IDDQD PressThe Fall of the Paladin
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals
– Hamlet Act 2, Scene
We give artists way too much leeway when it comes to RPG designs. Take the Paladin for instance. It should fit what you are going for in the text. Later editions of D&D are full of crap that was just some furry elf jizz inspired side trope and the buyer is like.. "yeah.. uh... paladin of Lolth? Sounds good."
If anybody objects, players and DMs are like "why can't my goddess of spider bondage be a goddess of light? Why can't my black elf with the gay rapelationship with my mount-lover-griffon cast radiant fireballs of holy Lolth?"
"Why can't the nine Hells and seven Heavens have a peaceful relationship and then we can have demon celestials with +7 charisma?"
When I was playing D&D last summer, I got to thinking about killing goblins in their sleep. My neutral good companion said "but they would be defenseless!" Thing is, I was playing a warlock of a solar angel... which is interesting in terms of paradigm.
“And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
I have no idea where the idea of killing horrible monsters, demons, and goblins (which are literally just variant demonic entities in the old lore) in their sleep is considered an evil act, but it definitely didn't originate with the same paradigm as angels. Thus my thoughts on the Wisdom function of Mage: the Awakening is heavily skewed.
Me, being the Lawful Stupid Paladin stand in, I turned to the nature loving Ranger for decisive moral interpretation of what we should do. Without hesitation, he said we should kill them in their sleep. And proceeded room by room to do so. At that point, the Bard could say nothing.
It is interesting to note, that at one point I was gathering bows for resale, and had them all piled up into a bundle. I said "I appear to have a regular British faggot." The bard player replied "don't use that word" I said "faggot means a bundle of sticks. These are a bundle of sticks." He was adamant.
Social Justice was strong with this one. It tells me that many people are coming from a warped version of morality, and the idiotic crap in the Wisdom table is the byproduct of this saturation of rotting brains and moral degeneracy. Killing goblins could be considered as morally questionable as saying faggot. To him,, saying faggot was considered more evil than killing goblins, more evil than goblins themselves.
By 2000, the Paladin has lost his armor, his horse, and is dressed like a ranger. He’s also had a sex change and likes wearing tight leather, and shooting things from a distance with his bow while camping in the forest. There’s no coat of arms or indication of ties to nobility. He (she, it, xir, whatever) is also an elf, a mythological creature tied to the fey, which King James of Scotland once cited in his Book of Daemonologie as a deceptive apparition created by the devil to lead women down a beautiful path to hell. Naturally, we need not be reminded though that the original stock alignment of Elves was Lawful Good (if you don’t count the drow) so there’s some measure of subconscious preservation of the core element luring players in.
By 2014, he’s completely lost his humanity, but he’s got his armor back complete with a big shield. Of course, he now looks like an Orc Berserker, but it does look as if his coat of arms and colors might exist once again, despite being a monster. Fans of Lord of the Rings will recall how Orcs are described as magically twisted monsters based on elven stock corrupt at twisted.
By 2017, he’s gone full transgender, wearing a dress very similar in length to that of the maidens he used to save back in the 70s. As for weapons, he “turned ‘em all in” for a stick. His armor is no more, not even leathers from his first emo tranny phase. He’s moved on from pathetic orc traits to pure draconic reptilian, and probably breaths fire.
Before 2020 hits, he’s abandoned the tranny phase and the rite of passage of otherkin furries, and gone back for the old sword and heavy armor, burning brightly with the fiery wrath of Hell….wait… wut?
No, seriously, how the fuck did we get here?
We can begin by examining the devolution of the Detect Evil power:
By 2nd edition you can’t detect evil beings anymore; only evil intent, so a demon could be at your door with a long term plot of visiting the city and undermining the kingdom, but if at that moment they happen to be thinking about lunch, they go undetected.
By 3.5e, you can detect “evil” again, but it can be blocked by a bit of dirt, wood or sheet metal, and if the target has a lot of hit points, such as the demon’s pet demonwater fire buffalo mount, it stuns the paladin rendering him weak and open to attack.
And by 5th edition, detect evil no longer works more than a few seconds a day, and more importantly, doesn’t work on humans, demihumans (elves and dwarves) or humanoids, except those classified as fiends, celestials, and undead; which also means it will not detect a Chaotic Evil Tiefling born and raised in hell – much less an assassin, serial killer, or cultist. Let us dwell on that for a moment. The most evil man in the world, literally raised in hell, whose father is Satan, and could literally be Rosemary’s Baby or Damien the Antichrist from the Omen – this man, this spawn of hell will NOT detect as evil for the Paladin, whose purpose is to find and eradicate evil... or at least It used to be.
Has the mission of the Paladin changed over the last 40 years? To understand the Paladin's original mission, let’s look both at its butchered historical origins and the impact D&D has had on our culture and what it means in the vernacular to be a Paladin. Long Ago in the land of France, Paladins were an order created by Charles the Great, or Charlemagne, composed of noble knights, hired to slay Saracens who were in the process of conquering France, traveling up from the Iberian peninsula and were halted for a short time by a French general named Odo. Their Armor, tactics, and victory against the Muslim invaders led to a mythology and story books around them, and the legends of characters like King Arthur and Siegfried were integrated and assimilated, intermingled with embellished figures like 8th century Paladin Roland, and the 12th century Norman King Richard the Lionheart (Richard Cœur de Lion, likely the true origin of the city Coeur d'Alene, which means something nonsensical in French like “heart of an awl”, a clear example of the Bastardization of the language and erasure of heroic figures).
Point is, "Paladin" means a Knight in Shining Armor of Upstanding Goodly Virtue, typically Christian. One of Jesus Christ's most frequent miracles was fighting demons, and the Paladin incorporates that Christian mission to fight against the forces of darkness, devils, and demons. In the original formula of the Paladin, the powers granted to them are associated with their mission: They may banish and destroy the undead, but also demons and devils. By the time Unearthed Arcana is released, they are endowed with special protections against illusions, enchantments, charms, mesmerism, mental control and notably possession. Obtaining their Holy Sword, called an Avenger (suggesting the Wrath of God), they gained advantages against chaotic evil foes (the alignment of demons, specifically), could dispel magic, and gained resistance to magical spells and effects from creatures like demons, fairies, etc. This hearkens back to the Book of Daemonologie of King James, published in 1597, 14 years before the King James Bible. It also draws inspiration from the Malleus Maleficarum, the Witch’s Hammer of the Catholics from 1487.
While these time lines may seem later period than the medieval period from which they seem to hail, the Knight in Shining armor, as an amalgam hero of mixed European cultures is always idealized in the finest full plate armor, something that came into existence in the Burgandian and Italian wars, between 1474 and 1559, and continued popularity into the European religious wars such as counter reformation of 1545 and the Thirty Years War of 1618-1648, ending in the treaties of Westphalia in Germany.
Back to our two centuries, namely the 20th and 21st, we can see how this crusader-knight, holy warrior, templar-saint in armor with a sword, lance, and other masculine heroic artifacts gets dumbed down, compromised, and emasculated. From the get-go, the Paladin loses their 10 intelligence requirement. This may not seem that important, but at the time of publication, Wizards only required a 9 intelligence. This probably had something to do with the Aristocracy being the chief student body of Ivy League universities and likely modeled somewhat on the Liberal Arts education described in The Book of the Courtier, a knight’s education published in 1528 and translated to the King’s English in 1561. With careful inspection a curious mind will discover the 100-900 courses of a university represent 1st through 9th level spells, complete with a break of “Master” associated with the master’s degree around 9th level as they transition from 5th to 6th level spells, or “graduate level courses”. What does this mean for the Paladin? It means the Paladin was expected to be at least as smart if not smarter than many highly educated men of their day. They were never intended to be dull witted laughing stocks, but rather fluent in multiple languages, geometry, history and the fine arts.
Next you can see a depreciation in the minimum physical requirements of the Paladin. From 15 strength down to 12, then from 12 to “important”, but no minimum standards applied. In the modern military, there are standards and if you cannot meet them, you will not be permitted to enroll in elite fighting forces. If you fail their tests, you will wash out. This is true of police, firefighters, soldiers, and special operatives and forces who hold high positions of honor. In the Far East, in martial arts, there are ranks which cannot be reached without passing rigorous physical tests of strength, balance, and endurance. Speaking of Balance, the Paladin at one time required 15 dexterity, which closely matches the acrobatic requirements outlined in the aforementioned Book of the Courtier. By the 2nd edition, Dexterity is completely ignored, and the paladin has added clumsy to his repertoire which already includes stupid, though we still retain strength, which conjures the image of a clumsy, stupid oaf, harassing innocent people in the name of the King. Lawful stupid was born.
Next on the hit list, we see the reduction of Constitution from 15 to 9 by the late 1980s and a nonexistent trait by the end of the 20th century, implying the Paladin is more flimsy, soft, and effete – ideal attributes for an armored Tank right? By the third edition, the Paladin is assumed to be a scrawny elven female in tight leather, and the notion of being lawful good is starting to rapidly fade. By 5th edition, you can be any alignment. For example, in a recent 5e game, a player was acting “good”, to the confusion of the fighter:
By the 21st century, being lawful good is seen as derogatory and a weakness, and considering the loss of manly virtues found in the original archetype, who could blame them? In 5th edition, your highest stat is usually 16 using point distribution, and they designated strength as your highest attribute, followed by Charisma, which presumably would be 15, making this 2 points lower than the minimum Charisma of the 1st and 2nd Editions. Advanced indeed.
Speaking of advancement, it might be obvious from the progression through the decades that the requirements for leveling decreased with age. Advanced D&D Paladins needed 700,000 experience points, while 5e paladins require a mere 64,000. Notwithstanding the similarity in awarded Experience points for defeating something like a large dragon or Pit Fiend. The Two are compared below, using 10th level for Exp comparisons:
Original Paladin vs. Ancient Red Dragon: 7758 exp (2.2% of next level, 1.1% of total) 5th Ed. Paladin, vs. Ancient Red Dragon: 36,500 exp (173% of next level, 57% of total)
Original Paladin vs. Ancient Red Dragon: 9772 exp (2.79% of next level, 1.39% of total) 5th Ed. Paladin vs. Pit Fiend: 25,000 exp (119% of next level, 32% of total)
This data can be inverted to draw more direct conclusions: How many demons or dragons did your paladin slay to level up? How many would they have to slay to get to their current level?
Visualized like this, it is clear, the 1st edition paladin has to achieve considerably more heroics in order to claim their title. Put another way, the later edition Paladins are entitled. By 20th level, a 1st edition Paladin needs 4.2 million experience points, compared with the 5e paladin’s 355,000 experience points. Put in terms of Demons and Dragons, you are looking at 358 more demons, or 455 more dragons slain in 1st edition; and either 8.4 demons or 5.7 dragons in 5e terms. To be even more autistic, their totals come to 429.9/11.525 demons and 545.9/7.45 dragons. That’s a factor of 73.27 more dragons and factor of 37.3 more demons, respectively, an average of 55.28. It is therefore reasonable to say the original Paladin had to work at least fifty times harder than his awkward pansexual otherkin descendants.
While the 5e Dragon is a bit more powerful in some ways; The Pit Fiend of 5e is a pathetic husk of its former self. In either event, the pattern holds. The Advanced D&D Paladin has to work 30 to 100 times harder to level. In exchange for harder work, they obtain greater returns which later edition paladins fail at, except rapid progress toward the title of 20th level. Trophy much? Speaking of Participation Trophies, let’s talk about Milestones:
In a Milestone adventure, the Paladin need not earn anything, he merely need be participating (or playing a furry variant of Candy Crush on his smartphone) in an adventure that may not ever challenge him in any moral or combative way whatsoever, coasting along in life, not doing anything. He could simply be following a Halfling thief who finds a shiny rock on the 3rd floor. Bam, instant party level. What once took thirty quests now takes 30 seconds of searching buildings or rolling persuasion checks to complete next Cut Scene.
There is a perverse sense of irony in all this – later edition Paladins spend 10-20 levels trying to “earn” (not really, but whatever) the powers of the original Archetype. For example, At 15th level a 5e paladin radiates protection from evil as the spell. Advanced D&D? 1st level, and it’s the higher level version with a 10’ radius. Fear immunity? 10th – 18th level for the 5e character, again, 1st level for the Advanced Paladin.
But why is the First Edition Paladin so “Over Powered”?
The Concept of Overpowered misses two things:
First, the deception of what power is, how the world of SJW cucks wants you to think about it. “Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”. Who says this? Someone who wants to rape your kids and probably has the political clout to do so. The concept that being resistant to things like fear and possession or, you know, brain washing – are good things – never occurs to these people. Rather, they see them as obstacles to their own power, and always have. The whole concept of being able to defend yourself from some sort of Rambo Last Blood Human Trafficking Cartel or an Epstein-NXIVM politically backed sex cult terrifies these people. What could be more powerful and dangerous than the power to resist?
The Dynamic of the male role is one of the Quest, and part of that quest is penetrating the defenses entering the cave, fending off rivals, and seizing the treasure, from which prosperity, possibilities, and ascension are obtained. Through the victory of the quest, the hero obtains the hand of the maiden, gains the good will of the crown, and lives happily ever after. This is a metaphor of the primal drive to take risks, struggle for life, and have progeny. It is the great commandment: Be Fruitful and Multiply. Who could possibly hate this quest? Who could hate this kind of power acquisition? Obviously anyone who uses “breeder” in a derogatory sense. A feminazi who thinks Sacrificing her kids to a demon god in exchange for a golden statue might also be offended by the Quest. Someone who fundamentally hates life, and believes humanity is a plague that should be purged.
But there’s a second important reason the Paladin is endowed with power: The Paladin is the Archetypical Hero, and they have the burden of carrying the party. What does this mean? In a battlefield, you may see allies fall, while the enemy is still advancing. Amidst the cacophony of explosions and weapons fire, the hero has to put his life on the line to go out there into that hell and make sure no man is left behind. He has to come for the wounded, and come for the dead, and carry their bodies back for burial. He has to dodge whatever comes his way and block whatever the enemy throws at him, even while shielding the fallen with his own body. And if he is to win, he has to give more than he’s gotten – he needs to be able to charge into the enemy camp and route them out, alone if necessary, outmanned and outgunned. Because that’s what a hero would do, that’s what a hero must do. To carry the party means when the chips are down, and one man is left standing, he plants that flag, lifts that sword, and holds his ground. His resolve must be adamant and his resistance unswerving.
Balance? What the hell is that?
Communist Propaganda to make once mighty men feel small and granular, dispelling within them the convictions necessary to triumph. Marginalizing and measuring men is a psy-op designed to make victory possible for the many incompetents against the brave few.
Next time you are in a war zone worried about whether your ass will be blown off, ask yourself if you want a betacuck statistic coming to save you, or a badass.
Was this made by a schizophrenic? This feels like I'm reading Time Cube shit
The article seems pretty cogent to me. I mean, paladins really have been undeniably cucked
this is the guy that wrote it.
prove me wrong.
i guarantee it isnt
because I'm also
OP is right, even if he's the original writer. Paladins have been brutally watered down in theme and mechanics since OD&D.
Nice try OP
Unless your schizophrenia is so advanced you can't even tell you're MPS-Posting
>if he disagrees with me he a schizo
OP, nobody is falling for it.
Come on.
This shit is written like "Industrial Society and Its Future".
If you see a suspected crack addict with a bag of white crystals and powder, you should assume it's crack. Inversely, if you see suspiciously schizo shit in a thread by a suspected schizo, you should assume it's them.
The article has a point. It also has retarded schizogay christcuck bullshit stapled onto that point. It's nice that we've got actual number-crunching and comparisons and reference points showing us when paladins devolved over the years, but the SJW shit can only account for the most recent degradations of the archetype, earlier ones have more to do with the need to make the game easier for lazy people, or with awkward nerdy boys (not altogether different from the author) feeling like the paladin's shoes are too big to fill, or with GMs mistakenly allowing a heroic christian stereotype in gritty sword-and-sorcery wild west types of setting where moral struggles are less relevant, leading to situations where the paladin comes off as a dork or a nuisance.
Okay, I'm reading down a bit and I'm digging some of this stuff. Like this image. I think I'mma make threads about the Paladin being cucked and corrupted in the future, but might tone down the schizzy writing style.
>By 2000, the Paladin has lost his armor, his horse, and is dressed like a ranger.
That's 3.0.
This retard cannot even read the rules.
3.0 game out in 2000 moron
And 3.0 Paladins have a mount, full plate proficiency and all that jazz.
OP is mad because Alhandra is a she and has a scale mail in the pic. Thing that happen because often you cannot afford full plate at level 1.
Retard.
Why the fuck are they illustrating Paladins as elven rangers, though? It reminds me of how they turned the Free Council in Awakening into a gay pride parade.
You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Let me guess - this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.
Dude even Utah thinks your Mormon bullshit is weird and you fuckers own the place. Why do you think your creepy christian cult will find ideological purposes on 4chan of all places?
Even the far-right thinks you're weird, dude.
Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
>still seven posters
New Superhero setting idea. A terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the world's largest (and kinkiest) gay pride parade. The bomb doesn't manage to kill anyone though, instead people begin mutating into superhumans. Suddenly the superman exists and he is really, really fucking gay. And there's dozens of them, going around the world fighting bigots with their superpowers.
>Trinity is a Mormon gun nut from the American Southwest. He has a long-standing interest in theology, tabletop RPGs, literature, politics, and occultism.
>Christian
>gun nut
>southwest
>TTRPG
Sounds like a beacon of shining masculine heterosexuality in the flaming faggotry that is the rest of this cucked board.
OP it's time to stop posting. If you really hate this flaming homo board so much, why the fuck are you so desperate for attention and acknowledgement from this shitty place that you hate so much?
I have to ask again - are you guys SURE that it's not all a parody or a sort of false flag?
