Are Paladins the crazy homeless people of the D&D world?
>Adhere to extremist moral principles that make them outcasts from society
>Take vows of poverty that prevent them from owning more than a small amount of property, mostly for combat purposes
>Follow extremely rigid sets of rules that even other divinely-empowered members of their religion don't need to follow
>Tend to behave somewhat schizophrenically or autistic
>Mostly focused on violence, less divinely empowered than their ironically less extremist religious brethren the Clerics
All adventurer classes are the crazy homeless people of the D&D world
>Adventurers have a well earned reputation for fricking shit up
>As a result, rents go down the more adventurers hang around a city
>Nobles pay handsomely for adventurer lodging far away from the city to keep their economy from crashing
>>As a result, rents go down the more adventurers hang around a city
What the frick is a rent? You live on the land your lord gives you, and you pay taxes.
Yeah, taxes would go up because you need to pay for all of the repairs the adventurers get up to.
The peasants would drive them away.
Maybe in some parts of Medieval Europe, but not all games take place in Medieval Europe.
If you are in a city, you pay rent. Have you ever wondered why a landlord is called a landlord? Titled nobility often owns the land, if not the buildings themselves, in a city. Anyone who owns their own property in a city is at the very minimum solidly middle class, and is likely part of the gentry.
I remember seeing an autistic article about the titles one should actually be using when talking to an innkeeper or tavern keep based on if they're just working there or actually own the establishment.
That was back in the AD&D days though, doubt something like that would be published now when we're supposed to pretend everyone in D&D is a part of a democratic society where all are equal
that’s only for serfs, moron
some illumination painter in the city doesn’t just live in a house the lord gives him
>City
>Serfdom
Bait or ignorance?
>Assuming the economy is driven primarily by government action
ISHYGDDT
>All adventurer classes are the crazy homeless people of the D&D world
If your wizard is in tier 3 and doesn't have his own tower he's not a real wizard.
church is a home
to extremist moral principles that make them outcasts from society
Where the frick do you get that? Paladins are high charisma, and most of them are fricking knights that adhere to the most mainstream faiths
Most people are Neutral, not Lawful Good, and certainly not Lawful Good to the extremes that your typical Paladin is. Paladins would be scorned for much the same reason any person who calls out the sinful behavior of 99% of the population is scorned.
Being a paladin requires recognizing that most people will never be able to live as virtuously as you do, and that as a result you simply need to lead by example to show it's possible and let those who are inspired by you follow suit.
A vigilante who lives an unusually pious lifestyle and occasionally kills people they consider evil will never be seen as an example to follow by the vast majority of society, they'll be a pariah.
>unusually pious
He lives according to the stuff that priests preach about, remember deities only accept priests of specific alignments, so while the majority of people might be neutral there are pockets of more ambitious people too.
>they consider evil
Are objectively evil.
The same systems/editions where paladins have strict vows also don't follow wishy washy post revisionist logic.
>He lives according to the stuff that priests preach about
Not the priests the majority of people would list to, most people are Neutral, they'd worship Neutral gods.
>Are objectively evil.
And most people are objectively Neutral and thus wouldn't have reason to look kindly upon people of different alignment from them.
>Not the priests the majority of people would list to, most people are Neutral, they'd worship Neutral gods.
In D&D worlds the casual person pays lip service to most gods, the books even say a perfectly neutral or good man knows to leave a coin for the b***h queen before going sailing or to ask the goddess of luck for a blessing before gambling.
Neutral people also would take issue with evil because even someone who selfishly only wants to sit at home all day without worry recognizes that evil people interfere with that while good people make for better neighbors because they're not robbing your malls or stealing your catalytic converters
>while good people make for better neighbors because they're not robbing your malls or stealing your catalytic converters
But not as good as Neutral neighbors, because Neutral neighbors will likely leave you alone, whereas Good neighbors will always remind you of your sins and try to get you to stop, and punish you when you don't.
>Good neighbors will always remind you of your sins and try to get you to stop, and punish you when you don't.
Not in D&D.
Good isn't sanctimonious by any definition.
Neutral also isn't sinful.
