just for this, and doing it for every paladin in game might frustrate players and DMs who are trying to figure out how paladins should act and when they should fall.

And then you still have issues with the paladin abilities, since if every organization gets its own code why would good paladins get to heal and evil paladins get to harm? Shouldn't more militant good organizations get to harm and more subtle evil organizations heal (to foster their claim to be benevolent instead of evil)?

I'll say this: I like the idea, but I don't think it actually works in practice. It certainly isn't "simple" [grin].

[Ozymandias]

Here is the thing however, The new paladin concept isn't new, it is the old knight concept painted to look like a paladin. the 4E paladin is a knight (or crusader) with a fancy knew name. What i'm saying is that isn't what hte paladin is (was) suppose to be. If they called it the knight, or the crusader, and left paladins out entirely i'd be miffed, but content. It is like the change in Wizard's upsetting, but still understandable


Why, exactly, is this an affront? Wizards is changing all the classes, often radically, and this change is, by comparison, quite minor. Besides, what exactly gives you the authority to say what a paladin is "supposed to be"? It's a Roman term for chamberlain that morphed into a church title. I mean, you can hold your own opinion, but say "I don't like the new paladin" instead of "the new paladin doesn't work".

[SamTheCleric]

Maybe they don't work because they don't have a green card?

...

Sorry, that was really bad. I'm ashamed of myself. :smallconfused:

[JBento]

Something just occurred to me, as I sat in the lab watching the chromatogram and mucnhing my pizza. This may come as revelation to some of you, but, er...

GOOD PALADINS DON'T WORK EITHER!!!!!

There. I've said it. And since this is the internet, I have time to follow up that statement before being burnt at the stake.

Paladins have dumb requirements. First, they're too based on the alignment system, which is botched in so many ways it's not even funny.
Secondly, their the only bloody class that restricts EVERYONE ELSE. The barbarian and the bard don't care if they travel with Lawful folk, and the Monk doesn't give a dire rat's ass if he's travelling along a Chaotic bunch (perhpas because he's too sucky to actually kill said dire rat, but that's another point entirely).

But the paladin? Oh, no, no tolerance on HIS part. If someone decides to play a paladin, NO-ONE can play an Evil-aligned or morally ambiguous character. Hell, you can't even play a Good-aligned Rogue that makes a habit of stealing from the Evil merchant's coffers to give to charity because stealing offends the paladin's moral code - and thus he can't travel with you. The player'll also probably whine that YOU are wrecking HIS character concept, despite the fact that the problem is HIS character's inserted stick...

[Starbuck_II]

Nope, it's not that simple. Some people have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of evil paladins. Most of them would be fine with evil warriors of a diety, even if they gained virtually identical powers to the paladin, as long as you labeled it something else instead of "Evil Paladin".

Why does the name instill disgust? Isn't a rose by any other name the same? Isn't herpes by any other name just as bad?

[CasESenSITItiVE]

actually, i think it doesn't make sense to say you can't have evi paladins according to thier flavour. The flavour is that they draw directly from the "power of good and law". If there is a raw "power of good", then why can't there be a "raw power of evil"? Similarily, if there is a "raw power of law", why can't there be a "raw power of chaos" (though i'm not even sure there is a law/chaos axis in 4e, but that's beside the point)?

i don't think the issue is whether or not there are "evil ideals" that a paladin could follow, which by the way i actually agree with you on that issue. the question is whether or not it makes sense for there to be an evil energy source if there is a good one.

[JBento]

Starbuck, we are HUMANS using the INTERNET - logic doesn't figure in the equation. Please remove it, as it occupies room better used for insanity :smallwink:

[CasESenSITItiVE]

.
Hell, you can't even play a Good-aligned Rogue that makes a habit of stealing from the Evil merchant's coffers to give to charity because stealing offends the paladin's moral code - and thus he can't travel with you. The player'll also probably whine that YOU are wrecking HIS character concept, despite the fact that the problem is HIS character's inserted stick...

actually, i've never heard this one. This looks like a case of bad role player instead of bad class

[an kobold]

And the Internet combined with humans always leads to:
:furious: :furious: :furious: :furious:

However, us machines do not have to deal with that problem.

[an kobold]

actually, i've never heard this one. This looks like a case of bad role player instead of bad class

Part of the problem with the paladin class is that it lends itself to bad roleplaying with its alignment restriction. I'm not saying that all paladins are played poorly, paladins quite often are some of the more interesting characters in campaigns. But to a few people out there, the term lawful good is synonymous with "stick up the arse," and well, if you have ever played with one, it tends to ruin your taste for the class.

[JBento]

actually, i've never heard this one. This looks like a case of bad role player instead of bad class

Nope. It's bad class. Go check, I'll wait. The paladin class clearly states that he will not adventure/associate with someone that constantly offends his moral code (which I think we can all agree it includes not stealing). The Rogue CAN steal - the Paladin just can never find out.

Unfortunately, the Paladin is obligated by his Code to investigate the source of all the riches the Rogue's is throwing around, unless he has a REALLYYYYY low Int score...

[Starbuck_II]

Nope. It's bad class. Go check, I'll wait. The paladin class clearly states that he will not adventure/associate with someone that constantly offends his moral code (which I think we can all agree it includes not stealing). The Rogue CAN steal - the Paladin just can never find out.

Unfortunately, the Paladin is obligated by his Code to investigate the source of all the riches the Rogue's is throwing around, unless he has a REALLYYYYY low Int score...

I see it more as low Wisdom. Intelligence would be more what he can pick up through training (why search is Int); while wisdom is what he picked up through experiences (which is why spot/listen are wisdom).

[an kobold]

I see it more as low Wisdom. Intelligence would be more what he can pick up through training (why search is Int); while wisdom is what he picked up through experiences (which is why spot/listen are wisdom).

Which would reflect even more poorly on the paladin, as they tend to have high to moderate wisdom scores.

[Jayabalard]

Nope. It's bad class. Go check, I'll wait. The paladin class clearly states that he will not adventure/associate with someone that constantly offends his moral code (which I think we can all agree it includes not stealing). The Rogue CAN steal - the Paladin just can never find out.Nope, the examples you cite are just ones that have bad players involved. The class is fine.

[JBento]

Dude, it says it on the class description. If the Rogue steals and the paladin knows, they CAN'T adventure together. I don't know where you're getting the bad player from (unless it's the guy who chose to play the paladin...)

[Citizen Joe]

This would seem to be somewhat difficult to do in a standardized way that WotC could publish in books. After all, every organization would have its own code and its own principles...

Would not be that hard. Only one extra paragraph for each religion and organization that accepts paladins. It has been a while since I looked at FR stuff, but I think there's only like three gods that accept paladins. And then maybe 4 organizations. Of those, half will have very similar codes, to the extent that you could make a set list and then stipulate how one organization /religion differs from the others.

Once the basic paladin organizations/religions are covered just run through the rest to see if there is a strong enough zealotry and ideal needed to support a paladin class. For most organizations/religions a simple line will suffice. "This [religion, organization] does not have the zealot basis to support paladins."

When you find a religion/organization that DOES have sufficient zeal, then it is very easy to form a code around it.


And then you still have issues with the paladin abilities, since if every organization gets its own code why would good paladins get to heal and evil paladins get to harm? Shouldn't more militant good organizations get to harm and more subtle evil organizations heal (to foster their claim to be benevolent instead of evil)?

I see no NEED for changing any of the abilities. I think that evil attacks evil as much as good, so an 'evil' organization would want to protect against evil just as much as a good organization. Only an idiot would use a limited use harmful touch attack ability when he's got a sword in his arm. So healing allies is always useful no matter what your alignment. In fact an evil paladin is most likely just going to heal himself with it.

If you absolutely HAD to change the alignment stuff, I'd make it Detect Heathen, Protection from Heathen and Smite Heathen. In this case a Heathen is anyone that doesn't know your organization's secret handshake/salute.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

Dude, it says it on the class description. If the Rogue steals and the paladin knows, they CAN'T adventure together. I don't know where you're getting the bad player from (unless it's the guy who chose to play the paladin...)

that's not true, the paladin only has to stop adventuring with someone if they are evil, which nonetheless is a bad rule that we play without, does not cover your scenario

[JBento]

I'm AFB right now, but I suspect (and the SRD confirms it) that "[she will not] continue an association with someone who offends her moral code."

I'd say stealing is an offense to the pally's moral code, and "adventuring partner" fall under "associate". Wouldn't you?

[Daimbert]

Would not be that hard. Only one extra paragraph for each religion and organization that accepts paladins. It has been a while since I looked at FR stuff, but I think there's only like three gods that accept paladins. And then maybe 4 organizations. Of those, half will have very similar codes, to the extent that you could make a set list and then stipulate how one organization /religion differs from the others.

Once the basic paladin organizations/religions are covered just run through the rest to see if there is a strong enough zealotry and ideal needed to support a paladin class. For most organizations/religions a simple line will suffice. "This [religion, organization] does not have the zealot basis to support paladins."

When you find a religion/organization that DOES have sufficient zeal, then it is very easy to form a code around it.

I guess the question would be: if you can have clerics of every god, why couldn't you have paladins (or shouldn't have paladins)? Why not a Paladin of Oghma? In saying that you need "sufficient zeal", you are implying a standard for the paladin that does not seem to fit its role, which would be of the major military organization to defend the organization. Why wouldn't all gods have a militant arm, except for exceptionally pacifist ones? Do they not care about defending their worshippers?

I mean, things like Lawfullness and Goodness could have limited it before, but if you change that to all for evil paladins (or chaotic and such, as has been done) and THEN try to map it to an organization zeal seems quite an arbitrary standard for which organizations allow them.


I see no NEED for changing any of the abilities. I think that evil attacks evil as much as good, so an 'evil' organization would want to protect against evil just as much as a good organization. Only an idiot would use a limited use harmful touch attack ability when he's got a sword in his arm. So healing allies is always useful no matter what your alignment. In fact an evil paladin is most likely just going to heal himself with it.

If you absolutely HAD to change the alignment stuff, I'd make it Detect Heathen, Protection from Heathen and Smite Heathen. In this case a Heathen is anyone that doesn't know your organization's secret handshake/salute.

I'd agree with this, except that:

1) Good organizations are more likely to deliberately target evil ones than evil organizations, making them what they'd want to defend against more often.
2) It takes away from the organization focus of the paladin. Saying that a harmful touch attack doesn't seem to be as good as a sword doesn't mean that more militant groups aren't more into smiting than healing; just that that ability doesn't make sense.

Basically, though, I even agree with keeping the abilities the same and think that that might be the best way, but it runs into issues with customizing the paladin to the organization, which is what we're doing with the code ... so why not the abilities?

[Jayabalard]

Dude, it says it on the class description.


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

Someone who does good things, steals from evil people (chaotic act, not evil) and spends that wealth to charitable works would not qualify as consistently offending the paladin code.

Also, the restriction on people who consistantly offend the paladin code only applies to association, not to traveling. It's quite possible to travel with someone you don't associate with (as in, taking a road trip with your mother-in-law in the car)

This is kind of getting off topic for the current thread; if you really want to go in depth about good paladins, that probably deserves it's own thread.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

I'm AFB right now, but I suspect (and the SRD confirms it) that "[she will not] continue an association with someone who offends her moral code."

I'd say stealing is an offense to the pally's moral code, and "adventuring partner" fall under "associate". Wouldn't you?

that one is up for debate i suppose. in the PHB it does say they won't associate with someone who consistently offend her moral code, so they wouldn't stop after one offence like that. But that's actually up for interpretation. if she stopped travelling with those who dissappointed her morally, she couldn't travel with anyone, even other lawful good characters, as nobody's perfect. i would interpret the word "offend" as something stronger then that offence

[Renegade Paladin]

Nope. It's bad class. Go check, I'll wait. The paladin class clearly states that he will not adventure/associate with someone that constantly offends his moral code (which I think we can all agree it includes not stealing). The Rogue CAN steal - the Paladin just can never find out.

Unfortunately, the Paladin is obligated by his Code to investigate the source of all the riches the Rogue's is throwing around, unless he has a REALLYYYYY low Int score...
Oh, come off it. First, if you want to play an evil character, "too bad, so sad, there's the door" is the answer most DMs will give you, even before you run into any problems with a theoretical paladin.

Secondly, if there's an evil merchant running around, then he's doing something to earn that alignment; you don't become evil just sitting around twiddling your thumbs. Find out what that is and turn the paladin loose on him. Then take his stuff. Hey, it's what adventurers do. :smalltongue: More seriously, a good-aligned rogue stealing from an evil character isn't likely to get more than a talking-to from an average paladin, if even that. Most of us don't play Miko, you know.

[Rutee]

There are apologists for the Paladin Class encouraging bad OOC party dynamics?

Some people's children.

[Daimbert]

Oh, come off it. First, if you want to play an evil character, "too bad, so sad, there's the door" is the answer most DMs will give you, even before you run into any problems with a theoretical paladin.

Ultimately, I'd have to say that the association rules and the problems they cause are, in fact, the POINT of the class.

Yes, paladins have restrictions due to their exceedingly strong sense of morality and judgement thereof that limit the sorts of parties that can work with them and what the parties can do if they want to keep the paladin with them. Paladins are not a class like a fighter that you can throw into ANY situation with ANY combination of characters and have it work. So if someone wanting to be a paladin causes problems with the party -- ie an evil character -- then chances are that campaign and those players just aren't right for including a paladin, and so the person playing a paladin might have to take another class. Or if the person who wants to play a paladin has a good enough reason, maybe the other players can forgo being evil for that campaign. You know, that spirit of compromise that should exist between people all playing a game together [grin]?

A paladin has roleplaying restrictions that define how it acts in the world. That is why it isn't just a fighter with spells. Yes, some of them are limiting in annoying ways, but that's the point: they're SUPPOSED to be limiting in annoying ways. And also limiting in interesting ways.

In short, a paladin seems to be nothing more than a class designed to be roleplayed with a precise role. Why is that so bad?

(Note that my questions, obviously, aren't directed at the person I replied to, but are obviously more general [grin]).

[hamishspence]

answers to various questions:

Realms paladins: in 3rd to 3.5 ed: LOTS. Basically, the one step rule, with a few exceptions: one deity allows paladins 2 steps away: Sune, CG deity, LG paladins. Oghma and Gond are Neutral, allowing divine spellcasters of any alignment. In addition, some deities have extended multiclassing rules, allowing paladin to muticlass into specified other classes. Yummy!

the "You just have to do much more good than evil" argument. Not valid for paladins and Exalted Good characters (no evil acts) and for other characters, Fiendish Codex II, Tyrants of the Nine Hells, has special rules.

Specifically, Lawful characters may not commit more than a certain amount of evil acts without going to Hell, regardless of their alignment. That is, unless they repent and take steps to apologize and repair the damage they did. At the higher level of evil acts, atonement spells are needed in addition.

So, basically, it rules out the guy who does evil acts and thinks their overall heroism give them a free pass.

Interestingly, the same applies for Evil characters and Lawful acts. So a exceptionally obedient secret demon worshipper, employed by law enforcement, would go to the nine Hells, not the Abyss as they were expecting.

As for the question of the name Paladin being used in 4th ed to represent a "Divine warrior" it may be a little clunky, but it gets the job done without having different classes for different alignments. Forgotton Realms had the Divine Champion prestige class, which was a bit like the paladin but for all deities. this is a similar mechanic.

For discussions of Evil, I would point out Champions of Ruin, another FR sourcebook, have a wide range of sample evil motivations: Driven to Evil, There is no Evil, Just plain MEAN (Belkar?) and Better to reign in hell, for those who want pure, despiser of all good, evil characters.

So basically, you can have guys who think of themselves as good, but do enough evil to be called Evil. no problems with them doing some good acts.

[hamishspence]

answers to various questions:

Realms paladins: in 3rd to 3.5 ed: LOTS. Basically, the one step rule, with a few exceptions: one deity allows paladins 2 steps away: Sune, CG deity, LG paladins. Oghma and Gond are Neutral, allowing divine spellcasters of any alignment. In addition, some deities have extended multiclassing rules, allowing paladin to muticlass into specified other classes. Yummy!

the "You just have to do much more good than evil" argument. Not valid for paladins and Exalted Good characters (no evil acts) and for other characters, Fiendish Codex II, Tyrants of the Nine Hells, has special rules.

Specifically, Lawful characters may not commit more than a certain amount of evil acts without going to Hell, regardless of their alignment. That is, unless they repent and take steps to apologize and repair the damage they did. At the higher level of evil acts, atonement spells are needed in addition.

So, basically, it rules out the guy who does evil acts and thinks their overall heroism give them a free pass.