The promotion is entirely
>Look at this idiot and laugh
And at most one /pol/tard defending him but it's probably just OP in a wig
If it is than it's parody that's been going on for 4+ months of consistent schizophrenic weirdness
There's posts going back a month, all in the same rambling schizo style, so pretty dedicated one if so. Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
>Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
They all have different authors, too, and a chat room. Should we join it and see if it's just one person?
everyone knows Greenwich Time is a global conspiracy.
>its still happening
Wow that is pretty fucking pathetic OP. Are you that desperate for attention?
The article seems pretty cogent to me. I mean, paladins really have been undeniably cucked
this is the guy that wrote it.
prove me wrong.
i guarantee it isnt
because I'm also
OP is right, even if he's the original writer. Paladins have been brutally watered down in theme and mechanics since OD&D.
Nice try OP
Unless your schizophrenia is so advanced you can't even tell you're MPS-Posting
>if he disagrees with me he a schizo
OP, nobody is falling for it.
Come on.
This shit is written like "Industrial Society and Its Future".
If you see a suspected crack addict with a bag of white crystals and powder, you should assume it's crack. Inversely, if you see suspiciously schizo shit in a thread by a suspected schizo, you should assume it's them.
The article has a point. It also has retarded schizogay christcuck bullshit stapled onto that point. It's nice that we've got actual number-crunching and comparisons and reference points showing us when paladins devolved over the years, but the SJW shit can only account for the most recent degradations of the archetype, earlier ones have more to do with the need to make the game easier for lazy people, or with awkward nerdy boys (not altogether different from the author) feeling like the paladin's shoes are too big to fill, or with GMs mistakenly allowing a heroic christian stereotype in gritty sword-and-sorcery wild west types of setting where moral struggles are less relevant, leading to situations where the paladin comes off as a dork or a nuisance.
this is the guy that wrote it.
prove me wrong.
i guarantee it isnt
because I'm also
OP is right, even if he's the original writer. Paladins have been brutally watered down in theme and mechanics since OD&D.
Nice try OP
Unless your schizophrenia is so advanced you can't even tell you're MPS-Posting
>if he disagrees with me he a schizo
OP, nobody is falling for it.
Come on.
This shit is written like "Industrial Society and Its Future".
If you see a suspected crack addict with a bag of white crystals and powder, you should assume it's crack. Inversely, if you see suspiciously schizo shit in a thread by a suspected schizo, you should assume it's them.
i guarantee it isnt
because I'm also
Is this satire?
No anon, it's just schizophrenia that OP will defend while everyone else looks on and goes "What the fuck is wrong with you dude?"
What the fuck is wrong with you dude?
It's part of the crypto-skitzo agenda to destroy the expectation of reason or comprehension.
No anon, it's just schizophrenia that OP will defend while everyone else looks on and goes "What the fuck is wrong with you dude?"
What the fuck is wrong with you dude?
https://iddqd.press/2020/01/the-fall-of-the-paladin/?trashed=1&ids=1445
It's part of the crypto-skitzo agenda to destroy the expectation of reason or comprehension.
https://iddqd.press/2020/01/the-fall-of-the-paladin/
Okay, I'm reading down a bit and I'm digging some of this stuff. Like this image. I think I'mma make threads about the Paladin being cucked and corrupted in the future, but might tone down the schizzy writing style.
>By 2000, the Paladin has lost his armor, his horse, and is dressed like a ranger.
That's 3.0.
This retard cannot even read the rules.
3.0 game out in 2000 moron
And 3.0 Paladins have a mount, full plate proficiency and all that jazz.
OP is mad because Alhandra is a she and has a scale mail in the pic. Thing that happen because often you cannot afford full plate at level 1.
Retard.
Why the fuck are they illustrating Paladins as elven rangers, though? It reminds me of how they turned the Free Council in Awakening into a gay pride parade.
You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Let me guess - this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.
Dude even Utah thinks your Mormon bullshit is weird and you fuckers own the place. Why do you think your creepy christian cult will find ideological purposes on 4chan of all places?
Even the far-right thinks you're weird, dude.
Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
>still seven posters
New Superhero setting idea. A terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the world's largest (and kinkiest) gay pride parade. The bomb doesn't manage to kill anyone though, instead people begin mutating into superhumans. Suddenly the superman exists and he is really, really fucking gay. And there's dozens of them, going around the world fighting bigots with their superpowers.
OP is right, even if he's the original writer. Paladins have been brutally watered down in theme and mechanics since OD&D.
Nice try OP
Unless your schizophrenia is so advanced you can't even tell you're MPS-Posting
>if he disagrees with me he a schizo
OP, nobody is falling for it.
Come on.
This shit is written like "Industrial Society and Its Future".
If you see a suspected crack addict with a bag of white crystals and powder, you should assume it's crack. Inversely, if you see suspiciously schizo shit in a thread by a suspected schizo, you should assume it's them.
Nice try OP
Unless your schizophrenia is so advanced you can't even tell you're MPS-Posting
>if he disagrees with me he a schizo
OP, nobody is falling for it.
Come on.
This shit is written like "Industrial Society and Its Future".
If you see a suspected crack addict with a bag of white crystals and powder, you should assume it's crack. Inversely, if you see suspiciously schizo shit in a thread by a suspected schizo, you should assume it's them.
quick, spam the most disgusting furry porn you can
>if he disagrees with me he a schizo
OP, nobody is falling for it.
Come on.
This shit is written like "Industrial Society and Its Future".
If you see a suspected crack addict with a bag of white crystals and powder, you should assume it's crack. Inversely, if you see suspiciously schizo shit in a thread by a suspected schizo, you should assume it's them.
>By 2000, the Paladin has lost his armor, his horse, and is dressed like a ranger.
That's 3.0.
This retard cannot even read the rules.
3.0 game out in 2000 moron
And 3.0 Paladins have a mount, full plate proficiency and all that jazz.
OP is mad because Alhandra is a she and has a scale mail in the pic. Thing that happen because often you cannot afford full plate at level 1.
Retard.
Why the fuck are they illustrating Paladins as elven rangers, though? It reminds me of how they turned the Free Council in Awakening into a gay pride parade.
You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Let me guess - this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.
Dude even Utah thinks your Mormon bullshit is weird and you fuckers own the place. Why do you think your creepy christian cult will find ideological purposes on 4chan of all places?
Even the far-right thinks you're weird, dude.
Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
>still seven posters
New Superhero setting idea. A terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the world's largest (and kinkiest) gay pride parade. The bomb doesn't manage to kill anyone though, instead people begin mutating into superhumans. Suddenly the superman exists and he is really, really fucking gay. And there's dozens of them, going around the world fighting bigots with their superpowers.
OP, nobody is falling for it.
Come on.
3.0 game out in 2000 moron
And 3.0 Paladins have a mount, full plate proficiency and all that jazz.
OP is mad because Alhandra is a she and has a scale mail in the pic. Thing that happen because often you cannot afford full plate at level 1.
Retard.
Why the fuck are they illustrating Paladins as elven rangers, though? It reminds me of how they turned the Free Council in Awakening into a gay pride parade.
You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Let me guess - this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.
Dude even Utah thinks your Mormon bullshit is weird and you fuckers own the place. Why do you think your creepy christian cult will find ideological purposes on 4chan of all places?
Even the far-right thinks you're weird, dude.
Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
>still seven posters
New Superhero setting idea. A terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the world's largest (and kinkiest) gay pride parade. The bomb doesn't manage to kill anyone though, instead people begin mutating into superhumans. Suddenly the superman exists and he is really, really fucking gay. And there's dozens of them, going around the world fighting bigots with their superpowers.
lol
And 3.0 Paladins have a mount, full plate proficiency and all that jazz.
OP is mad because Alhandra is a she and has a scale mail in the pic. Thing that happen because often you cannot afford full plate at level 1.
Retard.
Why the fuck are they illustrating Paladins as elven rangers, though? It reminds me of how they turned the Free Council in Awakening into a gay pride parade.
You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Let me guess - this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.
Dude even Utah thinks your Mormon bullshit is weird and you fuckers own the place. Why do you think your creepy christian cult will find ideological purposes on 4chan of all places?
Even the far-right thinks you're weird, dude.
Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
>still seven posters
New Superhero setting idea. A terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the world's largest (and kinkiest) gay pride parade. The bomb doesn't manage to kill anyone though, instead people begin mutating into superhumans. Suddenly the superman exists and he is really, really fucking gay. And there's dozens of them, going around the world fighting bigots with their superpowers.
This shit is written like "Industrial Society and Its Future".
If you see a suspected crack addict with a bag of white crystals and powder, you should assume it's crack. Inversely, if you see suspiciously schizo shit in a thread by a suspected schizo, you should assume it's them.
>Trinity is a Mormon gun nut from the American Southwest. He has a long-standing interest in theology, tabletop RPGs, literature, politics, and occultism.
Why the fuck are they illustrating Paladins as elven rangers, though? It reminds me of how they turned the Free Council in Awakening into a gay pride parade.
You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Let me guess - this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.
Dude even Utah thinks your Mormon bullshit is weird and you fuckers own the place. Why do you think your creepy christian cult will find ideological purposes on 4chan of all places?
Even the far-right thinks you're weird, dude.
Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
>still seven posters
New Superhero setting idea. A terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the world's largest (and kinkiest) gay pride parade. The bomb doesn't manage to kill anyone though, instead people begin mutating into superhumans. Suddenly the superman exists and he is really, really fucking gay. And there's dozens of them, going around the world fighting bigots with their superpowers.
The article has a point. It also has retarded schizogay christcuck bullshit stapled onto that point. It's nice that we've got actual number-crunching and comparisons and reference points showing us when paladins devolved over the years, but the SJW shit can only account for the most recent degradations of the archetype, earlier ones have more to do with the need to make the game easier for lazy people, or with awkward nerdy boys (not altogether different from the author) feeling like the paladin's shoes are too big to fill, or with GMs mistakenly allowing a heroic christian stereotype in gritty sword-and-sorcery wild west types of setting where moral struggles are less relevant, leading to situations where the paladin comes off as a dork or a nuisance.
You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Let me guess - this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.
"You are a schizo"
No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
Dude even Utah thinks your Mormon bullshit is weird and you fuckers own the place. Why do you think your creepy christian cult will find ideological purposes on 4chan of all places?
Even the far-right thinks you're weird, dude.
Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
>still seven posters
Ok sorry.
You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
My bad.
Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.
How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?
Quick skim through this rambling, nonsensical schizo bullshit and wow this weird description. So OP wants Paladins to have above 15 stats in nearly every attribute to obviously reflect how they're better than everybody and to be lawful perfect warriors of Christ.
>Balance? What the hell is that?
>Communist Propaganda to make once mighty men feel small and granular, dispelling within them the convictions necessary to triumph. Marginalizing and measuring men is a psy-op designed to make victory possible for the many incompetents against the brave few.
So class balance is now a communist plot. Very nice OP, great game design.
>So class balance is now a communist plot. Very nice OP, great game design.
I agree with you on that part, but he's right about paladins being turned into everything except the Aryan crusader type thing which is kind of their whole point. Like that Buddhist (or whatever the fuck that thing is supposed to be) lizardkin illustration was pure cringe
>Aryan crusader type thing which is kind of their whole point
...since when was that their point? Charlemagne was over 300 years before pope Urban II called for a Crusade.
Gee, I dunno
>So OP wants Paladins to have above 15 stats
I actually played AD&D 2e and this was a pain in the neck. If you made your players roll for stats (the standard back then) you would end up with people never able to play one.
3.0 Paladin's was still MAD but with workarounds, Pathfinder mitigated it a bit and buffed the class.
There's nothing wrong with being weak, scrawny, stupid, and a trannie otherkin, which are central tenets of great game design.
older edition paladins still had flaws, like taxes paid to a church, maximum number of magical devices, downtime restrictions, honor codes, and required much more experience points than fighters. Even at 20th level the paladin had more XP than mages, clerics, fighters, rangers, or thieves.
How are you persuaded by it? It's rambling nonsense that has no central point. Except to be mad that Paladins aren't perfect paragons that are way way better than everyone else at everything in-game.
An exceedingly based and thoroughly astute synopsis, even if it's written by a cultist of John Brigham.
>So class balance is now a communist plot. Very nice OP, great game design.
I agree with you on that part, but he's right about paladins being turned into everything except the Aryan crusader type thing which is kind of their whole point. Like that Buddhist (or whatever the fuck that thing is supposed to be) lizardkin illustration was pure cringe
>Aryan crusader type thing which is kind of their whole point
...since when was that their point? Charlemagne was over 300 years before pope Urban II called for a Crusade.
Gee, I dunno
Paladins have always been fine in later editions. In 3e they're one of the better martial classes and their spell list is surprisingly good. In 4e they're excellent defenders with healing magic to be leaders in a pinch. In 5e they're one of the strongest burst damaged dealers with potent auras and are the martial 'face' class.
Alignment flexibility for Paladins was necessary due to WotC realizing that alignment is stupid and being a living agent of an ideal can mean more than just Lawful Good arthurian knights.
>Alignment flexibility for Paladins was necessary due to WotC realizing that alignment is stupid and being a living agent of an ideal can mean more than just Lawful Good arthurian knights.
Alignment flexibility for paladins is like having alignment flexibility for drow. The whole point of Paladins is that they are lawful good warriors of God types. Maybe we should have chaos elementals that are lawful now, too. It would be retarded.
Blame every edgy teenager who didn't want the assholes who were actively trying to destroy D&D in the 80s getting in-game representation. Paladins are now the peerless champions of ANY god and must stay dedicated to their alignment/vows or else.
>champions of ANY god
No, they're champions of ideals end of statement. Paladins do not require godly worship of any nature. They draw their power either from within or planes of Positive/Negative energy directly by their dedication to their Oath.
Also I see that fucker posted a lot. Who is he and why does he look like Hugo?
Isn't that even more conductive to them being of any alignment?
Paladins being born of conviction means that a CG character with enough conviction could become a paladin.
Read the description of the Paladin and the Drow in the 5e PHB. The game redefines its terms and contents, just like medical journals do, but by how mentally I'll you think trans people are it's clear you are incapable of moving with the times. You may think a trans person or a Paladin is X, but the definition is Y now and your opinion doesnt change that.
>tsr/wizards/hasbro has a trend of posting ever-more retarded shit
>you're not allowed to remark on how retarded it is on your blog
What kind of faggotry is this?
I prefer to have only LG and LE Paladins (and anti-paladins). I just state it to my players.
The kind of guy in my group that it's gonna play the pala will play LG characters anyway lmao
It's easy to do and it's no commie conspiracy.
alignment is stupid. Agreed. the idea that people would want to see themselves as law abiding opportunists, or dedicated faithful servants to a higher cause, even at the cost of their own lives is ridiculous. Demons should be lawful good. Tax Attorneys Chaotic Good, and boddhisattvas chaotic evil.
>So OP wants Paladins to have above 15 stats
I actually played AD&D 2e and this was a pain in the neck. If you made your players roll for stats (the standard back then) you would end up with people never able to play one.
3.0 Paladin's was still MAD but with workarounds, Pathfinder mitigated it a bit and buffed the class.
New Superhero setting idea. A terrorist sets off a dirty bomb at the world's largest (and kinkiest) gay pride parade. The bomb doesn't manage to kill anyone though, instead people begin mutating into superhumans. Suddenly the superman exists and he is really, really fucking gay. And there's dozens of them, going around the world fighting bigots with their superpowers.
Wow that is pretty fucking pathetic OP. Are you that desperate for attention?
>Alignment flexibility for Paladins was necessary due to WotC realizing that alignment is stupid and being a living agent of an ideal can mean more than just Lawful Good arthurian knights.
Alignment flexibility for paladins is like having alignment flexibility for drow. The whole point of Paladins is that they are lawful good warriors of God types. Maybe we should have chaos elementals that are lawful now, too. It would be retarded.
Blame every edgy teenager who didn't want the assholes who were actively trying to destroy D&D in the 80s getting in-game representation. Paladins are now the peerless champions of ANY god and must stay dedicated to their alignment/vows or else.
>champions of ANY god
No, they're champions of ideals end of statement. Paladins do not require godly worship of any nature. They draw their power either from within or planes of Positive/Negative energy directly by their dedication to their Oath.
Also I see that fucker posted a lot. Who is he and why does he look like Hugo?
Isn't that even more conductive to them being of any alignment?
Paladins being born of conviction means that a CG character with enough conviction could become a paladin.
Read the description of the Paladin and the Drow in the 5e PHB. The game redefines its terms and contents, just like medical journals do, but by how mentally I'll you think trans people are it's clear you are incapable of moving with the times. You may think a trans person or a Paladin is X, but the definition is Y now and your opinion doesnt change that.
>tsr/wizards/hasbro has a trend of posting ever-more retarded shit
>you're not allowed to remark on how retarded it is on your blog
What kind of faggotry is this?
I prefer to have only LG and LE Paladins (and anti-paladins). I just state it to my players.
The kind of guy in my group that it's gonna play the pala will play LG characters anyway lmao
It's easy to do and it's no commie conspiracy.
>Christian
>gun nut
>southwest
>TTRPG
Sounds like a beacon of shining masculine heterosexuality in the flaming faggotry that is the rest of this cucked board.
OP it's time to stop posting. If you really hate this flaming homo board so much, why the fuck are you so desperate for attention and acknowledgement from this shitty place that you hate so much?
I have to ask again - are you guys SURE that it's not all a parody or a sort of false flag?
The promotion is entirely
>Look at this idiot and laugh
And at most one /pol/tard defending him but it's probably just OP in a wig
If it is than it's parody that's been going on for 4+ months of consistent schizophrenic weirdness
There's posts going back a month, all in the same rambling schizo style, so pretty dedicated one if so. Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
>Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
They all have different authors, too, and a chat room. Should we join it and see if it's just one person?