You sound like an evil who wants people to treat you as neutral
>Good isn't sanctimonious by any definition.
I never said it was sanctimonious, but Good must fight evil wherever it sees it, otherwise it ceases to be Good. Anytime you see your neighbor doing an evil deed, you have to call them out on it and deliver justice for the deed.
>Neutral also isn't sinful.
Unless you're suggesting that a Neutral person never does anything evil ever then that's just plain false.
>most people are Neutral, they'd worship Neutral gods.
Wrong, most people would worship good gods, because they're not morons and know good deities are more likely to reward piety, and the same goes for their clergy. Anyone with common sense wants altruistic faiths to be the most prominent, because it's easier to get their help if you need it.
>people they consider evil
Ha, wrong. Paladins know, objectively, when someone is evil.
>Being a paladin requires recognizing that most people will never be able to live as virtuously as you do
And then smiting evil
Most people like being around good people, most people like being around wealthy people. People being mostly neutral wouldn't change the fact that most people would idolize a wealthy lawful good charismatic hero.
>Paladins would be scorned for much the same reason any person who calls out the sinful behavior of 99% of the population is scorned.
Catholic church would like to have words.
>Most people like being around good people
This is false, most people prefer to hang out around people who accept them as they are, and thus hate hanging around good people because good people call them out on their sins.
>Catholic church would like to have words.
Only a small percentage of the Catholic Church, the most extremist of the tradcaths, would fall under this idea.
>This is false, most people prefer to hang out around people who accept them as they are
These two statements don't contradict each other, most people would probably prefer to hang out with there work friends over a celebrity, doesn't mean people don't like hanging out charismatic with celebrities
>Only a small percentage of the Catholic Church
The whole faith is predicated on calling people out on their sins. Sure most people don't like it when it happens to them, but they sure as shit would when that righteous indignation is directed as someone else.
>Paladins would be scorned for much the same reason any person who calls out the sinful behavior of 99% of the population is scorned.
The Westboro Baptists aren't ostracized because people agree with their message but can't aspire to it, anon.
The tenets a paladin live by are objectively good in the D&D world. There is no moral relativity.
Vigilante? He's ordained by his church to battle evil. And Lawful Good gods aren't exactly radical or rare. They're unequivocally mainstays of their settings that large swaths of the population worship.
>Not the priests the majority of people would list to, most people are Neutral, they'd worship Neutral gods.
No, they'd worship the gods whose values they aspire to. One doesn't need to be LG to worship a LG god. This weird hangup on neutrality be ling realistic you have is both stupid and irrelevant when we actually look at the assumptions of the settings in question themselves (Greyhawk, FR, et al).
You make the mistake of assuming that people aspire to be better. Most people don't. Instead, they want their current behavior to be accepted. Therefore most Neutral people would worship Neutral gods who accept them the way they are, rather than Good gods who judge them for their sinful behavior.
>You make the mistake of assuming that people aspire to be better. Most people don't.
In the D&D world or the real world? Because if it's reality you're concerned with, you're in the wrong place. Again, you're making this moronic "BUT IN REALITY" argument that is pointless when talking about a world fundamentally different from our own (i.e., moral absolutism isn't just real, it's baked into the order of the universe).
Are we to assume that human nature is fundamentally different in a fantasy world? That humans don't act like humans anymore?
Do humans in the real world choose alignments at birth that potentially allow them tangible magical abilities? Is the real universe ordered around these alignments? No?
Then your argument is irrelevant and stupid. You're trying to play moral semantics in a game where I can literally cast a spell to see if you're good or evil, kek.
>Do humans in the real world choose alignments at birth that potentially allow them tangible magical abilities? Is the real universe ordered around these alignments?
Yes, the only difference is there's no Lawful-Chaotic axis, nor a Neutral, there's only Good and Evil.
>do real humans choose alignments at birth
>Yes
Kek, so you're moronic then
No, I'm Christian.
>anyone pious enough to follow religious codes of conduct, donate their earnings to the church, and combat evil must be a crazy homeless weirdo!
>I'm Christian
Bad troll is bad.
> Do humans in the real world choose alignments at birth
No, they choose them at the ballot box.