Interestingly, the same applies for Evil characters and Lawful acts. So a exceptionally obedient secret demon worshipper, employed by law enforcement, would go to the nine Hells, not the Abyss as they were expecting.

As for the question of the name Paladin being used in 4th ed to represent a "Divine warrior" it may be a little clunky, but it gets the job done without having different classes for different alignments. Forgotton Realms had the Divine Champion prestige class, which was a bit like the paladin but for all deities. this is a similar mechanic.

For discussions of Evil, I would point out Champions of Ruin, another FR sourcebook, have a wide range of sample evil motivations: Driven to Evil, There is no Evil, Just plain MEAN (Belkar?) and Better to reign in hell, for those who want pure, despiser of all good, evil characters.

So basically, you can have guys who think of themselves as good, but do enough evil to be called Evil. no problems with them doing some good acts.

[Renegade Paladin]

Neutral is two steps away from Lawful Good; neutral deities cannot have paladins unless they have a specific exception, and to my knowledge, neither do.

Incidentally, since it was asked earlier: Sune has paladins because, due to high Charisma, she considers them hawt, to use the colloquial misspelling. :smallamused:

[an kobold]

God help me, I laughed.

[EvilElitest]

mountain of words built on fundamentally flawed premise

good times
Correction, a mountain of words built on what you claim is a fundamentally flawed premise. and as your word isn't god (and because you never back up what you say) it isn't worth anything


Damn! I'm out of Internet connection for a week (and it's still shaky at best) and something like THIS pops up... I'm not going to read all eleven pages due to time constraints, and therefore I apologise if any of the following has been said, tackled, shot and dismembered.

Fair enough



For starters, I'll assume that we're dealing with the Core setting. As such, both clerics and paladins have no need of gods, and can get their goodies from a Cause (interestingly, this means in Core, I can be a Cleric of myself if I believe in myself enough - and if I'm going out facing ogres and dragons, oh my, with the power of belief, you can bet your ass I am VERY believing).


In other settings, such as FR, gods are a necessity for both clerics and paladins. As it's often said, your mileage may vary.

1. Ok, that is the assumption we are working off
2. Yep, these are the cynical clerics who cheat the system


Also, for the sake of the discussion, let us assume that the alignment system ISN'T horribly, terribly, and irrevocably botched.

The Cleric ISN'T a champion of the god's wishes. He's a devout follower of the god's ideals, and he gets some major mojo for being so.

A paladin does in fact represent his alignment. This however, can be construed as his cause, but this is minor nitpicking.
1. The alignment system wasn't so much horrible, as it takes half a dozen books for it to be defined
2. Wait explain that cleric thing again
3. The code comes from the LG alignment yeah


The idea of being good is not "not doing evil deeds." That's certainly a part of it. But the idea of being good is DOING GOOD DEEDS! Not doing evil deeds is not even required: as the alignments stand, all you have to do to be good is do much more good deeds than evil ones. Odd, but true.
Actually LG people will no longer be LG if they commit many evil deeds and don't repent. Paladins will fall if they commit even one evil deed. But yeah, they do have to commit good deeds


The idea that you do anything that you feel like it is the CHAOTIC Evil. LAWFUL Evil, OTOH, isn't quite so free. Lawful Evil people are still bound by their code of honour and the laws of the land.

Except that is part of the lawful alignment, not the evil. A LE paladins is bound to law in the exact same way a LG one is except he can use evil methods or obey evil laws. Nothing stops a LE person from commit both good an evil deeds equally, in fact that tends to happen a lot with the alignment


Also, I assume that by now someone has thrown the "But they're paladins! They have to be good, because they're paladins!" argument log to the fire, so I'll say this: No they don't. Historically, paladins were not devoted to the objective Good as defined by WotC. They were devoted to a cause which, 90% of the time, fit perfectly with what the SUBJECTIVE good was at the time (ofc, it would be impossible otherwise, cause the Real World doesn't have the artificiality objective morality of D&D). IIRC (and I'm sure someone will be quick to correct if I'm not), the original paladins were the 12 peers of Charlemagne and they conformed to the time's ideals of good and honour.

Actually the issue was the nature of D&D paladins, not the real life ones, but good points anyways. The issues comes from good and evil not being subjective in D&D



And those are my 2 cents. I await for them to be buried under everyone else's.:smallcool:
your very brave facing your fate, i salue you:smallbiggrin:
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

Nope. It's bad class. Go check, I'll wait. The paladin class clearly states that he will not adventure/associate with someone that constantly offends his moral code (which I think we can all agree it includes not stealing). The Rogue CAN steal - the Paladin just can never find out.

Unfortunately, the Paladin is obligated by his Code to investigate the source of all the riches the Rogue's is throwing around, unless he has a REALLYYYYY low Int score...

Actually in BoED it says quite clearly that Paladins can work with evil people as long as they don't do evil things. Stealing can be a neutral act, the rogue can't steal for personal gain
from
EE

[Starbuck_II]

Actually in BoED it says quite clearly that Paladins can work with evil people as long as they don't do evil things. Stealing can be a neutral act, the rogue can't steal for personal gain
from
EE

No, it doesn't. What page?

[hamishspence]

Page 9: The Straight and narrow had a long section on good + evil working toward a good end: in this case a group of exiled evil drow and good adventurers working to prevent drow raids by the drow who have driven the others into exile. The exiles want to get back in charge of the drow city.

"it is possible, within certain limits, for them to cooperate with each other. However the good characters must not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the time of their alliance, and can't simply turn a blind eye to such acts"

"and of course they must not turn on their erstwhile alliaes when victory is in sight, betraying the trust the drow placed in them"

"such a situation is dangerous both physically and morally, but cooperating with evil creatures is not necessarily evil in itself"

Some people would say the non-association clause in the Paladin's Code overrides this, but the Paladins Guide in Dragon magazine, which listed mounts, covered abilities, and clarified the Code, said paladins are allowed to associate for redeeming purposes, at least.

I would rule that, likewise, paladin is allowed to work with other group, but not allowed to accept evil characters into his own group without active willingness to be redeemed. at least, all other Exalted characters use this, so paladins really should too.

[Maxperson]

I see it more as low Wisdom. Intelligence would be more what he can pick up through training (why search is Int); while wisdom is what he picked up through experiences (which is why spot/listen are wisdom).

Intelligence doesn't go up or down on learning. It's something you are born with. That's why you can tell if a 4 year old is really smart or really stupid. Intelligence AFFECTS learning, and a high intelligence will allow you to learn faster(more skill points), but it is not raised through learning. What IS raised through learning, is knowledge(knowledge skills). Wisdom is also not raised BY experiences, wisdom allows us to use our experiences to better predict things. Wisdom is also intuition and willpower. The intutition part is why you get a spot/listen bonus.

[Maxperson]

[QUOTE=Daimbert;4080748]I guess the question would be: if you can have clerics of every god, why couldn't you have paladins (or shouldn't have paladins)? Why not a Paladin of Oghma? In saying that you need "sufficient zeal", you are implying a standard for the paladin that does not seem to fit its role, which would be of the major military organization to defend the organization. Why wouldn't all gods have a militant arm, except for exceptionally pacifist ones? Do they not care about defending their worshippers?QUOTE]

Exactly. A paladin of Oghma might also get a misc. +2 on knowledge skills instead of detect evil. You'd also replace the other abilites with ones that made sense for that God.

[QUOTE]I mean, things like Lawfullness and Goodness could have limited it before, but if you change that to all for evil paladins (or chaotic and such, as has been done) and THEN try to map it to an organization zeal seems quite an arbitrary standard for which organizations allow them.QUOTE]

The whole paladin class as a paragon of an alignment is just dumb. Alignments in general are not feasable in a game where you take on the role of a character with a personality. No personality will fit entirely within one alignment. You will get people with the bulk in one alignment or another, but they will have traits that cause them to fall within other alignments in certain areas. A class that requires it to be the paragon of an alignment and never deviate from it is just asking for an impossible person, and that's bad for a role playing game. No one is extreme LG without any deviations, no matter how it appears.

[Maxperson]

Oh, come off it. First, if you want to play an evil character, "too bad, so sad, there's the door" is the answer most DMs will give you, even before you run into any problems with a theoretical paladin.

Secondly, if there's an evil merchant running around, then he's doing something to earn that alignment; you don't become evil just sitting around twiddling your thumbs. Find out what that is and turn the paladin loose on him. Then take his stuff. Hey, it's what adventurers do. :smalltongue: More seriously, a good-aligned rogue stealing from an evil character isn't likely to get more than a talking-to from an average paladin, if even that. Most of us don't play Miko, you know.

You can't. Paladins have absolutely no standing underl the law to go after an evil merchant. That merchant probably uses his skill to buy things outrageously low, and sell incredibly high, but unless he breaks the law or commits an overtly evil act in front of the paladin, the paladin will need some sort of incontrovertable proof of the merchants misdeeds. Alignment simply won't do. Otherwise, Paladins would all end up in prison for rushing into town and taking out about 10-20% of any given town's population, and that just doesn't happen. Paladins don't have to be lawful stupid.

[Renegade Paladin]

You can't. Paladins have absolutely no standing underl the law to go after an evil merchant. That merchant probably uses his skill to buy things outrageously low, and sell incredibly high, but unless he breaks the law or commits an overtly evil act in front of the paladin, the paladin will need some sort of incontrovertable proof of the merchants misdeeds. Alignment simply won't do. Otherwise, Paladins would all end up in prison for rushing into town and taking out about 10-20% of any given town's population, and that just doesn't happen. Paladins don't have to be lawful stupid.
Of course they don't, but 10-20% of the town's population is not going to be evil unless there's some form of widespread secret cult going on. Buying low and selling high isn't evil; if that merchant has an evil alignment he has done something wrong. And if you're a good enough rogue to consistently steal from him without getting caught, you're good enough to find out what that is.

[ZekeArgo]

More like a thread about theories. Should paladins be allowed to be evil at all? Is the 4E paladin like the 2nd/3.x paladin? Is he like the ToB's crusader with some divine abilities? The ShadowWotC knows. Or maybe not even them know for sure...

*facepalm*

Was a joke to some of the older players, or at least the ones who knew about the "edition change" module "Die Vecna Die!"

[Citizen Joe]

I think that you will find that there is very little that you can do that is inherently good or evil. It can always get spun one way or the other.

[ZekeArgo]

Of course they don't, but 10-20% of the town's population is not going to be evil unless there's some form of widespread secret cult going on.

I call bull****. A town's population will easily have a higher percentage of evil because evil is easy. Killing people, taking advantage of them, everything is a lot easier the closer to the edge or the bottom rung of society you are. It turns into kill or be killed, and people with morality in those circles will be completely destroyed by people without any scruples.

[Renegade Paladin]

I call bull****. A town's population will easily have a higher percentage of evil because evil is easy. Killing people, taking advantage of them, everything is a lot easier the closer to the edge or the bottom rung of society you are. It turns into kill or be killed, and people with morality in those circles will be completely destroyed by people without any scruples.
Evil requires active malevolence. Your average poverty-level urban dweller isn't malevolent; they just want to stay out of the way. Will there be a lot of evil people by the numbers in a large city? Sure. Will it be anywhere near 20% of the total population? No, not in an average civilized city.

[ZekeArgo]

Evil requires active malevolence.

Again, bull. Evil requires a lack of empathy for others. Anyone willing to kill, push others aside, and generally do things to crush others while advancing themselves are heading over to evil. I don't know where you've grown up, visited, or seen, but I'll tell you in any community there are very, very large populations of people willing to do *whatever* it takes to get the thing they need.

[Starbuck_II]

Again, bull. Evil requires a lack of empathy for others. Anyone willing to kill, push others aside, and generally do things to crush others while advancing themselves are heading over to evil. I don't know where you've grown up, visited, or seen, but I'll tell you in any community there are very, very large populations of people willing to do *whatever* it takes to get the thing they need.

Nope. nuetral lacks empathy as well.

Nuetral cares not about those who aren't family/friends. That is what the PHB says. Now Neurtal Good is good so it cares, but LN or CN: nope. Not required.

[Rutee]

I hope in 4e, Evil really does turn out to be puppy-kicking malevolence, and Good turns out to be Saint-like and Friend of All Who Lives. As minimums. It seems like that would make fewer Alignment Threads.

FYI: THis became an Alignment Thread, not a thread on Evil Paladins (Despite the protests of Renegade Paladin, there is no sufficiently convincing reason why there can't be any. Even Semantics don't work, amusingly.

[Citizen Joe]

And after a mere five posts I feel that I have proven my point. There can't be an objective evil because nobody can agree as to what that is. Likewise there cannot be an objective good.

Actually, it just occurred to me that the reason they can't exist is that both good and evil require intent. Intent can only be known by the person committing the act thus everyone else, by definition, is witnessing it subjectively. Thus there can only be subjective good and evil.

Can there be objective law and chaos though?

[Maxperson]

Of course they don't, but 10-20% of the town's population is not going to be evil unless there's some form of widespread secret cult going on. Buying low and selling high isn't evil; if that merchant has an evil alignment he has done something wrong. And if you're a good enough rogue to consistently steal from him without getting caught, you're good enough to find out what that is.

Greed and self-interest run rampant in any medieval society. To have 1 or 2 out every 10 people show up as evil is no stretch at all. Greedy merchants who use their position and abilities to take advantage of people are basically stealing from them in a "legal" manner. This is "evil" since their intent is to harm those they deal with. Not every merchant is like this, but many are.

[Renegade Paladin]

FYI: THis became an Alignment Thread, not a thread on Evil Paladins (Despite the protests of Renegade Paladin, there is no sufficiently convincing reason why there can't be any. Even Semantics don't work, amusingly.
They work perfectly; in fact, since we're arguing definitions, they're the only thing that can since the entire debate is, by definition, semantics. The word "paladin" means a heroic champion and paragon of chivalry; anything else is not a paladin. That's the end of the discussion right there. Have champions of evil all you want, but call them something else; the word you for some unfathomable reason want is taken.
And after a mere five posts I feel that I have proven my point. There can't be an objective evil because nobody can agree as to what that is. Likewise there cannot be an objective good.

Actually, it just occurred to me that the reason they can't exist is that both good and evil require intent. Intent can only be known by the person committing the act thus everyone else, by definition, is witnessing it subjectively. Thus there can only be subjective good and evil.
Except that we're talking about the D&D multiverse, wherein good and evil are not only objective, but sufficiently real forces to spawn actual and incredibly powerful demons and angels. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean it isn't objective; people can easily be mistaken without changing the actual facts.
Greed and self-interest run rampant in any medieval society. To have 1 or 2 out every 10 people show up as evil is no stretch at all. Greedy merchants who use their position and abilities to take advantage of people are basically stealing from them in a "legal" manner. This is "evil" since their intent is to harm those they deal with. Not every merchant is like this, but many are.
Self-interest isn't evil; it's neutral. Greed isn't even evil as long as you're greedy with what you legitimately own, rather than to the point of taking what other people have. Evil requires malevolent harm. It's not evil to want a good price for your wares. It's evil to gouge starving people on food, but you'd have to do a lot of it before it started to affect your alignment enough to actually make you Evil. Essentially, by the time someone is coming up on the Evildar, he's done enough to warrant punishment.

[StGlebidiah]

They work perfectly; in fact, since we're arguing definitions, they're the only thing that can since the entire debate is, by definition, semantics. The word "paladin" means a heroic champion and paragon of chivalry; anything else is not a paladin. That's the end of the discussion right there. Have champions of evil all you want, but call them something else; the word you for some unfathomable reason want is taken.
Except that we're talking about the D&D multiverse, wherein good and evil are not only objective, but sufficiently real forces to spawn actual and incredibly powerful demons and angels. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean it isn't objective; people can easily be mistaken without changing the actual facts.
Self-interest isn't evil; it's neutral. Greed isn't even evil as long as you're greedy with what you legitimately own, rather than to the point of taking what other people have. Evil requires malevolent harm. It's not evil to want a good price for your wares. It's evil to gouge starving people on food, but you'd have to do a lot of it before it started to affect your alignment enough to actually make you Evil. Essentially, by the time someone is coming up on the Evildar, he's done enough to warrant punishment.

On your first point, you are correct in a very narrow way. If we include the common connotations of the word paladin, which I agree are usually good, then yes. Otherwise, if we go by the dictionary definition, absolutely not. Briefly pilfered from Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin):

Main Entry:
pal·a·din
Pronunciation:
\ˈpa-lə-dən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, from Italian paladino, from Old French palatin, from Medieval Latin palatinus courtier, from Late Latin, imperial official — more at palatine
Date: 1592

1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause

Neither of these mention either chivalry, or good. If you want to write to Merriam-Webster to tell them that their definition is incorrect, by all means - just post the correction, when they make it, or find an equally reputable dictionary that supports your claim, but until then, please do not debate this anymore (I, for one, will not respond).