Blame every edgy teenager who didn't want the assholes who were actively trying to destroy D&D in the 80s getting in-game representation. Paladins are now the peerless champions of ANY god and must stay dedicated to their alignment/vows or else.
>champions of ANY god
No, they're champions of ideals end of statement. Paladins do not require godly worship of any nature. They draw their power either from within or planes of Positive/Negative energy directly by their dedication to their Oath.
Also I see that fucker posted a lot. Who is he and why does he look like Hugo?
Isn't that even more conductive to them being of any alignment?
Paladins being born of conviction means that a CG character with enough conviction could become a paladin.
>blog post
OP it's time to stop posting. If you really hate this flaming homo board so much, why the fuck are you so desperate for attention and acknowledgement from this shitty place that you hate so much?
Read the description of the Paladin and the Drow in the 5e PHB. The game redefines its terms and contents, just like medical journals do, but by how mentally I'll you think trans people are it's clear you are incapable of moving with the times. You may think a trans person or a Paladin is X, but the definition is Y now and your opinion doesnt change that.
>tsr/wizards/hasbro has a trend of posting ever-more retarded shit
>you're not allowed to remark on how retarded it is on your blog
What kind of faggotry is this?
I prefer to have only LG and LE Paladins (and anti-paladins). I just state it to my players.
The kind of guy in my group that it's gonna play the pala will play LG characters anyway lmao
It's easy to do and it's no commie conspiracy.
I can't believe this is getting any attention. It's literally a self-promoting blog post.
But its using /pol/-approved buzzwords, so its cool.
Recall that /tg/ unironically LOVED Sergals and made a flurry of unprompted sergal inserts into popular fandoms such as D&D and 40K
This board has always been to pathetic to take a stand against stupid shit and seemly is very unacceptable. As we can see in this very thread people are harkening to OP's rightwing dogwhistle.
Yes I’m a full blown Aussie wanker
I like sergals they are kinda cool and I hate dumb cunts simple as that
>OP's rightwing dogwhistle
>if you don't want your paladins to be tranny spider demons it's because you're just a far right racist
Your post isn't doing anything to dispel the idea of it being a far right dogwhistle.
If anything, it's just making it more likely.
Wanting your paladins to be paladins and not transalignment is moderate, anon. Not far right.
it seems logical if claiming "you don't want your paladins to be tranny spider demons" is skewed as a far-right racist dogwhistle, that the allusions to a psy-op normalizing deviancy is more credible than not.
I have to ask again - are you guys SURE that it's not all a parody or a sort of false flag?
The promotion is entirely
>Look at this idiot and laugh
And at most one /pol/tard defending him but it's probably just OP in a wig
If it is than it's parody that's been going on for 4+ months of consistent schizophrenic weirdness
There's posts going back a month, all in the same rambling schizo style, so pretty dedicated one if so. Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
>Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
They all have different authors, too, and a chat room. Should we join it and see if it's just one person?
But its using /pol/-approved buzzwords, so its cool.
The promotion is entirely
>Look at this idiot and laugh
And at most one /pol/tard defending him but it's probably just OP in a wig
If it is than it's parody that's been going on for 4+ months of consistent schizophrenic weirdness
There's posts going back a month, all in the same rambling schizo style, so pretty dedicated one if so. Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
>Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
They all have different authors, too, and a chat room. Should we join it and see if it's just one person?
>champions of ANY god
No, they're champions of ideals end of statement. Paladins do not require godly worship of any nature. They draw their power either from within or planes of Positive/Negative energy directly by their dedication to their Oath.
Also I see that fucker posted a lot. Who is he and why does he look like Hugo?
Isn't that even more conductive to them being of any alignment?
Paladins being born of conviction means that a CG character with enough conviction could become a paladin.
Recall that /tg/ unironically LOVED Sergals and made a flurry of unprompted sergal inserts into popular fandoms such as D&D and 40K
This board has always been to pathetic to take a stand against stupid shit and seemly is very unacceptable. As we can see in this very thread people are harkening to OP's rightwing dogwhistle.
Yes I’m a full blown Aussie wanker
I like sergals they are kinda cool and I hate dumb cunts simple as that
>OP's rightwing dogwhistle
>if you don't want your paladins to be tranny spider demons it's because you're just a far right racist
Your post isn't doing anything to dispel the idea of it being a far right dogwhistle.
If anything, it's just making it more likely.
Wanting your paladins to be paladins and not transalignment is moderate, anon. Not far right.
it seems logical if claiming "you don't want your paladins to be tranny spider demons" is skewed as a far-right racist dogwhistle, that the allusions to a psy-op normalizing deviancy is more credible than not.
Isn't that even more conductive to them being of any alignment?
Paladins being born of conviction means that a CG character with enough conviction could become a paladin.
Yes I’m a full blown Aussie wanker
I like sergals they are kinda cool and I hate dumb cunts simple as that
>Aryan crusader type thing which is kind of their whole point
...since when was that their point? Charlemagne was over 300 years before pope Urban II called for a Crusade.
Gee, I dunno
>tsr/wizards/hasbro has a trend of posting ever-more retarded shit
>you're not allowed to remark on how retarded it is on your blog
What kind of faggotry is this?
>OP's rightwing dogwhistle
>if you don't want your paladins to be tranny spider demons it's because you're just a far right racist
Your post isn't doing anything to dispel the idea of it being a far right dogwhistle.
If anything, it's just making it more likely.
Wanting your paladins to be paladins and not transalignment is moderate, anon. Not far right.
>Might be an attention-hungry mad autist.
They all have different authors, too, and a chat room. Should we join it and see if it's just one person?
Your post isn't doing anything to dispel the idea of it being a far right dogwhistle.
If anything, it's just making it more likely.
Wanting your paladins to be paladins and not transalignment is moderate, anon. Not far right.
Gee, I dunno
do you think he is putting the comments in manually or is it some kinda bot?
Pretty sure it's a bot setup that he's pruning manually in-between bouts of fantasizing about masturbating and actually beating his wife. He is Mormon after all.
Wanting your paladins to be paladins and not transalignment is moderate, anon. Not far right.
Pretty sure it's a bot setup that he's pruning manually in-between bouts of fantasizing about masturbating and actually beating his wife. He is Mormon after all.
everyone knows Greenwich Time is a global conspiracy.
There's nothing wrong with being weak, scrawny, stupid, and a trannie otherkin, which are central tenets of great game design.
alignment is stupid. Agreed. the idea that people would want to see themselves as law abiding opportunists, or dedicated faithful servants to a higher cause, even at the cost of their own lives is ridiculous. Demons should be lawful good. Tax Attorneys Chaotic Good, and boddhisattvas chaotic evil.
Aight fine:
https://iddqd.press/2020/01/the-fall-of-the-paladin/
it seems logical if claiming "you don't want your paladins to be tranny spider demons" is skewed as a far-right racist dogwhistle, that the allusions to a psy-op normalizing deviancy is more credible than not.
I noticed the same thing actually. Paladins in later editions don't even have to have religious affiliation. So a fedora atheist paladin is a thing Or can be anyway
Yeah. The word "paladin" conjures up this image of the holy crusader. Making them whatever the fuck else destroys the proper themes of the class
Really? Paladins in 4e needed to have the same alignment as the deity they served.
Yeah, IIRC the fedora pallies came in in 5e
Then when did the hell sworn come in?
Yeah. The word "paladin" conjures up this image of the holy crusader. Making them whatever the fuck else destroys the proper themes of the class
Really? Paladins in 4e needed to have the same alignment as the deity they served.
Yeah, IIRC the fedora pallies came in in 5e
Then when did the hell sworn come in?
Started pretty cool with good information. I don't think having to kill 458 dragons to level up is a good idea though. Last part just screwed up completely in my opinion
Yeah, IIRC the fedora pallies came in in 5e
Then when did the hell sworn come in?
the person who wrote this seems like an enormous "that guy"
older edition paladins still had flaws, like taxes paid to a church, maximum number of magical devices, downtime restrictions, honor codes, and required much more experience points than fighters. Even at 20th level the paladin had more XP than mages, clerics, fighters, rangers, or thieves.
Quit this shit retard
> Paladins are watered down, they have no theme!
> so anyway, my warlock who is the servant of an angel...
What a fuckin faggot. Anyway, your writing is sloppy, your assertions are unsupported, and your insistence upon buzzwords and apples to oranges comparisons reveal you for the sperg you are.
Saged, and i award you zero points.
Hot take: Warlocks serve no purpose in DnD when you can be a cleric of a demon lord and get the same powers as one of the strongest god.
Warlocks exist because people wanted to be "blaster" casters and WotC fucked over the spell list for Wizards and didn't wana be arsed to give Sorcerers a meaningfully different spell list.
Shoulda just kept warmage instead then. At least then you can be a blasty character without having a MANDATORY bad backstory
He may be a retarded schizo, but he does have a *bit* of a point. Why *don't* pallies have a higher barrier for entry than other classes, and a slower level progression as a trade-off for being overall stronger. I'd make it something like 12 strength, constitution, and charisma for entry to keep it semi-reasonable, and have paladins need to be within a step of their deity's alignment, so no chaotic evil Pelor paladins or lawful good Lolth paladins.
Have you tried not playing DnD? Holy actual fuck, you faggots have been whining about your game for two actual decades now. Nobody is forcing you to play that shit, please for the love of your own sanity, play something GOOD for once in your miserable lives.
Hot take: Warlocks serve no purpose in DnD when you can be a cleric of a demon lord and get the same powers as one of the strongest god.
Warlocks exist because people wanted to be "blaster" casters and WotC fucked over the spell list for Wizards and didn't wana be arsed to give Sorcerers a meaningfully different spell list.
Shoulda just kept warmage instead then. At least then you can be a blasty character without having a MANDATORY bad backstory
Warlocks exist because people wanted to be "blaster" casters and WotC fucked over the spell list for Wizards and didn't wana be arsed to give Sorcerers a meaningfully different spell list.
Shoulda just kept warmage instead then. At least then you can be a blasty character without having a MANDATORY bad backstory
Shoulda just kept warmage instead then. At least then you can be a blasty character without having a MANDATORY bad backstory
Then when did the hell sworn come in?
DnD in general has been shit for over a decade now. Nobody is forcing you faggots to play it. Have you tried NOT playing DnD?
Anon you know that wouldn't stop anyone from complaining about it at the first opportunity.
Based
fpbp
Why does no one ever take this advice?
BECAUSE THEY GOTTA COMSOOOOOOM
As you could probably tell from the Paizo Pathfinder art, the "Oath of the Hellsworn" is purely homebrew.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/4rb61n/wh_sacred_oath_oath_of_the_hellsworn_be_the/
>skipping the awesome party defender that is the 4e paladin
Shame, shame.
4e and 5e paladins are supposed to represent paladins of all alignments, not just lawful good. Pathfinder 2e's champion is the same thing; "paladin" is just a lawful good champion.
>paladins of all alignments, not just lawful good
That's like saying "men of all genders, not just male." Paladins are lawful good. You cannot just unilaterally redefine them into being transalignment.
D&D paladins are a fictional concept invented for the game. They are whatever alignment the game says they are.
Watch me
>Paladins are lawful good
That's been false for decades, boomer.
Shhhh even though it was done numerous times in TSR's version of Nintendo Power, it doesn't count. Gotta make it political because OP needs his validation (You)s.
i thought that was the OPs point...
It's been false for centuries. Roland and Astolfo were anything but Lawful Good.
you got a little brain
hi DFC
And they seem to always stand alone against an endless onslaught of the corruption of the wicked.
3.x had Paladins of the four alignment extremes, dummy
Paladins are said to be paragons of their respective deity. Paladins in the sense of the colloquial term defining a knight of good nature and order is just the most common iteration. A paladin sworn to a chaos deity could be called a Paladin of Discord, or, sound cooler and call himself a Chaos Knight.
A paladin sworn to Ares could be a Blood Knight in the literal embodiment of the trope, seeking war and battles wherever he may go.
Also, judging from that Reddit link, the homebrew "Oath of the Hellsworn" is from 2016.
It's a "rough draft" from 2016.
sad but true, that anime furry chick looks more like a paladin than half the stuff that came out in later editions.
You can change your setting to what you want, you realize that right?
That's got to be on the top 5 list of DM cop outs
>Hellsworn
Where did you even find this? On the serious note, evil paladins have been a thing for a while - 3.5 even had a Paladin of Slaughter that fell instantly if he did anything lawful or good. You would know it if you played the game.
If he had played the game, he'd know they've been a thing either in books or official magazines since 1e.
>paladins of all alignments, not just lawful good
That's like saying "men of all genders, not just male." Paladins are lawful good. You cannot just unilaterally redefine them into being transalignment.
D&D paladins are a fictional concept invented for the game. They are whatever alignment the game says they are.
Watch me
>Paladins are lawful good
That's been false for decades, boomer.
Shhhh even though it was done numerous times in TSR's version of Nintendo Power, it doesn't count. Gotta make it political because OP needs his validation (You)s.
i thought that was the OPs point...
It's been false for centuries. Roland and Astolfo were anything but Lawful Good.
you got a little brain
hi DFC
And they seem to always stand alone against an endless onslaught of the corruption of the wicked.
3.x had Paladins of the four alignment extremes, dummy
Paladins are said to be paragons of their respective deity. Paladins in the sense of the colloquial term defining a knight of good nature and order is just the most common iteration. A paladin sworn to a chaos deity could be called a Paladin of Discord, or, sound cooler and call himself a Chaos Knight.
A paladin sworn to Ares could be a Blood Knight in the literal embodiment of the trope, seeking war and battles wherever he may go.
Also, judging from that Reddit link, the homebrew "Oath of the Hellsworn" is from 2016.
It's a "rough draft" from 2016.
They extended the concept to allow a greater range of possible characters?
If you want to play a character that has a degree of holy magic and combat ability, play a cleric. Paladins were created to be exemplars of everything good and just. Just as Blackguards are champions of pure evil.
Do you realize nothing is stopping you from only calling the good ones paladins? If you are so fucking autistic about your words the just call the class crusader or whatever you fucking retard
Usually I lurk but holy shit you make no sense.
Words have a meaning.
A paladin has a specific role within a setting, the same way a mage and a cleric have their own specific roles or a ranger and a druid or a thief and a fighter.
If you want to go away from those roles then why don't you just make a point buy system, something like Shadowrun were there are no classes and you just buy whatever skill you want, it would make sense that way.
This is idiotic, are you in actual good faith when you say this kind of stuff or are you some shill pretending not to understand what common sense is?
They don't have to break old traditions: they can make their own.
If paladins aren't paladins anymore then don't even call them that, just call them "Divine Fighters" or something or straight up remove the class and make it easier for players to dual class with cleric/fighter classes.
what is the point of having a separate class for entities that are functionally identical in nature?
>different spell lists
>different themes
>different constraints on behavior
>different weapons and armor
>functionally identical
ok pal
By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
>By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
By YOUR retard logic we should put all classes into the same category since they are all functionally identical in that they deal damage to kill monsters.
So, yes. Having significant differences between the paladin and the knight of discord (or whatever) does, as a matter of fact, merit making them their own class. Like, actually.
>wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things
You are sad little man.
No, not really. You are the one who is asking for a special treatment for a class. Your position is no different than asking for the fey pact warlock to be its own class.
No one wants a four thousand page book of every class concept which doesn't neatly fit into one of the already totally unnecessary 12 Core Book classes. Get over yourself and have some imagination.
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
That's literally 's argument
Yes, actually. It's not a coincidence that 3.5 becomes better when you don't use the big umbrella spellcasters and instead use specialized ones like Dread Necromancer and Warmage.
>themes
>functional
>constraints on behavior
>welcome to 5e
>weapons and amor
>functional
>spell lists
like for every caster subclass?
we get it, you smoke weed
It's a "rough draft" from 2016.
First evil paladins have been introduced in Dragon Magazine 106, february 1986.
https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg106.pdf
But of course, only true fans would know that, not /pol/ crossboarders.
I thought it was pretty obvious the various flavors of Paladin exist to fluff out different kinds of "magic knight" archetypes which are all mechanically similar but thematically different.
A Devotion Paladin, a Death Knight, and an armored nature shaman will all play exactly the same so why make them different classes instead of just subtypes of a core class.
Also is correct. People who think bad guy paladins are just some nuD&D ((((subversion)))) need to stop drinking the Kool Aid and actually consume the media they're so fucking protective over.
>it got mentioned once in a magazine 34 years ago therefore it's not subversive to make it the norm now
Yeah, that boat doesn't sail buddy.
The Black Knight archetype is older than your language
I've thought you people were all about tradition and history. What happened?
I don't recall arguing from tradition or history in this thread. Is this a strawman, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
D&D paladins are a fictional concept invented for the game. They are whatever alignment the game says they are.
Anon you know that wouldn't stop anyone from complaining about it at the first opportunity.
If you want to play a character that has a degree of holy magic and combat ability, play a cleric. Paladins were created to be exemplars of everything good and just. Just as Blackguards are champions of pure evil.
Do you realize nothing is stopping you from only calling the good ones paladins? If you are so fucking autistic about your words the just call the class crusader or whatever you fucking retard
Usually I lurk but holy shit you make no sense.
Words have a meaning.
A paladin has a specific role within a setting, the same way a mage and a cleric have their own specific roles or a ranger and a druid or a thief and a fighter.
If you want to go away from those roles then why don't you just make a point buy system, something like Shadowrun were there are no classes and you just buy whatever skill you want, it would make sense that way.
This is idiotic, are you in actual good faith when you say this kind of stuff or are you some shill pretending not to understand what common sense is?
They don't have to break old traditions: they can make their own.
If paladins aren't paladins anymore then don't even call them that, just call them "Divine Fighters" or something or straight up remove the class and make it easier for players to dual class with cleric/fighter classes.
what is the point of having a separate class for entities that are functionally identical in nature?
