The 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.

2 Kings 19:35

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.

Let’s address the elephant in the room

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:

Next up: thieves who don’t steal and wizards who don’t cast spells

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.

Reimagining the Paladin as a WW2 soldier from any side is a more sensible adaptation

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.

512 thoughts on “The Fall of the Paladin

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Was this made by a schizophrenic? This feels like I'm reading Time Cube shit

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      The article seems pretty cogent to me. I mean, paladins really have been undeniably cucked

      Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:


          OP is right, even if he's the original writer. Paladins have been brutally watered down in theme and mechanics since OD&D.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Nice try OP
            Unless your schizophrenia is so advanced you can't even tell you're MPS-Posting

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >if he disagrees with me he a schizo

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            OP, nobody is falling for it.
            Come on.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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.

        Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >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.

        Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            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.

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            You are seeing a ranger because, as people stated above, you are a schizo.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            "You are a schizo"

            No, I'm just persuaded by the article's contents.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Ok sorry.
            You are a schizo AND an utter retard, because none reading all this shit thinks that you are not OP.
            My bad.

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Ah yes, that is indeed how normal non-schizophrenics talk.

            How do you do fellow normal person? Have you praised Joseph Smith today?

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Let me guess – this poster it's also behind the recent /pol/garbage threads.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Yup, it's OP/Trinity.
            He talks about Mage: The Awakening in the article, too.
            >still seven posters

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

    3. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      >Trinity is a Mormon gun nut from the American Southwest. He has a long-standing interest in theology, tabletop RPGs, literature, politics, and occultism.

      Reply
    4. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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?

        Reply
      2. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        I have to ask again – are you guys SURE that it's not all a parody or a sort of false flag?

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          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

          Reply
        2. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          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.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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?

    5. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      everyone knows Greenwich Time is a global conspiracy.

      Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Wow that is pretty fucking pathetic OP. Are you that desperate for attention?

      Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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?

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      It's part of the crypto-skitzo agenda to destroy the expectation of reason or comprehension.

      Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >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

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >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.

        Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >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.

      Reply
    3. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      There’s nothing wrong with being weak, scrawny, stupid, and a trannie otherkin, which are central tenets of great game design.

      Reply
    4. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    An exceedingly based and thoroughly astute synopsis, even if it's written by a cultist of John Brigham.

    Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:


        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.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >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?

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

      2. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >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?

          Reply
      3. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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.

        Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
  5. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    I can't believe this is getting any attention. It's literally a self-promoting blog post.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:


        Yes I’m a full blown Aussie wanker
        I like sergals they are kinda cool and I hate dumb cunts simple as that

        Reply
      2. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >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

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          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.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Wanting your paladins to be paladins and not transalignment is moderate, anon. Not far right.

      3. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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.

        Reply
  6. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    do you think he is putting the comments in manually or is it some kinda bot?

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
  7. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Really? Paladins in 4e needed to have the same alignment as the deity they served.

      Reply
  8. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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

    Reply
  9. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    the person who wrote this seems like an enormous "that guy"

    Reply
  10. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    > 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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous says:

        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.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          Shoulda just kept warmage instead then. At least then you can be a blasty character without having a MANDATORY bad backstory

          Reply
  11. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Reply
  12. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    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.

    Reply
  13. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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?

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Anon you know that wouldn't stop anyone from complaining about it at the first opportunity.

      Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:


        D&D paladins are a fictional concept invented for the game. They are whatever alignment the game says they are.

        Reply
      2. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >Paladins are lawful good
        That's been false for decades, boomer.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          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.

          Reply
        2. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          It's been false for centuries. Roland and Astolfo were anything but Lawful Good.

          Reply
      3. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        And they seem to always stand alone against an endless onslaught of the corruption of the wicked.

        Reply
      4. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        3.x had Paladins of the four alignment extremes, dummy

        Reply
      5. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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.

        Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Also, judging from that Reddit link, the homebrew "Oath of the Hellsworn" is from 2016.

      Reply
    3. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      sad but true, that anime furry chick looks more like a paladin than half the stuff that came out in later editions.

      Reply
  14. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    You can change your setting to what you want, you realize that right?

    Reply
  15. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      If he had played the game, he'd know they've been a thing either in books or official magazines since 1e.

      Reply
  16. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    They extended the concept to allow a greater range of possible characters?

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:


          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.

          Reply
      2. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        what is the point of having a separate class for entities that are functionally identical in nature?

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >different spell lists
          >different themes
          >different constraints on behavior
          >different weapons and armor
          >functionally identical

          ok pal

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            By your retard logic we should have a different class for each type of cleric or wizard

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >wizards are the same as paladins cuz they both kill things

            You are sad little man.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            There are systems like that, what is your point?

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          12. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >Paladin should only refer to my specific headcanon and anyone who disagrees is a tranny apologist
            Oh shit you actually are the blog writer.

          13. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          14. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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?

          15. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          16. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          17. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            >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?

          18. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >for this exact reason drow is now listed as an elf subspecies

          19. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          20. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >themes
            >functional
            >constraints on behavior
            >welcome to 5e
            >weapons and amor
            >functional
            >spell lists
            like for every caster subclass?

    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        The Black Knight archetype is older than your language

        Reply
      2. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        I've thought you people were all about tradition and history. What happened?