On your second point, I again agree that Good, Evil, Neutral, Law, and Chaos are all objective in the DnD universe (I'm not saying that this is a good thing, or that it functions at all, but it is true). I do not agree that this makes any given action objectively Good or Evil. Nothing that anyone has written here has in any way convinced me that any given action has an associated alignment regardless of intent or context. It may be possible to in some way prove that one of these two considerations is irrelevant, but I do not believe that is it possible to prove that both are always irrelevant.

As for the whole self-interest thing, that's part of another discussion which strikes me as being irrelevant to the thread title. I would tend to agree that self-interest, on its own, does not make someone evil. However, it doesn't make them anything more or less than what they ARE. If you're evil and selfish, you're evil. If you're good and selfish, you're good. For an example of this latter case, consider anyone who believes in a good cause and actively tries to force others to join them - it may be good, but it is also selfish. If you're neutral and selfish, well, you're neutral, and you're also probably an a**hole, but you're still neutral =D

[hamishspence]

selfish and self centred are two different things. Encouraging others to join your worthy caurse is self centred, in that it suggests you consider it more important than other causes, but it is not necessarily selfish, as in tied to personal benefit.

Self interest is part of the definition of selfishness, but it is only when it is taken to an extreme that it becomes Evil.

Evil in D&D is generally tied to causing inappropiate harm, physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Execution is not evil (see Book of Exalted Deeds) lying is not evil but considered dangerous (Vile Darkness.) A direct mechanic for Evil acts is provided in Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells, with evil acts rated from 1 to 7 points. not all evil acts are mentioned, which suggests some may not have a points value and are too minor to affect one's place in the D&D afterlife. In OOTS, it would be "nothing that registers on the Malev-O-Meter"

Good is focussed on self-sacrifice, ranging from minor (willingly giving ones time) to major (willingly giving ones life) Most good acts can be characterised this way, with concern for the general wellbeing of others being a theme.

Law is not defined in great detail, with a few traits in PH 3.5, and a few sample acts in Fiendish codex 2. Carrying out a legal execution, swearing fealty, accepting the reslut of a legal mediation that goes against you, following orders from a superior you do not respect, are examples. The general theme is of "Obedience to Hierarchy", social, legal, etc.

Chaos is hardest to define, but the general theme is anti-hierachal. A chaotic person might be prone to ignore authourity, move around rather than remain in one area, and believes in freedom of choice. PH suggests that activism is more a trait of CE or CG rather than CN, but this neglects the possibility that a character may carry out minor evil acts in the service of a good cause, which would prevent them from being fairly defined as Good.

Neutrality was originally those who actively worked for a balance, but this was mostly dropped in 3.5. It can represent characters with relative indifference, or mild tendencies too weak to give them the relevant alignment.

[Renegade Paladin]

On your first point, you are correct in a very narrow way. If we include the common connotations of the word paladin, which I agree are usually good, then yes. Otherwise, if we go by the dictionary definition, absolutely not. Briefly pilfered from Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin):

Main Entry:
pal·a·din
Pronunciation:
\ˈpa-lə-dən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, from Italian paladino, from Old French palatin, from Medieval Latin palatinus courtier, from Late Latin, imperial official — more at palatine
Date: 1592

1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause

Neither of these mention either chivalry, or good. If you want to write to Merriam-Webster to tell them that their definition is incorrect, by all means - just post the correction, when they make it, or find an equally reputable dictionary that supports your claim, but until then, please do not debate this anymore (I, for one, will not respond).
Then feel free not to, but I already did (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin):
pal·a·din
–noun
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.
And another:
pal·a·din (pāl'ə-dĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.
This is posted back on page 6 of the thread.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Then feel free not to, but I already did (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin):
And another:
This is posted back on page 6 of the thread.

*Doubles over in mirth* I hate to tell you RP, but six pages ago was when your cause finally gave up and died. If the most reputable English dictionaries can't decide on the definition of paladin, WotC picking and choosing which to use is perfectly acceptable. Seeing as how several definitions of paladin support 4e's, including one of your own, you have absolutely nothing left to argue. I'd seriously consider conceding now, dude.

TS

...On second thought, I'd prefer if you kept beating your head against this wall--it's doing wonders for my stress level!

[Anukuta]

We already have Evil paladins in real life.

They are called 'Lawyers'.

Using and bending the law in a way to defend prove or dissprove an accused so they can go free... who they might know very well is guilty. *Or* in the other case; accuse and prove a defendant is guilty (while knowing very well they might be innocent).

and they make a *Living* doing it, many enjoy their jobs and probably a good deal of them don't care about the implication of their deeds.

How more 'lawful evil' can that get?

[Neon Knight]

Mr. Renegade, I must ask once again: What is chivalry? What is a heroic champion? Are these not subjective terms with no concrete meaning? One man could be called a heroic champion by one society and a villain by another. Even if we accept your definition, what does that mean?

Explain to me, please. I don't know what a "heroic champion" or "paragon of chivalry" is in the objective concrete sense you are using it in, as if it was some distinct and clearly codified definition. I honestly don't think you could come up with a single person that everyone would call a heroic champion or paragon of chivalry.

[Renegade Paladin]

*Doubles over in mirth* I hate to tell you RP, but six pages ago was when your cause finally gave up and died. If the most reputable English dictionaries can't decide on the definition of paladin, WotC picking and choosing which to use is perfectly acceptable. Seeing as how several definitions of paladin support 4e's, including one of your own, you have absolutely nothing left to argue. I'd seriously consider conceding now, dude.

TS

...On second thought, I'd prefer if you kept beating your head against this wall--it's doing wonders for my stress level!
Uh huh. Seeing how none of these are the most reputable English dictionary (that'd be the Oxford English Dictionary, which both agrees with me and is not available online for free, or I'd be citing it), I fail to see how you have a point. But please, continue laughing if you wish; I'm still right so it makes no difference to me. :smalltongue: If you want to start making a difference, you might want to stop ignoring this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4070540#post4070540) And no, spouting a non sequiter about how "sorceress" is the opposite of "sorcerer" (which is not only irrelevant, but totally false) does not count as addressing it.

[Ozymandias]

Uh huh. Seeing how none of these are the most reputable English dictionary (that'd be the Oxford English Dictionary, which both agrees with me and is not available online for free, or I'd be citing it), I fail to see how you have a point. But please, continue laughing if you wish; I'm still right so it makes no difference to me. :smalltongue: If you want to start making a difference, you might want to stop ignoring this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4070540#post4070540) And no, spouting a non sequiter about how "sorceress" is the opposite of "sorcerer" (which is not only irrelevant, but totally false) does not count as addressing it.

The OED is roughly as reputable (maybe negligibly more so for English English), but since WotC is based in the USA and has a predominantly American audience, it's not unreasonable to allow the usage of the other "Universally accepted" dictionary, the Merriam-Webster.

Interestingly, not one but both of the definitions provided (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paladin) match the Paladin class fairly well, and it skirts the colloquial Charlemagne etymology in favor of the actual base, which is a Latin word for "imperial officer".

Also, the OED lists some of the uses as "knightly hero, renowned champion, knight errant", the second of which fits here.

[Anukuta]

Webster's Encyclopedique Dictionary of the English Language (Lexicon Publication, New York)

Pal-a-din (paeledin) n, (hist.) one of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court // (rhet.) a hero or champion [F. fr. Ital]

Historically a Paladin was one of 12 important figures in the court of Charlemagne, in popular language it is used to describe a hero or champion.

Evil can have it's heroes.
Hitler could be one of them, Ganghis Khan another. I wouldn't see why Evil Paladins could not be possible if historically in *our* world we have already had champions of modern standards and definition of 'evil' such as the causes they represented and or the goals they achieved through 'evil' means.

I *am* using real life analogies and even though we are talking about 'alignments' and such applied to classes in a game I'm simply trying to transpose common sense through real-life phenomenons. Especially since D&D is 'supposed' to be extrapolating from real-life phenomenons. No?

[Rutee]

We already have Evil paladins in real life.

They are called 'Lawyers'.

Using and bending the law in a way to defend prove or dissprove an accused so they can go free... who they might know very well is guilty. *Or* in the other case; accuse and prove a defendant is guilty (while knowing very well they might be innocent).

and they make a *Living* doing it, many enjoy their jobs and probably a good deal of them don't care about the implication of their deeds.

How more 'lawful evil' can that get?

Prosecutors don't generally try people they think are innocent. There's no incentive. The odds are on your side in actually convicting a guilty person, and there's too many cases, not enough prosecutors. That said, they don't often, to my knowledge, think an accused is innocent.

But no, Lawyers aren't Evil Paladins. They don't lose their powers when they break their code of ethics, unless they get caught :P

[Anukuta]

Prosecutors don't generally try people they think are innocent. There's no incentive. The odds are on your side in actually convicting a guilty person, and there's too many cases, not enough prosecutors. That said, they don't often, to my knowledge, think an accused is innocent.


Ahahaha jk.
No I was just trying to dig up an analogy to something in real life which I thought closely resembled a champion of a lawful evil cause.

It's my opinion that lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment since it follows moral standards and codes based on society but twists them for their own uses. Most of the time, even if NPCs or PCs might know a character is of that alignment, a lawful evil character is set up in a way that it has done nothing 'Wrong' but morally they are evil in and of themselves.

It's difficult to catch a villain when they don't do anything outwardly 'unlawful' and so aren't committing a 'crime'in the common popular sense. But the end result doesn't have to be negative for it to have had an 'evil' intention behind it. Such as: protecting someone guilty.

Although everyone is entitled to being represented in a court. When someone decides to represent and protect someone else that they 'know' is guilty. The action (in D&D black and white terms) is EVIL.

[Citizen Joe]

In response to alignment being subjective due to intent.



Except that we're talking about the D&D multiverse, wherein good and evil are not only objective, but sufficiently real forces to spawn actual and incredibly powerful demons and angels. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean it isn't objective; people can easily be mistaken without changing the actual facts.

First, in the DND multiverse Demons and Angels take on different roles. In some cases, Demons and Angels are more akin to aliens rather than a manifestation of evil/good. If you go to the far extreme of manifestations of good and evil then they don't exist except as a manifestation. However, you posit that demons and angels can exist outside the collective will of people. If that is the case of your specific DND universe, then intent does not play a part in alignment, it is all in the actions. Without intention guiding our actions, we are no better than animals. At that point animals MUST be aligned based on their actions.

Personally, I've found most of the DND settings use Angels and Demons as aliens from another world that happpen to be good or evil, as such, they aren't actually manifestations of good and evil.

[Maxperson]

Nope. nuetral lacks empathy as well.

Nuetral cares not about those who aren't family/friends. That is what the PHB says. Now Neurtal Good is good so it cares, but LN or CN: nope. Not required.

Neutral doesn't lack empathy, neutral just may or may not ACT on that empathy. Even some evil can empathise, they just have other things in their nature that allow for them to overule that empathy to blow their victims brains out if they need to.

[Maxperson]

We already have Evil paladins in real life.

They are called 'Lawyers'.

Using and bending the law in a way to defend prove or dissprove an accused so they can go free... who they might know very well is guilty. *Or* in the other case; accuse and prove a defendant is guilty (while knowing very well they might be innocent).

and they make a *Living* doing it, many enjoy their jobs and probably a good deal of them don't care about the implication of their deeds.

How more 'lawful evil' can that get?

Lawyers come in all flavors. Good, neutral, and evil. As for defending someone who they know is guilty, of course some do that. They have to. The Constitution provides everyone, guilty or innocent, the right to a fair trial and an assumption of innocence. This means that if we don't allow for, or if no lawyer will defend them, it is Unconstitutional and that person is being denied their rights. I personally refuse to go into criminal law because I am not willing to be one of those people(on either side), but I acknowledge that those people are necessary.

[Rutee]

Honestly, the only criminal law lawyers I think are evil due to their placement are the ludicrously filthy rich ones (Read: People like Johnny Cochran, though I haven't heard of many). I wouldn't call the Legal Aid office, or people who defend destitute citizens who are indeed entitled to a trial, evil, by any stretch. Legal Aid probably has one of the highest incidence of Good Lawyers in our entire legal system, honestly.

Personally, if I bother with the rigamarole to actually become a lawyer, I'd go into Contract Law. I figure that no matter how aggressive it gets, I'm being opposed by someone who at least had as much training as me. There are a lot of fields of law that really don't force themselves to be evil. It's pretty much just civil law where the absolute worst traits of lawyers make themselves common. :P

[Tequila Sunrise]

Uh huh. Seeing how none of these are the most reputable English dictionary (that'd be the Oxford English Dictionary, which both agrees with me and is not available online for free, or I'd be citing it), I fail to see how you have a point.
Well I'm trying to help you overcome your failure, but it doesn't seem to be working.


But please, continue laughing if you wish; I'm still right so it makes no difference to me. :smalltongue:
Oh you'd better believe I'm munching on a tub of popcorn as we type; people who take themselves too seriously never cease to amuse. (You'll eventually learn that there is no right and wrong in these kind of debates, but it's not something that can be taught so I won't try.)


If you want to start making a difference, you might want to stop ignoring this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4070540#post4070540)
And you might want to stop ignoring how your own argument defeats itself if you want to be taken seriously:
"2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)"

You might also want to stop ignoring how I and others have continually proven all your arguments to be no more than the opinion of a minority. But hey, you seem to enjoy making a spectacle of yourself.


And no, spouting a non sequiter about how "sorceress" is the opposite of "sorcerer" (which is not only irrelevant, but totally false) does not count as addressing it.
The fact that you can't repeat my argument even remotely how I did so demonstrates that you are either being intentionally stupid in the vain hope of salvaging your opinion or that you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. Either way, grope blindly onward!

[Renegade Paladin]

Mr. Renegade, I must ask once again: What is chivalry? What is a heroic champion? Are these not subjective terms with no concrete meaning? One man could be called a heroic champion by one society and a villain by another. Even if we accept your definition, what does that mean?

Explain to me, please. I don't know what a "heroic champion" or "paragon of chivalry" is in the objective concrete sense you are using it in, as if it was some distinct and clearly codified definition. I honestly don't think you could come up with a single person that everyone would call a heroic champion or paragon of chivalry.
Perhaps not, but at the end of the day, there are standards to it, and the extremes of evil are well below them.

As for chivalry, the standards of it are easy to objectively determine, as they're laid out in some detail in many sources; a knight must be the champion of the right and the good, use his strength to serve justice and his liege lord rather than himself, must be unswervingly loyal and honest, must protect the weak, show courtesy to all, deliver justice tempered with mercy as the naked sword of justice is a terrible thing, and must be humble, generous, courageous, and constantly striving to uphold the ideals of knighthood. The details of chivalric codes changed over the centuries, but these core principles remained the same. To uphold these is to uphold chivalry; to embody them is paladinhood.

Incidentally, there's no need for the Mr. I ask for a modicum of respect, not deference. :smallwink:
Oh you'd better believe I'm munching on a tub of popcorn as we type; people who take themselves too seriously never cease to amuse. (You'll eventually learn that there is no right and wrong in these kind of debates, but it's not something that can be taught so I won't try.)
Ah, but there is. You may continue to equivocate about it, but it won't change things. Besides, you clearly believe there is a right and wrong, since you keep telling me I'm wrong. :smalltongue:


And you might want to stop ignoring how your own argument defeats itself if you want to be taken seriously:
"2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)"
And just what does Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. have to do with medieval knighthood, then? :smallsigh: It has no more relevance than the definition concerning the Twelve Companions. Actually, it has quite a bit less. Not every definition of a word applies to every usage of that word; learn this fact if you're going to talk about linguistics.

You might also want to stop ignoring how I and others have continually proven all your arguments to be no more than the opinion of a minority. But hey, you seem to enjoy making a spectacle of yourself.
No answer to historical and literary precedent, then. Duly noted.


The fact that you can't repeat my argument even remotely how I did so demonstrates that you are either being intentionally stupid in the vain hope of salvaging your opinion or that you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. Either way, grope blindly onward!
You said, and I quote:
I for one am familiar with SGGK and I don't consider an evil paladin far fetched. It's just a word changed to mean its opposite; we do have those in the English language. If you really just can't wrap your head around the idea of an evil paladin, feel free to change the name in your own game. It's no big deal; I do it all the time to refer to female "sorcerers".
If the opposite you were referring to was not "sorceress," then what was it? Everything about the context (the opposite of sorcerer with the operating difference being the female gender) suggests that's what you meant. If it was not, please clarify.