>different spell lists
>different themes
>different constraints on behavior
>different weapons and armor
>functionally identical
ok pal
By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
>By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
By YOUR retard logic we should put all classes into the same category since they are all functionally identical in that they deal damage to kill monsters.
So, yes. Having significant differences between the paladin and the knight of discord (or whatever) does, as a matter of fact, merit making them their own class. Like, actually.
>wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things
You are sad little man.
No, not really. You are the one who is asking for a special treatment for a class. Your position is no different than asking for the fey pact warlock to be its own class.
No one wants a four thousand page book of every class concept which doesn't neatly fit into one of the already totally unnecessary 12 Core Book classes. Get over yourself and have some imagination.
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
That's literally 's argument
Yes, actually. It's not a coincidence that 3.5 becomes better when you don't use the big umbrella spellcasters and instead use specialized ones like Dread Necromancer and Warmage.
>themes
>functional
>constraints on behavior
>welcome to 5e
>weapons and amor
>functional
>spell lists
like for every caster subclass?
>Paladins have been ruined
>By the way, let me tell you about my warlock who gets their powers from an angel
What a fucking autistic turbo-faggot.
>balance is a communist propaganda plot
Bitching about "balance" disingenuously, as people did with Paladins, very much is.
>Implying DnD has ever been balanced and hasn't just been about the Wizard becoming a reality-warping god who shits on everyone else
Hilarious.
Bitching about "balance" disingenuously, as people did with Paladins, very much is.
>Implying DnD has ever been balanced and hasn't just been about the Wizard becoming a reality-warping god who shits on everyone else
Hilarious.
I thought it was pretty obvious the various flavors of Paladin exist to fluff out different kinds of "magic knight" archetypes which are all mechanically similar but thematically different.
A Devotion Paladin, a Death Knight, and an armored nature shaman will all play exactly the same so why make them different classes instead of just subtypes of a core class.
Also is correct. People who think bad guy paladins are just some nuD&D ((((subversion)))) need to stop drinking the Kool Aid and actually consume the media they're so fucking protective over.
>it got mentioned once in a magazine 34 years ago therefore it's not subversive to make it the norm now
Yeah, that boat doesn't sail buddy.
The Black Knight archetype is older than your language
I've thought you people were all about tradition and history. What happened?
I don't recall arguing from tradition or history in this thread. Is this a strawman, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
The Black Knight archetype is older than your language
Based
I've thought you people were all about tradition and history. What happened?
I don't recall arguing from tradition or history in this thread. Is this a strawman, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
If they delete this on topic thread, then they pretty actively affirm that the schizopost that is the blog is ultimately correct about it being a communist plot to subvert D&D. The subject of the Paladin being cucked is on topic, so they should leave it be.
>it got mentioned once in a magazine 34 years ago therefore it's not subversive to make it the norm now
Wait until you hear how the druid got made base.
I have no idea how anyone can look at an archetype's qualities and not immediately see an inverse. OP trying to spam their blog shit while yelling "HURR EVIL PALADINS ARE TRANNIES" is just cringe.
I pray to the dark gods the blessed mods take this fucking thread.
Good, they should delete it. It's the fourth fucking time he's posted that image from his godawful blog in order to get desperately wanted attention. He's literally copying and pasting from here into the comments section. Forgot the topic, this is the epitome of attentionwhoring, blog-posting and spamming. I don't give a shit about his stupid argument or political leaning, OP should be banned for that alone. Unless blog-posting and spamming are totally fine if you agree with it?
>I'm gonna deliberately say the word "faggot" in the archaic sense for no reason but to smirk and say "it's just a bundle of sticks lol" when called out on it.
This guy is just one hot take after another of shitty culture war opinions. Functionally identical to a Mary Sue article.
I don't recall arguing from tradition or history in this thread. Is this a strawman, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
Do you realize nothing is stopping you from only calling the good ones paladins? If you are so fucking autistic about your words the just call the class crusader or whatever you fucking retard
Usually I lurk but holy shit you make no sense.
Words have a meaning.
A paladin has a specific role within a setting, the same way a mage and a cleric have their own specific roles or a ranger and a druid or a thief and a fighter.
If you want to go away from those roles then why don't you just make a point buy system, something like Shadowrun were there are no classes and you just buy whatever skill you want, it would make sense that way.
This is idiotic, are you in actual good faith when you say this kind of stuff or are you some shill pretending not to understand what common sense is?
They don't have to break old traditions: they can make their own.
If paladins aren't paladins anymore then don't even call them that, just call them "Divine Fighters" or something or straight up remove the class and make it easier for players to dual class with cleric/fighter classes.
>it got mentioned once in a magazine 34 years ago therefore it's not subversive to make it the norm now
Wait until you hear how the druid got made base.
I have no idea how anyone can look at an archetype's qualities and not immediately see an inverse. OP trying to spam their blog shit while yelling "HURR EVIL PALADINS ARE TRANNIES" is just cringe.
I pray to the dark gods the blessed mods take this fucking thread.
what is the point of having a separate class for entities that are functionally identical in nature?
>different spell lists
>different themes
>different constraints on behavior
>different weapons and armor
>functionally identical
ok pal
By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
>By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
By YOUR retard logic we should put all classes into the same category since they are all functionally identical in that they deal damage to kill monsters.
So, yes. Having significant differences between the paladin and the knight of discord (or whatever) does, as a matter of fact, merit making them their own class. Like, actually.
>wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things
You are sad little man.
No, not really. You are the one who is asking for a special treatment for a class. Your position is no different than asking for the fey pact warlock to be its own class.
No one wants a four thousand page book of every class concept which doesn't neatly fit into one of the already totally unnecessary 12 Core Book classes. Get over yourself and have some imagination.
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
That's literally 's argument
Yes, actually. It's not a coincidence that 3.5 becomes better when you don't use the big umbrella spellcasters and instead use specialized ones like Dread Necromancer and Warmage.
>themes
>functional
>constraints on behavior
>welcome to 5e
>weapons and amor
>functional
>spell lists
like for every caster subclass?
fpbp
Good, they should delete it. It's the fourth fucking time he's posted that image from his godawful blog in order to get desperately wanted attention. He's literally copying and pasting from here into the comments section. Forgot the topic, this is the epitome of attentionwhoring, blog-posting and spamming. I don't give a shit about his stupid argument or political leaning, OP should be banned for that alone. Unless blog-posting and spamming are totally fine if you agree with it?
>different spell lists
>different themes
>different constraints on behavior
>different weapons and armor
>functionally identical
ok pal
By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
>By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
By YOUR retard logic we should put all classes into the same category since they are all functionally identical in that they deal damage to kill monsters.
So, yes. Having significant differences between the paladin and the knight of discord (or whatever) does, as a matter of fact, merit making them their own class. Like, actually.
>wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things
You are sad little man.
No, not really. You are the one who is asking for a special treatment for a class. Your position is no different than asking for the fey pact warlock to be its own class.
No one wants a four thousand page book of every class concept which doesn't neatly fit into one of the already totally unnecessary 12 Core Book classes. Get over yourself and have some imagination.
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
That's literally 's argument
Yes, actually. It's not a coincidence that 3.5 becomes better when you don't use the big umbrella spellcasters and instead use specialized ones like Dread Necromancer and Warmage.
>themes
>functional
>constraints on behavior
>welcome to 5e
>weapons and amor
>functional
>spell lists
like for every caster subclass?
By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
>By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
By YOUR retard logic we should put all classes into the same category since they are all functionally identical in that they deal damage to kill monsters.
So, yes. Having significant differences between the paladin and the knight of discord (or whatever) does, as a matter of fact, merit making them their own class. Like, actually.
>wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things
You are sad little man.
No, not really. You are the one who is asking for a special treatment for a class. Your position is no different than asking for the fey pact warlock to be its own class.
No one wants a four thousand page book of every class concept which doesn't neatly fit into one of the already totally unnecessary 12 Core Book classes. Get over yourself and have some imagination.
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
That's literally 's argument
Yes, actually. It's not a coincidence that 3.5 becomes better when you don't use the big umbrella spellcasters and instead use specialized ones like Dread Necromancer and Warmage.
>themes
>functional
>constraints on behavior
>welcome to 5e
>weapons and amor
>functional
>spell lists
like for every caster subclass?
>By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard
By YOUR retard logic we should put all classes into the same category since they are all functionally identical in that they deal damage to kill monsters.
So, yes. Having significant differences between the paladin and the knight of discord (or whatever) does, as a matter of fact, merit making them their own class. Like, actually.
>wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things
You are sad little man.
No, not really. You are the one who is asking for a special treatment for a class. Your position is no different than asking for the fey pact warlock to be its own class.
No one wants a four thousand page book of every class concept which doesn't neatly fit into one of the already totally unnecessary 12 Core Book classes. Get over yourself and have some imagination.
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
>wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things
You are sad little man.
No, not really. You are the one who is asking for a special treatment for a class. Your position is no different than asking for the fey pact warlock to be its own class.
No one wants a four thousand page book of every class concept which doesn't neatly fit into one of the already totally unnecessary 12 Core Book classes. Get over yourself and have some imagination.
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
That's literally 's argument
Fine, let's reduce the class system to the following:
>anybody who uses weapons is a fighter
>anybody who casts spells is a wizard
>anybody who is sneaky is a rogue
Since all weapons usage martials are functionally identical, all casters are functionally identical, and all sneakybois are functionally identical, we should be able to get by with this three class system.
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
There are systems like that, what is your point?
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
Yes, actually. It's not a coincidence that 3.5 becomes better when you don't use the big umbrella spellcasters and instead use specialized ones like Dread Necromancer and Warmage.
No one is saying any of this shit you ape. The argument is the Paladin's mechanics: a martial who uses Smite attacks, group buffs, and magical-based saving throws all tracing back to a supernatural force--is so thematically malleable it just straight up makes sense to roll up a bunch if subclasses instead of reinventing the wheel.
Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
My point is that there isn't enough granularity. I do not agree that paladins are functionally identical to knights of discord, because they aren't. I think this conflation is whack.
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
>Of course you know this and just want to feel persecuted by ((((subversionists)))) for wanting Smite to be restricted to Lawful Good.
Drow are their own race in spite of just being "evil elves." They are functionally identical to other elves, but they are evil. Should we just delete drow completely?
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
Having golden nuggets in a mess of vestigial classes is not good game design my dude
If you truly cared about granularity you would argue for a classless system where you can just make what you want instead of stubbornly clinging to "muh pure archetype" and irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
I miss when 3.5 was all there and people would bitch and moan about paladin alignment restrictions
I miss when Paladin was just a fighter
I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail
So, never? Paladins are from Matter of France
They're the knights of Charlemagne, though.
AD&D had it right.
>Cleric: Religious militant crusader type guys working for the advancement of their faith.
>Paladin: Knight errants on epic quests dispensing justice and helping the common folk.
>I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail
...anon, that was never the case. Paladins are from a different set of myths entirely. You've tried to make yourself look educated, but instead you just embarassed yourself.
How many people will associate paladins with Charlemagne and how many will associate it with Arthur?
>how many people are complete rubes
Most of them, sure
Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.
Most people will associate them with high fantasy, if they even know the term (I'd bet most people don't). People who know where they're actually from will associate them with Charlemagne.
Not many since one group is referred to as paladins and the other is referred to as the Knights of the Round Table.
Anyone who knows what paladins are will associate them with Charlemagne, because the paladins were servants of Charlemagne, you dunce. Try and conflate them with the knights of the round table all you like, it doesn't change anything.
You mean we should have different classes for warriors of faith who fend off invaders and warriors of faith on a quest for a holy relic?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
obvious bait, but for the record, it's kind of hilarious that the Redemption paladin you're complaining about is by far the most Christian one.
otherwise, pretty much all 5e did was let your paladin be Solomon Kane or the green knight rather than just Galahad. how could anyone have a problem with this?
MAN it's not like those myths never cross-polinated or anything. anyway it wasn't until Victorian-era romances a la Tennyson—when feudalism was distant enough for people to be nostalgic about and ideals of the Christian Gentleman came into fashion among a burgeoning middle class—that the paladin as we know it really became recognizable.
>irrationally demanding a special treatment for a class
I'm not demanding any special treatment for paladins. I'm just saying that paladins should be paladins, much in the same way that men should be men and women should be women.
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
No, they should be a subrace under the actual race just like evil paladins are a subclass within the paladin class. Oh look, they already are.
They're rolled into the race page on Elves and given all of three paragraphs which describe their lore and give them their alternative Ability Score mod.
>Drow are their own race
>They are functionally identical to other elves
Elves aren't even like other elves; what are you fucking talking about?
Again, no one is forcing you to use any terminology. You can call the evil options blackguards if you want just like I can call monks brawlers.
>Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.
rogues should only be thieves
I miss when Paladin was just a fighter
I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail
So, never? Paladins are from Matter of France
They're the knights of Charlemagne, though.
AD&D had it right.
>Cleric: Religious militant crusader type guys working for the advancement of their faith.
>Paladin: Knight errants on epic quests dispensing justice and helping the common folk.
>I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail
...anon, that was never the case. Paladins are from a different set of myths entirely. You've tried to make yourself look educated, but instead you just embarassed yourself.
How many people will associate paladins with Charlemagne and how many will associate it with Arthur?
>how many people are complete rubes
Most of them, sure
Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.
Most people will associate them with high fantasy, if they even know the term (I'd bet most people don't). People who know where they're actually from will associate them with Charlemagne.
Not many since one group is referred to as paladins and the other is referred to as the Knights of the Round Table.
Anyone who knows what paladins are will associate them with Charlemagne, because the paladins were servants of Charlemagne, you dunce. Try and conflate them with the knights of the round table all you like, it doesn't change anything.
You mean we should have different classes for warriors of faith who fend off invaders and warriors of faith on a quest for a holy relic?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
obvious bait, but for the record, it's kind of hilarious that the Redemption paladin you're complaining about is by far the most Christian one.
otherwise, pretty much all 5e did was let your paladin be Solomon Kane or the green knight rather than just Galahad. how could anyone have a problem with this?
MAN it's not like those myths never cross-polinated or anything. anyway it wasn't until Victorian-era romances a la Tennyson—when feudalism was distant enough for people to be nostalgic about and ideals of the Christian Gentleman came into fashion among a burgeoning middle class—that the paladin as we know it really became recognizable.
>paladins of all alignments
LG religious Knight, a paladin. Evil anti-paladin however named as the opposite.
Other alignments can't have paladins. Or moronic Paladins of Slaughter from 3.5 or other bullshit from 4th and 5th edition.
Paladin of McDonalds. Supports a specific fast food company.
>Paladin of McDonald's
>Not being a Pizza Paladin and smiting all those who try to out-pizza the Hut.
>not wanting a LN JUDGE class
>LG religious Knight, a paladin. Evil anti-paladin however named as the opposite.
>Other alignments can't have paladins.
Again, no. Even in the cherry picked text you cite , it mentions paladins
>can detect evil
>can turn undead
>must help all good characters
You're really reaching if you're going to try to argue that Paladins aren't good-aligned in this excerpt, especially since the AD&D handbook explicitly mentions they are lawful good and stresses that even a single chaotic or evil action permanently reduces them to some other class. It's the lamest attempt at ACKHUYALLYing at me.
So you're relying on the interpretation of the class from a later edition to explain why interpretations of the class from later editions are not valid.
Actually, I'm looking at the text of the edition you cited first. And it supports my overall point. Soooooooooooooooooooo
They don't have to be, is the point. The only requirement is lawful alignment, and you cite AD&D as support for the "must be lawful good" argument. Different edition.
>You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good
Incorrect. Even Greyhawk necessitates Good behavior, making them Good. See
That part of my argument is proved RIGHT.
On the contrary, the text states "the paladin may be summoned by the order's leaders at any time, and must do as they command, as long as the service aids the powers of Good". The paladin must obey the command if it is good - if the command is otherwise, they are not bound to obey it, but there's no stating that they can't. Secondly, it states that "a paladin must assist anyone who asks for help - with two exceptions, he does not have to help evil characters or achieve evil goals". So he must still render assistance to those without explicitly good goals, unless he has more important duties to attend to, and has the right of refusal if the goal is evil - but he doesn't necessarily need to exercise that right.
This is the text I was referring to, by the way. And yes, it does count.
Again with the AD&D manual. You don't see the irony in citing a later edition as a reason why later editions are invalid?
>Even Greyhawk necessitates Good behavior
Dude, I have the pdf of greyhawk 1980 open right now and it straight says that the fighting men needs just only to be lawful(the good axis simple not existing at the time) and 17+ charisma.
You are straight up lying.
>can detect evil
>turn undead
>must help non-evil persons
>must obey Good-aligned commands from a lawful authority
>1980
1976*
What these have to do with the argument?
he's right, they are explicitly good in greyhawk
the law-chaos axis at the time was more like a soft good-evil axis anyway
>the law-chaos axis at the time was more like a soft good-evil axis anyway
Well, yes and no. Law vs chaos was in theory just order vs freedom(or tradition vs individuality), Moorcock style, but in practice it just became good vs evil out if laziness and Gygax players wanting nothing but dungeon crawls.
>if
of*
>Lawful. When they were introduced, they only had to be lawful.
there was no good-evil axis. they couldn't be "good-aligned" because it didn't exist, but the text makes it clear they were supposed to be good in the general sense.
i have to disagree, even the very first book of OD&D conflates evil with chaos ("evil high priests", for example, are specifically noted as being aligned with chaos and NOT neutrality or law). it may be that gygax misunderstood moorcock's take on alignment, or maybe he was getting it from another source like 3H&3L, but the association between law/good and chaos/evil was already there.
>here was no good-evil axis. they couldn't be "good-aligned" because it didn't exist
Oh shit, you've got it. You finally understand why you're wrong.
>but the text makes it clear they were supposed to be good in the general sense
The text leaves room for them to be Neutral, however, as none of the acts they're prohibited from or are required would be any issue for such a character.