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          I don't recall arguing from tradition or history in this thread. Is this a strawman, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

          Reply
  17. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    >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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Bitching about "balance" disingenuously, as people did with Paladins, very much is.

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      >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.

      Reply
  18. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      >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.

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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?

      Reply
  19. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >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.

    Reply
  20. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    I miss when 3.5 was all there and people would bitch and moan about paladin alignment restrictions

    Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        I miss when Paladins were chosen knight of King Arthur searching for the Holy Grail

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:


          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.

          Reply
        2. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >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.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            How many people will associate paladins with Charlemagne and how many will associate it with Arthur?

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >how many people are complete rubes
            Most of them, sure

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Which is hilarious, considering that a pretty solid portion of Arthurian myth is French in origin.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Not many since one group is referred to as paladins and the other is referred to as the Knights of the Round Table.

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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?

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            We should at least give them proficiencies in horn blowing

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            I mean you should stop pretending you know fuckall about either Charlemagne or King Arthur. Christ, you might actually be blogposter OP.

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Is knowing about Charlemagne and King Arthur a single skill or two different ones?

          12. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Charlemagne would be Knowledge (History), don't know about Arthur.

          13. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            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.

  21. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >Paladin of McDonald's
      >Not being a Pizza Paladin and smiting all those who try to out-pizza the Hut.

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      >LG religious Knight, a paladin. Evil anti-paladin however named as the opposite.
      >Other alignments can't have paladins.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          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.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Actually, I'm looking at the text of the edition you cited first. And it supports my overall point. Soooooooooooooooooooo

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

        2. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >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.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            This is the text I was referring to, by the way. And yes, it does count.

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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?

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >can detect evil
            >turn undead
            >must help non-evil persons
            >must obey Good-aligned commands from a lawful authority

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >1980
            1976*

            What these have to do with the argument?

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            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

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          12. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          13. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          14. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          15. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          16. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          17. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          18. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Changed a way I don't like =/= watered down.

            So elric was a paladin?

          19. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          20. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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

          21. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          22. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          23. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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

        3. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >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

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Ah, yes, citing the AD&D 1e rules is "reaching."

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            It is when you're attempting to cite AD&D as the true interpretation of the paladin, when there are older sources to consider.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            You're being goddsmn nigger. The other poster is right.

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            seething so hard they awuiaflgljfgljfa

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            "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.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            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?

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

    3. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      they called the evil paladin the anti-paladin in mock imitation to “anti-christ”. It was banned at most tables.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >”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.

        Reply
  22. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    this obviously didn't happen but that faggot thing just makes the author look like a dickhead

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        So tl;dr OP likes getting fucked by his beard's bull and doesn't play games like every other /pol/ crossboarder.

        Reply
  23. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      posts like this are why autistic reee articles like the OP exist.

      Reply
  24. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    He's also attempted to make at least two threads advertising his blog post, both of which were deleted.

    Reply
  25. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >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

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >Interested
      Meaning he has no clue about anything he talks about and is likely schizo as fuck.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        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

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          Not him, but it's important to know that OP is a fucking nutter.

          Reply
        2. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          It sounds like the schizo line is hurting your feelings lol

          Reply
        3. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          One red flag is not a big deal, but he looks like a military chinese parade

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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".

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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/.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            There’s a reason there is a whole musical making fun of Mormons anon

        4. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          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.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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?

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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?

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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_.

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Well then OP (who needs to talk to his bishop and confess) they're literally just Chevaliers who can be effective off their horses.

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          12. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          13. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            > "a mishmash of various European Christian warrior legends"
            But where in the world, is there in the world
            a man so extraordinare? Tais-toi!

          14. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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?

          15. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >submite your feet pics for my evaluation.
            That's just taking this shit too far.

          16. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            The way of the Paladin requires the strongest of wills.

          17. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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

          18. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          19. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >HumansOnly /pol/fag

            Discord tranny detected.

          20. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Ad hominem attack. Do you concede that your claim has been refuted? This cannot be undone.

          21. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >This cannot be undone.
            Mans don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I laughed and it came out my nose.

          22. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            according to mormons, /tg/: Transexual Galore

          23. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Correction:
            >infers that given evidence from the article, it is true
            >main attack on that evidence is ad hominem
            >therefore, the evidence stands

            See

          24. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Mordred existing counters the evidence stated.
            The Black Knight has always been a thing, and simply expanded on.

          25. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          26. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          27. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          28. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            >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.

          29. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Paladins are a monthly blood loss which somwhat has an alignment?

          30. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          31. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          32. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          33. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          34. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          35. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Lawful Fighter that serves a Lawful clerical order. That's all it takes.

          36. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          37. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          38. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          39. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          40. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          41. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >watered down
            Or expanded? Nothing about there being different sorts of paladins makes it impossible for you to pretend to be a crusader.

          42. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          43. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >mormon autist with mental problems has strong cognitive dissonance
            checks out

          44. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          45. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          46. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          47. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            Turning undead is not the sole purview of good characters, nor is detecting evil.

          48. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          49. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          50. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          51. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          52. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >D&D Paladins are lawful good, PERIOD
            Only Lawful, actually. Paladins predate the Good/Evil axis.

          53. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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

          54. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            >good
            >meaning anything in the TSR era
            Pick one

          55. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          56. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          57. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          58. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >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.

          59. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            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.

          60. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            >demands feet pics

            Discord tranny detected, unironically

          61. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          62. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            The article contains the evidence. The core point of the article has not been refuted, as you claim.