Incidentally, resorting to unfounded mockery while the opposition stands unanswered is a poor substitute for a good argument; it displays a great lack of critical thinking. Mockery as a substitute for debate is the refuge of those unable to muster a logical argument. It reflects far more poorly on you than me.

[MeklorIlavator]

Ah, but there is. You may continue to equivocate about it, but it won't change things. Besides, you clearly believe there is a right and wrong, since you keep telling me I'm wrong. :smalltongue:
You can argue about something that doesn't have a clear-cut right or wrong answer and still be wrong. For instance, if I said that the cause of WW1 was concern from Western Europe over the plight of African Colonies, I'd be wrong, even though that debate doesn't have a clear-cur right or wrong answer.



And just what does Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. have to do with medieval knighthood, then? :smallsigh: It has no more relevance than the definition concerning the Twelve Companions. Actually, it has quite a bit less. Not every definition of a word applies to every usage of that word; learn this fact if you're going to talk about linguistics.

I believe that was an example of strong supporter or defender of a cause. And just because the example give is modern instead of medieval is no reason to discount it. Plus, this shows a definition that Wizards may be using. Just because a definition doesn't support your argument doesn't mean it doesn't fit the discussion.




No answer to historical and literary precedent, then. Duly noted.

Considering the above definition, I think Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr would be a historical example of a non-chivalrous, non-LG(debatable) Paladin. True, he's not a champion of an evil, your the one excluding all others from being paladins, so you prove it wrong.



You said, and I quote:
If the opposite you were referring to was not "sorceress," then what was it? Everything about the context (the opposite of sorcerer with the operating difference being the female gender) suggests that's what you meant. If it was not, please clarify.

I don't feel qualified to talk about this one, so I'll leave it to Tequila Sunrise.


Incidentally, resorting to unfounded mockery while the opposition stands unanswered is a poor substitute for a good argument; it displays a great lack of critical thinking. Mockery as a substitute for debate is the refuge of those unable to muster a logical argument. It reflects far more poorly on you than me.
Neither is denying any proof that doesn't fit your argument/labeling it as ridiculous. In fact, it shows more negatively that simply treating the entire subject as a joke.

[StGlebidiah]

And just what does Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. have to do with medieval knighthood, then? :smallsigh: It has no more relevance than the definition concerning the Twelve Companions. Actually, it has quite a bit less. Not every definition of a word applies to every usage of that word; learn this fact if you're going to talk about linguistics.

A.M. Schlesinger has absolutely nothing to do with Medieval knighthood, which is exactly the bloody point (neither does the definition that quote is related to, incidentally - and AD&D, while definitely inspired by Medieval history, is actually Fantasy and can therefore use whichever definition it pleases). You may want to take a page from your own book and realize that there are multiple definitions of words for a reason.

Just because YOU PERSONALLY want to use a given definition of the word "paladin" in regards to the class "Paladin" in the game system AD&D does NOT mean that everybody else has to. EVEN IF WotC were to write us all an open letter stating specifically which definition of "paladin" they were referencing, which is the only thing which would "prove" your point one way or the other, that would not bind us to use no other VALID definitions if we so desired.

You have to convincingly address any internal inconsistencies of your own argument. You may feel that you have done so already - that you have already shown us all why, precisely, we are not allowed to use one of the definitions which your OWN reference provides (and I mean the OED, not dictionary.com) or any of the definitions provided by an equally reputable reference (Merriam-Webster) - but whatever you may feel in this case is clearly irrelevant because you have utterly failed to convince anyone of that position.

Admittedly this works both ways - just because some of us may want to use a given definition, does not mean that you have to either. In your AD&D games, any "paladin" could easily be defined just as you say, therefore rendering an "evil paladin" an oxymoron and impossible. Frankly, this whole thread is kinda pointless in that light because neither of us has the right to tell the other how to play - though I am personally annoyed that you seem unable to allow even that.

[Brigham]

"The idea of evil is that you can do what ever you want if you feel like it"


No, evil is a blatant disregard for the property and liberty of others. What you've described is a Chaotic Stupid character.

[Brigham]

I like where you were going, for the most part, and then you said this-

"The idea of evil is that you can do what ever you want if you feel like it"


No, evil is a blatant disregard for the property and liberty of others. What you've described is a Chaotic Stupid character.

[Rutee]

Incidentally, resorting to unfounded mockery while the opposition stands unanswered is a poor substitute for a good argument; it displays a great lack of critical thinking. Mockery as a substitute for debate is the refuge of those unable to muster a logical argument. It reflects far more poorly on you than me.

This isn't an argument. It's merely contradiction. You seem to have trouble distinguishing the two.

[Zerkai]

The Evil Paladin's are here.

Deal with it before we go all 'Smite Good' on you goody-two-shoes. :smallamused:

*Kicks a puppy down a well*

[Neon Knight]

Perhaps not, but at the end of the day, there are standards to it, and the extremes of evil are well below them.

As for chivalry, the standards of it are easy to objectively determine, as they're laid out in some detail in many sources; a knight must be the champion of the right and the good, use his strength to serve justice and his liege lord rather than himself, must be unswervingly loyal and honest, must protect the weak, show courtesy to all, deliver justice tempered with mercy as the naked sword of justice is a terrible thing, and must be humble, generous, courageous, and constantly striving to uphold the ideals of knighthood. The details of chivalric codes changed over the centuries, but these core principles remained the same. To uphold these is to uphold chivalry; to embody them is paladinhood.

Incidentally, there's no need for the Mr. I ask for a modicum of respect, not deference. :smallwink:


Well, if it isn't too much trouble, could I ask you to specify these many sources?

Because I was under the impression that the use of chivalry as word did not merely change over time. That it changed depending on where you were, and who you were reading; that even authors in the same period and the same region used the word in very different ways.

I've heard it used to refer to a company of mounted knights, much like the 101st is a division. In addition, it can seem to mean the status of being a knight, either as an occupation or as a social class. In legal documents, references to lands held in chivalry detonate a type of land tenure in which military services was owed, aka feudalism. In The Song of Roland and other literary works similar to it, chivalry means a worthy action on the battlefield.

And, of course, modern chivalry is vastly different, mainly referring to courteous behavior, particularly of a gentleman towards a lady, such as holding the door for her or giving her his coat on a chilly day (which totally sets you up to say, when you arrive at her door, "I have only one burning desire; Let me stand next to your fire," in a non-innuendo way. And that whole digression was just an excuse to make that reference.)

So what I'm asking is: Why should we use your definition of chivalry? I mean, obviously if we want Paladins to be White Knights like Sir Galahad we'd use that definition of chivalry. :smalltongue:

Even if we accept your definition, I see no reason an evil character could not embody all of those traits except for good, obviously. I'd also like to note you seem to be missing "a duty to God and fellow Christians," which I believe would top out any list of a Knight's duties. Any reason you left that one off?

Your definition of chivalry sounds more like Knightly virtues to me.

And do core 3.5 Paladins even meet your definition of chivalry? Paladins serve good above law in DnD, and they aren't required to be courteous to everyone, merely respectful of legitimate authority. They don't have to be humble, or particularly generous if they can help the weak without being generous.

And above all, core DnD 3.5 Paladins are not knights. They are not required to have liege lord. They don't even have to obey authority, merely be respectful towards it.

If Core 3.5 Paladins don't meet your definition of Paladins, why are you objecting when they change into merely another iteration which does not meet your definition.

[Renegade Paladin]

Well, if it isn't too much trouble, could I ask you to specify these many sources?
Well, there was never a single universal "Code of Chivalry," as such. The specifics were different in different nations and cultures, but there have always been common themes; you would be hard pressed to find a set of knightly ideals that did not at some point call for courage, justice, mercy, generosity, loyalty, and the other ideals we as a culture (not coincidentally) associate with noble behavior. Incidentally, these aren't unique to European chivalry; most of the same virtues are held in esteem in bushido, xiá, and other Eastern warrior codes.

I personally operate under an interpretation close to this one. (http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm) As for ancient sources, we would do well to examine the duties of a knight laid out in the Song of Roland, as the origins of the term "paladin" as we are discussing began with Charlemagne's Companions:
To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe.


In a shorter form, the Duke of Burgundy named these as the chivalric virtues when he founded the Order of the Golden Fleece in 1430: Faith, charity, justice, sagacity, prudence, temperance, resolution, truth, liberality, diligence, hope, and valor.

Because I was under the impression that the use of chivalry as word did not merely change over time. That it changed depending on where you were, and who you were reading; that even authors in the same period and the same region used the word in very different ways.
Your impression is correct. Chivalry as a code of behavior, as I noted, changed in details in different places and across the centuries; however, whatever forms they take, the various codes of chivalry always, so far as I'm aware, upheld the core principles I mentioned.

I've heard it used to refer to a company of mounted knights, much like the 101st is a division. In addition, it can seem to mean the status of being a knight, either as an occupation or as a social class. In legal documents, references to lands held in chivalry detonate a type of land tenure in which military services was owed, aka feudalism. In The Song of Roland and other literary works similar to it, chivalry means a worthy action on the battlefield.
The etymology of the word originates from old French, where the word "chevalerie" referred to horsemanship, which was itself derived from "chevaler," meaning "knight." The ultimate Latin root is caballus, "horse."

Because of the word's association with knighthood, it rapidly came to refer to the knight's standard of conduct after it was integrated into Middle English. Chivalry is sometimes used to mean the status of being a knight because to be a knight is supposed to be to uphold chivalry; in theory the two should be indistinguishable. (In practice, of course, this is not at all true.) As for the Song of Roland, it's important to remember two things: One, it's an epic poem, so for the sake of the meter it may use "chivalry" to refer to chivalrous acts. Two, it was originally written in French, where, you may remember, "chevaler" simply means "mounted knight."

Incidentally, I should hope it isn't used to detonate land; as far as I'm aware, the word has never referred to any type of explosive device. :smalltongue:

And, of course, modern chivalry is vastly different, mainly referring to courteous behavior, particularly of a gentleman towards a lady, such as holding the door for her or giving her his coat on a chilly day (which totally sets you up to say, when you arrive at her door, "I have only one burning desire; Let me stand next to your fire," in a non-innuendo way. And that whole digression was just an excuse to make that reference.)
:smallamused: Nice. Anyway, ancient chivalry is not dead; it's simply not called that anymore because of historically recent attempts to equate chivalry to contempt of women and other unpleasant concepts. As long as there are people who try to maintain truth, justice, and integrity, there is chivalry, whether anyone admits it or not. :smallwink:

So what I'm asking is: Why should we use your definition of chivalry? I mean, obviously if we want Paladins to be White Knights like Sir Galahad we'd use that definition of chivalry. :smalltongue:
Because we want paladins to be white knights like Sir Galahad. Duh. :smalltongue:

Even if we accept your definition, I see no reason an evil character could not embody all of those traits except for good, obviously. I'd also like to note you seem to be missing "a duty to God and fellow Christians," which I believe would top out any list of a Knight's duties. Any reason you left that one off?
Because I was attempting to leave the door open for Eastern warrior codes as well, which obviously do not include that duty. As for an evil character embodying all of those, if he did so he would rapidly cease to be evil, since these ideals include justice, mercy, and the stricture against using your power for self-aggrandizement.

Your definition of chivalry sounds more like Knightly virtues to me.
The two are synonyms. If you would rather I used the phrase knightly virtues, then I can do so; it doesn't affect what I'm saying.

And do core 3.5 Paladins even meet your definition of chivalry? Paladins serve good above law in DnD, and they aren't required to be courteous to everyone, merely respectful of legitimate authority. They don't have to be humble, or particularly generous if they can help the weak without being generous.
Well, let's have a look at the class's default code of conduct, less the part about being lawful good, since we all know that already:
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Is it a transcription of Roland's knightly virtues? No, it isn't. In fact, it's downright vague; however, the "act with honor" clause leaves the door open for all kinds of things. By common understanding, loyalty, truth, and fairness all fall under acting with honor, and helping those in need covers all manner of provisions involving protecting the weak, giving succour, and largesse. Could one lawyer his way around all that by looking for loopholes in a single sentence? Sure, but is that really what the designers were going for, poor wording or not?

And above all, core DnD 3.5 Paladins are not knights. They are not required to have liege lord. They don't even have to obey authority, merely be respectful towards it.

If Core 3.5 Paladins don't meet your definition of Paladins, why are you objecting when they change into merely another iteration which does not meet your definition.
I would argue that serving good above law and liege is analogous to many ancient codes' strictures to serve the church above feudal duties. As for why I object, mainly it's because change for change's sake is rarely beneficial, and that's what's going on here; I object to many other things we've seen from 4e on similar grounds.

[Aquillion]

FYI: THis became an Alignment Thread, not a thread on Evil Paladins (Despite the protests of Renegade Paladin, there is no sufficiently convincing reason why there can't be any. Even Semantics don't work, amusingly.Honestly, I think I kind of side with the... hrm, I forget which book it was now, but there was one that explained why there are no anti-paladins anymore (blackguards are a bit different.) I'm sure it's been brought up in this thread before, anyway.

The thing is, basically, Paladins are based around the idea of one person noblely doing what is right despite the cost to themselves. The idea of altruism is absolutely central to the class, and I don't think you can simply and directly invert that to get a viable alternative -- what, would an anti-Paladin be someone who always does what is wrong despite the cost to themselves? I don't think the inverse of a Paladin would be a simple cackling "Evil Paladin" anyway--I think you'd get some sort of Knight of Objectivism who is actively opposed to the idea of altruism.

I think there is definitely room for things that are sort of like an evil Paladin (like the Blackguard, say) -- characters who are committed to an evil ideal for ultimately selfish reasons (like committing genocide, say, or revenge), dark knights who worship evil as an abstract concept or follow evil gods, 'knights templar' characters who believe (or at least say they believe) that their plainly evil and selfish decisions are good for the whole world, etc, etc.

But I don't think that any of those characters are the same thing as being "evil paladins"; a Paladin isn't simply someone who gets some powers from their gods (that would be a cleric) or who feels strongly about something or anything like that. And I don't think that starting from a paladin, conceptually, and making it evil would be a particularly good way to represent any of those characters.

[Dode]

Good to see this thread is still going. Debates using arbitrary and personal opinions of something trying to push a standard of an archetype that has no consistent similarities between historical, literal or D&D versions ever.

[Narmoth]

Look what I found!
Of course, it's from AD&D 2nd ed Players Option, but still, it shows how things were thoguth about awhile back, and makes one wonder why the attitude was changed:

"Anti-Paladins

What better nemesis for a paladin than his direct opposite, an "anti-paladin" that embodies the forces of evil? As the mirror image of a normal paladin, an anti-paladin might be able to detect the presence of good, generate a aura of protection against good creatures, and wield an "unholy" sword.
Though DMs may experiment with any type of character they like, we discourage the use of anti-paladins. Good and evil are not merely mirror images of each other. Just as the forces of evil have their unique champions, the paladin is intended as a unique champion of good. The paladin originates from a tradition of dynamic balance, in which the forces of good are few and elite and in which forces of evil are numerous and of lesser quality. Allowing anti-paladins blurs this basic relationship.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc."

(the book is out of production, the game system is no longer for sale, so I'm quite sertain that no rights are violated by my posting fo this.)

[Neon Knight]

Renegade_Paladin:

You do have some excellent points. I forgot that about the Song of Roland; I find it easy to slip into a mode of thinking that forgets that the majority of works I read were at one point translated and edited, thus leaving me in the editor's hands.

I continually mix up detonate with denotate, and I should probably be using denote. I should honestly stop using the word until I can stop botching it. :smallredface:

Anyway, back on topic. I suppose I could argue that one can display mercy, justice, and not use your power for self-aggrandizement and still be evil, but I feel we'd just get into word wrangling and arguing if whether downgrading a punishment from decapitation to ten lashes is mercy if the charges are false or unworthy of any punishment, and I feel that this wouldn't be beneficial to anyone.

Paladins are not strictly 100% incarnations of any single chivalric code, but it is very easy to see that the 3.5 Paladin was intended to be something along the same lines and it can be played quite close to many of these codes. In addition, these codes share common elements. The choice not to specifically emulate any single code but merely some of their shared traits could merely be a measure taken to allow all of those codes. Although I doubt Wizards put that much thought into it and made it generic cause making a generic code is easier. :smalltongue:

At any rate, the core 3.5 DnD Paladin is clearly not intended to have anything to do with evil. Even if the definition of Paladin does not equate to Sir Galahad, the meaning of the term going from "White Knight" to "Pick a color Knight" could be confusing. I have no objections to evil Paladins, but can easily see, understand, and respect someone who does have a problem with evil Paladins. Fax Celestis's variant Paladins used alternate names like "Reaver" and Tyrant" to refer to alternate alignment paladins. It helps avoid confusion, at least.