>i have to disagree, even the very first book of OD&D conflates evil with chaos
OD&D alignment is explicitly Moorcockian. Chaos is evil more often but the world is assumed to run in system where Law can be evil. You have Lawful fiends, after all.
>Oh shit, you've got it. You finally understand why you're wrong.
different person
>The text leaves room for them to be Neutral, however, as none of the acts they're prohibited from or are required would be any issue for such a character.
you're trying your hardest here and i appreciate you want to win this argument but you can loosen up a little. the text specifically states that the abilities they have are for "continual seeking for good". the requirement to be lawful was understood at the time to entail being generally good. if you have a lenient DM you might play one as morally neutral, but that was clearly not the intent.
>OD&D alignment is explicitly Moorcockian.
please show me where is this explicitly spelled out in OD&D. this is an item from the very same OD&D supplement that introduced the paladin:
>Talisman of Lawfulness: This small silver device will cause any Patriarch to have the ability to sink an Evil High Priest to the center of the earth forever. It contains 7 such charges. It may never be recharged. If an evil Cleric touches it, it will deliver from 5-50points of damage, and any other persons who touch a Talisman of Lawfulness, other than Lawful Clerics, take from 5-30 points of damage.
patriach being the lawful equivalent of the chaotic high priest. again, note that chaos is happily treated as interchangable with evil.
>the text specifically states that the abilities they have are for "continual seeking for good"
Actually, the text refers to them as useful for continually seeking good. Doesn't prescribe good as thing the paladin must be, which is the point here - 'good' wasn't an alignment back then.
And literally the moment they had a 'good' alignment, they explicitly stated that Paladins were it. Really tells you what their intent was all along. Don't be disingenuous.
Sure. But you've been using the letter of the text to pursue your goals so far, ignoring that the point of removing the 'good' alignment requirement isn't to corrupt paladins but rather to just make it mechanically easier to write subclasses like "bad fallen paladin", so I don't see why you shouldn't be constrained by technicalities now.
They didn't have 'good' at first because there was no good. The moment it was there, they added it. Then they later on removed it. This is a watering down of the class to make it more ambiguous.
>They didn't have 'good' at first because there was no good.
Yes. But similarly, the decision to take the 'good' requirement away is more complicated than what the mere letter of the text says, which you ignore. So if you're going to ignore that and strawman current paladins, you need to take the raw letter of the old text as law too. Or you're not being consistent.
>This is a watering down of the class to make it more ambiguous
No, no, no, no. I literally just told you why it's actually been done and you ignored it. Just look at the current paladin Oaths, they all require adherence to a rigid moral code that implies good the same way older editions implied good. Paladins in 5e and 4e don't have to be good because ALIGNMENT IS OPTIONAL IN THOSE EDITIONS. All the paladin oaths require you to act good, unless you choose the fallen paladin options, and these options represent ex-paladins that were once good but have turned to evil.
anon please
>The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good
>his continual seeking for good
the paladin's "continual seeking for good" is a baked-in assumption in the sentence. it's not presented as something the paladin MIGHT be doing, it's just assumped that paladins will be continually seeking for good, and the abilities they have are powerful aids for that. it should be pretty fucking obvious given all their abilities are themed around fighting evil, but please just admit that they were designed to be good guys.
Changed a way I don't like =/= watered down.
So elric was a paladin?
Again, if you are going to read the newer edition rules without any regard for the implications of the text and take them as they are technically, you must do the same for OD&D. If you do not, you are being a hypocrite.
Why, though? Why can't someone's position be that Paladins reached their peak at AD&D, and then from there went downhill into faggotry? This idea that you must rely on the newest edition or the very first is retarded
There was an appeal to primogenisis as authority, but that claim was false, the goalposts were then shifted to personal preference presented as objective fact while ignoring contrary evidence.
Standard internet shittery really.
>Why, though?
Why is acting in a contradictory manner hypocritical? I shouldn't have to explain that.
The fact is, OP is wrong about most of what he asserts, and he uses a lack of depth in his analysis of newer paladins to assert that they've changed far more than they have. For example, he asserts that they are less moral because they don't have to have 'good' on their character sheets - and while he's willing to understand that OD&D paladins didn't need this because alignment was different back then, he's not willing to understand the same here. Half his complaints make no sense, like paladins not wearing plate - people were running paladins like this from the very inception of the class! Then there's the really stupid claims, like shit about Lolth paladins of goodness, which are just garbage anecdotes he's made up on the spot to pretend that people are defiling the class.
He's also missed the two most important facts: paladins have broadened because they are now a full class, rather than a subclass, and the specific kind of paladin he likes still exists.
he's completely right on this point, read the text posted here
>The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good.
i don't know why you're still pushing this point, it's based on a misunderstanding of alignment in OD&D
>The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
They are required to conduct Good behavior, which makes them Good by definition. See
Did you miss where that post proves you wrong already?
Two of those examples are spells/abilities and don't have alignment. Helping non-evil characters is not necessarily good, a neutral character can do the same. You're really, really reaching at this point.
Ah, yes, citing the AD&D 1e rules is "reaching."
It is when you're attempting to cite AD&D as the true interpretation of the paladin, when there are older sources to consider.
The AD&D rules are the canonical rules. Your board game rules, which is what "D&D" basically was before the "A" part, don't really apply here. Not to mention, the fact that you need to behave in a consistently Good fashion even in "D&D" demonstrates my point further. Your attempt to slam dunk this is an utter failure.
Now, can we please move on? You're embarrassing yourself.
>The AD&D rules are the canonical rules.
So are those before it.
>Your board game rules, which is what "D&D" basically was before the "A" part, don't really apply here
No true D&D, eh?
>Not to mention, the fact that you need to behave in a consistently Good fashion
Consistently neutral, actually.
You're being goddsmn nigger. The other poster is right.
seething so hard they awuiaflgljfgljfa
"No true scotsman" is as fallacious as ad hominem, Trinity. You declare that AD&D is the TRUE edition, and that any interpretation that differs from it is no true D&D. And there's been about three attempts to point out the holes in your arguments that good behavior is mandated - there are surprisingly few limits on the original paladin, just a few obligations that may not even form the bulk of his adventuring career. And your attempts to claim that the powers he receives for these obligations are in fact good are incorrect - neutral characters are very much capable of using those same abilities.
So now you have the power to declare editions canon. Truly, you are a mighty wizard indeed. It's been explained that paladins are required to do as their order leaders command if the command is good, but are not otherwise limited in obeying or refusing their commands, and that they must still render assistance in non-good matters unless they have more pressing concerns, and that while they can refuse to help evil, they are not forbidden from it. But sure, let's move on. Are there any editions for other games you'd like to declare canon?
Which, where they're a fighter subclass, or where they're a chevalier subclass, or where they're a class under the Warrior grouping?
Also >implying AD&D had a set canon that wasn't contained some box set or a campaign setting splat that influenced the modern Paladin.
You forget that only the sources that agree with me are valid and only the assumptions that I make prove it. So I must be right.
they called the evil paladin the anti-paladin in mock imitation to "anti-christ". It was banned at most tables.
>"No true scotsman" is as fallacious as ad hominem, Trinity. You declare that AD&D is the TRUE edition, and that any interpretation that differs from it is no true D&D. Trinity didn't write that post.
>Paladin of McDonald's
>Not being a Pizza Paladin and smiting all those who try to out-pizza the Hut.
this obviously didn't happen but that faggot thing just makes the author look like a dickhead
Faggot detected
The whole blog is just filled to the brim with tryhard /pol/ shit. He uses a lot of words and his argument amounts to little more than:
>Any paladin portrayal who isn't a male human Old Testament godbotherer in heavy armor is just a tranny emofag powerfantasy for degenerates.
So tl;dr OP likes getting fucked by his beard's bull and doesn't play games like every other /pol/ crossboarder.
Faggot detected
The whole blog is just filled to the brim with tryhard /pol/ shit. He uses a lot of words and his argument amounts to little more than:
>Any paladin portrayal who isn't a male human Old Testament godbotherer in heavy armor is just a tranny emofag powerfantasy for degenerates.
So tl;dr OP likes getting fucked by his beard's bull and doesn't play games like every other /pol/ crossboarder.
If he had played the game, he'd know they've been a thing either in books or official magazines since 1e.
So tl;dr OP likes getting fucked by his beard's bull and doesn't play games like every other /pol/ crossboarder.
>for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies
>not wanting a LN JUDGE class
Why does no one ever take this advice?
BECAUSE THEY GOTTA COMSOOOOOOM
I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail
So, never? Paladins are from Matter of France
They're the knights of Charlemagne, though.
AD&D had it right.
>Cleric: Religious militant crusader type guys working for the advancement of their faith.
>Paladin: Knight errants on epic quests dispensing justice and helping the common folk.
>I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail
...anon, that was never the case. Paladins are from a different set of myths entirely. You've tried to make yourself look educated, but instead you just embarassed yourself.
How many people will associate paladins with Charlemagne and how many will associate it with Arthur?
>how many people are complete rubes
Most of them, sure
Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.
Most people will associate them with high fantasy, if they even know the term (I'd bet most people don't). People who know where they're actually from will associate them with Charlemagne.
Not many since one group is referred to as paladins and the other is referred to as the Knights of the Round Table.
Anyone who knows what paladins are will associate them with Charlemagne, because the paladins were servants of Charlemagne, you dunce. Try and conflate them with the knights of the round table all you like, it doesn't change anything.
You mean we should have different classes for warriors of faith who fend off invaders and warriors of faith on a quest for a holy relic?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
obvious bait, but for the record, it's kind of hilarious that the Redemption paladin you're complaining about is by far the most Christian one.
otherwise, pretty much all 5e did was let your paladin be Solomon Kane or the green knight rather than just Galahad. how could anyone have a problem with this?
MAN it's not like those myths never cross-polinated or anything. anyway it wasn't until Victorian-era romances a la Tennyson—when feudalism was distant enough for people to be nostalgic about and ideals of the Christian Gentleman came into fashion among a burgeoning middle class—that the paladin as we know it really became recognizable.
So, never? Paladins are from Matter of France
They're the knights of Charlemagne, though.
>LG religious Knight, a paladin. Evil anti-paladin however named as the opposite.
>Other alignments can't have paladins.
Again, no. Even in the cherry picked text you cite , it mentions paladins
>can detect evil
>can turn undead
>must help all good characters
You're really reaching if you're going to try to argue that Paladins aren't good-aligned in this excerpt, especially since the AD&D handbook explicitly mentions they are lawful good and stresses that even a single chaotic or evil action permanently reduces them to some other class. It's the lamest attempt at ACKHUYALLYing at me.
So you're relying on the interpretation of the class from a later edition to explain why interpretations of the class from later editions are not valid.
Actually, I'm looking at the text of the edition you cited first. And it supports my overall point. Soooooooooooooooooooo
They don't have to be, is the point. The only requirement is lawful alignment, and you cite AD&D as support for the "must be lawful good" argument. Different edition.
>You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good
Incorrect. Even Greyhawk necessitates Good behavior, making them Good. See
That part of my argument is proved RIGHT.
On the contrary, the text states "the paladin may be summoned by the order's leaders at any time, and must do as they command, as long as the service aids the powers of Good". The paladin must obey the command if it is good - if the command is otherwise, they are not bound to obey it, but there's no stating that they can't. Secondly, it states that "a paladin must assist anyone who asks for help - with two exceptions, he does not have to help evil characters or achieve evil goals". So he must still render assistance to those without explicitly good goals, unless he has more important duties to attend to, and has the right of refusal if the goal is evil - but he doesn't necessarily need to exercise that right.
This is the text I was referring to, by the way. And yes, it does count.
Again with the AD&D manual. You don't see the irony in citing a later edition as a reason why later editions are invalid?
>Even Greyhawk necessitates Good behavior
Dude, I have the pdf of greyhawk 1980 open right now and it straight says that the fighting men needs just only to be lawful(the good axis simple not existing at the time) and 17+ charisma.
You are straight up lying.
>can detect evil
>turn undead
>must help non-evil persons
>must obey Good-aligned commands from a lawful authority
>1980
1976*
What these have to do with the argument?
he's right, they are explicitly good in greyhawk
the law-chaos axis at the time was more like a soft good-evil axis anyway
>the law-chaos axis at the time was more like a soft good-evil axis anyway
Well, yes and no. Law vs chaos was in theory just order vs freedom(or tradition vs individuality), Moorcock style, but in practice it just became good vs evil out if laziness and Gygax players wanting nothing but dungeon crawls.
>if
of*
>Lawful. When they were introduced, they only had to be lawful.
there was no good-evil axis. they couldn't be "good-aligned" because it didn't exist, but the text makes it clear they were supposed to be good in the general sense.
i have to disagree, even the very first book of OD&D conflates evil with chaos ("evil high priests", for example, are specifically noted as being aligned with chaos and NOT neutrality or law). it may be that gygax misunderstood moorcock's take on alignment, or maybe he was getting it from another source like 3H&3L, but the association between law/good and chaos/evil was already there.
>here was no good-evil axis. they couldn't be "good-aligned" because it didn't exist
Oh shit, you've got it. You finally understand why you're wrong.
>but the text makes it clear they were supposed to be good in the general sense
The text leaves room for them to be Neutral, however, as none of the acts they're prohibited from or are required would be any issue for such a character.
>i have to disagree, even the very first book of OD&D conflates evil with chaos
OD&D alignment is explicitly Moorcockian. Chaos is evil more often but the world is assumed to run in system where Law can be evil. You have Lawful fiends, after all.
>Oh shit, you've got it. You finally understand why you're wrong.
different person
>The text leaves room for them to be Neutral, however, as none of the acts they're prohibited from or are required would be any issue for such a character.
you're trying your hardest here and i appreciate you want to win this argument but you can loosen up a little. the text specifically states that the abilities they have are for "continual seeking for good". the requirement to be lawful was understood at the time to entail being generally good. if you have a lenient DM you might play one as morally neutral, but that was clearly not the intent.
>OD&D alignment is explicitly Moorcockian.
please show me where is this explicitly spelled out in OD&D. this is an item from the very same OD&D supplement that introduced the paladin:
>Talisman of Lawfulness: This small silver device will cause any Patriarch to have the ability to sink an Evil High Priest to the center of the earth forever. It contains 7 such charges. It may never be recharged. If an evil Cleric touches it, it will deliver from 5-50points of damage, and any other persons who touch a Talisman of Lawfulness, other than Lawful Clerics, take from 5-30 points of damage.
patriach being the lawful equivalent of the chaotic high priest. again, note that chaos is happily treated as interchangable with evil.
>the text specifically states that the abilities they have are for "continual seeking for good"
Actually, the text refers to them as useful for continually seeking good. Doesn't prescribe good as thing the paladin must be, which is the point here - 'good' wasn't an alignment back then.
And literally the moment they had a 'good' alignment, they explicitly stated that Paladins were it. Really tells you what their intent was all along. Don't be disingenuous.
Sure. But you've been using the letter of the text to pursue your goals so far, ignoring that the point of removing the 'good' alignment requirement isn't to corrupt paladins but rather to just make it mechanically easier to write subclasses like "bad fallen paladin", so I don't see why you shouldn't be constrained by technicalities now.
They didn't have 'good' at first because there was no good. The moment it was there, they added it. Then they later on removed it. This is a watering down of the class to make it more ambiguous.
>They didn't have 'good' at first because there was no good.
Yes. But similarly, the decision to take the 'good' requirement away is more complicated than what the mere letter of the text says, which you ignore. So if you're going to ignore that and strawman current paladins, you need to take the raw letter of the old text as law too. Or you're not being consistent.
>This is a watering down of the class to make it more ambiguous
No, no, no, no. I literally just told you why it's actually been done and you ignored it. Just look at the current paladin Oaths, they all require adherence to a rigid moral code that implies good the same way older editions implied good. Paladins in 5e and 4e don't have to be good because ALIGNMENT IS OPTIONAL IN THOSE EDITIONS. All the paladin oaths require you to act good, unless you choose the fallen paladin options, and these options represent ex-paladins that were once good but have turned to evil.
anon please
>The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good
>his continual seeking for good
the paladin's "continual seeking for good" is a baked-in assumption in the sentence. it's not presented as something the paladin MIGHT be doing, it's just assumped that paladins will be continually seeking for good, and the abilities they have are powerful aids for that. it should be pretty fucking obvious given all their abilities are themed around fighting evil, but please just admit that they were designed to be good guys.
Changed a way I don't like =/= watered down.
So elric was a paladin?
Again, if you are going to read the newer edition rules without any regard for the implications of the text and take them as they are technically, you must do the same for OD&D. If you do not, you are being a hypocrite.
Why, though? Why can't someone's position be that Paladins reached their peak at AD&D, and then from there went downhill into faggotry? This idea that you must rely on the newest edition or the very first is retarded
There was an appeal to primogenisis as authority, but that claim was false, the goalposts were then shifted to personal preference presented as objective fact while ignoring contrary evidence.
Standard internet shittery really.
>Why, though?
Why is acting in a contradictory manner hypocritical? I shouldn't have to explain that.
The fact is, OP is wrong about most of what he asserts, and he uses a lack of depth in his analysis of newer paladins to assert that they've changed far more than they have. For example, he asserts that they are less moral because they don't have to have 'good' on their character sheets - and while he's willing to understand that OD&D paladins didn't need this because alignment was different back then, he's not willing to understand the same here. Half his complaints make no sense, like paladins not wearing plate - people were running paladins like this from the very inception of the class! Then there's the really stupid claims, like shit about Lolth paladins of goodness, which are just garbage anecdotes he's made up on the spot to pretend that people are defiling the class.
