Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
With respect, I have to disagree with your premise that tradition is never relevant. Unless there is a clear advantage in an option that would trump tradition that option has less worth than the traditional option. Thing is, things become traditions because people are in favor of (or simply comfortable with) them--any change that has no clear advantage will just displease those that like their tradition. Change, simply for the sake of change is just stupid (like say, replacing the color red in a nation's flag with the color mauve). Change that has a solid, positive reason is going to win out (compare graphing calculators to slide rules--graphing calulators are clearling superior). If there is no appearent reward for a proposed change, then you're just trying to annoy people that have an emotional attachment to whatever you're trying to change.
Mind you, I'm not enirely sure of the context in which you made your statement was made, I'm just sick of seeing statements like that that are dismissive of tradition out of hand.
I think we have to determine what we want a Divine Champion to be first before worrying about the mechanics.
Should all Divine Champions get some kind of smite ability or do we want to make them a bit more customisable aka the Cleric?
If there are going to be any abilities that are universal to the class regardless of alignment, I believe the detect/smite suite should be it--it seems to be fitting with the concept of a divine champion as the "sword of its diety". Past that, I think many of the other abilities should vary by the god's domains.
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it? If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you? Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
There we go:
If you can easily add your own alignment restriction, to whatever you think it should be, then why include it?
If it is so easily added why is its absence so offensive to you?
Why cant they appeal to all those who prize player choice above all other things by leaving out this highly contentious facet?
While I'm not arguing that the divine champion class shouldn't be inclusive of all alignments, myself (see above), I can see an easy justification for including an alignment restriction and noting that those that don't play with (or downplay) alignments can ignore it... It's like the races in 4e's PHB1: it wasn't the inclusion of tieflings and dragonborn that upset most traditionalists, it was the exclusion of races that had been in previous editions' PHBs. Some people like things how they've been, and throwing that to the wind can cause a feeling of alienation in some people. If the possibility exists to include the restriction while also clearly showing that the restriction doesn't have to be used, if assauges those that like their tradition while still maintaining options for non-traditionalists. Again, I'm not personally arguing for such alignment restrictions, I'm just presenting a case for why that would be a viable option.
Personally, I have a strong emotional investment in D&D (I grew up with it, met close friends because of it, etc.) so I'm pretty biased heree (and admit it). What I would like to see, personally, is the paladin class renamed to something more generic like "divine champion" or "templar" and opened up to all alignments. Else it would be retaining the title "paladin" and having a LG alignment restriction (that can be removed if the group prefers), however I think that this option is subpar because it'd harder to encode the option of variable abilities based on domain this way. Yes, there's also the option of just calling the class "paladin" and keeping it open to all alignments (which, I peesimistically feel is how it's going to be), but I loathe that option based on my strong emotional investment in some of D&D's traditions. Again, I admit my bias here.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard Vindication for every suffering and hurt Let retribution hold dominion over earth --Nemesis, VNV Nation
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it?
The same can be said for not including it.
If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you?
The same can be said about not including it.
Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons. That's where you run afoul of the fallacy.
You need to come up with a reason other than tradition to warrant the exclusion of all people other than those who want Paladins to be LG. We have provided actual reasons for the inclusion of Paladins of all alignments. So far you've only toted tradition.
Indeed. Could you remind us all what the non tradtion based arguements are, though, because I don't remember them.
seriously. not being an ass, I don't remember, and this thread is 31 pages long.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Any argument that uses tradition as a factor in determining the value of something is an Appeal to Tradition. Any such argument is fallacious.
It's not a matter of opinion.
And you are wrong. Simply having to do with or claiming relevnce of tradition does not meet the form for the fallacy. Sorry bud.
Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
If you say that if two things are otherwise equal, the traditional one is better, then you are employing the fallacy. Read what you just posted.
All reasoning that is used to give a factor value in determining the value of the larger thing takes the above form.
X benefits the vast majority, while doing no real harm to anyone. Therefor X is good/correct/better.
That is how determining the effect of a factor on a value determination works. If you try to do that with tradition as the factor, you are wrong.
But we've already established a reason: because a part of the customer base wants non-Lawful Paladins. I believe DBW is only asserting that 'Because Paladins were Lawful Good in previous editions, they should be Lawful Good now.' is an appeal to tradition and therefore invalid.
Exactly.
The only argument for including the LG only restriction is tradition. If a blatant fallacy is the only reason given for doing something, and other reasons that aren't fallacious have been given for not doing that thing, the logical thing to do is to not do that thing.
And there's no reason for me to repeat the reasoning that has already been established. If max and I were arguing alone, perhaps I'd need to reiterate all the reason to not have the restriction, but we aren't, so I don't.