I'm glad I took the time to ask you to explain, as I really feel I understand your position. Other than that, I don't have much to add. Thank you for your time.

[EvilElitest]

I'm feeling better and ready to reply from my bed


Or it means that Asmodeus is not a one dimensional character and has aspects beyond being evil... like being a strong ruler... like discipline... like order... like being a total playah with all those succubi that are now devils instead of demons

The whole LE devil absolutist thing


right, except their alignment AND their regional laws are the source of the conflict. They are both "lawful".

Also, why do they come into conflict over the issue? If one is in the others kingdoms, the laws of the land still apply; thus if Bob is visiting Jim's kingdom he still follows the law and doesn't go rape-crazy; as a member of a different LE society, he knows all too well what happens to violators of the law.

And why exactly are they killing each other? More important, where are they killing each other?

1. Except that comes from the lawful part of their alignment, not the evil part. The evil doesn't have a code involved in it
2. Also those morals are relative, not absolute, which paladin's codes are not


If they make the mechanics possible while copy-pasting the 3.5 fluff, then they're being stupid. But I don't think they're going to do that. What I think they're going to do is change the concept of the Paladin to be an ordained warrior of a specific deity, rather than a Lawful Good warrior of no specific deity.

sure, but should they do this then they are in fact changing the concept of paladins to something more like cleric/crusader/knight





1) you are correct, they don't have to. However, this does not mean that many do in fact worship gods, and that those who worship say Zeus, would be LG. It's all about what cause they dedicate themselves to, USUALLY it's a god.

2) This only matters if the cause or god you are dedicated to(enough to receive divine aid), is one that is good. A paladin who is dedicated to the Church of Cyric wouldn't balk at, or be hurt by a rape.

3) This again, is YOUR narrow perception. As has been pointed out to you countless times, the definition of paladin is broader than you paint it, and ThAT'S the narrow Judeo/Christian version of it. Judeo/Christian anything, has no place in D&D which is a polytheistic society. To limit yourself to that view defies reason.
1. Usually doesn't make a different, because that varies in setting. some games, they might only worship causes (Ebberon is somewhat like this). That varies. They are not god's servants by default (and interestingly enough, according to the PHB they often don't worship gods)
2. The code taht an evil paladin of Cyric would have to follow would have nothing to do with Cyric's creed. An evil paladin's code would have in involve always committing evil acts, or something, and thus he would have to rape every women he sees for fear of falling or something absurd like that
3.No, because as i explain, LG has the best standards for the paladin class.



You seem to be applying modern American standards to this. If the paladin were in ancient Rome, a society MUCH closer to the ones in which we play(being medieval), sex with young boys would be accepted and not evil at all. Nor do I actually consider it "evil" in modern terms. Evil is 100% intent based, and if a molester is doing what he does without malice or evil intent, then it is wrong by society's(and my)standards, but not evil.

I'm applying the BoED standards of paladin. Sex with young boys is an evil act (rape) through the romans in question might not consider it as such
these terms are what the paladin class is based upon.

Also they are not modern american, in our society killing people in self defense still gets you a trial


I agree with everything you said here. I used those real world example to illustrate a point, not imply that they had any real bearing on D&D. That good and evil exist, though, does not mean that paladins need to be tied to either extreme with their dedication. Any extreme dedication, whether to an alignment OR to a God will do.
Sure, as i said dedication to a cause is cool. That is what a knight/cleric/crusader does basically. A paladin is dedication to a particular alignment, which is no longer true basically. I'm fine with knights however



bingo! We're using real world standards on a class based on real world Knights Templar.
dedication to the pope is a paladin requirement?



We haven't. This has been done by Wizards itself. First you had paladins and anti-paladins( later called black guards). Then, you had a prestige class put out that was a CG paladin(I forget the name of the prestige class). Later, you had 3 new paladin classes of differering good alignments listed in I believe the Unearthed Arcana. All of this shows that Wizards does NOT view paladins to be as the definition in the dictionary states.

1. Except WoTC is changing the very concept of paladin its self to that of a knight, thats my point


From
EE

Edit
Bloody hell, i already responded to this. Damn meds, i'm forgetting stuff

[EvilElitest]

[QUOTE=Daimbert;4080748]I guess the question would be: if you can have clerics of every god, why couldn't you have paladins (or shouldn't have paladins)? Why not a Paladin of Oghma? In saying that you need "sufficient zeal", you are implying a standard for the paladin that does not seem to fit its role, which would be of the major military organization to defend the organization. Why wouldn't all gods have a militant arm, except for exceptionally pacifist ones? Do they not care about defending their worshippers?QUOTE]

Exactly. A paladin of Oghma might also get a misc. +2 on knowledge skills instead of detect evil. You'd also replace the other abilites with ones that made sense for that God.

1. The god's militant arm are fighters/clerics/barbarions/whatever who work for them. Or crusaders/knights
2. in doing so your are tying a paladin's code to that of a cleric instead of taht of a paladin, thus changing the class to a warrior cleric




The whole paladin class as a paragon of an alignment is just dumb. Alignments in general are not feasable in a game where you take on the role of a character with a personality. No personality will fit entirely within one alignment. You will get people with the bulk in one alignment or another, but they will have traits that cause them to fall within other alignments in certain areas. A class that requires it to be the paragon of an alignment and never deviate from it is just asking for an impossible person, and that's bad for a role playing game. No one is extreme LG without any deviations, no matter how it appears.
Alignments are definitions of a personality, they are you moral standing on the scale of good/evil law/chaos, which are absolute in D&D universe.

As for an impossible class, paladins are that, and they are fine. My point is that it works for LG, but not for Evil



Of course they don't, but 10-20% of the town's population is not going to be evil unless there's some form of widespread secret cult going on. Buying low and selling high isn't evil; if that merchant has an evil alignment he has done something wrong. And if you're a good enough rogue to consistently steal from him without getting caught, you're good enough to find out what that is.

Um, attacking a guy for detecting as evil is still a crime/evil you know?



I hope in 4e, Evil really does turn out to be puppy-kicking malevolence, and Good turns out to be Saint-like and Friend of All Who Lives. As minimums. It seems like that would make fewer Alignment Threads.

Sure, because black and white morality isn't a problem




FYI: THis became an Alignment Thread, not a thread on Evil Paladins (Despite the protests of Renegade Paladin, there is no sufficiently convincing reason why there can't be any. Even Semantics don't work, amusingly.

Other than the fact taht the concept doens't mesh at all and in fact makes paladins like knights



We already have Evil paladins in real life.

They are called 'Lawyers'.
touche



Evil can have it's heroes.
Hitler could be one of them, Ganghis Khan another. I wouldn't see why Evil Paladins could not be possible if historically in *our* world we have already had champions of modern standards and definition of 'evil' such as the causes they represented and or the goals they achieved through 'evil' means.
I never said that evil can't have heros, remember i'm all in favor of evil knights/crusaders/clerics

I just am against hte idea of evil paladins




Honestly, the only criminal law lawyers I think are evil due to their placement are the ludicrously filthy rich ones (Read: People like Johnny Cochran, though I haven't heard of many). I wouldn't call the Legal Aid office, or people who defend destitute citizens who are indeed entitled to a trial, evil, by any stretch. Legal Aid probably has one of the highest incidence of Good Lawyers in our entire legal system, honestly.

How is defending people's constitutional rights evil? Criminal law lawyers aren't all evil selfish people

"The idea of evil is that you can do what ever you want if you feel like it"


No, evil is a blatant disregard for the property and liberty of others. What you've described is a Chaotic Stupid character.
Chaotic stupid or not, evil people have no restriction on the good/evil scale on what actions they can commit. If i'm LE, i can commit any action i want, as much as I want as long as i do it in an evil fashion



Even if we accept your definition, I see no reason an evil character could not embody all of those traits except for good, obviously. I'd also like to note you seem to be missing "a duty to God and fellow Christians," which I believe would top out any list of a Knight's duties. Any reason you left that one off
because that isn't a D&D paladin value?





Honestly, I think I kind of side with the... hrm, I forget which book it was now, but there was one that explained why there are no anti-paladins anymore (blackguards are a bit different.) I'm sure it's been brought up in this thread before, anyway.

The thing is, basically, Paladins are based around the idea of one person noblely doing what is right despite the cost to themselves. The idea of altruism is absolutely central to the class, and I don't think you can simply and directly invert that to get a viable alternative -- what, would an anti-Paladin be someone who always does what is wrong despite the cost to themselves? I don't think the inverse of a Paladin would be a simple cackling "Evil Paladin" anyway--I think you'd get some sort of Knight of Objectivism who is actively opposed to the idea of altruism.

Pretty much, which is silly because evil people can commit good actions without fear of losing their alignment


I think there is definitely room for things that are sort of like an evil Paladin (like the Blackguard, say) -- characters who are committed to an evil ideal for ultimately selfish reasons (like committing genocide, say, or revenge), dark knights who worship evil as an abstract concept or follow evil gods, 'knights templar' characters who believe (or at least say they believe) that their plainly evil and selfish decisions are good for the whole world, etc, etc.

But I don't think that any of those characters are the same thing as being "evil paladins"; a Paladin isn't simply someone who gets some powers from their gods (that would be a cleric) or who feels strongly about something or anything like that. And I don't think that starting from a paladin, conceptually, and making it evil would be a particularly good way to represent any of those characters.


Nicely said.

As i said, evil knights, evil crusaders, evil clerics, evil fighters are all fine. I'm not against evil knight like figures. However they can't be used in the paladin like fashion



Good to see this thread is still going. Debates using arbitrary and personal opinions of something trying to push a standard of an archetype that has no consistent similarities between historical, literal or D&D versions ever.
Good to see your still not really bringing anything new to the table



Look what I found!
Of course, it's from AD&D 2nd ed Players Option, but still, it shows how things were thoguth about awhile back, and makes one wonder why the attitude was changed:

"Anti-Paladins

What better nemesis for a paladin than his direct opposite, an "anti-paladin" that embodies the forces of evil? As the mirror image of a normal paladin, an anti-paladin might be able to detect the presence of good, generate a aura of protection against good creatures, and wield an "unholy" sword.
Though DMs may experiment with any type of character they like, we discourage the use of anti-paladins. Good and evil are not merely mirror images of each other. Just as the forces of evil have their unique champions, the paladin is intended as a unique champion of good. The paladin originates from a tradition of dynamic balance, in which the forces of good are few and elite and in which forces of evil are numerous and of lesser quality. Allowing anti-paladins blurs this basic relationship.



very interesting, thanks a lot

from
EE

[hamishspence]

You cite evil being able to do good acts without fear of rising as silly. True, but Exalted deeds does suggest that good acts, even done by an evil chracter for selfish reasons, have the power to change the evil character somewhat. Whether it is possible for an act with selfish intent to ever be good, is another issue entirely.

Evil has a wide range, and thats a good thing: it can have people who have many good traits, pulled down only by their flaws: hubris, arrogance, hatred, etc. IMO the enemy of all that is good is a fairly poor concept- there should always be more to an evil character than just opposition to good. LOTR Sauron began his career with good motivations, according to Tolkien. or Melkor, mightiest of the Ainur, who became the terrible Morgoth.

Paladin word is older than D&D, of course, and has evolved over time. I'm not sure, but I think Galahad is a late period Arthurian character, dating only to La Morte de Arthur. Added to which, the Song of Roland is older (I think) so paladin doesn't automatically mean Galahad.

I do agree with the suggestion that Evil Paladin does not really sound right, and that it is hard to imagine a mirror image dark paladin heroically battling against good monsters to rescue an evil damsel. Might be fun to run that sort of adventure though. If 4th ed does have evil paladins, it may have to do them right to avoid being unconvincing.

it Could be simply to ensure Fallen paladins do not actually lose any power, no more "Fighter without any bonus feats"

it could be so DM's can quickly and easily create a champion of evil, given the downplaying of alignment in 4th ed. DMG 2 referred to its sample dark warrior as an Antipaladin.

I would say best to accept that this is the way 4th ed does it: Paladin is now synonymous with ToB's Crusader. Assuming, that is, that Races and Classes is still right. It is possible that changes have been made since then.

[EvilElitest]

You cite evil being able to do good acts without fear of rising as silly. True, but Exalted deeds does suggest that good acts, even done by an evil chracter for selfish reasons, have the power to change the evil character somewhat. Whether it is possible for an act with selfish intent to ever be good, is another issue entirely.

Evil people need to commit good actions with good intentions to become good. If i'm a LE black guard, i could give food to poor children every day and still be evil because i'm a murderer



Evil has a wide range, and thats a good thing: it can have people who have many good traits, pulled down only by their flaws: hubris, arrogance, hatred, etc. IMO the enemy of all that is good is a fairly poor concept- there should always be more to an evil character than just opposition to good. LOTR Sauron began his career with good motivations, according to Tolkien. or Melkor, mightiest of the Ainur, who became the terrible Morgoth.

pretty much yeah. I'm not arguing against that.


I do agree with the suggestion that Evil Paladin does not really sound right, and that it is hard to imagine a mirror image dark paladin heroically battling against good monsters to rescue an evil damsel. Might be fun to run that sort of adventure though. If 4th ed does have evil paladins, it may have to do them right to avoid being unconvincing.

An evil paladin under the paladin concept couldn't commit any good action ever. which is rather silly

An evil knight however is perfectly fine



I would say best to accept that this is the way 4th ed does it: Paladin is now synonymous with ToB's Crusader. Assuming, that is, that Races and Classes is still right. It is possible that changes have been made since then.
All i want is for them to make it clear that the new paladin is a knight. If they do that, i'm fine
from
EE

[Coplantor]

I think that part of the problem is that people believes that clerics are the priests and the paladins are the champions (templar like) warriors of the gods.
I played 2nd edition for a long time and in the description of the cleric it said that the figure of the cleric was based on the templar knights and the paladin on the knights of charlemagne. People forgets that "priest" is not a class as it is a proffession, if you take a wizard and give him ranks in Proffession(priest) then you have a non cleric, non divine spell caster who is a priest, he can lead a church and the rituals of his deity without being a cleric or even an adept.
As for paladins goes, I agree with EvilElitest, the paladin only follows a code, a lawful good code wich cannot be "translated" to lawful evil or any other aligment because lawful good is the only aligment that involves self sacrifice and a great amount of altruism and is a hard aligment to mantain. A paladin is not a champion of the gods, a paladin does'nt even have to follow a god so his code wont change depending on his religion, that would be a crusader.

On a different topic, why does so many people seems to hate EvilElitest? The man is a genious, besides, only him and Renegade Paladin are the ones who give solid arguments supporting their ideas.

[EvilElitest]

I think that part of the problem is that people believes that clerics are the priests and the paladins are the champions (templar like) warriors of the gods.
I played 2nd edition for a long time and in the description of the cleric it said that the figure of the cleric was based on the templar knights and the paladin on the knights of charlemagne. People forgets that "priest" is not a class as it is a proffession, if you take a wizard and give him ranks in Proffession(priest) then you have a non cleric, non divine spell caster who is a priest, he can lead a church and the rituals of his deity without being a cleric or even an adept.
As for paladins goes, I agree with EvilElitest, the paladin only follows a code, a lawful good code wich cannot be "translated" to lawful evil or any other aligment because lawful good is the only aligment that involves self sacrifice and a great amount of altruism and is a hard aligment to mantain. A paladin is not a champion of the gods, a paladin does'nt even have to follow a god so his code wont change depending on his religion, that would be a crusader.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, because the paladin concept is being blurred. A cleric is the fighting representative of his god, a paladin is something else. the problem is that WotC seems to have gotten this confused as well over the years


An "evil paladin" would have to have a different code entirely from the paladin based one. note that blackguards don't have codes.



On a different topic, why does so many people seems to hate EvilElitest? The man is a genious, besides, only him and Renegade Paladin are the ones who give solid arguments supporting their ideas.

..........ok, you have just made my day. I've been sick for three weeks now, and i feel amazing now. I bless you and your children/family. May i sig this

I would answer you question, but i'm kinda afraid of the results. You could PM if you want more details
from
EE

[Rutee]

On a different topic, why does so many people seems to hate EvilElitest? The man is a genious, besides, only him and Renegade Paladin are the ones who give solid arguments supporting their ideas.

Honestly, that you think they backed up their arguments at all tells me you're not going to comprehend the answer.

It also leads me to speculate that you're not carefully reading the posts of people who don't agree with you.