          63. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >The article contains the evidence.
            It contains opinions, there's no evidence.

          64. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            The article contains claims and conjecture. It is distinctly lacking when it comes to evidence.

          65. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            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.

          66. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            > 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

          67. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            for the record the last bit should've been:

            > infers P from ¬(Q -> ¬P)
            > understands logic

            the arrow didn't render.

          68. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            why does being christian matter in a game without christianity

          69. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Furthermore, why does it matter to a Mormon?

  26. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >Mormon that's interested in Theology, Politics, and the Occult
    Imagine my shock

    Reply
  27. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      fluff is a bad concept introduced by minds weakened by decades of restrictive vidya.

      Reply
  28. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    He's so desperate for attention on his blog he's coming to 4chan for >you's and comments? Jesus that's pretty pathetic.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      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

      Reply
  29. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    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.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      >Not sure why people are so obsessed with evil paladins
      The "fallen hero" trope is really compelling.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        this is true. The Anti Paladin, Death Knight, etc. are Classic Tropes. Mordred fits these tropes as well. But they aren’t Paladins anymore.

        Reply
  30. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >"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]

    Reply
  31. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >Why did they take Paladins from a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing to Buddhist lizardkin and "Hellsworn"?
    Because its cooler this way, it was boring af.

    Reply
  32. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Paladins fucking suck. "My character is so good at obeying the rules that he gets shitty magic powers from it." What kind of little bitch wants to be an ascended kiss-ass? Paladins are gay just like historical paladins which were all gay and pedos. Paladins are also racist. Nobody wants to play as faggy racist pedonerds. Fuck Paladins of every kind.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      You will never be a real woman, no matter how much HRT you take.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        Ad hominem again. You have successfully conceded your argument. Thank you for your compliance.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:


          >spend literally dozens of posts calling me a schizo mormon pedo with no argument
          >one little remark about your HRT
          >"thank you for conceding the argument"

          LMFAO struck a chord, didn't I

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Lots of people are calling you a pedo. More and more I'm hearing people say you're a gay racist.

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            A faggy racist. Which is where the word "fascist" comes from – "fag" + "racist".

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            On the contrary, you yourself have cited ad hominem as grounds for dismissal for at least three threads (two of which were deleted for being obvious attempts at advertising for your blog). Your failure to maintain the argument in the face of refutation has you falling back to your usual habit of claiming any disagreement is the hallmark of discord trannies, and should be dismissed as such. Your inability to recognize this is rather remarkable.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            It's already been proven in previous threads that OP is himself a discord tranny and a gay pedo as well.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            ok this is not bad bantz. im convinced this is just discord trannies butthurt that a class concept seems fundamentally pro-white male

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            I can tell from your posts how high-pitched your voice is.

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Awww he deleted it. Must be sensitive about making his 4chan mirrored comments seem actually real. Big autistic manbaby just wants some validation.

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Given that he's made this thread multiple times, it's not surprising.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Yeah seems like he has a bot that scrapes comments and then he manually deletes the ones he doesn't like. Which seem to be the one referencing that he copy and pastes in our comments. Probably wants to make his dead blog seem more active for his e-peen.

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Seems to be most of the comments. He just deletes the self-referential ones to stroke his fragile ego and make it seem like people pay attention to his blog.

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:


            A sad autist trying to get you's so he can put them in his blog and pretend people actually pay attention to him. This is the third time he's posted this fucking thread

          12. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >in the face of refutation

            "You mentioned christfags and there is no explicitly christian god in dnd qed" is not a refutation. It's just a lame deflection. Any intellectually honest person would not die on this hill, and yet here you are.

          13. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Sorry nigga, if you think paladins are aligned to Christian values, you're simply wrong. There's no Christian god in D&D, there's never been a setting where the cosmology is Christian, and paladins have never had the requisite of "must worship the Christian god."

            You're saying 'technically' to pretend that the point isn't completely addressed. Yes, technically – and explicitly, and practically, and in every other way.

          14. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Okay so your point is that Paladins are lawful good humans who worship a good-aligned god, but aren't specifically Christian? That's it? Got it.

            Glad we could agree, then. Turns out, Paladins have been watered down exactly as much as OP has claimed.

  33. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    so I am looking at this article and this thread and it's looking like he is basically right, but he does come off a bit schizzy

    but the people here trying to argue that paladins can be orcish worshippers of the dark lord either don't understand that paladins were supposed to be lawful good human holy warriors. they were basically a standin for crusaders etc and the text shows this

    im torn on if the detractors screaming about mormons really are just discord trannies or if its just bad bantz. prolly a bit of both

    Reply
  34. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >Why did they take Paladins from a semi-historical crusader, knight in shining armor, warrior of God type thing to Buddhist lizardkin and "Hellsworn"? They basically corrupted it.
    Because different people want to play pretend differently than you?

    Reply
  35. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    What the fuck is going on and why are the replies here on 4chan getting mirrored in the comment section over there

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      He wants more attention to his blog, so he's porting comments over to it so he can make it look more active. He's been doing this for a few threads now.

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      So you admit that you're the writer and are blog-posting? Damn bro, that's some persistent autism just for some comments . There are healthier ways to get attention that won't get you banned.

      Reply
  36. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Thread's convinced me that alignment was a total and utter mistake if it's going to enable autists like this.