No. He's talking to me and my assertion that tradition is relevant to the discussion. He doesn't understand that Appeal to Tradition requires an argument to assume that tradition is the better than all other reasons simply due to it being tradition. He thinks that the mere mention that tradition is meaningful, is enough to apply the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Nope. I've been doing exactly what Areleth describes.
Now, the extremely clear best way to go is to have a sidebar that talks about how in some campaigns, paladins might be required to be a given alignment, while in others they may not.
and then leave it at that.
mabye give some advice for mechanical consequence stuff if you use the restrictions. Do a lot of people want that?
Anyway, the most important argument against it, to me, is that it limits perfectly reasonable character concepts, to no real gain, and I consider inclusiveness to be inherently better than exclusiveness.
LG only pallies are completely possible in a game that doesn't make that restriction hard coded. The opposite state does not allow non LG pallies. To me, that makes one option very clearly superior.
Essentially tradition is in fact the reason we should include it. No matter what we say here some people will include alignment restrictions because it has always been that way. Having rules to show how those restrictions should effect play is important.
Just a nitpick. Assuming you are otherwise correct, this is an argument for the idea that it should be included because people are likely to use it, not because it's traditional.
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
That point has been made numerous times, in most threads about the paladin.
The main write up shouldn't even touch the subject, but on the same page should be a sidebar, showing both sides, with guidelines and/or hard rules for how to handle varying levels of restriction and consequence.
It should be separate in some sense, like a sidebar, because otherwise it messes with the flow of the page, and create more confusion than a sidebar would. The main write up could have a simple one or two sentences on how paladins interact with alignment in special ways in some worlds and games, and how that should be a group discussion, etc.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Tradition is never relevant. If two options are comparitively equal, you keep looking until you find an actual advantage in one, and if you can't, you just pick one based on whatever nebulus feeling or a coin toss or whatever. One being more traditional has literally no impact on it's value, ever.
With respect, I have to disagree with your premise that tradition is never relevant. Unless there is a clear advantage in an option that would trump tradition that option has less worth than the traditional option. Thing is, things become traditions because people are in favor of (or simply comfortable with) them--any change that has no clear advantage will just displease those that like their tradition. Change, simply for the sake of change is just stupid (like say, replacing the color red in a nation's flag with the color mauve). Change that has a solid, positive reason is going to win out (compare graphing calculators to slide rules--graphing calulators are clearling superior). If there is no appearent reward for a proposed change, then you're just trying to annoy people that have an emotional attachment to whatever you're trying to change.
Mind you, I'm not enirely sure of the context in which you made your statement was made, I'm just sick of seeing statements like that that are dismissive of tradition out of hand.
I will admit that I despise traditionalism as much as I despise fundementalism, so some bias may exist. :P
Seriously, there's real loathing there. I believe strongly that it is a completely vile thing that is incredibly detrimental to our species.
That doesn't mean that all traditions are bad, of course. I love christmas, birthdays, various other things. But those things aren't good because they're traditional. They're generally traditional because they're good, and if that ceases to be the case, they should be instantly dropped without even a momentary glance backward.
If two things are otherwise equal (almost never the case), then the decision comes down to whatever nebulous emotional or instinctive thing makes you reach for one over the other without thinking. Or a coin toss. Doesn't matter, because they're equal.
But it shouldn't take a signifigent advantage of the non tradtional option. literally any advantage whatsoever should immediately lead to the other option being chosen. Likewise, if that slight advantage is with the tradition, without counting traditionalism, it should be kept/chosen.
If two choices are mostly equal, but one is more inclusive, and the other more traditional, the inclusive option should be chosen. doing otherwise requires deciding that tradition is important enough to make the decision, which requires the use of the reasoning that tradition makes it good, and that is fallacious.
anyway, sorry all for the multi posts. long posts were long.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
there we go: If you can easily ignore or change the alignment restriction to whatever you think it should be then why not include it?
The same can be said for not including it.
If it is so easily removed why is it's inclusion so offensive to you?
The same can be said about not including it.
Why can't they appeal to all those who prize tradition above all other things by including this easily ignorable facet?
Tradition is relevant to the conversation, which is why I have been debating the issue with you. Tradition is NOT reason enough to overrule all other reasons. That's where you run afoul of the fallacy.
You need to come up with a reason other than tradition to warrant the exclusion of all people other than those who want Paladins to be LG. We have provided actual reasons for the inclusion of Paladins of all alignments. So far you've only toted tradition.
Indeed. Could you remind us all what the non tradtion based arguements are, though, because I don't remember them.
seriously. not being an ass, I don't remember, and this thread is 31 pages long.