I played 2nd edition for a long time and in the description of the cleric it said that the figure of the cleric was based on the templar knights and the paladin on the knights of charlemagne. People forgets that "priest" is not a class as it is a proffession, if you take a wizard and give him ranks in Proffession(priest) then you have a non cleric, non divine spell caster who is a priest, he can lead a church and the rituals of his deity without being a cleric or even an adept.
The Twelve Peers did what they did for God and King. That part is easy to miss; THEY were Heroes, sure, but their motivations aren't exclusive to heroes.

[EvilElitest]

Honestly, that you think they backed up their arguments at all tells me you're not going to comprehend the answer.

It also leads me to speculate that you're not carefully reading the posts of people who don't agree with you.

sign

1. Actually, we have backed up our arguments, or at least i have, i think Renegade Paladin has however i can't say with absolute clarity. What in my argument isn't based pray tell? But it seems to me that you aren't backing up your claim here
2. Or maybe your not reading the post carefully of the people who disagree with you. No really, think about it, he just brought up a very good point about the nature of paladin.

This strikes me as a rather double standard thing to say, because your basically saying he is wrong rather than trying to back up the claim that he is wrong. Then you say he didn't read the opposing posts as a claim rather than try to address the issue.
from
EE
edit


The Twelve Peers did what they did for God and King. That part is easy to miss; THEY were Heroes, sure, but their motivations aren't exclusive to heroes
I think you missed the point, the point is that paladins are not the knights of the gods like clerics are, they are the champions of the alignment cause, there is a difference
from
EE

[Dode]

An evil paladin under the paladin concept couldn't commit any good action ever. which is rather silly

Trying to debunk 4E classes by using 3E's mechanics & cosmology = instafail
glad to see the first hurdle on page 1 has not been overcome.

[EvilElitest]

glad to see the first hurdle on page 1 has not been overcome.

And i can see that you still aren't offering anything new to the table


The argument here is that the 4E paladins isn't really a paladin but a knight. Nothing you have said really proves anything, only that 4E is changing the concept but keeping the name (and pretending to keep the concept)

from
EE

[Rutee]

EE, your comprehension is /flawless/, as always.

Orlando Furioso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland) was cited by the poster as /the/ source for a paladin. Roland did what he did for God and King. Period. It doesn't matter one whit whether or not 3e Paladins act on behalf of God.

If Roland is going to be your inspiration, and he's the iconic Paladin to me, you have to take that he was motivated to act on God's Behalf as well. By 3e logic and definitions, taken /strictly/ in a vacuum, yes. Paladins are not soldiers of a particular God.

The critical problem being that 3e logic is not the only possible way to look at Paladins on a conceptual level.

And if by "Backed" you mean "Flawed on their face and shot down", then yes. I'm going to stop clicking "View posts by this poster" in select threads, it defeats the purpose of having you on ignore.

And no, EE, I don't put everyone who disagrees with me on Ignore; GoC, Indon, Dan Hemmens, Illiterate Scribe, Matthew, or other posters would be on ignore if I Ignored everyone who wasn't my idealogue. I ignore people who have demonstrated either an intent to troll, or an inability to understand the positions of others on such a /bad/ degree that they appear sociopathic (And no, that word does not mean what you think it means; A Sociopath is someone who can not empathize with or understand others. Period)

[kpenguin]

Now, I'm coming into this debate late and I'm not bothering to read the past 12 pages of posts. Partially because I'm lazy and partially because I'm just going to see certain people (you know who I'm talking about) repeat the same argument over and over again.

Anyway, my two cents:

In order to tell whether or not an evil paladin works, we define the word "paladin". I think we should go with the Merriam-Webster definition.

"Oh noes!" you cry, "You can't apply real-world defintions to a game world!"

Well, folks, here's why I will: game designers can choose whatever the hell they want to be the definition of a certain word within the context of a game. If WotC wanted to, they could call that insanely tough master swordsman a "wizard" and that crotchety old spell caster a "fighter". Its rule zero, but for the entire system. However, if they did so, they would lose a lot of credibility. We need to stick relatively closely to real-world definitions if we want to have an understandable game world. Thus, the real world definition:


paladin

Main Entry: pal·a·din Listen to the pronunciation of paladin
Pronunciation: \ˈpa-lə-dən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Italian paladino, from Old French palatin, from Medieval Latin palatinus courtier, from Late Latin, imperial official — more at palatine
Date: 1592

1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince)
2 : a leading champion of a cause


Alrighty, lets see if either of the definitions given lets us have evil paladins:

1) The first definition certainly works for evil. Military leaders run the gamut from good to evil, though you could say that trusted ones are good. However, I dislike using this definition since any class could easily be a military leader and in 4e there's a specific class for that, the warlord.
2) The second definition allows evil paladins as well. It stands to reason that an evil cause would have an evil champion. I prefer this definition when it comes to paladins in D&D because it fits the D&D paladin better. The standard paladin is a champion for a cause... the cause of LAW and GOOD.

[Dode]

And i can see that you still aren't offering anything new to the table


The argument here is that the 4E paladins isn't really a paladin but a knight. Nothing you have said really proves anything, only that 4E is changing the concept but keeping the name (and pretending to keep the concept)

from
EE Judging by the thread title, the argument here is "why evil paladins don't work" and that contention has been slowly shifted over the course of 14 pages.

But nothing you've said proves anything, because the concept of a D&D Paladin has constantly been changed in every edition and 4E is no different. Trying to apply 3E's canon to 4E to prove its wrongness, because "things have changed", is futile and inane. Because things are supposed to have changed from 3E in the latest edition if WotC is expected anyone to buy copies of 4E.

The difference between us is that I haven't spent dozens of longwinded posts arguing an insubstantial and inane idea.

[EvilElitest]

EE, your comprehension is /flawless/, as always.

Orlando Furioso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland) was cited by the poster as /the/ source for a paladin. Roland did what he did for God and King. Period.


It doesn't matter one whit whether or not 3e Paladins act on behalf of God.

If Roland is going to be your inspiration, and he's the iconic Paladin to me, you have to take that he was motivated to act on God's Behalf as well. By 3e logic and definitions, taken /strictly/ in a vacuum, yes. Paladins are not soldiers of a particular God.

The critical problem being that 3e logic is not the only possible way to look at Paladins on a conceptual level.

And if by "Backed" you mean "Flawed on their face and shot down", then yes. I'm going to stop clicking "View posts by this poster" in select threads, it defeats the purpose of having you on ignore.

I could say the same for your reading skills

I have not made the compassions to Roland, nor used him as inspiration. That was renegade paladin, not me. What i've been arguing is the concept of the paladin in D&D, not the historical, not the legendary, just the game concept. The D&D paladin is one of an embodiment of an aligment, not the embodiment of a religion, not hte embodiment of code, the the champion of some cause, but one of an aligment, specifically the LG aligment. One who embodies any cause good or evil is a knight, not a paladin. My point has been that a knight is the one who is the champion of a particular cause, while a paladin does so for an aligment. Under that assumption evil paladins do not make sense. Evil knights however do

Do don't attack me for reading skills when i haven't even been involved in your argument with Renegade paladin. I haven't touched it, nor gotten involved in that one. i've focused upon the game version of the paladin which is my concern, so don't make the claim that my logic is flawed and shot down when the only thing you have to prove that is you confused me with renegade



And no, EE, I don't put everyone who disagrees with me on Ignore; GoC, Indon, Dan Hemmens, Illiterate Scribe, Matthew, or other posters would be on ignore if I Ignored everyone who wasn't my idealogue. I ignore people who have demonstrated either an intent to troll, or an inability to understand the positions of others on such a /bad/ degree that they appear sociopathic (And no, that word does not mean what you think it means; A Sociopath is someone who can not empathize with or understand others. Period)

yet again, reading comprehension problems, because i didn't even bring up your ignore habit, which i'm not even going into

However this is a second time you've called me a sociopath. And this is the second time i've called your out and said that this is an out right offensive claim. Nothing i've done indicates that i suffer the illness of a sociopath, which is a real mental illness that real people suffer from. Making such a remark is simply rude, time wasting, flaming, and far more trolling than demanding you back up what you say (IE focusing on what I am saying, not what you mistakenly think i'm thinking)
Calling me a sociopath is simply resorting to out right offensive statement, both to me and to anyone else who suffers from taht mental illness. I don't say that you are obviously suffering from paranoia because you've just made a post defending your self from claims i didn't even make in that post, nor do i call you a narcissist for trying to prove a point without actually addressing it, because both assumptions are wrong and offensive.
If you dislike me fine, i don't care. I care about the argument and the points. And i care about actually backing points. I'm not going to resort to insult your mental sanity and stability over an internet forum conversation, and out of basic decency you should do the same and focus on the issues

And by the by, what the hell do you mean by i don't know what sociopath means? I didn't even say anything about sociopaths in the post you are quoting me.


Judging by the thread title, the argument here is "why evil paladins don't work" and that contention has been slowly shifted over the course of 14 pages.

But nothing you've said proves anything, because the concept of a D&D Paladin has constantly been changed in every edition and 4E is no different. Trying to apply 3E's canon to 4E to prove its wrongness, because "things have changed", is futile and inane. Because things are supposed to have changed from 3E in the latest edition if WotC is expected anyone to buy copies of 4E.

The difference between us is that I haven't spent dozens of longwinded posts arguing an insubstantial and inane idea.
I'm not trying to prove 4E's wrongness in the idea of their new class, i'm just saying that the new "Paladin" is not a paladin but a knight under a different name and that the old paladin is dead and buried.
from
EE

[kpenguin]

I have not made the compassions to Roland, nor used him as inspiration. That was renegade paladin, not me. What i've been arguing is the concept of the paladin in D&D, not the historical, not the legendary, just the game concept. The D&D paladin is one of an embodiment of an aligment, not the embodiment of a religion, not hte embodiment of code, the the champion of some cause, but one of an aligment, specifically the LG aligment. One who embodies any cause good or evil is a knight, not a paladin. My point has been that a knight is the one who is the champion of a particular cause, while a paladin does so for an aligment. Under that assumption evil paladins do not make sense. Evil knights however do

Alright. Allow me to clarify: you are saying that the definition of the paladin in this case is the D&D concept of the paladin, correct?

If so, then the argument is moot.

You see, what defines the the concept of a D&D paladin are the D&D sourcebooks. If we cannot accept the sourcebooks as a valid source for defining what a paladin is for the purpose of D&D, then the whole system fails. So, what sourcebooks say are in. Are you with me so far?

Of course, some sourcebooks contradict each other. Sometimes this is simply because of an error, but other times its an update. A good rule we should use is that the most recent source should have priority over an older source. Otherwise, one could argue that modern D&D kobolds aren't kobolds at all but miniature lizardmen called kobolds and that real kobolds are rat-men. Now, I think you and I can agree that this is untrue. So, unless you have a better rule, we accept the most recent source.

Alright, so if we accept that the D&D sourcebooks are the source for defining what a D&D paladin is and that the most recent sourcebooks trumps past sourcebooks, we must observe that the 4th edition Core Sourcebooks, which will be the most recent sourcebooks that will deal with this matter, are the most valid source of defining what a D&D paladin is.

What this means is that no matter what other D&D sourcebooks have said in the past, what is on the pages of the 4E sourcebook will define what a paladin is. Perhaps that definition will be the same as yours, a champion of Lawful Good. Perhaps that definition will be one of a champion of a cause, which would make sense given the latest 4E previews. Either way, that is what a paladin is. A 4E paladin must be a D&D paladin because the 4E books will say so.

The D&D concept of the paladin is solely the product of the books which define it. If the books say that a D&D paladin is a clown with a purple nose then, by golly, D&D paladins are clowns with purple noses. Now, if we were talking about paladins in general, which you so adamantly made clear we are not, then there might be room for discussion. As it stands, there is not.

[Artanis]

On a different topic, why does so many people seems to hate EvilElitest? The man is a genious, besides, only him and Renegade Paladin are the ones who give solid arguments supporting their ideas.
People hate EE because virtually EVERY SINGLE WORD of the quoted sentence is flat-out WRONG.

EE never, ever backs up his arguements except with so-called data that is instantly and comprehensibly proven to be incorrect at best or outright lies at worst. His reading comprehension appears to be virtually nil. His arguments amount to repeating the same things - the same repeatedly and thoroughly debunked lies - over and over and over until we get sick of arguing with a brick wall.

Shall I go on?

[SuperPanda]

First off, there are 14+ pages of posts in this thread, many of which I have read without paying much, if any, attention to who said what and many of which I only skimmed. Some of these pages I completely ignores and later ones suggested that these threads didn't answer anything.

My post:
Part 1 - The recap from the view of this poster so that others can correct me if I misunderstood things and know where I am coming from. - (if you've been following along you shouldn't need to read this part).

As I can see it this thread was begun on the following premise:

That Wizards of the Coast was somehow damaging the potential for fun in the newest version of Dungeons and Dragons by removing alignment restrictions from the Paladin class.

The topic then attempted to define the ideology, mythology, and game mechanics of a Paladin to explore other concepts and "classes" presented in the mind bogglingly large mass of 3.x edition literature as well as classic European and English Literature upon which most of DnD 3.x (and presumably earlier though I am too young to have played the earlier versions) is based.

The competing views are:
1) A Paladin is a champion of the Alignment System (a quick and dirty reference point for moral compasses presented by the game designers who wanted to create a traditional Good vs Evil story-template without getting into too much detail.
2) A Paladin is a Knightly Champion. Dictionary Definition
3) A Paladin is a Holy Warrior endowed with powers by a given Deity (Particular settings such as the Forgotten Realms use this version exclusively while others conflict).

In my view none of these has been adequately substantiated - reasons below.

In an attempt to explain why Paladins under the first definition only did not work the thread moved into a discussion of the Alignment System, something which I think every poster has admitted to be a poorly conceived system at best and something which has been alluded to being downplayed in the upcoming 4th edition (and a system this poster would like to see removed all together).

My personal views aside, the alignment system is useful for producing some quick and easy rules for several otherwise nebulous concepts such as "Holy/Unholy" and the like. Also I do feel it to be a decent starting point for a mechanic, and that Mr. Burlew's variation to be a good branching out point from it.

Discussion has solely centered around the personal psychology of such a character within the context of being tied to a core PHB alignment ideal and that the character, in a vacuum, being unbelievable.

My Posts: Part 2 - My introduction -

As I said, this is my first post on this thread (or any DnD related thread). So why should some of you who are likely older than me and with more clout on these threads even read my arguments, especially when I am presenting a "wall of text"? Really, there is no reason why my opinion on these matters on its own holds any more weight that any of the other posters within this thread.

I hold a disproportional amount of experience as a DM rather than a player and most of my opinions will be based on the DM's point of view rather than that of the player's. As such I feel I bring an important new perspective to the table which I have not seen discussed here. I also hold a Bachelor's degree in English literature which only says that I know multiple forms of the version of the various legends which have often been cited in this debate and simmilar ones on this forum.

As a side note - references to any single presentation of the Arthurian Legend without reference to which source it is from are really much less helpful than many posters here would think do to the sheer number of versions of the Arthur story which exist and the motives behind the writing of them. It is completely off topic and I wouldn't mind discussion characters like Arthur and Lancelot (the later who isn't even in most versions of the Legend as he was added after the French took over England which was in c1100AD I believe, though without my old text books I have a margin of error of anywhere to 100 years.).

-My Post, Part 3- My comments (If you skipped the recap, start reading again).

Finally I will express my full opinion on the actual on topic parts of the debate.

First:

Are they damaging the experience of the game by adding Paladins of other alignments.

Honestly I think I need to disagree with the orriginal poster and their camp on this account simply because the flavor of the whole 4th ed. world has changed from what little I have heard. The changes are small, but they mostly all point to the same realization on the part of the game designers. The notion of the "Hero" being heroic is just not cool anymore. People want to be Anti-Hero's being heroic.

Look back at video games and movies of late and try to think of one person whom you could really call a Paladin, if you look hard enough you'll find one but you will actually have to look if its not something based in older literature.

Now think about those heroes who "fight fire with fire" by allowing themselves to become a little more dark, a little more "evil" to better battle the darkness. They often use justifications such as "Know thy enemy" for such deeds, but in reality this is a shift in the public consensus of what is "cool" which has been in American popular culture since the 1970s.

I am 24 years old and play exclusively with the younger generation and the target demographic for the upcoming edition (I fully admit, this is speculation on my part). Most of my players refuse to play "Lawful" alignments only choosing to do so if they find an interesting class which requires one. Part of this is the rampant misunderstand of the alignment system as a straight tracked set of rules for character actions, part of this is that the word "chaos" sounds cool to them and contains none of the terrifing implications which it held in many older times, and lastly it is because that being in their early tweens (early twenties) they don't want to be held accountable for anything in their real lives, let along in their games. Most of my players default to Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. The CG characters tend to actually be played as Neutral Good characters who "reserve the right to ignore any Law which inconveniences them without needing to justify it in character." The CN characters are generally played as scheming and self interested crooks who will scam anyone they meet for the minimum personal gain but pray more often on evil people than on good (because the evil people are more likely than the good people to walk into the scam.