    I mean, I already had good reasons to hate it (such as some of the kings in Eberron being labelled Lawful Good despite having used slave warriors in a largely destructive and pointless war), but holy shit, this thread.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      I don't think the issue with Paladins is that they are locked into a certain moral disposition. OP/Mormonfag is correct to point out that "watering down" this moral disposition is cringe, since it's pretty core to the overall concept.

      The issue with Paladins is that D&D has a class-based system in the first place. I shouldn't be picking from some enumerated list of character archetypes to begin with, but on the other hand, you shouldn't be calling your Khorne Knight a "Paladin," either.

      Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          I typically like point spend systems, or WoD or whatever. It's constrained by balance (or at least attempts to be) but is fairly open-ended beyond that.

          Reply
  37. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    >playing D&D in the year of our lord 2020.
    >giving a shit about HOMEBREW for D&D in the year of our lord 2020.
    Kill yourselves.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Damn yeah, it does seem to work. This is hilariously sad. He has so little human contact that he wants validation from a tibetan desk making website. Probably pretends that all the comments are from his friends and fans.

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Wow he's deleting these pretty quickly. Not quickly enough though. Dude needs a life, he's been lurking in this single thread for hours making posts and deleting comments.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        He's deleting the post that reference his mirroring of posts from 4chan . All in an attempt to make the comments seem real for his own sense of inflated ego. Dude doesn't just want yous, he wants yous on his blog pretending to be discussing the blog article.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >Dude doesn't just want yous, he wants yous on his blog pretending to be discussing the blog article.
          That is legitimately sad. Aren't mormons big on the whole community stuff, anyway? Why come here for attention, of all the places?

          Reply
        2. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          I don't get what his long term goal is here. Having to fake the look of people caring about your shitty blog won't get anyone to actually stick around and read it. The only thing I really see this doing is giving the blog the reputation of being a shitty scheme, which it is.

          Reply
    3. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      The dream is real, this is a terrible terrible bot. Wonder how long before he notices and deletes it. All you have to do is reply to a post that's been mirrored and left up on his blog.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:


        What alignment is Trinity's ass, would you say? Lawful or Chaotic Blasted?

        Reply
    4. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      Imagine getting your schizoblog hijacked by neets, trannies and autists on 4chan

      Reply
  38. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    None of the texts here are the original appearances of the paladin.

    The very first paladins had to be lawful, and they had to have high charisma.

    Reply
  39. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    >Why did they take Paladins from a semi-historical
    So, the notion of a paladin in D&D was never even semi-historical, and as such the image to the far left is pretty much irrelevant. Paladins in D&D have never really shared anything in common with Charlemagne's bros, and even if they had, the Peers were extremely varied in 'alignment' and character. Two of them were full on evil in the demon worshiping sense. 'Paladin' is an arbitrary name for the class chosen because it sounds cool.
    >knight in shining armor
    Wearing big armour has never been a requisite for a class. It's the easiest way to build a fighting man (and, just so you know, paladins started as a subclass of such), but even in early D&D people did other shit with the class. That said, I find the image you're using to demonstrate how this has been corrupted hilarious, as Miss 2000 is simply low level and cannot afford full plate.
    >warrior of God
    God or gods. That hasn't really gone away. The official 'fallen paladin' subclasses are just that – fallen paladins. They're paladins that did fight for a god, but fell from grace and have turned to evil.
    >Buddhist lizardkin
    That looks more like old near eastern coptic attire than buddhist.
    >"Hellsworn"
    This is a homebrew. As said before, the 'bad paladin' subclasses (which have existed for a very long time) represented paladins that once fought for gods of good but failed to live up to these high standards and have succumbed to evil.

    Hope that clears everything up.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >So, the notion of a paladin in D&D was never even semi-historical, and as such the image to the far left is pretty much irrelevant. Paladins in D&D have never really shared anything in common with Charlemagne's bros, and even if they had, the Peers were extremely varied in 'alignment' and character. Two of them were full on evil in the demon worshiping sense. 'Paladin' is an arbitrary name for the class chosen because it sounds cool.

      You missed the "semi-" part of "semi-historical." Paladins are, in practice, a mishmash of various Christian warrior types, and the name was chosen to convey that. Paladins are lawful good humans who worship a good-aligned God and cease to be Paladins if they do an evil act. They absolutely are the "knight in shining armor" archetype, and trying to UM, ACKHUYALLY your way out of this because they can choose not to wear their full plate to dinner doesn't change that one iota.

      Hope that clears everything up.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >You missed the "semi-"
        No, I didn't. They just have no grounding in history. At best, they represent the idealized hero, and the idealized hero isn't historical or semi-historical. You're talking mythology here. Paladins were never meant represent, say, a Teutonic Knight – those guys are just fighters that happen to be very pious, they're not actual paragons that get powers and such.

        >They absolutely are the "knight in shining armor" archetype
        They totally are primarily envisaged as knights that fight against evil. However, things like being clad in shining armour weren't necessarily true even in the earliest appearances of the class, and therefore don't have to be true after. People were making lightly armoured paladins and running them since before you were born and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

        Depicting a type of paladin that has been played since the class was first introduced in Greyhawk is in no way any kind of drift. Sorry.

        Reply
      2. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >Paladins are lawful good
        Lawful. When they were introduced, they only had to be lawful.