He's also missed the two most important facts: paladins have broadened because they are now a full class, rather than a subclass, and the specific kind of paladin he likes still exists.
he's completely right on this point, read the text posted here
>The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good.
i don't know why you're still pushing this point, it's based on a misunderstanding of alignment in OD&D
>The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
They are required to conduct Good behavior, which makes them Good by definition. See
Did you miss where that post proves you wrong already?
Two of those examples are spells/abilities and don't have alignment. Helping non-evil characters is not necessarily good, a neutral character can do the same. You're really, really reaching at this point.
Ah, yes, citing the AD&D 1e rules is "reaching."
It is when you're attempting to cite AD&D as the true interpretation of the paladin, when there are older sources to consider.
The AD&D rules are the canonical rules. Your board game rules, which is what "D&D" basically was before the "A" part, don't really apply here. Not to mention, the fact that you need to behave in a consistently Good fashion even in "D&D" demonstrates my point further. Your attempt to slam dunk this is an utter failure.
Now, can we please move on? You're embarrassing yourself.
>The AD&D rules are the canonical rules.
So are those before it.
>Your board game rules, which is what "D&D" basically was before the "A" part, don't really apply here
No true D&D, eh?
>Not to mention, the fact that you need to behave in a consistently Good fashion
Consistently neutral, actually.
You're being goddsmn nigger. The other poster is right.
seething so hard they awuiaflgljfgljfa
"No true scotsman" is as fallacious as ad hominem, Trinity. You declare that AD&D is the TRUE edition, and that any interpretation that differs from it is no true D&D. And there's been about three attempts to point out the holes in your arguments that good behavior is mandated - there are surprisingly few limits on the original paladin, just a few obligations that may not even form the bulk of his adventuring career. And your attempts to claim that the powers he receives for these obligations are in fact good are incorrect - neutral characters are very much capable of using those same abilities.
So now you have the power to declare editions canon. Truly, you are a mighty wizard indeed. It's been explained that paladins are required to do as their order leaders command if the command is good, but are not otherwise limited in obeying or refusing their commands, and that they must still render assistance in non-good matters unless they have more pressing concerns, and that while they can refuse to help evil, they are not forbidden from it. But sure, let's move on. Are there any editions for other games you'd like to declare canon?
Which, where they're a fighter subclass, or where they're a chevalier subclass, or where they're a class under the Warrior grouping?
Also >implying AD&D had a set canon that wasn't contained some box set or a campaign setting splat that influenced the modern Paladin.
You forget that only the sources that agree with me are valid and only the assumptions that I make prove it. So I must be right.
Watch me
AD&D had it right.
>Cleric: Religious militant crusader type guys working for the advancement of their faith.
>Paladin: Knight errants on epic quests dispensing justice and helping the common folk.
I'm playing a paladin dedicated to the goddess of lies. His oath is one of obfuscation and trickery, and he often opts to tell lies even when it serves no purpose. Once, the DM described an NPC as a "wicked, but honest man" and my character instantly despised him. Rationality like this puts him on the side of Good more often than one might think. It's fun as fuck to play him.
posts like this are why autistic reee articles like the OP exist.
>Paladins are lawful good
That's been false for decades, boomer.
Shhhh even though it was done numerous times in TSR's version of Nintendo Power, it doesn't count. Gotta make it political because OP needs his validation (You)s.
i thought that was the OPs point...
It's been false for centuries. Roland and Astolfo were anything but Lawful Good.
Shhhh even though it was done numerous times in TSR's version of Nintendo Power, it doesn't count. Gotta make it political because OP needs his validation (You)s.
BECAUSE THEY GOTTA COMSOOOOOOM
sad but true, that anime furry chick looks more like a paladin than half the stuff that came out in later editions.
i thought that was the OPs point...
That's got to be on the top 5 list of DM cop outs
He's also attempted to make at least two threads advertising his blog post, both of which were deleted.
they called the evil paladin the anti-paladin in mock imitation to "anti-christ". It was banned at most tables.
>"No true scotsman" is as fallacious as ad hominem, Trinity. You declare that AD&D is the TRUE edition, and that any interpretation that differs from it is no true D&D. Trinity didn't write that post.
>I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail
...anon, that was never the case. Paladins are from a different set of myths entirely. You've tried to make yourself look educated, but instead you just embarassed yourself.
How many people will associate paladins with Charlemagne and how many will associate it with Arthur?
>how many people are complete rubes
Most of them, sure
Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.
Most people will associate them with high fantasy, if they even know the term (I'd bet most people don't). People who know where they're actually from will associate them with Charlemagne.
Not many since one group is referred to as paladins and the other is referred to as the Knights of the Round Table.
Anyone who knows what paladins are will associate them with Charlemagne, because the paladins were servants of Charlemagne, you dunce. Try and conflate them with the knights of the round table all you like, it doesn't change anything.
You mean we should have different classes for warriors of faith who fend off invaders and warriors of faith on a quest for a holy relic?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
obvious bait, but for the record, it's kind of hilarious that the Redemption paladin you're complaining about is by far the most Christian one.
otherwise, pretty much all 5e did was let your paladin be Solomon Kane or the green knight rather than just Galahad. how could anyone have a problem with this?
MAN it's not like those myths never cross-polinated or anything. anyway it wasn't until Victorian-era romances a la Tennyson—when feudalism was distant enough for people to be nostalgic about and ideals of the Christian Gentleman came into fashion among a burgeoning middle class—that the paladin as we know it really became recognizable.
>He's a self described gun nut and Mormon that's interested in Theology, Politics, Roleplaying, and the Occult.
That sounds based. I was going to skip the blog but now I'm actually going to read it
Hi, OP.
>Interested
Meaning he has no clue about anything he talks about and is likely schizo as fuck.
Why do you keep stressing the schizo line? It really detracts from your criticism. Your argument seems to be that he's a schizo because he's a Mormon into his guns who likes theology and occultism. Being these things doesn't make him wrong, yet you bring them up as though they do
Not him, but it's important to know that OP is a fucking nutter.
It sounds like the schizo line is hurting your feelings lol
One red flag is not a big deal, but he looks like a military chinese parade
Lol, I'm seeing zero red flags from Mormon gun nut into theology and occultism, which appears to be your chief argument against the blog
Look into a mirror then
>Mormon
Weirdo tradfag moralist who's afraid of beer
>Gun nut
The kind of guy who gets into political arguments on facebook
>into theology and occultism
Autisoid who can't shut the fuck up about his dumbass ghost hunter shows.
These are all common traits of people who fall under these categories. Not that any of it matters, because he (and by that I mean you, OP) loses all credibility by writing some gay blogpost which insists anything other than this Male Human Paladin power fantasy is "furry elf jizz".
>into theology and occultism
When those 2 come together, 99% of the time it means incoherent nonsense going on about how science is wrong because God told me so while I was doing hard drugs and how we should all start sacrificing lambs and doing weird sex stuff to obtain magical powers, at least on /lit/.
There’s a reason there is a whole musical making fun of Mormons anon
Mostly because it points towards his blog being the same as the random guy on the street corner yelling about some demon in his head. I mean fuck the whole occult angle would actually be enough to possibly get him excommunicated.
Lmao if you actually believe that Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism ---> crazy homeless street preacher, then I'm ready to just write you off add a discord tranny outright. Nobody sane draws that conclusion
Anon, those guys literally become that. It's 99% the actual reason they get excommunicated (the other 1% is taking away tithing members).
Like it's literally the first step to FLDS kiddy diddling fuckery.
Claim: the D&D Paladin, which is a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends, has been watered down in the later editions of D&D to include basically any holy warrior from any God, and now includes fedora paladins
Basis for dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evaluation of basis for dispute: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were wrong to make the ad hominem attack in the first place and submit your future arguments for my evaluation. If I don't find them persuasive, they don't really hold water.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being wrong for relying heavily on an ad hominem attack.
Which do you prefer?
>but you must first admit
I don't gotta "admit" jack dick, OP. The original point--that Paladins are needlessly "cucked" because the games offer ways to play Paladins that aren't DOOS VULT-screeching faggots--has been refuted over and over again ITT by people pointing out the numerous thematic and mechanical reasons for doing so.
So we've moved on to pointing out you're a godbothering weirdo who doesn't play games and just wants to whine about degeneracy in your shitty blog no one reads.
They haven't been refuted. The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
I see you are choosing to allow the debate to terminate at being wrong for depending on an ad hominem attack. Are you sure? This cannot be undone.
>The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
Dude, at the core that is just saying that you prefer your paladins to be build around this theme, even when the rules and the concept would let them deviate from it. Not him, by the way.
It's not a matter of mere preference. If you redefined wizards to no longer cast spells or work any kind of magic, that would be retarded. It would defeat the point of being a wizard.
Likewise, redefining the class that's about being some kind of Christianesque God warrior type into including whatever the fuck else is similarly retarded.
Do you sincerely dispute this? Non-magical wizards, thieves who don't steal, and rangers who don't like being innawoods are perfectly reasonable to you? There's no deviation from concept meriting any commentary on there?
You sound autistic.
Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class: Melee oriented, divinely powered holy warrior. If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
>Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class
It absolutely does not. Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things. That's literally the "basic idea" of the class.
>divinely powered holy warrior
Dark gods are not "holy," they are "unholy."
>If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
No, the analogy to casting stands, since we're discussing the class and what those classes _do_.
Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things.
No it isn't. Christianity has never been a religion in D&D, so the paladins of D&D have never been Christian. Eat shit and die.
>The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon"
The argument never terminated.
>and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you
You haven't educated anyone. In fact, everyone else seems to be teaching you what the actual first paladin rules were, or how paladins were portrayed in the Matter of France.
>This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up
I agree for the most part. That said, you should re-read some of your own posts, like
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior
I don't hugely care what other people are arguing on and I'm not everyone in the reply chain that you seem to think I am. I'm simply pointing out that actually, the Christian thing is entirely unimportant.
You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good, so I feel no need to comment on that stuff. Other anons have done it for me.
> "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
But where in the world, is there in the world
a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!
Claim: the OP samefagger, which is a mishmash of various Mormon Indreeding, has been weathered down in laters post of /tg/ from basically any fa/tg/uy from any edition, and now acts as a fedora paladin
Basis of dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evvaluation of basis for dispute: Ad homined (Latin for "to the buttmad"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fat fuck who flies into mad rage against playful banter, whereby genuine discussion is avoided by instead having common sense.
Evaluation of claim: valid basis for dispute, the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were a fedora wearing samefagger and submite your feet pics for my evaluation. If I don't find the persuasive, they don't really hold my dick.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being an unwashed mormor for relying heavily on samefagging
Which one do you prefer?
>submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
That's just taking this shit too far.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
>demands feet pics
Discord tranny detected, unironically
Claims don't need to be undisputed to be true, they need to be evidenced to a high degree. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
The article contains the evidence. The core point of the article has not been refuted, as you claim.
>The article contains the evidence.
It contains opinions, there's no evidence.
The article contains claims and conjecture. It is distinctly lacking when it comes to evidence.
The article contains hot takes informed by cherry-picked images of what the writer (you) think Paladins *should* be, followed by the outlandish claim the use of the Paladin class as an umbrella for the myriad forms of supernatural knight represents some social moral decay pushed by transfer furry atheists. Stop riding your own dick an post your feet already.
> Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
"Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true"
> infers P from ¬(Q ¬P)
> understands logic
for the record the last bit should've been:
> infers P from ¬(Q -> ¬P)
> understands logic
the arrow didn't render.
why does being christian matter in a game without christianity
Furthermore, why does it matter to a Mormon?
How many people will associate paladins with Charlemagne and how many will associate it with Arthur?
>how many people are complete rubes
Most of them, sure
Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.
Most people will associate them with high fantasy, if they even know the term (I'd bet most people don't). People who know where they're actually from will associate them with Charlemagne.
Not many since one group is referred to as paladins and the other is referred to as the Knights of the Round Table.
Anyone who knows what paladins are will associate them with Charlemagne, because the paladins were servants of Charlemagne, you dunce. Try and conflate them with the knights of the round table all you like, it doesn't change anything.
You mean we should have different classes for warriors of faith who fend off invaders and warriors of faith on a quest for a holy relic?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
Hi, OP.
>Interested
Meaning he has no clue about anything he talks about and is likely schizo as fuck.
Why do you keep stressing the schizo line? It really detracts from your criticism. Your argument seems to be that he's a schizo because he's a Mormon into his guns who likes theology and occultism. Being these things doesn't make him wrong, yet you bring them up as though they do
Not him, but it's important to know that OP is a fucking nutter.
It sounds like the schizo line is hurting your feelings lol
One red flag is not a big deal, but he looks like a military chinese parade
Lol, I'm seeing zero red flags from Mormon gun nut into theology and occultism, which appears to be your chief argument against the blog
Look into a mirror then
>Mormon
Weirdo tradfag moralist who's afraid of beer
>Gun nut
The kind of guy who gets into political arguments on facebook
>into theology and occultism
Autisoid who can't shut the fuck up about his dumbass ghost hunter shows.
These are all common traits of people who fall under these categories. Not that any of it matters, because he (and by that I mean you, OP) loses all credibility by writing some gay blogpost which insists anything other than this Male Human Paladin power fantasy is "furry elf jizz".
>into theology and occultism
When those 2 come together, 99% of the time it means incoherent nonsense going on about how science is wrong because God told me so while I was doing hard drugs and how we should all start sacrificing lambs and doing weird sex stuff to obtain magical powers, at least on /lit/.
There’s a reason there is a whole musical making fun of Mormons anon
Mostly because it points towards his blog being the same as the random guy on the street corner yelling about some demon in his head. I mean fuck the whole occult angle would actually be enough to possibly get him excommunicated.
Lmao if you actually believe that Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism ---> crazy homeless street preacher, then I'm ready to just write you off add a discord tranny outright. Nobody sane draws that conclusion
Anon, those guys literally become that. It's 99% the actual reason they get excommunicated (the other 1% is taking away tithing members).
Like it's literally the first step to FLDS kiddy diddling fuckery.
Claim: the D&D Paladin, which is a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends, has been watered down in the later editions of D&D to include basically any holy warrior from any God, and now includes fedora paladins
Basis for dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evaluation of basis for dispute: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were wrong to make the ad hominem attack in the first place and submit your future arguments for my evaluation. If I don't find them persuasive, they don't really hold water.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being wrong for relying heavily on an ad hominem attack.
Which do you prefer?
>but you must first admit
I don't gotta "admit" jack dick, OP. The original point--that Paladins are needlessly "cucked" because the games offer ways to play Paladins that aren't DOOS VULT-screeching faggots--has been refuted over and over again ITT by people pointing out the numerous thematic and mechanical reasons for doing so.
So we've moved on to pointing out you're a godbothering weirdo who doesn't play games and just wants to whine about degeneracy in your shitty blog no one reads.
They haven't been refuted. The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
I see you are choosing to allow the debate to terminate at being wrong for depending on an ad hominem attack. Are you sure? This cannot be undone.
>The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
Dude, at the core that is just saying that you prefer your paladins to be build around this theme, even when the rules and the concept would let them deviate from it. Not him, by the way.
It's not a matter of mere preference. If you redefined wizards to no longer cast spells or work any kind of magic, that would be retarded. It would defeat the point of being a wizard.
Likewise, redefining the class that's about being some kind of Christianesque God warrior type into including whatever the fuck else is similarly retarded.
Do you sincerely dispute this? Non-magical wizards, thieves who don't steal, and rangers who don't like being innawoods are perfectly reasonable to you? There's no deviation from concept meriting any commentary on there?
You sound autistic.
Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class: Melee oriented, divinely powered holy warrior. If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
>Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class
It absolutely does not. Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things. That's literally the "basic idea" of the class.
>divinely powered holy warrior
Dark gods are not "holy," they are "unholy."
>If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
No, the analogy to casting stands, since we're discussing the class and what those classes _do_.
Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things.
No it isn't. Christianity has never been a religion in D&D, so the paladins of D&D have never been Christian. Eat shit and die.
>The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon"
The argument never terminated.
>and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you
You haven't educated anyone. In fact, everyone else seems to be teaching you what the actual first paladin rules were, or how paladins were portrayed in the Matter of France.
>This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up
I agree for the most part. That said, you should re-read some of your own posts, like
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior
I don't hugely care what other people are arguing on and I'm not everyone in the reply chain that you seem to think I am. I'm simply pointing out that actually, the Christian thing is entirely unimportant.
You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good, so I feel no need to comment on that stuff. Other anons have done it for me.
> "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
But where in the world, is there in the world
a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!
Claim: the OP samefagger, which is a mishmash of various Mormon Indreeding, has been weathered down in laters post of /tg/ from basically any fa/tg/uy from any edition, and now acts as a fedora paladin
Basis of dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evvaluation of basis for dispute: Ad homined (Latin for "to the buttmad"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fat fuck who flies into mad rage against playful banter, whereby genuine discussion is avoided by instead having common sense.
Evaluation of claim: valid basis for dispute, the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were a fedora wearing samefagger and submite your feet pics for my evaluation. If I don't find the persuasive, they don't really hold my dick.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being an unwashed mormor for relying heavily on samefagging
Which one do you prefer?
>submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
That's just taking this shit too far.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
>demands feet pics
Discord tranny detected, unironically
Claims don't need to be undisputed to be true, they need to be evidenced to a high degree. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
The article contains the evidence. The core point of the article has not been refuted, as you claim.
>The article contains the evidence.
It contains opinions, there's no evidence.
The article contains claims and conjecture. It is distinctly lacking when it comes to evidence.
The article contains hot takes informed by cherry-picked images of what the writer (you) think Paladins *should* be, followed by the outlandish claim the use of the Paladin class as an umbrella for the myriad forms of supernatural knight represents some social moral decay pushed by transfer furry atheists. Stop riding your own dick an post your feet already.
> Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
"Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true"
> infers P from ¬(Q ¬P)
> understands logic
for the record the last bit should've been:
> infers P from ¬(Q -> ¬P)
> understands logic
the arrow didn't render.
why does being christian matter in a game without christianity
Furthermore, why does it matter to a Mormon?