I have one oddball player who invariably plays a Lawful Evil of Neutral Evil character and insists that they are being Lawful Neutral.

Of all the players I have ever DM'd for there is only 1 who I have met who actually wants to play an honest to goodness Good aligned character. The others all consider Good to be a weakness or to be stupid.

Now, why is all of this purely anecdotal grounds for disagreeing with the original poster?

The original poster mentioned that the 3.x Concept of a Paladin is someone who stands, not just for an ideal, but an ideal which is difficult to maintain. The player base I have encountered in an age group heavily indicitive of the likely demographic target of the new edition doesn't want to play characters with ideals that complicate adventuring. Ergo, the 4th eddition "Paladin" will not share the same fluff or concept work as the 3.x edition and will instead be a game mechanic title.

Still, the discussion in this thread has also been about
"Why Evil Paladins simply don't work"
A topic which has mostly been discussed on all sides using the 3.x fluff and alignment mechanics.

On this note I fully agree with the original poster and mostly for all the reasons that I feel he/she was trying to express but which I never saw expressed.

For this we use the consensus definition of a Paladin:

A Paladin is a Knightly Champion who places his own life, security, and happiness on the line in defense of an ideal, willingly sacrificing anything able to uphold the said ideal.

The ideal need not be a God, as in the Forgotten Realms, of God and King for Roland (which is arguably the same as before since the God put the King there to be served). The ideal need not be "All that is good and holy" as it is in the more popular renditions of Sir Gallahad such as potrayed in Le Mort De Arthur.

Previous posters have asked us to consider the individual psychology of a person wholly devoted in the above capacity to the ideals of Chaos and Evil, I instead point our attention instead to survivability.

In order to make them equivalent the Chaotic Evil "Paladin" is just as capable of ignoring his own devotion to Evil and Chaos as a traditional "Paladin" is of ignoring his ideals of "Good" and "Law". Rather than think of this persons psychological state let us instead examine his roll in society.

They are a person known to kill on a whim and to openly oppose any system of rules which restrict the ability of any person to do the things that they themselves wish to do at the moment. Like the Traditional Paladin they wear this code like a livery and would have a reputation for such behavior...

If this person offered to travel with you would you ever sleep in their company? Moreover, wouldn't you consider drawing your sword on being introduced to them?

The Chaotic Evil "Paladin" has no place within an Evil Organization because their feverent hate for "order" and lack of any consideration for another's well being will eventually lead them to betray their would be allies. While most evil, and particularly chaotic evil, characters will do this for a minimum of profit the Chaotic Evil "Paladin" is honor-bound to do it. As such Evil Organizations will not support such a character, the character cannot raise such a force for doing so is against their ideals, and they cannot hope to survive long alone for their actions will gather too much attention.

Chaotic Evil as a "Paladin-like" prestige class works in that the character must already be strong enough to survive on their own before taking up the oath to live their ideals.

I feel that while Chaotic Good could be workable in certain situations it fails overall but I have no concrete place to put it. On the whole I believe that a Paladin type player cannot remain Chaotic and Good for long unless in a setting which is full of Lawful Evil societies. The opposition of Law as an innate affront to civil rights only works as a Motif if Law is being misused to a small groups ends.


Now looking at Lawful Evil:

A Lawful Evil Paladin would need to be willing to put themselves on the line in defense of the ideals of Law and Evil. Ideally this is in the defense of Evil Laws, also they must openly wear this code about their person. Since Lawful Evil as an alignment is far more prone to the evil mastermind cliche I would argue that it is more likely such individuals would live in a generic fantasy world world, but they would need to be very situational.

A Nobleman spouting his birth and tradition as the reason he taxes his serfs to starvation is not a Lawful Evil Paladin. A Nobleman who feels he needs to tax his serfs to starvation to enforce the traditions is a Lawful Evil Paladin. Such leaders, once in charge, quickly earn the scorn of their underlings and often find rebellion on their doorsteps. Tyrants in the real world learned that to control the masses you needed to appease some of them all of the time, but not always the same part. Even Machiavelli's The Prince states that the ideal is to be love and feared, but if choosing only one being Feared is preferred. The Lawful Evil Paladin would not ever acknowledge that being loved could be a benefit.

Being highly situational and requiring a decent to high power level to survive the invariable assassination attempts by your underlings makes me feel this would need to be a prestige class at the least.



In the end my take is that Paladins of alignments other than Lawful Good, where Paladin is defined as a Knightly Champion who serves an Ideal be it a god's teachings or an Alignment, only work as a base class in a setting friendly to individuals of that nature. mechanically they only deserve to gain bonuses from champion alignments to an extreme which excludes Neutral alignments which are intended to be Alignments with elements of balance in them. In high level play Paladins of alignments and gods hostile to the overall world could make sense but they would be incredibly rare (rare enough that the party bard hasn't heard of them) simply because of how difficult it would be to find individuals with just the right combination of personality traits.

Paladins are a very setting specific class and are the only class outside of Bard whose full class features and powers include a built in reputation just because of how they live their lives (an element of the class too often forgotten by virtually ever DM I have had the ability to play with in those rare times where I get to play rather than DM).

So, OP and subesquent people:

I agree that discussion 4th edition changes with 3rd edition fluff is counter productive.

Within the realm of 3rd edition fluff I consider anti-paladins and paladins of other alignments to be a really stupid idea.

And I personally think the notion of replacing the Paladn with the Crusader and similar concepts is a really stupid (but inevitable) move on the part of the game designers. Lawful Good is not in vouge anymore because the target demographic has decided that "Evil will always triumph over Good because Good is Dumb." - Dark Helmet.

(My oddball player from above is the other person in my group who occasionally DMs, he uses the Dark Helmet quote provided as the basis for his world. No NPC in his world with an Int score higher than 12 ever has a good alignment. One of those strange but true things we run into in the world).

[The Gryphon]

We need to stick relatively closely to real-world definitions if we want to have an understandable game world. Thus, the real world definition:


Congratulations on finding a dictionary that doesn't include either virtue, nobility or chivalry in its definition. Try the Oxford English Dictionary instead and you will find:



paladin
/paldin/

• noun historical 1 any of the twelve peers of Charlemagne’s court. 2 a brave, chivalrous knight.
— ORIGIN French, from Latin palatinus ‘of the palace’.


Or the American Heritage Dictionary:



pal•a•din (pāl'ə-dĭn) Pronunciation Key
n.
A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
A strong supporter or defender of a cause: "the paladin of plain speaking" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

[French, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin palātīnus, palatine; see palatine1.]


Or the Unabridged Dictionary:



pal•a•din /ˈpælədɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pal-uh-din] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1585–95; < F < It paladino < LL palātīnus imperial functionary, n. use of adj.; see palatine1]


All emphasis added by me.

In the world outside D&D, "paladin" has long been understood to mean someone virtuous and noble. The only times it would be used to refer to someone that was not virtuous would be if the speaker was using it ironically/sarcastically. Even the non-noble "champion of a cause" meaning implies virtue in our real, relativistic world, simply because nobody ever described one of their opponents as a 'paladin', only someone of whom they approve.

Try it yourself. Refer to some evil dictator or cult leader as a 'paladin' in mixed company and see what sort of reaction you get.

As for the point about the D&D paladin being whatever WOTC define it to be, this is of course true, but if WOTC called a hammer a sword then a hammer would be a sword in D&D. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should or that they are right, which is the point of the discussion.

The real world word is used to mean 'do-gooder', and the D&D paladin used to be restricted to only doing good deeds, but an equivalent restriction on an evil "paladin" to only ever do evil deeds is completely unworkable. If they have ditched the restrictive code of conduct in favour of the 3.X knight's code or the cleric's much looser code (so loose that most people seem unaware that they are supposed to have one), and opened it to Evil characters, then "paladin" simply isn't an appropriate description for the class.

The crusader or the knight have killed the paladin and stolen his name, but they are still not a paladin. By definition. :smallsmile:

The Gryphon

[Renegade Paladin]

People hate EE because virtually EVERY SINGLE WORD of the quoted sentence is flat-out WRONG.

EE never, ever backs up his arguements except with so-called data that is instantly and comprehensibly proven to be incorrect at best or outright lies at worst. His reading comprehension appears to be virtually nil. His arguments amount to repeating the same things - the same repeatedly and thoroughly debunked lies - over and over and over until we get sick of arguing with a brick wall.

Shall I go on?
I take offense; I have taken great care to cite supporting sources, and my handle was in that sentence. :smalltongue:

Apart from that, you're really right; I've just been trying to stay out of his way so people wouldn't conflate our arguments... but Rutee managed to do so anyway, so I suppose it didn't work.
Congratulations on finding a dictionary that doesn't include either virtue, nobility or chivalry in its definition. Try the Oxford English Dictionary instead and you will find:



Or the American Heritage Dictionary:



Or the Unabridged Dictionary:



All emphasis added by me.

In the world outside D&D, "paladin" has long been understood to mean someone virtuous and noble. The only times it would be used to refer to someone that was not virtuous would be if the speaker was using it ironically/sarcastically. Even the non-noble "champion of a cause" meaning implies virtue in our real, relativistic world, simply because nobody ever described one of their opponents as a 'paladin', only someone of whom they approve.

Try it yourself. Refer to some evil dictator or cult leader as a 'paladin' in mixed company and see what sort of reaction you get.

As for the point about the D&D paladin being whatever WOTC define it to be, this is of course true, but if WOTC called a hammer a sword then a hammer would be a sword in D&D. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should or that they are right, which is the point of the discussion.

The real world word is used to mean 'do-gooder', and the D&D paladin used to be restricted to only doing good deeds, but an equivalent restriction on an evil "paladin" to only ever do evil deeds is completely unworkable. If they have ditched the restrictive code of conduct in favour of the 3.X knight's code or the cleric's much looser code (so loose that most people seem unaware that they are supposed to have one), and opened it to Evil characters, then "paladin" simply isn't an appropriate description for the class.

The crusader or the knight have killed the paladin and stolen his name, but they are still not a paladin. By definition. :smallsmile:

The Gryphon
This is what I've been saying for the whole thread. I'm afraid it probably isn't going to go over any better when you say it.

[Rutee]

I haven't conflated your arguments. You're using the dictionary, he's using 3e definitions. The problem with /your/ argument is that I can take a different dictionary to 'prove' me right, and *I* could trace back tot he original Roman etymology to help support my point. You have not produced a valid response to other people's dictionaries, merely insisted that only Oxford counts. A self-consistent argument, to be sure, and attacking a SOURCE is at least better then attacking a viewpoint, but in the end of the day, the only people who will argue with a dictionary on a regular basis are pedants and linguists. The other 99% of humanity will accept a definition at its face, without calling the dictionary wrong.

[Renegade Paladin]

I haven't conflated your arguments. You're using the dictionary, he's using 3e definitions. The problem with /your/ argument is that I can take a different dictionary to 'prove' me right, and *I* could trace back tot he original Roman etymology to help support my point. You have not produced a valid response to other people's dictionaries, merely insisted that only Oxford counts. A self-consistent argument, to be sure, and attacking a SOURCE is at least better then attacking a viewpoint, but in the end of the day, the only people who will argue with a dictionary on a regular basis are pedants and linguists. The other 99% of humanity will accept a definition at its face, without calling the dictionary wrong.
You know The Gryphon is right; use the word in non-gaming company (assuming said company knows what it means; it isn't in everyone's vocabulary) and see what kind of reaction you get. I understood it to mean a paragon of chivalry literally years before I'd ever heard of D&D. I was a reader and scholar of the Arthurian legends long before I ever picked up a Player's Handbook and a set of dice. I'm not hung up on it meaning what it means because of 3e's paladin class; I'm hung up on it because I know what it means and it is abominable to group Galahad and Roland in with Mordred, Marsile, and Ganelon.

Yes, Roland and Galahad were the inspirations for the class. Yes, Roland and Galahad did what they did for king and God. Guess what? Their motivations are irrelevant; it isn't why they did it, but what they did that makes a paladin.

Edit: Actually, you know what? You wouldn't even be grouping them in with those three; I cannot for the life of me think of a single literary character that was simply devoted to doing the wrong thing as Galahad and Roland were to doing the right. The concept doesn't even begin to make sense.

[Dervag]

Re: SuperPanda
I find your perspective intriguing and refreshing.

My estimate is that a chaotic good paladin is more viable than you believe, because a chaotic good paladin would not feel obliged to enforce 'good' against a lawful good society. Since paladin alignments seem to be dominated by their moral component, a chaotic good paladin (of freedom, perhaps?) should be able to coexist peacefully with lawful nonevil societies, although they would have some serious friction with lawful neutral societies.

A neutral good paladin would almost certainly work if paladins of non-corner alignments are permitted. However, a neutral good paladin would have much less moral and ethical conflict than a corner-alignment paladin, and would therefore be too simple a roleplaying challenge to entertain some people.

That said, I agree that evil paladins don't fit into civilization as we understand the concept, for the reasons you give. They might fit into some hypothetical "Boskone" civilization that is based on unapologetic rule by the strong, ambitious, and capable at every level. However, it's not clear that such a civilization could exist in stable form, let alone whether it could be constructed by humans or humanoids.

Champions of evil deities make sense. Champions of evil alignments, as you say, do not.

As for your oddball friend, I think that the core of his philosophy of life is a joke and that he himself suffers from profound illusions. I am sincerely glad I do not play in his campaigns, because we would end up getting a LOT of friction. Despite the fact that I myself am in exactly the same age demographic that 4th Edition is supposedly aimed at.


People hate EE because virtually EVERY SINGLE WORD of the quoted sentence is flat-out WRONG.

EE never, ever backs up his arguements except with so-called data that is instantly and comprehensibly proven to be incorrect at best or outright lies at worst. His reading comprehension appears to be virtually nil. His arguments amount to repeating the same things - the same repeatedly and thoroughly debunked lies - over and over and over until we get sick of arguing with a brick wall.

Shall I go on?I would advise against it. Getting this exercised for any reason related to online forums has to be bad for one's health.

I, for one, have often found that EE backs up his arguments with structures of logic that cannot be lightly dismissed. Sometimes, he uses structures that can be lightly dismissed, or that are almost indecipherable. He is by no means unique in any of these things. I wish he were not inclined to be rude towards those he perceives as having insulted him, but I wish that of many people. I wish he were more inclined to examine other people's arguments carefully so that he wouldn't angrily contradict something they never said, but I wish that of many people too.

[Rutee]

You know The Gryphon is right; use the word in non-gaming company (assuming said company knows what it means; it isn't in everyone's vocabulary) and see what kind of reaction you get. I understood it to mean a paragon of chivalry literally years before I'd ever heard of D&D. I was a reader and scholar of the Arthurian legends long before I ever picked up a Player's Handbook and a set of dice. I'm not hung up on it meaning what it means because of 3e's paladin class; I'm hung up on it because I know what it means and it is abominable to group Galahad and Roland in with Mordred, Marsile, and Ganelon.

Yes, Roland and Galahad were the inspirations for the class. Yes, Roland and Galahad did what they did for king and God. Guess what? Their motivations are irrelevant; it isn't why they did it, but what they did that makes a paladin.

If anyone but a gamer has heard of it, they'll have heard the word, yes, in the context of Roland and Galahad. And "why they did it" is imprinted in the class text; I'm /pretty sure/ that "Why they did it" matters a great deal.

And if grouping Galahad, Roland, Mordred, Marsile, and Ganelon is abominable, then you'll really hate me when I suggest they were all sword swingers. Saying they had similarities isn't abominable, particularly when we point out that Mordred, Marsile, and Ganelon are exact opposites in morality.

Remember, Galahad and Roland had the word "Paladin" ascribed to them in the sense the *Romans* meant it, which was pretty much meant they were extremely important retainers and true paragons of their lord's will. Charlemagne didn't have to be a moral King to use the term in this way.

[StGlebidiah]

You know The Gryphon is right; use the word in non-gaming company (assuming said company knows what it means; it isn't in everyone's vocabulary) and see what kind of reaction you get. I understood it to mean a paragon of chivalry literally years before I'd ever heard of D&D. I was a reader and scholar of the Arthurian legends long before I ever picked up a Player's Handbook and a set of dice. I'm not hung up on it meaning what it means because of 3e's paladin class; I'm hung up on it because I know what it means and it is abominable to group Galahad and Roland in with Mordred, Marsile, and Ganelon.