        >good-aligned God
        Again, Lawful aligned, not Good.

        >and cease to be Paladins if they do an evil act
        Which means they can be entirely Neutral.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:


          >So now you have the power to declare editions canon. Truly, you are a mighty wizard indeed.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Shouldn't you be dancing with snakes together with your pastor Jim Bob, lardo?

    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      a bunch of discord trannies arguing with a mormon autist about the nature of paladins and what being one entails

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      A thing of horrific beauty. Basically a guy is unable to understand that drawing the implications he wants while ignoring the literal text in some cases but referring to literal text in others where it suits his preferences is a bad argument.

      He's also a mormon, maybe mentally ill and shilling his own blog.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >it mentions you need X in part A but not part B
        >therefore you do not need X

        That's a bad argument, and it happens to be yours.

        Reply
    3. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      To be fair, what's the practical difference between responding to his blogpost on his blog and responding to his blogpost on 4chan?

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:


        It's more fun here and we are only some 30 posts away from autosage.
        I hope for a 4th thread, I still have loads of megabytes of vagually homoerotic content to store on his server.

        Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        Oh my god, you can post posts of posts? This changes everything.

        Reply
  40. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    You know exactly why and you know exactly why we can't talk about it.
    Next question before lefty/pol/ shows up and accuses me of being a Russian AI modelled on the life works of Benito Mussolini to shit the thread up.

    Reply
  41. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    I want to play a monke true neutral brawler-paladin. How do I achieve this and how do I make it as controversial as possible?

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Just saying you disproved my claims while ignoring that yours were the ones that were in fact refuted doesn't mean you actually refuted them. It means you're delusional and loud about it.

      Reply
  42. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >BLAM! RPG
    I am curious, is there any properly published rpg that reaches the general level of insanity of Blame?

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:


      I have no idea Anon, I just hoard rulesets for when my group is mature enough to play something else that is non dnd.

      Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      cont

      It is a problem with lore as puts it. D&D has largely done away with the traditional archetypes as the lore and class system has become more expansive and more high fantasy. The archetype of a feudal noble who gains super natural powers from their deity can't follow the traditional idea of the archetype if there are several gods who give their followers special powers. The Cavalier class follows the archetype better but that's just my opinion and depends on the system. This is also a moot point in my opinion as there is nothing to stop a fighting man from wearing a suit of armor, lancing dragons, and obeying a traditional feudal knight mentality except that something like the Cavalier let's you minmax the role better.

      Overall, just don't play D&D past 1e AD&D. Try Pendragon if you really want to play it old school with the Arthurian canon. or don't play with new 5e babies if that's your problem.

      Reply
  43. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >>worshipped a good-aligned deity
    >>could never commit an evil act
    >Christian warrior
    shit didn't make any sense from the jump, sounds like it's better off changed

    Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Yeah I straight up don't believe you on that one.

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Okay. Christianity has caused more bad in this world than good. All religion has.

          3. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            I'm sorry. You're right. You aren't an Achmed or a Tammi (he/him), you installed Fedora.

          4. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Basically all culture and science either came directly from religious institutions or out of institutions that were initially religious but then secularized.

          5. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            That doesn't make religion somehow a good thing. Nearly every war has been started by using a religion as a justification for it despite religions teaching peace.

          6. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >That doesn't make religion somehow a good thing.

            Yeah, actually, it does. If the price of culture, science, and technology is armed conflict, I'll take it.

            >Nearly every war has been started by using a religion as a justification for it despite religions teaching peace.

            That's simply not correct.

          7. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >Nearly every war started by using religion
            Gonna call bullshit on that.

          8. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >Nearly every war started by using religion
            That is a gross over statement and is only a superficial understanding of historical events. While the Crusades have religious overtones, these are used as both a moral justification and a unifying power to bring together powers that otherwise hate each other such as England and France. The Crusades were often about trade power, controlling the silk road, and access to goods such as papyrus which was cut off from parts of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Thirty Years War is probably the biggest example of the overall flaw in "wars are fought over religion" as the war was mainly fought over control of Europe. The Catholic France gave large sums of money to the Protestant Sweden to fight the Catholic HRE until the French needed to intervene after the death of Gustav Adolf. While the war started as a religious affair, it is better said to be a conflict of rights as many Germans desired to practice their religion freely.

          9. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            It's actually a pretty small minority.

          10. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >initially religious but then secularized.
            You mean became more logical and practical as a natural, inevitable result of the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

          11. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >You mean became more logical and practical as a natural, inevitable result of the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

            Since they deny the realities of race and sex for ideological reasons, we can conclude that secular institutions are no more inherently logical and practical than anything else.

          12. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Religion enforcing a monopoly on education for thousands of years until it became infeasible to both learned and to believe in a popular God concept is not a mark in its favour. If anything it's a strike against it.

          13. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >useful neccessary thing is supplanted by more useful thing once there is adequate reason to
            >therefore first useful thing was actually shit
            This is your argument, and it speaks more of rage than reason.

          14. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >religious institutions create the good things that society enjoys
            >t-that's a strike against them!!

            No. Hard stop.

          15. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Not the same anon, but do you understand that even without religion those necessary things would happen anyway, right? It just happened that some crazy dudes that say they hear a voice in their head to manupulate the masses did it first.