What are you even talking about? Most people (like bordering on 100%) of people in the real world would be considered Lawful Good.
To be Good you have to be selfless, caring about the well-being of all non-evil sapient life. Most people can barely care what happens outside of their own family or nation.
>the sinful behavior of 99% of the population
Interesting, let's see where this statement takes us.
>99% of the people are evil/sinful in the eyes of a paladin
>A rational person would disagree that 99% of people are bad
>The problem must be the paladin then
>Why would the paladin see people this way?
>The paladin must be overly judgmental
>The paladin's morality must be wrong
I'm going to guess you're a homosexual who hates that highly religious people see you as living in sin.
>A rational person would disagree that 99% of people are bad
Wrong. Christianity adheres to this very idea.
It does not. That you presume it does tells me you are someone a Christian would see as sinful, I'm going to assume you're a homosexual
Every human except Jesus is sinful according to Christianity. That you don't know this means you must not be Christian yourself, and therefore lack the religious background to understand Paladins.
>Every human except Jesus is sinful according to Christianity
That's Catholics and Baptists, Anon. Only faiths that have to wash away "original sin" assume everyone is born sinful.
I'm sorry anon but if you are a Christian then either your church has caught a severe case of poz or you haven't properly understood what you've been taught. It's obviously true that people aren't perfect and can't help but sin - that is, we are sinful. What you're talking about is at best antinomianism and at worst Rousseauian utopianism that's not Christian in any meaningful sense. Going to assume the first one based on this post
.
>lack the religious background to understand Paladins.
So, if someone doesn't agree with your negative views on religion, that means they're doing it wrong and shouldn't be allowed to play a paladin because they might not play them in a such a way that confirms your bias? Woooooow.
>calls out
Calling out is sinful behavior. Disagreement is what you mean when it comes to being lawful good.
can someone post the picture of her without the armor?
Why would you want that?
mostly because I was only half sure it was real, thanks anon!
cheers
Hmph, damn crusader!
That's a cool cape, I wonder what they're wearing under it.
Nothing too flashy, the knightly order is sworn to poverty.
Sauce? Cannot find literally any sauce of her and she's so cute!!!
the author goes by "waterkuma"
TL Note: "kuma" means "bear"
NTA but I found it but theres no nude. Did I miss anything?
Nah, that's it. He doesn't draw much actual nudes, mostly just teasing / suggestive stuff.
Why crop it? It's SFW
The hustle is appreciated but,
dude,
trolling essentially, alluding at something that's not really there or providing misleading but not factually wrong information is subtle old-fashioned trolling
Thanks Anon
I like embarrassed undressed girls but this girl just looks sad 🙁
>Adhere to extremist moral principles that make them outcasts from society
You're only an outcast if you can't sell it.
>Take vows of poverty that prevent them from owning more than a small amount of property, mostly for combat purposes'
Factually incorrect.
>Follow extremely rigid sets of rules that even other divinely-empowered members of their religion don't need to follow
True. That is a massive design issue.
>Tend to behave somewhat schizophrenically or autistic
Factually incorrect. You do not play games.
>Mostly focused on violence, less divinely empowered than their ironically less extremist religious brethren the Clerics
Factually incorrect. You do not play games. Clerics are not healbots and haven't been healbots for the vast majority of the time D&D has been around. The absence of Smite is the only thing that makes Clerics built right less capable of inflicting violence.
In short. OP does not play games.
OP is a homosexual.
OP is not the cool kind of jiving homosexual but instead the type of homosexual that creeps on boys at the public pool.
No, most non-corrupt Lords and authority figures will be thrilled that a Paladin has shown up. They'll practically be on their knees ready to suck Paladin balls because you're the one trustworthy motherfricker around.
>No, most non-corrupt Lords and authority figures
So none of them.
If your GM is a teenager I guess?
Even with people running around who can literally see evil on them?
Paladins take vows of poverty that limit them to a very small amount of property, they can kill corrupt rulers, but not replace them, so they basically would always be killing the people in charge all the time.
>Paladins take vows of poverty that limit them to a very small amount of property
This.
