Community

May 1, 2012 -- 10:12AM, Fitzco wrote:

Hahahhah, you're actually making an argument based on history, and citing information from before the internet age; and when people give you Magazine Title, Article Name, and Issue # of information that refutes your point you deny its existance because you can't look it up on the internet?  hahahhhha

No he can't even give me an example of an article or anything that represents a class based around the paladin concept that doesn't have distinct alignment restrictions and/or codes of behavior.  Until that point all he is saying is, "I think it should be like this".  The paladin concept is one of alignment and/or codes of conduct.  Thats the point of the class.  The paladin concept is the concept of embodying the alignment you are restricted to.  every "paladin of all alignments" he refers to have names that are not explicitly Paladin


This is the article he has quoted to us (you can totally find it on the internet):

"A PLETHORA OF PALADINS
Alignment is everything to these seven NPCs
by Christopher Wood
taken from Dragon #106, TSR copywrited"


that is the exact basis of his entire argument.  That article where it says explicitly that ALIGNMENT IS EVERYTHING TO THESE SEVEN NPCS. (note they were never intended to be used for players).

it goes on to say:

"Seven new NPC character classes follow: the Myrikhan, the Garath, the Lyan, the Paramander, the Fantra, the Illrigger, and the Arrikhan. All are holy fighters of deep alignment convictions and should be played as such. Alignments, the entire basis of these paladin classes, must be played to the hilt. Punishment for deviations should be severe.

A distinction must be made here. Like the word "level" in the AD&D(r) game, "paladin" now takes on more than one meaning. The first denotes the lawful good human player character as described in the rules; the second denotes a holy fighter of any alignment (including those characters who might be called anti-paladins). All paladins (second meaning) are fighter subclasses and use the attack and saving-throw matrices for fighters. These paladin types are also exclusively human."

Submitting that alignment and/or codes mean nothing to the class based upon this article is foolish.  Using it to say there should be paladins for every alignment is fine.  However, and this is my opinion, there should be seperate differently named and distinct classes for each one, much like it was presented in the sited article.  In the very least your personal alignment restriction, or code of conduct, should be chosen at the forefront of selecting the class, much like in 4e.  The classes definition is based around this facet of their being.  Without this facet they are not paladins.  

Other people may share a similar facet, that being alignment restrictions, but that doesn't make them paladins.  A paladins strict adherance to his personal alignment restriction/code of conduct is what makes him who he is.  For a bard the defining facet is learning to perform and entertain, for the barbarian the defining facet is an undying and searing rage that makes self control and a strict adherance to a code almost impossible, The cleric is the bastion of faith similar to the paladin yet diversified in the exact way max has himself described this very day, druids with their neutral requirement care only for the green john constantine, and monks stick to their codes as a form of meditation that furthers them towards perfection and enlightenment. Paladins stick to their alignment restrictions and/or codes of conduct because it is their true beliefe that their's is the exact way life is to be lived.  They are they definition of the alignment, and their alignment defines them.  that is the difference.  As the article previously sited basically says, "Alignment is everything to a paladin", and as it explicitly states, "Alignments, the entire basis of these paladin classes...".  The main facet of the Paladin is alignment and/or codes of behavior.

So yes with this article I will agree.  There have always been "paladins" of every alignment added to every edition after it has existed for a while.  Unfortunately they have always been called something other than just the paladin class, and they have all still had alignment restrictions and/or codes of conduct.  Also the root paladin expressed in every PHB, except for 4e, has been that of the LG paladin.  4e even had alignment restrictions it was just based upon the god you chose.

Give me an article or entry that denys that fact.  Give me a citation that can dispute, "Alignments, the entire basis of these paladin classes...".  If you dispute that point of the article, you dispute the entire article's validity, and you deny the existance of paladins of every alignment in every edition.

So this isn't a thread about clerics in a to-the-death match with fighters?

It's instead about Paladins?

Darn. Fighter vs Cleric sounds like it would come down to a stand-still with the fighter doing more damage while the cleric heals itself while dealing some damage.

Without a solid way to dispute my arguments they attack me and my character instead of the argument.  The final act of the loosing side.  Just admit that Alignment is eveything to a Paladin, a fact you can't disput with a decent argument other than personal opinion, and we can move on to something better.

May 1, 2012 -- 1:11PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:10PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Just admit that Alignment is eveything to a Paladin,.

This is why I can't take you seriously. Weren't you the one in CAPTIAL and bolded letters insisting that people STOP using alignment in leiu of your "codes"?

I was asked to give an argument as to why even codes were required for the paladin.  So  did research.  I found out that paladins have always had alignment restrictions and/or codes of conduct in one form or another.  Even if they were the Plethora of Paladins style of paladin there was still an alignment restriction on the class.

The codes idea was appeasment.  I was trying to give some compromise on what being a paladin was.  To make the class more maleable and adaptable.  I have henceforth, due to having to do research to develop a solid argument, and since the other side will not give an inch or accept something that fufills everthing it wants, decided the apeasment was wrong.  Alignment is everything to the Paladin.  If you will only accept what has existed before then realize this every single paladin has had an alignment restriction.  So all paladins have alignment restrictions.  I submit that as part of that fact the default presentation of the Paladin first presented should be the LG paladin.

Or Like I originally said would be the way to do it:

We can move and evolve into the suggestions I started with which is that the Paladin is presented with an alignment restriction (possibly selectable like 4e), and with a code of conduct.  That those are both easily and noteably ignorable (meaning it is noted in their entries that they can be ignored).  That this be the default presentation of the class because those are the markings of being a paladin.


Which of those two sounds better.  I like the second one but some people feel the need to argue with a compromise. 

May 1, 2012 -- 1:27PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:24PM, emwasick wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:00PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Am I the only one who stopped taking Sleeps seriously about 2 pages ago?

Any post more than a few hundred words may as well be in Cuneiform for all I care. Some posters seem to aim for a thousand word minimum, which is great as long as they're having fun.

Does anyone else find it at all ironic that a thread about clerics and paladins has become a debate rooted in scripture? 

Oh the irony has been ringing in my head for days now.

You can end this madness!