          16. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            The same could easily be said of all the evil attributed to religion. If it wasn't God they were crusading for, it would have been some other stupid shit. A lot of people are scum and a lot of people are good regardless of their faith or lack thereof. It seems like the religion hating types are just looking for a scapegoat.

          17. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >even without religion those necessary things would happen anyway, right

            You don't know that. Also, what said. If religion needs to take responsibility for the bad done under its name, it gets to take credit for the good done under its name. Period.

            And that means that you're either wrong about it being responsible for all this awfulness or we're right that it's basically to credit for modern civilization.

          18. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            We do in fact know that humans can investigate the world without religion. Hence, people will still do so without a god concept. Religion has no special relationship with intellectualism other than it's ability to impede it once facts become inconvenient.

          19. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >We do in fact know that humans can investigate the world without religion.

            But they didn't. They investigated the world with religion. So, historically, it absolutely does have a special relationship with science, since science as we know it is borne of religion. "That doesn't count because in my hypothetical reality it didn't work out that way" is not an argument.

            Compare with wars and the like, which actually do not have a special historical relationship with religion, as religion is only one of many reasons people have started wars.

          20. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >But they didn't
            They did and still do.
            >science as we know it is borne of religion
            No, it wasn't. Science was born out of people investigating the world around them.

          21. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >They did and still do.

            The conception of "science" you are using was absolutely founded and institutionalized by the religious, usually for religious purposes.

            >No, it wasn't. Science was born out of people investigating the world around them.

            It was. Read a history book about the university structure and how it emerged. Religious institutions created the monasteries and universities that became the sources of institutionalized intellectualism.

            Religion has a special relationship with science. If you want to be a history denier, though, be my guest. You're just going to look ignorant, because you are.

          22. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Religion didn't create any of those things. People who were religious did, because everybody was religious at that point, not because religion made it easier. In fact, religion often hindered them. Half the great thinkers of Christendom or the Islamic Golden Age were non believers actively fucked about for their views.

          23. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >People who were religious did, because everybody was religious at that point, not because religion made it easier. In fact, religion often hindered them.

            Wrong. Religious institutions actively financed science for centuries, literally. This idea that religion impeded science is largely a fiction contrived by teenagers who watched a few Amazing Atheist videos before deciding that their dad was wrong about Christ.

          24. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Religion financed what it was interested in and destroyed or discredited what it wasn't. The idea isn't fictitious at all. Yes, the church funded research, but it also stymied it.

          25. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            You're making shit up. So, do you prefer to either:

            A) Admit that religion has a special relationship with science (and really, intellectualism in general) since the "these things would have happened anyway" argument is bunk,

            B) Admit that religion has nothing to do with the wars we've seen because "they would have happened anyway" (which is something you want me to accept at face value above), or

            C) Be completely intellectually dishonest

          26. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            You and I both know he's salivating at the thought of getting some of that C.

          27. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Some people might comment on whether this hat is a trilby, not a fedora. I'm not going to bother.

            What I will say is that you mindlessly regurgitated a dumb meme, instead of presenting an argument of any kind, so all you've done is given multiple reasons no one should listen to a single damned thing you say.

            Remember, kids, it's the man who makes the clothes, not the clothes that make the man. A douche is a douche, whether he wears a hat or not. A king among men is a king whether he wears a crown or not.

            Me? I've never owned either hat. I'm not really a hat guy.

          28. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >Remember, kids, it's the man who makes the clothes, not the clothes that make the man. A douche is a douche, whether he wears a hat or not. A king among men is a king whether he wears a crown or not.
            >
            >Me? I've never owned either hat. I'm not really a hat guy.

            Yet you fill the trilby nigger stereotype perfectly, and as you say, it's the man who makes the clothes, not the clothes that make the man. So.

          29. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            He’s one of the last few orthodox christians in Istanbul.

        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          eat some bacon in the morning, and you will see the world differently, mustafa

          Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >Goes on a Crusade
        >Sacks Constantine on an order from God Enrico Dandolo
        >Murders countless of their own people because why not
        >Burns whole towns full of fellow Christians to the ground because the Pope told them to

        They certainly aren't the good guys.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          Who are then? The people behind the Umayyad refugee crisis?

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            There are no 'good guys' in real life. Everyone makes mistakes, andwhile religion can be a great thing to guide oneself and strive to be better, trying to pretend that "If u like Jebus the right way then u the hero of the story :)))))" is far too simplistic a way to look at things.

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            "There are no good guys / bad guys :^), evry1 is bad n some r good" is trite at this point. No, some people actually are just the heroes and others are just the villains. Goblins aren't good. They're bad. Goblins bad. It really, actually, for realzies, is that simple.

            Trying to wash away alignment is a very 19yo college student thing to do. It's shallowness trying to be deep.

        2. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          I too am a supreme gentleman of euphoric disposition.

          Reply
        3. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          >The Templars and Hospitalers the closest real world equivalent to the Holy Warrior Paladin archetype did not participate in the 4th Crusade or the sack of Constantinople and were both upset that forces ment to aid in the Holy Land had instead been diverted to fight the Byzantines instead of the Ayyubids
          The distinction between the Military orders and the Crusaders is very important as on many occasions the Military orders refused to aid both Crusaders and even the King of Jerusalem because it violated treaties, was considered unchristian in their eyes, or just plain lacked any common sense and this led to some conflict between them. And considering a crusader could just be an untrained peasant with a sword while a Templar or Hospitaler needed to be a trained warrior with monastic vows its better to take the Orders' approach when your Paladin is going to go full Deus Vult.