Yes, Roland and Galahad were the inspirations for the class. Yes, Roland and Galahad did what they did for king and God. Guess what? Their motivations are irrelevant; it isn't why they did it, but what they did that makes a paladin.

Edit: Actually, you know what? You wouldn't even be grouping them in with those three; I cannot for the life of me think of a single literary character that was simply devoted to doing the wrong thing as Galahad and Roland were to doing the right. The concept doesn't even begin to make sense.

I think one of us (and it could be me) is confusing denotation and connotation. Look, I'm not trying to say that the definitions that you have provided are incorrect - just that it isn't reasonable to ignore other, valid definitions because they don't support your argument. Yes, the connotation of the word "paladin" is, by and large, good. However, I draw your attention to the fact that the word "good" does not appear in ANY of the provided definitions of "paladin" - merely words like "knightly," "chivalrous," and "noble," all of which have connotations of "good" but not specific denotations of "good." For a word to have a strong connotation does not make it WRONG to use it for [one of] its denotative meaning[s] - it just makes it PROBLEMATIC if one is trying to have a neutral argument, or if one uses it in a manner contrary to its popular connotation.

If you are expressing the viewpoint that we CANNOT use a denotative meaning of "paladin" to refer to the champions of evil causes/alignments because this is in opposition to the connotations of the word "paladin," then I must disagree and further contend that this is an impossible position to "prove."

Also, while I am not personally religious, I have heard that the most important book in the English language is the Bible. I tend to agree with this idea, though that's another argument. In any case, I believe that Satan is a good example of a literary character who is completely devoted to doing the wrong thing.

EDIT:
Re: SuperPanda
I find your perspective intriguing and refreshing.

Second! What SuperPanda says makes a lot of sense.

I have two issues with the argument though:

1 - there are entire planes in the 3.5E multiverse (or whatever it is) where practically everybody is of an evil alignment. Under the alignment system, I see no reason why a Chaotic/Lawful Evil paladin wouldn't be just as survivable in these planes as a Chaotic/Lawful Good paladin is in the planes we are used to starting our games, where most of the inhabitants are good.

2 - admittedly a Chaotic/Lawful Evil paladin would have a hell of a time surviving in the wrong setting, or even the right setting. And they're probably completely insane. Those are perfectly valid arguments for why there won't be many of these folks, but to say that the classes should not exist because it is hard for their members to survive is not a valid argument. If we based which classes we created simply on how hard it is for the character to survive or maintain their class, then the entire BoED (not that it's a great book, mind, but nobody is contesting the Saint class' right to exist and its RP and alignment restrictions make it a very hard class to maintain) would probably never exist. But the whole point of these classes would be to get inventive with maintaining your alignment/class restrictions while still surviving! And that's up to the DM. Any kind of paladin runs a constant risk of biting off more than they can chew, and dying as a result.

[Citizen Joe]

Why is this still going on? Didn't this argument start like... twenty years ago?

By core rules (ADND 1-3.5), evil paladins don't work because it is specified in the rules that they have to be lawful good. So if your frame of reference is an ADND 1-3.5 ed. Paladin, then evil paladin doesn't work.

However, if you are using optional rules, then you are by definition changing the basic rules and as such making an exception to the 'evil paladins don't work' rule in such a way that 'evil paladins can work'. You could change the paladin rules, redefine what he is, change the nature of alignment, whatever... the point is that you deviated from core rules in order to make 'evil paladins work'.

Now, we have DND 4ed coming out, where they stipulated a paladin of a demon or something. As best as I can tell, they haven't really explained that. It could be that demon has changed its alignment and become a force of good. It could be that he accepts paladins as whipping boys for his own forces. Who knows? It could also be that 4ed has significantly changed the alignment system in such a way that the whole good/evil thing falls away. It could also be that the alignment restrictions on 4ed paladins was taken away in favor of some other code of conduct that is NOT based on alignment.

In the end, you guys are just dragging this debate on and on by arguing that apples are red and bananas are yellow while someone else says at first they are both green. If you want to make a point, make sure that you stipulate what version of paladin you are using.

[Rutee]

Sigh. The OP's argument was that 4e Core doesn't work by 3e Core. Which is true, but meaningless; 4e core doesn't have to work according to 3e core; 4e is its own game. (BTW: You can have Evil Paladins by 4e core. Period.)

Thus, we argue whether you can call something Evil a Paladin based on its conceptual and linguistic roots. It's appropriate to the thread in its own way.

[Citizen Joe]

Thus, we argue whether you can call something Evil a Paladin based on its conceptual and linguistic roots. It's appropriate to the thread in its own way.
So you're arguing on whether a poorly defined concept that few people agree on can apply to a class which is changing in a couple months based on roots which you aren't necessarily privy to and may be entirely wrong, combined, mutated or in some way changed over the centuries with people that may or may not be trolling for comments and may or may not be a cat?:smallamused:


Ya, that will be productive... Why don't we calculate how many faeries can dance on the head of a pin while we're at it... or explain the Kessel Run being measured in parsecs instead of time units.

[Rutee]

I never posited that there was any real gain, no. It is a debate ont he intertubes, after all.

[The Rose Dragon]

...or explain the Kessel Run being measured in parsecs instead of time units.

Because Kessel Run is a dangerous run, with a lot of asteroids and other dangerous objects, so taking the shortest route is an impressive feat in its own right.

No, really, that is the actual explanation.

[Citizen Joe]

Woohoo! Derail!!!

The asteroids (and black holes as I heard it) are a bit facetious due to a very small number of objects even in a densely packed asteroid belt. However, SW universe has different physics since their asteroid belts are much denser. In any case, that would imply better sensors and maneuvering abilities rather than speed. Which doesn't answer the question that spurred the Kessel Run response, which I think was something like "Is it fast?"

Actually, I prefer my explanation of the Kessel Run...

Han Solo, being a smuggler, needs to be able to stay ahead of the authorities in order to sell his goods. If the goods are hot, he can't sell them. Meanwhile, information travels at a set speed. So the Kessel run amounts to getting your cargo and then traveling faster than the information boats to the point that you can offload your hot merchandise before the information/ bounty gets to your purchaser. The faster your ship, the shorter the distance before you are clear of the bounty.

[Artanis]

As I remember it, The Rose Dragon is correct, with "other dangerous objects" meaning "a gigantic cluster of black holes". Getting closer to the black holes made it more dangerous, but also made the run shorter. So making the run in a short distance meant having a hell of a ship and balls of steel.

[Renegade Paladin]

Not asteroids, the Maw black hole cluster. The Kessel Run involves going around the Maw; doing it in a shorter distance means getting closer to the event horizon. 12 parsecs is almost to the point of no return, even for a ship as fast as the Falcon.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/The_More_You_Know.jpg

:smalltongue:

[Reel On, Love]

...you utter geeks. :P

[Artanis]

...you utter geeks. :P
And damn proud of it, too! :smallcool:

[The Rose Dragon]

...you utter geeks. :P

Well, they are. I am just an idiot who half-knows things.

[Renegade Paladin]

...you utter geeks. :P
Why, thank you! :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, I neglected to do so earlier, so let me take this opportunity to tell Kasrkin that he's quite welcome. :smallsmile:

[EvilElitest]

Alright. Allow me to clarify: you are saying that the definition of the paladin in this case is the D&D concept of the paladin, correct?

Not quite, i'm working in the D&D version of paladin within the D&D game. If paladins in another game (like WoW or something) are different then i'm perfectly ok, but generally i'm saying that the D&D concept of paladin is being changed into that of a knight in 4E, just under the name of a paladin. I really only want that point made clear.



If so, then the argument is moot.

You see, what defines the the concept of a D&D paladin are the D&D sourcebooks. If we cannot accept the sourcebooks as a valid source for defining what a paladin is for the purpose of D&D, then the whole system fails. So, what sourcebooks say are in. Are you with me so far?

Of course, some sourcebooks contradict each other. Sometimes this is simply because of an error, but other times its an update. A good rule we should use is that the most recent source should have priority over an older source. Otherwise, one could argue that modern D&D kobolds aren't kobolds at all but miniature lizardmen called kobolds and that real kobolds are rat-men. Now, I think you and I can agree that this is untrue. So, unless you have a better rule, we accept the most recent source.

Alright, so if we accept that the D&D sourcebooks are the source for defining what a D&D paladin is and that the most recent sourcebooks trumps past sourcebooks, we must observe that the 4th edition Core Sourcebooks, which will be the most recent sourcebooks that will deal with this matter, are the most valid source of defining what a D&D paladin is.

What this means is that no matter what other D&D sourcebooks have said in the past, what is on the pages of the 4E sourcebook will define what a paladin is. Perhaps that definition will be the same as yours, a champion of Lawful Good. Perhaps that definition will be one of a champion of a cause, which would make sense given the latest 4E previews. Either way, that is what a paladin is. A 4E paladin must be a D&D paladin because the 4E books will say so.

The D&D concept of the paladin is solely the product of the books which define it. If the books say that a D&D paladin is a clown with a purple nose then, by golly, D&D paladins are clowns with purple noses. Now, if we were talking about paladins in general, which you so adamantly made clear we are not, then there might be room for discussion. As it stands, there is not.

That is true, except that your forgetting the difference in edition changes. in editions, things are changed entirely. THe new definition of paladin is called a paladin yes, but seems to work like a knight. That is pretty much my point




People hate EE because virtually EVERY SINGLE WORD of the quoted sentence is flat-out WRONG.

EE never, ever backs up his arguements except with so-called data that is instantly and comprehensibly proven to be incorrect at best or outright lies at worst. His reading comprehension appears to be virtually nil. His arguments amount to repeating the same things - the same repeatedly and thoroughly debunked lies - over and over and over until we get sick of arguing with a brick wall.

Shall I go on?
yawn, whining, lying, flaming and outdated attempts of arguments. Barely worth a response

1. Really? How so. In order to make such a claim, you have to prove them wrong. Like actually proving it except claiming it. What is wrong.
2. You make a statement that what i say isn't backed, and yet you don't back your own words. Prove it or admit you pathetic double standard
3. No, you only claim they are lies, which i refute and counter. Lies that are simply attempt to discredit me and avoid making the point
4. Considering your reading comprehension seems to involve making flames without actually backing your points, it seems like a pot/kettle statement
5. Or you actually run out of conclusive arguments are resort to personal attacks because it is doesn't require evidence. one would note that people who actually back their points seem to make more conviecing arguments against me, like Super Panda, or Dervag




First off, there are 14+ pages of posts in this thread, many of which I have read without paying much, if any, attention to who said what and many of which I only skimmed. Some of these pages I completely ignores and later ones suggested that these threads didn't answer anything.
fair enough, i'm totally cool if the person admits to it

My post:
Part 1 - The recap from the view of this poster so that others can correct me if I misunderstood things and know where I am coming from. - (if you've been following along you shouldn't need to read this part).


As I can see it this thread was begun on the following premise:

That Wizards of the Coast was somehow damaging the potential for fun in the newest version of Dungeons and Dragons by removing alignment restrictions from the Paladin class.

The topic then attempted to define the ideology, mythology, and game mechanics of a Paladin to explore other concepts and "classes" presented in the mind bogglingly large mass of 3.x edition literature as well as classic European and English Literature upon which most of DnD 3.x (and presumably earlier though I am too young to have played the earlier versions) is based.

Personally i only want to make clear that the concept of a paladin is no longer being used instead of we have the concept of a knight/crusader instead.


n an attempt to explain why Paladins under the first definition only did not work the thread moved into a discussion of the Alignment System, something which I think every poster has admitted to be a poorly conceived system at best and something which has been alluded to being downplayed in the upcoming 4th edition (and a system this poster would like to see removed all together).


My personal views aside, the alignment system is useful for producing some quick and easy rules for several otherwise nebulous concepts such as "Holy/Unholy" and the like. Also I do feel it to be a decent starting point for a mechanic, and that Mr. Burlew's variation to be a good branching out point from it.

Discussion has solely centered around the personal psychology of such a character within the context of being tied to a core PHB alignment ideal and that the character, in a vacuum, being unbelievable.

the aligment system actually does work, however WotC didn't make the details clear enough sadly.




As I said, this is my first post on this thread (or any DnD related thread). So why should some of you who are likely older than me and with more clout on these threads even read my arguments, especially when I am presenting a "wall of text"? Really, there is no reason why my opinion on these matters on its own holds any more weight that any of the other posters within this thread.
nice. Well as i'm most likely younger than you, welcome. Walls of text are hard to read, but they often approach the facts very well. personally, i don't think on an online forum we need to see qualifications, i'm of the option that everybody has something to say and their option is valid.



Honestly I think I need to disagree with the orriginal poster and their camp on this account simply because the flavor of the whole 4th ed. world has changed from what little I have heard. The changes are small, but they mostly all point to the same realization on the part of the game designers. The notion of the "Hero" being heroic is just not cool anymore. People want to be Anti-Hero's being heroic.

Look back at video games and movies of late and try to think of one person whom you could really call a Paladin, if you look hard enough you'll find one but you will actually have to look if its not something based in older literature.

Now think about those heroes who "fight fire with fire" by allowing themselves to become a little more dark, a little more "evil" to better battle the darkness. They often use justifications such as "Know thy enemy" for such deeds, but in reality this is a shift in the public consensus of what is "cool" which has been in American popular culture since the 1970s.

Oh i understand why they are doing it, they are appealing to the new public ideals of fantasy. It still bothers me a lot however. Most importantly is that a paladins is suppose to not use ends justifies the means. THat is their role as a character, they don't give in to the temptation of using evil methods. That is sort of the ideal of paladin

So yes, i know that almost all of the 4E changes have been hinged to the new definition of cool. However i generally find these new definitions to be a negative effect on the game, or (as that is a bit of a generalization) at least lead to the the simplification of the game. However that is another matter, but by changing the paladin to a knight it is certainly a simplification of the game.




I am 24 years old and play exclusively with the younger generation and the target demographic for the upcoming edition (I fully admit, this is speculation on my part). Most of my players refuse to play "Lawful" alignments only choosing to do so if they find an interesting class which requires one. Part of this is the rampant misunderstand of the alignment system as a straight tracked set of rules for character actions, part of this is that the word "chaos" sounds cool to them and contains none of the terrifing implications which it held in many older times, and lastly it is because that being in their early tweens (early twenties) they don't want to be held accountable for anything in their real lives, let along in their games. Most of my players default to Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. The CG characters tend to actually be played as Neutral Good characters who "reserve the right to ignore any Law which inconveniences them without needing to justify it in character." The CN characters are generally played as scheming and self interested crooks who will scam anyone they meet for the minimum personal gain but pray more often on evil people than on good (because the evil people are more likely than the good people to walk into the scam.

I have one oddball player who invariably plays a Lawful Evil of Neutral Evil character and insists that they are being Lawful Neutral.

Of all the players I have ever DM'd for there is only 1 who I have met who actually wants to play an honest to goodness Good aligned character. The others all consider Good to be a weakness or to be stupid.
I think that is a problem with your players sadly. All of mine generally are extremly interested in the alignment system and in being good. Yours, no offense intended sound kinda powergaming styled. And all of them are withing the 14-28 age group (with a few exceptions)


Now looking at Lawful Evil:

A Lawful Evil Paladin would need to be willing to put themselves on the line in defense of the ideals of Law and Evil. Ideally this is in the defense of Evil Laws, also they must openly wear this code about their person. Since Lawful Evil as an alignment is far more prone to the evil mastermind cliche I would argue that it is more likely such individuals would live in a generic fantasy world world, but they would need to be very situational.

A Nobleman spouting his birth and tradition as the reason he taxes his serfs to starvation is not a Lawful Evil Paladin. A Nobleman who feels he needs to tax his serfs to starvation to enforce the traditions is a Lawful Evil Paladin. Such leaders, once in charge, quickly earn the scorn of their underlings and often find rebellion on their doorsteps. Tyrants in the real world learned that to control the masses you needed to appease some of them all of the time, but not always the same part. Even Machiavelli's The Prince states that the ideal is to be love and feared, but if choosing only one being Feared is preferred. The Lawful Evil Paladin would not ever acknowledge that being loved could be a benefit.
here is the thing however, that concept would make a great knight or crusader. however every single of these LE "paladins" would have a different code for every concept. A nazi paladin and a Spanish Inquisition paladin would have a different code, becasuse their ideals of LE are extremly different.

All LG paladins must agree on a few things

However all LE people just need to act evil in a lawful manner


Edit: Actually, you know what? You wouldn't even be grouping them in with those three; I cannot for the life of me think of a single literary character that was simply devoted to doing the wrong thing as Galahad and Roland were to doing the right. The concept doesn't even begin to make sense.
Yeah, they'd have to be so evil that they would border cliche

from
EE