>Mormon that's interested in Theology, Politics, and the Occult
Imagine my shock
>how many people are complete rubes
Most of them, sure
Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.
Most people will associate them with high fantasy, if they even know the term (I'd bet most people don't). People who know where they're actually from will associate them with Charlemagne.
Not many since one group is referred to as paladins and the other is referred to as the Knights of the Round Table.
Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.
Anyone who knows what paladins are will associate them with Charlemagne, because the paladins were servants of Charlemagne, you dunce. Try and conflate them with the knights of the round table all you like, it doesn't change anything.
You mean we should have different classes for warriors of faith who fend off invaders and warriors of faith on a quest for a holy relic?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
95% of the time, these arguments come down to bitching about a name because D&Dumbasses can't separate fluff from mechanical descriptions of fluff.
fluff is a bad concept introduced by minds weakened by decades of restrictive vidya.
You mean we should have different classes for warriors of faith who fend off invaders and warriors of faith on a quest for a holy relic?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
Why do you keep stressing the schizo line? It really detracts from your criticism. Your argument seems to be that he's a schizo because he's a Mormon into his guns who likes theology and occultism. Being these things doesn't make him wrong, yet you bring them up as though they do
Not him, but it's important to know that OP is a fucking nutter.
It sounds like the schizo line is hurting your feelings lol
One red flag is not a big deal, but he looks like a military chinese parade
Lol, I'm seeing zero red flags from Mormon gun nut into theology and occultism, which appears to be your chief argument against the blog
Look into a mirror then
>Mormon
Weirdo tradfag moralist who's afraid of beer
>Gun nut
The kind of guy who gets into political arguments on facebook
>into theology and occultism
Autisoid who can't shut the fuck up about his dumbass ghost hunter shows.
These are all common traits of people who fall under these categories. Not that any of it matters, because he (and by that I mean you, OP) loses all credibility by writing some gay blogpost which insists anything other than this Male Human Paladin power fantasy is "furry elf jizz".
>into theology and occultism
When those 2 come together, 99% of the time it means incoherent nonsense going on about how science is wrong because God told me so while I was doing hard drugs and how we should all start sacrificing lambs and doing weird sex stuff to obtain magical powers, at least on /lit/.
There’s a reason there is a whole musical making fun of Mormons anon
Mostly because it points towards his blog being the same as the random guy on the street corner yelling about some demon in his head. I mean fuck the whole occult angle would actually be enough to possibly get him excommunicated.
Lmao if you actually believe that Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism ---> crazy homeless street preacher, then I'm ready to just write you off add a discord tranny outright. Nobody sane draws that conclusion
Anon, those guys literally become that. It's 99% the actual reason they get excommunicated (the other 1% is taking away tithing members).
Like it's literally the first step to FLDS kiddy diddling fuckery.
Claim: the D&D Paladin, which is a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends, has been watered down in the later editions of D&D to include basically any holy warrior from any God, and now includes fedora paladins
Basis for dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evaluation of basis for dispute: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were wrong to make the ad hominem attack in the first place and submit your future arguments for my evaluation. If I don't find them persuasive, they don't really hold water.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being wrong for relying heavily on an ad hominem attack.
Which do you prefer?
>but you must first admit
I don't gotta "admit" jack dick, OP. The original point--that Paladins are needlessly "cucked" because the games offer ways to play Paladins that aren't DOOS VULT-screeching faggots--has been refuted over and over again ITT by people pointing out the numerous thematic and mechanical reasons for doing so.
So we've moved on to pointing out you're a godbothering weirdo who doesn't play games and just wants to whine about degeneracy in your shitty blog no one reads.
They haven't been refuted. The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
I see you are choosing to allow the debate to terminate at being wrong for depending on an ad hominem attack. Are you sure? This cannot be undone.
>The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
Dude, at the core that is just saying that you prefer your paladins to be build around this theme, even when the rules and the concept would let them deviate from it. Not him, by the way.
It's not a matter of mere preference. If you redefined wizards to no longer cast spells or work any kind of magic, that would be retarded. It would defeat the point of being a wizard.
Likewise, redefining the class that's about being some kind of Christianesque God warrior type into including whatever the fuck else is similarly retarded.
Do you sincerely dispute this? Non-magical wizards, thieves who don't steal, and rangers who don't like being innawoods are perfectly reasonable to you? There's no deviation from concept meriting any commentary on there?
You sound autistic.
Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class: Melee oriented, divinely powered holy warrior. If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
>Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class
It absolutely does not. Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things. That's literally the "basic idea" of the class.
>divinely powered holy warrior
Dark gods are not "holy," they are "unholy."
>If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
No, the analogy to casting stands, since we're discussing the class and what those classes _do_.
Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things.
No it isn't. Christianity has never been a religion in D&D, so the paladins of D&D have never been Christian. Eat shit and die.
>The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon"
The argument never terminated.
>and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you
You haven't educated anyone. In fact, everyone else seems to be teaching you what the actual first paladin rules were, or how paladins were portrayed in the Matter of France.
>This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up
I agree for the most part. That said, you should re-read some of your own posts, like
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior
I don't hugely care what other people are arguing on and I'm not everyone in the reply chain that you seem to think I am. I'm simply pointing out that actually, the Christian thing is entirely unimportant.
You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good, so I feel no need to comment on that stuff. Other anons have done it for me.
> "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
But where in the world, is there in the world
a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!
Claim: the OP samefagger, which is a mishmash of various Mormon Indreeding, has been weathered down in laters post of /tg/ from basically any fa/tg/uy from any edition, and now acts as a fedora paladin
Basis of dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evvaluation of basis for dispute: Ad homined (Latin for "to the buttmad"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fat fuck who flies into mad rage against playful banter, whereby genuine discussion is avoided by instead having common sense.
Evaluation of claim: valid basis for dispute, the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were a fedora wearing samefagger and submite your feet pics for my evaluation. If I don't find the persuasive, they don't really hold my dick.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being an unwashed mormor for relying heavily on samefagging
Which one do you prefer?
>submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
That's just taking this shit too far.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
>demands feet pics
Discord tranny detected, unironically
Claims don't need to be undisputed to be true, they need to be evidenced to a high degree. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
The article contains the evidence. The core point of the article has not been refuted, as you claim.
>The article contains the evidence.
It contains opinions, there's no evidence.
The article contains claims and conjecture. It is distinctly lacking when it comes to evidence.
The article contains hot takes informed by cherry-picked images of what the writer (you) think Paladins *should* be, followed by the outlandish claim the use of the Paladin class as an umbrella for the myriad forms of supernatural knight represents some social moral decay pushed by transfer furry atheists. Stop riding your own dick an post your feet already.
> Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
"Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true"
> infers P from ¬(Q ¬P)
> understands logic
for the record the last bit should've been:
> infers P from ¬(Q -> ¬P)
> understands logic
the arrow didn't render.
why does being christian matter in a game without christianity
Furthermore, why does it matter to a Mormon?
>classes
Cease this. There's no reason for either of them to be a class of their own. "A man who fights" suits perfectly well.
D&D Paladin has nothing to do with either.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
He's so desperate for attention on his blog he's coming to 4chan for >you's and comments? Jesus that's pretty pathetic.
and sure enough people are going to give it to him just like any other site that spams here enough. someone after a bit is going to use it like they are not for bait and then people will jump on because its the new fucking thing
Their has been evil paladins since long before you were born OP. Anti-paladins have been around since the 70s.
The term paladin didn't mean good or lawful person, it was mixed with the trope of the knight in shining armor, but a paladin was a knight in Charlemagne court, nothing noble or good or event overly religious about them. They were lords in service to a king.
Also the semi-historical crusader was not a knight in shining armor either, they were religious fanatics and murder-hobos.
A paladin in D&D is a knight that serves a deity or alignment, D&D has lots of gods and alignments, so it follows that a paladin of an evil deity would exist.
We just played word games and called them "fallen" or "blackguards" or "anti-paladins" but they were paladins.
Not sure why people are so obsessed with evil paladins when fighters can be evil, and like half of all clerics seem to be evil. It follows that maybe a fighter would learn some prayers and or a cleric would learn which end of a sword to use and become a paladin instead.
>Not sure why people are so obsessed with evil paladins
The "fallen hero" trope is really compelling.
this is true. The Anti Paladin, Death Knight, etc. are Classic Tropes. Mordred fits these tropes as well. But they aren't Paladins anymore.
Not him, but it's important to know that OP is a fucking nutter.
We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing
>NWPs
Heresy
>NWPs
Heresy
Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.
It sounds like the schizo line is hurting your feelings lol
>Not sure why people are so obsessed with evil paladins
The "fallen hero" trope is really compelling.
this is true. The Anti Paladin, Death Knight, etc. are Classic Tropes. Mordred fits these tropes as well. But they aren't Paladins anymore.
One red flag is not a big deal, but he looks like a military chinese parade
Lol, I'm seeing zero red flags from Mormon gun nut into theology and occultism, which appears to be your chief argument against the blog
Look into a mirror then
>Mormon
Weirdo tradfag moralist who's afraid of beer
>Gun nut
The kind of guy who gets into political arguments on facebook
>into theology and occultism
Autisoid who can't shut the fuck up about his dumbass ghost hunter shows.
These are all common traits of people who fall under these categories. Not that any of it matters, because he (and by that I mean you, OP) loses all credibility by writing some gay blogpost which insists anything other than this Male Human Paladin power fantasy is "furry elf jizz".
>into theology and occultism
When those 2 come together, 99% of the time it means incoherent nonsense going on about how science is wrong because God told me so while I was doing hard drugs and how we should all start sacrificing lambs and doing weird sex stuff to obtain magical powers, at least on /lit/.
There’s a reason there is a whole musical making fun of Mormons anon
Mostly because it points towards his blog being the same as the random guy on the street corner yelling about some demon in his head. I mean fuck the whole occult angle would actually be enough to possibly get him excommunicated.
Lmao if you actually believe that Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism ---> crazy homeless street preacher, then I'm ready to just write you off add a discord tranny outright. Nobody sane draws that conclusion
Anon, those guys literally become that. It's 99% the actual reason they get excommunicated (the other 1% is taking away tithing members).
Like it's literally the first step to FLDS kiddy diddling fuckery.
Claim: the D&D Paladin, which is a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends, has been watered down in the later editions of D&D to include basically any holy warrior from any God, and now includes fedora paladins
Basis for dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evaluation of basis for dispute: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were wrong to make the ad hominem attack in the first place and submit your future arguments for my evaluation. If I don't find them persuasive, they don't really hold water.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being wrong for relying heavily on an ad hominem attack.
Which do you prefer?
>but you must first admit
I don't gotta "admit" jack dick, OP. The original point--that Paladins are needlessly "cucked" because the games offer ways to play Paladins that aren't DOOS VULT-screeching faggots--has been refuted over and over again ITT by people pointing out the numerous thematic and mechanical reasons for doing so.
So we've moved on to pointing out you're a godbothering weirdo who doesn't play games and just wants to whine about degeneracy in your shitty blog no one reads.
They haven't been refuted. The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
I see you are choosing to allow the debate to terminate at being wrong for depending on an ad hominem attack. Are you sure? This cannot be undone.
>The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
Dude, at the core that is just saying that you prefer your paladins to be build around this theme, even when the rules and the concept would let them deviate from it. Not him, by the way.
It's not a matter of mere preference. If you redefined wizards to no longer cast spells or work any kind of magic, that would be retarded. It would defeat the point of being a wizard.
Likewise, redefining the class that's about being some kind of Christianesque God warrior type into including whatever the fuck else is similarly retarded.
Do you sincerely dispute this? Non-magical wizards, thieves who don't steal, and rangers who don't like being innawoods are perfectly reasonable to you? There's no deviation from concept meriting any commentary on there?
You sound autistic.
Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class: Melee oriented, divinely powered holy warrior. If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
>Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class
It absolutely does not. Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things. That's literally the "basic idea" of the class.
>divinely powered holy warrior
Dark gods are not "holy," they are "unholy."
>If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
No, the analogy to casting stands, since we're discussing the class and what those classes _do_.
Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things.
No it isn't. Christianity has never been a religion in D&D, so the paladins of D&D have never been Christian. Eat shit and die.
>The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon"
The argument never terminated.
>and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you
You haven't educated anyone. In fact, everyone else seems to be teaching you what the actual first paladin rules were, or how paladins were portrayed in the Matter of France.
>This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up
I agree for the most part. That said, you should re-read some of your own posts, like
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior
I don't hugely care what other people are arguing on and I'm not everyone in the reply chain that you seem to think I am. I'm simply pointing out that actually, the Christian thing is entirely unimportant.
You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good, so I feel no need to comment on that stuff. Other anons have done it for me.
> "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
But where in the world, is there in the world
a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!
Claim: the OP samefagger, which is a mishmash of various Mormon Indreeding, has been weathered down in laters post of /tg/ from basically any fa/tg/uy from any edition, and now acts as a fedora paladin
Basis of dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evvaluation of basis for dispute: Ad homined (Latin for "to the buttmad"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fat fuck who flies into mad rage against playful banter, whereby genuine discussion is avoided by instead having common sense.
Evaluation of claim: valid basis for dispute, the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were a fedora wearing samefagger and submite your feet pics for my evaluation. If I don't find the persuasive, they don't really hold my dick.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being an unwashed mormor for relying heavily on samefagging
Which one do you prefer?
>submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
That's just taking this shit too far.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
>demands feet pics
Discord tranny detected, unironically
Claims don't need to be undisputed to be true, they need to be evidenced to a high degree. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
The article contains the evidence. The core point of the article has not been refuted, as you claim.
>The article contains the evidence.
It contains opinions, there's no evidence.
The article contains claims and conjecture. It is distinctly lacking when it comes to evidence.
The article contains hot takes informed by cherry-picked images of what the writer (you) think Paladins *should* be, followed by the outlandish claim the use of the Paladin class as an umbrella for the myriad forms of supernatural knight represents some social moral decay pushed by transfer furry atheists. Stop riding your own dick an post your feet already.
> Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
"Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true"
> infers P from ¬(Q ¬P)
> understands logic
for the record the last bit should've been:
> infers P from ¬(Q -> ¬P)
> understands logic
the arrow didn't render.
why does being christian matter in a game without christianity
Furthermore, why does it matter to a Mormon?
Lol, I'm seeing zero red flags from Mormon gun nut into theology and occultism, which appears to be your chief argument against the blog
Look into a mirror then
>Mormon
Weirdo tradfag moralist who's afraid of beer
>Gun nut
The kind of guy who gets into political arguments on facebook
>into theology and occultism
Autisoid who can't shut the fuck up about his dumbass ghost hunter shows.
These are all common traits of people who fall under these categories. Not that any of it matters, because he (and by that I mean you, OP) loses all credibility by writing some gay blogpost which insists anything other than this Male Human Paladin power fantasy is "furry elf jizz".
>into theology and occultism
When those 2 come together, 99% of the time it means incoherent nonsense going on about how science is wrong because God told me so while I was doing hard drugs and how we should all start sacrificing lambs and doing weird sex stuff to obtain magical powers, at least on /lit/.
There’s a reason there is a whole musical making fun of Mormons anon
It's been false for centuries. Roland and Astolfo were anything but Lawful Good.
Look into a mirror then
obvious bait, but for the record, it's kind of hilarious that the Redemption paladin you're complaining about is by far the most Christian one.
otherwise, pretty much all 5e did was let your paladin be Solomon Kane or the green knight rather than just Galahad. how could anyone have a problem with this?
MAN it's not like those myths never cross-polinated or anything. anyway it wasn't until Victorian-era romances a la Tennyson—when feudalism was distant enough for people to be nostalgic about and ideals of the Christian Gentleman came into fashion among a burgeoning middle class—that the paladin as we know it really became recognizable.
Lmao if you actually believe that Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism ---> crazy homeless street preacher, then I'm ready to just write you off add a discord tranny outright. Nobody sane draws that conclusion
Anon, those guys literally become that. It's 99% the actual reason they get excommunicated (the other 1% is taking away tithing members).
Like it's literally the first step to FLDS kiddy diddling fuckery.
>Mormon
Weirdo tradfag moralist who's afraid of beer
>Gun nut
The kind of guy who gets into political arguments on facebook
>into theology and occultism
Autisoid who can't shut the fuck up about his dumbass ghost hunter shows.
These are all common traits of people who fall under these categories. Not that any of it matters, because he (and by that I mean you, OP) loses all credibility by writing some gay blogpost which insists anything other than this Male Human Paladin power fantasy is "furry elf jizz".
>into theology and occultism
When those 2 come together, 99% of the time it means incoherent nonsense going on about how science is wrong because God told me so while I was doing hard drugs and how we should all start sacrificing lambs and doing weird sex stuff to obtain magical powers, at least on /lit/.
>"paladin"
>"any of the twelve peers of Charlemagne's court, of whom the Count Palatine was the chief."
>In the medieval chanson de geste cycle of the Matter of France, the paladins or Twelve Peers are the twelve foremost knights of Charlemagne's court, comparable to the Knights of the Round Table in Arthurian romance.[1]
and sure enough people are going to give it to him just like any other site that spams here enough. someone after a bit is going to use it like they are not for bait and then people will jump on because its the new fucking thing
There’s a reason there is a whole musical making fun of Mormons anon
Claim: the D&D Paladin, which is a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends, has been watered down in the later editions of D&D to include basically any holy warrior from any God, and now includes fedora paladins
Basis for dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evaluation of basis for dispute: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were wrong to make the ad hominem attack in the first place and submit your future arguments for my evaluation. If I don't find them persuasive, they don't really hold water.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being wrong for relying heavily on an ad hominem attack.
Which do you prefer?