          Reply
  44. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    The reason they weakened and made paladins lamer is because they want to deconstruct and unravel all that is white and male, which naturally includes any portrayal of western-inspired shit as morally upright, pragmatically correct, strong, capable, or otherwise worthwhile.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      This is fundamentally correct. It's why every time someone makes a "paladins are cucked" argument, people come out the woodwork to countersignal it. It's uncanny.

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >Whenever I make an argument using a premise made from birdseed and gum, people call me stupid.
        >This is very strange.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          Wasn't the core argument of the opposition to this article "you are a schizo Mormon"? I seem to recall that was the core argument issued. And then when they got called out on it, they shifted from that to, "In OD&D it didn't mention 'good' alignment explicitly, it just said Paladins have to pursue goodness, which doesn't count."

          So, it's the people who think that transalignment Paladins who are making an argument out of birdseed and gum. Not the author they're attacking.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >Not the author they're attacking.
            Indeed, you are the blog owner, which makes you shilling it here even more pathetic.

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            >everybody who disagrees with me is secretly the blog owner

            Nice schizopost

    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Right wing people get so weird about this shit. It can't *just* be that the word "paladin" has loosened up to define any divinely aligned warrior of a knightly bent due to devs not wanting to make up a new class for every alignment, it's that THEY have used their DISGUSTING TRICKS to undermine THE TRUTH AND BEAUTY OF THE WEST and now NOTHING IS SACRED OR MASCULINE.

      basically what I'm what I'm saying is that conservatism is a brain disease and you should kill yourself if you get it

      Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          But I don't live in America and Bernie's gonna win anyways.

          Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >It can't *just* be that the word "paladin" has loosened up to define any divinely aligned warrior of a knightly bent due to devs not wanting to make up a new class for every alignment, it's that THEY have used their DISGUSTING TRICKS to undermine THE TRUTH AND BEAUTY OF THE WEST and now NOTHING IS SACRED OR MASCULINE.

        i meannnn, both can be true

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          I feel like it's less a conspiracy and more because no one wants to play the boring Jon McNaughton painting version of a paladin that OP wants to be. All the Arthurian knights were extremely horny and crazy dickheads with interesting flaws, who the fuck wants to be the sanitized version that lacks any of that interest? "Ohhh, I'm the good guy, I always do good things" is dull Protestant shit compared to the Arthurian knights trying to do good but constantly getting too horny or mad to do good.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            No Lancelot, for the love of Camelot stop thinking with your rage or boner!

          2. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Well, Gygax was Jehovah's Witness, so it explains a lot about why his version of the paladin (and subsequent D&D derivative versions of the paladin) are extremely boring boy scouts instead of the complex and interesting characters of Arthurian legend.

  45. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    This is complete rubbish mate. They expanded the definition of the paladin to make it so you can be a martial for an evil god.

    Reply
  46. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Dark gods have dark warriors too, you know. It's a waste of space to create an entirely new class when said dark champions do half the things a paladin would anyways, such as burning away their foes with righteous/unrighteous fire on their blades.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      I think Pathfinder had the right idea by calling them "champions," because it makes more sense. The word "Paladin" in fantasy-speak has a specific connotation in spite of all the "evil Paladin" variants that have been made over the years. If you aren't specificying that the Paladin is evil or whatever, everybody immediately seems to think of AD&D 1e Paladins.

      Calling them "champions" broadly works a lot better.

      Reply
  47. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Honestly, there should not be alignments and the paladins would simply act in accordance to their vows to their respective deities. That being said, I would not mind seeing dark paladins which were called Blackguard in 3rd edition and existed as an unlockable class after meeting prerequisites.

    Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        5e Paladins don’t have a god, necessarily. Their powers comes from their dedication to their oath.

        Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            I mean, its 5e isnt it?

            But also if martial fighters (actual martial, like monk) can do amazing things with sheer willpower and mages do with study, why not a guy who is devoted to a cause?

        1. Avatar
          Anonymous says:

          How can I make this this argument to my dm when he cuts my NG conquest Paladin's powers because I did something vaguely unethical because its justifiable in my characters eyes

          I've already been warned because my character is ok with slavery if it's for the greater good and it complies with his oath.

          Also my cleric worships atlas. Why would he give a shit about what some humans are doing

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous says:

            Find the text that says it works that way, and point it out to your DM.

  48. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    We grew up and realized Gygax, for all his creativity, was also a fount of bad ideas that needed excising so D&D could become something greater.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      The best products with Gygax’s copyright, namely Oriental Adventures and Unearthed Arcana, actually contain little of Gygax’s creative ideas, but were lifted, much like the original print of deities & demigods with the lovecraft mythos. What’s best for players and DMs though, isn’t best for Publishing/Copyrights.

      So any material we think of as binding, core, and authentic, is usually the leftover trash of what lawyers put their stamp on.

      Reply
  49. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    The concept widened from one specific type of oath-bound warrior to oath-bound warrior in general.

    Reply
  50. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Paladins getting powered by their oaths and not their patron god is also massively retarded.