Unfortunately it is impossible to make those points because we run back into that whole subjective thing. Where I see the paladin a specific way and others see it differently. I am going with the new reasoning of it being included to provide rules on something that will apear as a rule on many tables. Essentially the only argument for removing it is that only traditionalists would play with it. Unfortunately that is exactly why the rules must be included. If one of their most basic rules is not represented in some way then they are instantly alienated. For those that are not angered by this alienation and decide to keep on playing they must now take time to figure out a balanced punishment for their own personal alignment rules. These rules will exist nowhere but in their own game and any other alignment restrictions on someone else's table will possibly be wildly different. This further alienates the traditionalist to only play in their own games and never reach out to new groups and to never include new players. This doesn't sound like a good path to go down for the whole bring everyone together vibe that the edition is going for.
Face facts Alignment will be in the new edition. Not only that but the devs have said many times that it is going back to the big 9 as core. With those things known it is very assumable that one of the first things traditionalists will include is some kind of alignment restriction. If those things are already included then the traditionalists are happy, and the alignment rules across their tables are somewhat uniform so that traditionalists can jump from table to table and not have to have the big worry of how will this group use alignment. Even if they jump onto a table full of non rtraditionalists they can bring their own alignment baggage with them. By representing it as optional within the core a traditionalist knows ahead of time that even though they play with alignment these people might not, and they should keep their baggage to themselves. It accomplishes so many things to leave it in while leaving it out does nothing but cast a giant middle finger against traditionalists.
Also This is the last time I use the word traditionalist for someone that wants alignment rules. From here on out I am just going to call them alignment lovers. Frankly with the alignment rules being in the edition, with the big 9 being core, it is very assumable that even players entirely new to the game will enjoy the alignment system. I know it is one of the things about the system I enjoy, and that it was one of the first things that really got me hooked when I got into the nitty gritty of it. From there they might wish for something like these rules and have no basis for how to make it work or that it is even an option. There is a clear need for the rules to exist and no reason not to put them in other than, "I don't want them in", or, "I think the whole alignment system is crap so I don't think new players should be polluted by it".
Now including all of it and letting people know that it is optional is far more preferable than just flipping the bird at anyone that wants the rules. It is far easier to say I want this meatlovers pizza but leave off the peperoni than it is to order a meatlovers pizza and find out you need to make peperoni and add it to the pizza after you get it. By their own admission anything based on alignment will be easily removed so the alignment restrictions will be easy to remove. Anyone that says otherwise, that removing the alignment based things would be hard, is basing their argument on an assumption of failure by the devs. That's not an acceptable reason not to do it.
Also stop using the it's a fallacy argument that is not an argument and is in and of itself a fallacy. Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance. Al you are doing is detracting from actual reasons to not have the alignment restriction.
I would like a reason other than, "because I don't think it should be there".
Since it keeps getting ignored (probably because it is too valid), I will repeat a very relevant point.
It is inefficient to have a paladin defined in two separate places to include optional material. It is more efficient to have the paladin in a single place, highlighting the sections that are optional as optional.
That point has been made numerous times, in most threads about the paladin.
The main write up shouldn't even touch the subject, but on the same page should be a sidebar, showing both sides, with guidelines and/or hard rules for how to handle varying levels of restriction and consequence.
It should be separate in some sense, like a sidebar, because otherwise it messes with the flow of the page, and create more confusion than a sidebar would. The main write up could have a simple one or two sentences on how paladins interact with alignment in special ways in some worlds and games, and how that should be a group discussion, etc.
So you agree that it should be both together and separate. Okay, cool.
I will admit that I despise traditionalism as much as I despise fundementalism, so some bias may exist. :P
Seriously, there's real loathing there. I believe strongly that it is a completely vile thing that is incredibly detrimental to our species.
That doesn't mean that all traditions are bad, of course. I love christmas, birthdays, various other things. But those things aren't good because they're traditional. They're generally traditional because they're good, and if that ceases to be the case, they should be instantly dropped without even a momentary glance backward.
If two things are otherwise equal (almost never the case), then the decision comes down to whatever nebulous emotional or instinctive thing makes you reach for one over the other without thinking. Or a coin toss. Doesn't matter, because they're equal.
But it shouldn't take a signifigent advantage of the non tradtional option. literally any advantage whatsoever should immediately lead to the other option being chosen. Likewise, if that slight advantage is with the tradition, without counting traditionalism, it should be kept/chosen.
If two choices are mostly equal, but one is more inclusive, and the other more traditional, the inclusive option should be chosen. doing otherwise requires deciding that tradition is important enough to make the decision, which requires the use of the reasoning that tradition makes it good, and that is fallacious.
anyway, sorry all for the multi posts. long posts were long.