>but you must first admit
I don't gotta "admit" jack dick, OP. The original point--that Paladins are needlessly "cucked" because the games offer ways to play Paladins that aren't DOOS VULT-screeching faggots--has been refuted over and over again ITT by people pointing out the numerous thematic and mechanical reasons for doing so.
So we've moved on to pointing out you're a godbothering weirdo who doesn't play games and just wants to whine about degeneracy in your shitty blog no one reads.
They haven't been refuted. The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
I see you are choosing to allow the debate to terminate at being wrong for depending on an ad hominem attack. Are you sure? This cannot be undone.
>The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
Dude, at the core that is just saying that you prefer your paladins to be build around this theme, even when the rules and the concept would let them deviate from it. Not him, by the way.
It's not a matter of mere preference. If you redefined wizards to no longer cast spells or work any kind of magic, that would be retarded. It would defeat the point of being a wizard.
Likewise, redefining the class that's about being some kind of Christianesque God warrior type into including whatever the fuck else is similarly retarded.
Do you sincerely dispute this? Non-magical wizards, thieves who don't steal, and rangers who don't like being innawoods are perfectly reasonable to you? There's no deviation from concept meriting any commentary on there?
You sound autistic.
Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class: Melee oriented, divinely powered holy warrior. If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
>Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class
It absolutely does not. Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things. That's literally the "basic idea" of the class.
>divinely powered holy warrior
Dark gods are not "holy," they are "unholy."
>If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
No, the analogy to casting stands, since we're discussing the class and what those classes _do_.
Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things.
No it isn't. Christianity has never been a religion in D&D, so the paladins of D&D have never been Christian. Eat shit and die.
>The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon"
The argument never terminated.
>and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you
You haven't educated anyone. In fact, everyone else seems to be teaching you what the actual first paladin rules were, or how paladins were portrayed in the Matter of France.
>This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up
I agree for the most part. That said, you should re-read some of your own posts, like
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior
I don't hugely care what other people are arguing on and I'm not everyone in the reply chain that you seem to think I am. I'm simply pointing out that actually, the Christian thing is entirely unimportant.
You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good, so I feel no need to comment on that stuff. Other anons have done it for me.
> "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
But where in the world, is there in the world
a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!
Claim: the OP samefagger, which is a mishmash of various Mormon Indreeding, has been weathered down in laters post of /tg/ from basically any fa/tg/uy from any edition, and now acts as a fedora paladin
Basis of dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evvaluation of basis for dispute: Ad homined (Latin for "to the buttmad"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fat fuck who flies into mad rage against playful banter, whereby genuine discussion is avoided by instead having common sense.
Evaluation of claim: valid basis for dispute, the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were a fedora wearing samefagger and submite your feet pics for my evaluation. If I don't find the persuasive, they don't really hold my dick.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being an unwashed mormor for relying heavily on samefagging
Which one do you prefer?
>submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
That's just taking this shit too far.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
>demands feet pics
Discord tranny detected, unironically
Claims don't need to be undisputed to be true, they need to be evidenced to a high degree. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
The article contains the evidence. The core point of the article has not been refuted, as you claim.
>The article contains the evidence.
It contains opinions, there's no evidence.
The article contains claims and conjecture. It is distinctly lacking when it comes to evidence.
The article contains hot takes informed by cherry-picked images of what the writer (you) think Paladins *should* be, followed by the outlandish claim the use of the Paladin class as an umbrella for the myriad forms of supernatural knight represents some social moral decay pushed by transfer furry atheists. Stop riding your own dick an post your feet already.
> Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand logic.
"Evaluation of claim: no valid basis for dispute; the claim is true"
> infers P from ¬(Q ¬P)
> understands logic
for the record the last bit should've been:
> infers P from ¬(Q -> ¬P)
> understands logic
the arrow didn't render.
why does being christian matter in a game without christianity
Furthermore, why does it matter to a Mormon?
>but you must first admit
I don't gotta "admit" jack dick, OP. The original point--that Paladins are needlessly "cucked" because the games offer ways to play Paladins that aren't DOOS VULT-screeching faggots--has been refuted over and over again ITT by people pointing out the numerous thematic and mechanical reasons for doing so.
So we've moved on to pointing out you're a godbothering weirdo who doesn't play games and just wants to whine about degeneracy in your shitty blog no one reads.
They haven't been refuted. The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
I see you are choosing to allow the debate to terminate at being wrong for depending on an ad hominem attack. Are you sure? This cannot be undone.
>The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
Dude, at the core that is just saying that you prefer your paladins to be build around this theme, even when the rules and the concept would let them deviate from it. Not him, by the way.
It's not a matter of mere preference. If you redefined wizards to no longer cast spells or work any kind of magic, that would be retarded. It would defeat the point of being a wizard.
Likewise, redefining the class that's about being some kind of Christianesque God warrior type into including whatever the fuck else is similarly retarded.
Do you sincerely dispute this? Non-magical wizards, thieves who don't steal, and rangers who don't like being innawoods are perfectly reasonable to you? There's no deviation from concept meriting any commentary on there?
You sound autistic.
Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class: Melee oriented, divinely powered holy warrior. If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
>Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class
It absolutely does not. Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things. That's literally the "basic idea" of the class.
>divinely powered holy warrior
Dark gods are not "holy," they are "unholy."
>If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
No, the analogy to casting stands, since we're discussing the class and what those classes _do_.
Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things.
No it isn't. Christianity has never been a religion in D&D, so the paladins of D&D have never been Christian. Eat shit and die.
>The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon"
The argument never terminated.
>and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you
You haven't educated anyone. In fact, everyone else seems to be teaching you what the actual first paladin rules were, or how paladins were portrayed in the Matter of France.
>This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up
I agree for the most part. That said, you should re-read some of your own posts, like
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior
I don't hugely care what other people are arguing on and I'm not everyone in the reply chain that you seem to think I am. I'm simply pointing out that actually, the Christian thing is entirely unimportant.
You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good, so I feel no need to comment on that stuff. Other anons have done it for me.
> "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
But where in the world, is there in the world
a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!
They haven't been refuted. The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
I see you are choosing to allow the debate to terminate at being wrong for depending on an ad hominem attack. Are you sure? This cannot be undone.
>The correct theme of the Paladin is "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends." The further you deviate from that theme, the further you water it down. There are no compelling mechanical reasons to allow for thematically incorrect non-Paladins.
Dude, at the core that is just saying that you prefer your paladins to be build around this theme, even when the rules and the concept would let them deviate from it. Not him, by the way.
It's not a matter of mere preference. If you redefined wizards to no longer cast spells or work any kind of magic, that would be retarded. It would defeat the point of being a wizard.
Likewise, redefining the class that's about being some kind of Christianesque God warrior type into including whatever the fuck else is similarly retarded.
Do you sincerely dispute this? Non-magical wizards, thieves who don't steal, and rangers who don't like being innawoods are perfectly reasonable to you? There's no deviation from concept meriting any commentary on there?
You sound autistic.
Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class: Melee oriented, divinely powered holy warrior. If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
>Except that Paladins maintain the basic idea and mechanics of the class
It absolutely does not. Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things. That's literally the "basic idea" of the class.
>divinely powered holy warrior
Dark gods are not "holy," they are "unholy."
>If anything, your argument is closer to saying that if a wizard isn't dressed in colorful robe, with a point hat and a big beard, he isn't a wizard.
No, the analogy to casting stands, since we're discussing the class and what those classes _do_.
Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior who removes evil things.
No it isn't. Christianity has never been a religion in D&D, so the paladins of D&D have never been Christian. Eat shit and die.
>The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon"
The argument never terminated.
>and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you
You haven't educated anyone. In fact, everyone else seems to be teaching you what the actual first paladin rules were, or how paladins were portrayed in the Matter of France.
>This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up
I agree for the most part. That said, you should re-read some of your own posts, like
>Part of the "basic idea" of the class is that it's a Christfag holy warrior
I don't hugely care what other people are arguing on and I'm not everyone in the reply chain that you seem to think I am. I'm simply pointing out that actually, the Christian thing is entirely unimportant.
You've already been proven wrong on your other points, such as with how the first Greyhawk supplement that included paladins didn't necessitate Good, so I feel no need to comment on that stuff. Other anons have done it for me.
> "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
But where in the world, is there in the world
a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!
Claim: the OP samefagger, which is a mishmash of various Mormon Indreeding, has been weathered down in laters post of /tg/ from basically any fa/tg/uy from any edition, and now acts as a fedora paladin
Basis of dispute: the blogger who published this claim is a Mormon gun nut who likes theology/occultism
Evvaluation of basis for dispute: Ad homined (Latin for "to the buttmad"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fat fuck who flies into mad rage against playful banter, whereby genuine discussion is avoided by instead having common sense.
Evaluation of claim: valid basis for dispute, the claim is true
If you would like to dispute it again, you may do so, but you must first admit that you were a fedora wearing samefagger and submite your feet pics for my evaluation. If I don't find the persuasive, they don't really hold my dick.
OR
The debate can terminate here with you just being an unwashed mormor for relying heavily on samefagging
Which one do you prefer?
>submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
That's just taking this shit too far.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
>demands feet pics
Discord tranny detected, unironically
>submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
That's just taking this shit too far.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
>demands feet pics
Discord tranny detected, unironically
Well, in early editions, anyway
The OP image is in itself evidence. So is .
Claim: Paladins have been watered down, corrupted, etc, see above
Basis for claim: evidence that Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea to a highly ambiguous one, including things that are directly contrary to its initial
Basis for dispute: you are a Mormon gun nut into theology/occultism
Final conclusion on the subject: the claim is verified true, while the opposition are Discord trannies who have no argument, literally
The OP image is a random collection of images OP (you) don't like presented as some sort of gotcha because...dragons and elves can't be paladins?
And the chart is meaningless because it has no source, makes no point, and looks like something some buttmad HumansOnly /pol/fag made up on the spot because he's triggered at the thought of playing a session where you don't encounter and kill demons nonstop like Doomguy.
>HumansOnly /pol/fag
Discord tranny detected.
Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.
>This cannot be undone.
Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.
according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore
Correction:
>infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
>main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
>therefore, the evidence stands
See
Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.
Black Knight != Paladin
Mordred was a knight of the round table, and according to the dumbass claiming that paladins were the knights of the round table, that means he's a paladin.
You don't even have to go Arthurian.
Blancandrin and Ganelon - actual paladins from The Matter of France - were evil guys who consorted with Satan.
>The OP image is in itself evidence.
No, it isn't, since it's intentionally inauthentic. The paladin described as 'basically a ranger' is wearing maille because she's level 3 in that image and you don't have plate at that point. The half-orc paladin example ignores the fact that you could be a half-orc paladin since classes and races existed as separate categories in D&D. The dragonborn redemption paladin is a great example of this guy being religiously illiterate, as redemption is quite literally the most Christian of concepts (not that being Christian really matters here).
means nothing, it just means the class can be played normally.
>Paladins have been watered down from a fairly defined idea
He provides no evidence of this, and his arguments are dodgy, since they're based on an analysis of Charlemagne's paladins not consistent with the text. Almost none of the famous paladins were actually 'Lawful Good' by D&D standards. Quite a few of them were rapists and murderers, Roland and Astolfo were both repeat crossdressers, and two of them were straight up evil. As in, not even just secretly Muslim or something, actually pledged to the forces of darkness.
Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
>Paladin is what it always has been in D&D - the chosen warrior of a god.
D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD. Further editions do, as a matter of fact, water this down.
Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Alignments make perfect sense. The evidence in the article holds up, and I'm just adding more. Your argument evaporates the moment schizoschizoschizoMormonMormonMormon is removed from the table.
>Christianity has never been a religion in D&D
"I-it's technically not Christianity!! Take that, /pol/!"
>Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?
Okay now this is _actual_ word salad schizoposting, not merely disagreeing with you.
Christianity isn't a religion in D&D. Your attempt to rephrase the refutation of your claim in a manner unflattering to the person who raised it does not change the fact that you were incorrect. Do you accept the failure of your argument? This cannot be undone.
The argument is: Paladins have been watered down from "a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing."
Your "refutation": "B-but you mentioned 'Christfags' and there is no Christianity, btfo!"
Sorry, but no. Paladins are lawful good humans who function as knights in shining armor. That's literally the concept of a Paladin in D&D terms. "Evil Paladin" is an oxymoron, period. Honestly, "non-good paladin" is an oxymoron, period.
You're just wrong.
So the paladin is a warrior of God, but you cannot conceive of a warrior of any god but God or the nearest christian analogue. You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original, and deciding that only that interpretation qualifies as a paladin, and that other interpretations other than the original are without merit.
>You are arguing for an interpretation other than the original
The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human who worships a good God (that is probably some variation of Christ, let's face it)
It's you who is arguing for a different interpretation of the original.
Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
>Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.
It also needs that 17 or more charisma, don't forget that.
Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
>Nope. The paladin as originally written merely needed to be a Lawful traveling fighter that served a lawful clerical order, and its requirements and rules were identical to that of a normal traveling fighter, save for its special abilities and requirements. It wasn't until later that it was made its own class and given its own ability score requirements.
I am going by the Greyhawk supplement, which as far as I know is the oldest mention of Paladin in D&D, which says:
>Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained
That said, I never got why paladins need high charisma when they aren't really supposed to go around converting heathens as much as smiting them.
I'm not really making a claim regarding the others stuff, there are plenty of anons like
who have addressed stuff like the 'good' part of the alignment issue. I'm just not letting you wriggle out of having the 'Christian god' part of your argument dismantled.
The argument terminated at the point "you are a schizo mormon" in my favor, and shifted from there into an educational tone where I educate you and you either learn from me or you remain ignorant.
Now.
The original argument was that Paladins were watered down from "semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type." See "semi-historical." This means that they do not need to be explicitly Christian for my argument to hold up. Your attack on my argument relies on them not being explicitly Christian. Therefore, your attempt fails.
Do you understand? This requires a fifth grade or higher reading comprehension level.
>watered down
Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.
The argument terminated when you posted the thread retard. Scraping here for shitty blog with a bot is the most autistic idea I’ve ever heard and the fact that you think you’re still above anyone here cements the autism for me.
>mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
checks out
lel, look how he totally ignored that he'd been proven wrong in a post quoted there, and just rolled on through pretending that his arguments at any point had any merit.
Its pretty standard narcissistic personality disorder/bad-faith arguing on the internet. Ignore the things you can't address, repeat the same lies until it seems true, declare victory in all cases. I must be right because I've said so.
How is being categorically correct being "proven wrong," again? According to the text, Paladins are lawful good human warriors who worship a good-aligned god and will forever cease to be Paladins upon their first evil deed. Even in the cherry picked Greyhawk text, it explicitly mentions them detecting "evil," "turning undead," and having to help all non-evil characters, which is categorically Good behavior.
Arguing the point after you insult me and call me names is not "autism." You are the one being autistic by refusing to acknowledge the text itself.
Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.
>How is being categorically correct
The post you quoted quotes another post where it points out that the very first paladins didn't have to be good, just Lawful. So you're not correct in any way.
>which is categorically Good behavior
Detect Evil and Turn Undead are not 'good' aligned spells. And helping non-evil characters isn't evil a good character trait, it can be neutral.
>The original D&D interpretation is that he is a lawful good human
Not explicitly. You couldn't be a paladin as an elf in 1st because classes and races were not separate categories by then.
>that is probably some variation of Christ
You have to prove this. Good luck.
>Alignments make perfect sense.
They don't really. Almost any actual human character has traits that would make them more than one alignment as defined by D&D.
>I-it's technically not Christianity!!
It's not Christianity in any sense. Every single official D&D setting has had a polytheistic universe. Even the gods generally associated with paladins - Helm and the like - actually have little to nothing in common with Yahweh.
If you want to prove that paladins in D&D are an inherently Christian concept, you have to prove that they were inherently bound to the Christian god. And you can't do that, so you're tapdancing around the truth.
They remove the Lawful Good thing because D&D alignments don't actually make sense, and because paladins from literature aren't generally Lawful Good anyway.
>D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.
>A paladin character is a fighter sub-class, but unlike normal fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment
>lawful good
>lawful
>good
>fighter subclass
>good
>meaning anything in the TSR era
Pick one
If you weren't a dumb ass, you would know that paladins were initially a subclass of fighter(or fighting men, more correctly) in the Greyhawk supplement, and only had the be lawful in the Moorcocking sense.
while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
this is also technically true but misses the fact that "law" in OD&D was a proxy for good, so it didn't make much difference.
>while technically true, the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint) and the paladin was heavily christian themed. without necessarily agreeing with the mormon schizo on all points, i do think treating the paladin as a generic holy warrior is like treating the monk as a generic unarmed combat class and disregarding the eastern kung-fu theme - it's not a "bad" concept, but it's not a monk anymore.
The issue is that it becomes necessary to have a pseudochristian religion to have paladins, which don't mix well with the D&D straightforward polytheism and leads to the issue that you would either veto paladins outside of said religion or just have call those outside it something else despite being those being identical mechanically and fluff wise, which honestly strikes me as being pointless.
>the first two gods in D&D were both blatant christian inserts (one was literally a christian saint)
To be fair, Gygax did that as a joke because his players were annoying him to make some gods for the setting.
I find it fucking hilarious that he's pointing out the changes to divine sense as though the paladin has gotten weaker. Paladins were weak shit in every edition save 4th and 5th, due to their ability spread being nigh impossible to manage and their martial half being entirely a detriment. In 5th, they're the strongest class in the game. The reason they don't require 15 in nearly every stat now is because that meant you had to roll like an absolute unit at character creation if you ever wanted to play a paladin. They STILL need high strength, high charisma, good stamina, and okay dexterity, but the restrictions are naturally baked into the mechanics of the class rather than being imposed artificially (i.e. if you make a paladin with no Charisma they will be shit).
Also this chart is literally meaningless. The number of demons and dragons a PC encounters will depend entirely on their DM.
Anon, those guys literally become that. It's 99% the actual reason they get excommunicated (the