    Reply
  51. Avatar
    Jim Profit says:

    Because people kept setting unrealistic expectations in game for them making the class impossible to play for redditfags

    They kept interpreting lawful good to mean "exactly what my morsern poop dick morality deems acceptable at this particular juncture". which though people could just ignore alignments, or do a little existential reflection and realize their failed liberal capitalism isn't the center of the universe, instead they opted for paladins fall everyone dies, because it made their small peepees hard knowing they could enforce their own religion. The religion of being cucks to mods

    This is why I say older editions aren't necessarily better

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      older editions are necessarily better because the alignment of yesteryear involved Deus Vult… Take Jerusalem, and Kill the Saracens, rather than being cucks to mods, which is most definitely the modern religion.

      Gimme that old fire N brimstone…

      Gimme that old fire N brimstone…

      Gimme that old fire N brimstone…
      it’s good enough for me…

      Reply
  52. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    It's like I'm seeing the evolution of the genre:

    1978: still old school. Like a classic fantasy novel, where knights actually wore plate armor that wouldn't be out of place in Agincourt or Wakefield. There's even some heraldry, which is something drastically missing from fantasy.

    2000s: Warcraft really influenced the genre. These designs look like a character from a MOBA game, with the Orc's head being too small for his body. And, the edgy chick and the lizard are wearing things that would never fly in a medieval battle.

    2018: Warcraft gives way to MOBA. The character looks like someone traced a character from Overwatch or DOTA. As you can see, heraldry has been abandoned in total for flaming swords and general edge.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      2018 one is literally homebrew with a commissioned art. No accounting for taste from a random asshole on the internet

      Reply
  53. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Those "altright" posters are the normal ones. You're the invader here. Go dilate

    Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        >not wanting your paladin to be transalignment makes you an alt right retard

        Reply
  54. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    There was an chaos equivalent called "Avenger" in First Edition. It could demand shelter at monster lairs and do few other cool things. Unfortunately, it got scrapped in later editions.

    Reply
  55. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >>Why did we let them become orcish worshippers of the spider goddess? Why did we let them become transalignment?
    The containment system works, thankfully.

    Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        This

        Because people with shit taste are contained in their shit system

        Reply
  56. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >Why did we let them become orcish worshippers of the spider goddess? Why did we let them become transalignment?
    because the game is played by a bunch of atheists that hate the "inherently good, righteous soldiers of god" theme?

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      Pretty much this. The whole point of getting rid of Paladins as the good guy holy warrior archetype is because they don't want to admit that Christfags would ever have a distinctive place.

      Reply
  57. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Because the concept expanded from one type of determined devotee to encompass a general archetype. Anyone can still play ye olde knightly Christian brother, arguably better than before considering God doesn't personally divest Frollo types for being self-righteous assholes devoted to His cause for selfish reasons.

    Reply
  58. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Wizards of the Coast did it wrong when they lost the opportunity of making Rangers and Paladins Prestige Classes of the Fighter, and the Bard a PC of the Rogue.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      no one has done an ethos quest system for a “prestige” class yet, but old dragon magazines had “apprentice school” for 0 level wizards requiring 2000 eperience points to become a 1st level wizard, and UA had 0 level cavaliers requiring 1500 experience points to become a level 1 Cavalier.

      Transitioning from Fighter to Ranger or Paladin could be an independent “quest point” system, based on saving bunnies from forest fires or rescuing a Virgin from THOTs. Making the pilgrimage up a dangerous mountain while fasting and growing out the Moses beard to become the next Percival or Galahad

      Reply
  59. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    I got into the game with 4e so I have no nostalgia for older editions and I just might be retarded but why would you want your options to be restricted? My paladin is a lawful neutral megalomaniac who wants to become a god and nuke the planet with divine power and, while willing to play nice, has no problem with lying, cheating, stealing or killing if it gets her closer to divinity. I don't know what my next character is going to be but I can tell you I'd get bored pretty damn fast if I had to play the same moralfag knight every single time.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >lying, cheating, stealing or killing if it gets her closer to divinity

      That's neutral evil, anon

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous says:

        Meh. Everybody has their own interpretation of alignments. I figure I do good deeds sometimes so it balances out to neutral and my DM hasn't told me otherwise.

        Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      > why would you want your options to be restricted:
      >> My paladin is a lawful neutral megalomaniac who wants to become a god and nuke the planet

      Reasons Brah

      Reply
  60. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >Why did we let them become orcish worshippers of the spider goddess?
    Because there is no Christian religion in D&D.

    Reply
  61. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    Why are you guys arguing this? Either way, religion hasn't been interested in truth for over two centuries now. It recoiled from science and the scientific method when they appeared to reveal a universe with no room for God.

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous says:

      >Why are you guys arguing this? Either way, religion hasn't been interested in truth for over two centuries now. It recoiled from science and the scientific method when they appeared to reveal a universe with no room for God.

      "Science" makes no statements on God's existence or lack thereof. Put your copy of the God Delusion down. Your fedora is on too tight.

      Reply
  62. Avatar
    Anonymous says:

    >any good done in the name a religious institution would obviously have happened anyway, so said institution has no claim to responsibility for it
    >any evil so done is 100% on them, though
    Checkmate fundies

    Reply
  63. Avatar
    Anonymous says:


    >NOOO! You can’t wipe out the barbarian savages who attacked you first, raping and pillaging and tried to wipe you out! Just sing a happy song and everyone will get along! The Amelekites wuz good boys dey din do nuffin!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll Up