Despising tradition solely because it is a tradition is no different than liking a tradition solely because it is a tradition. If you think one is fallacious, then both are fallacious. If you think one is not fallacious, then both are not fallacious.
Thus, your argument of "tradition is not relevant" is essentially self-defeating. If someone finds tradition relevant, then it is relevant to them. It doesn't need to be relevant to you to be relevant.
Indeed. Could you remind us all what the non tradtion based arguements are, though, because I don't remember them.
seriously. not being an ass, I don't remember, and this thread is 31 pages long.
Also not being an ass, but I don't remember which sub-discussion we were talking about when the tradition debate arose. :P
Just like Azzy, I don't like tradition being dismissed out of hand. It has a place and relevance in discussions, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the fallacy.
If you say that if two things are otherwise equal, the traditional one is better, then you are employing the fallacy. Read what you just posted.
I posted that tradition was relevant. I posted that tradition had value if WoTC lost $$$ from breaking with tradition. None of that ran afoul of the fallacy.
All reasoning that is used to give a factor value in determining the value of the larger thing takes the above form.
No. Assigning value to tradition does not run afoul of the form.
X benefits the vast majority, while doing no real harm to anyone. Therefor X is good/correct/better.
It's the Paladin traditionalists like Sleeps that are saying that, not me
The only argument for including the LG only restriction is tradition.
It's not the only argument, though. If changing tradition causes WoTC to lose more $$$ than if they kept it, that loss of revenue is a reason to keep it, even if that loss of revenue is based solely off of tradition.
Personally, I don't believe that would occur, though.
LG only pallies are completely possible in a game that doesn't make that restriction hard coded. The opposite state does not allow non LG pallies. To me, that makes one option very clearly superior.
Unfortunately it is impossible to make those points because we run back into that whole subjective thing.
Subjectivity does not make my points impossible.
Where I see the paladin a specific way and others see it differently. I am going with the new reasoning of it being included to provide rules on something that will apear as a rule on many tables. Essentially the only argument for removing it is that only traditionalists would play with it. Unfortunately that is exactly why the rules must be included.
This makes no sense. You need to clarify. It's also false with regard to it being the only argument. Multiple arguments have been given.
If one of their most basic rules is not represented in some way then they are instantly alienated.
Paladins are NOT one of the most basic rules.
For those that are not angered by this alienation and decide to keep on playing they must now take time to figure out a balanced punishment for their own personal alignment rules.
Nope. They would be given in the optional rules section. Nothing to figure out.
These rules will exist nowhere but in their own game and any other alignment restrictions on someone else's table will possibly be wildly different. This further alienates the traditionalist to only play in their own games and never reach out to new groups and to never include new players. This doesn't sound like a good path to go down for the whole bring everyone together vibe that the edition is going for.
It's also a slipperly slope that won't exist. The optional alignments for Paladins section would nip that worry in the bud.
Face facts Alignment will be in the new edition.
As an optional module. Since alignment will be an optional module, alignments for Paladins should be in the optional section as well.
Also This is the last time I use the word traditionalist for someone that wants alignment rules. From here on out I am just going to call them alignment lovers.
If the shoe fits...
Seriously, though, some love alignment. Some are traditionalists. Neither position in and of itself is enough to warrant the inclusion of LG only Paladins. There needs to be an actual REASON that is superior to the reasons given by the other side.
It is far easier to say I want this meatlovers pizza but leave off the peperoni than it is to order a meatlovers pizza and find out you need to make peperoni and add it to the pizza after you get it.
It's even easier to just order the pizza with all alignments and remove the ones you don't like.
By their own admission anything based on alignment will be easily removed so the alignment restrictions will be easy to remove. Anyone that says otherwise, that removing the alignment based things would be hard, is basing their argument on an assumption of failure by the devs. That's not an acceptable reason not to do it.
The problem is that they are not removing alignment restrictions. They are ADDING the alignments for all Paladins to the rules.
If Paladins are inclusive of all alignments, all alignments are in the rules and EVERYBODY can play the Paladin that they like. If your group wants only LG Paladins, they need make ZERO changes to the rules. Your group just playes only the LG type.
If Paladins are only LG, then there are no rules at all anywhere for anyone who wants to play a Paladin of a type other than LG. They have to create the rules from scratch, which is something that many people are loathe to do. Especially new DMs. They are afraid to change the rules.
It's only the second option that creates problems and issues for people wanting to play Paladins.
I would like a reason other than, "because I don't think it should be there".
You have been given several that you have read and dismissed out of hand.