Their castle's MAXIMUM value was only 200kgp. I bet that doesn't even pay for a keep, let alone inner walls.
I always thought this was funny since it says the horse is likewise gifted. That means it can lay on hands, dispel evil, has better saves, and if you could make it hold a Holy Sword, it would get the antimagic benefits.
Also it would get the ability to detect evil within 6"
Now " usually connotes inches, so basically as long as you never hug the paladin or his horse he will never know you're evil
I do believe that was written for use on a battle mat with 25/28mm figures, which makes 6" roughly 30' ish, given 1" squares that represent 5x5'.
Hot take: true neutrals are a vocal minority who think they're more common than they really are, when the fact they cannot run societies unassisted by other alignment proves that they're an anomaly that rises only in settled regions where their inability to organize isn't a major impediment to survival.
>when the fact they cannot run societies unassisted by other alignment proves that they're an anomaly that rises only in settled regions where their inability to organize isn't a major impediment to survival.
Good never runs societies. If Neutral depends on other alignments to run society, it is only Evil that they rely on.
Interesting take.
I might use this for a crazed puritanical sect. Like they get kicked out of places for being too puritanical, pilgrim style.
Everyone's got paladin powers, but no one has cleric powers, so there's sort of open questions about whether the puritans are right, or just crazy.
Maybe make the hints subtle, until the party is Smited by Goodie Proctor for engaging in public drunkenness.
Since clerics are the ones that are actually powered by a god, while paladins are either a derivative or empowered by their sheer devotion to the raw concepts of GOOD and LAW and/or their oaths of chivalry, a group that can only be paladins but never get any clerics is inherently one that doesn't have the support of any gods. They might still be righteous and good, but they are not in line with what their god wants to see.
Not necessarily, just means that for whatever reason that god simply just didn't see fit to empower them personally, not that they aren't in line with the goals of the said god.
I dunno, "we literally cannot get direct power from our god while the people we disagree with can, we can only get the generic good boy stuff that they also get" is a pretty damning statement to me.
But it's called divine smite.
Maybe they are so radical they think the good gods aren't good enough.
Like the god of bards encourages lawlessness and debauchery. The god of war is too bloodthirsty to be really good. The god of love encourages promiscuity and sex outside of marriage.
Or if the good gods were really good, they would be doing more.
>Or if the good gods were really good, they would be doing more.
There are gods of evil, why aren't they doing more? Because gods oppose each other directly, more than they do indirectly with mortals as a medium. Remember, for every insane evil cultist serving the god of baby eating, there's a dozen good priests working openly in temples in cities all over the world. It's not that good gods are inactive, it's that the acts of evil gods stand out more because they differ from the generally good norm.
>There are gods of evil, why aren't they doing more?
Because sloth is a vice.
I don't know what kind of homeless people live in your area but most of the ones near me are some combination of methhead and/or veteran
Yes, as a "crazy homeless person" in this world, I can assure you that we are in fact paladins of a secret and hidden faith. All physical violence we do is in fact a symbolic ritual of the invisible spirit war that goes on around you blind heathens. We fight an endless war against the satanic esper CIA demons from their satellite torture bases. We are the heroes you deserve.
>Imagine thinking someone promoted to the rank of paladin wouldn't have been screened in anyway and just given divine powers to zealously kill anyone they can leverage as "evil"
>Imagine thinking someone studying under faith wouldn't have a sense of spirituality or humility, that they would act in the same way as a crazed rabble of peasants eager to lynch the accused would
Imagine not knowing how to greentext
>Imagine being a homosexual
>Imagine thinking someone promoted to the rank of paladin
Paladins aren't "promoted" through any screening process, only the gods determine who becomes a Paladin
>only the gods determine who becomes a Paladin
Categorically false and unsupported by every edition except for 4e
You aren't a 4rrygay, are you?
Even in 4e, it's a ritual performed by a mortal church that imbues paladins. Paladins have to choose to be paladins in every edition. There is no way to force it on someone, and most of the time it would be extremely easy for them to unpaladin themselves. A god can force clericness onto someone though.
Well, no, not any kind of Paladinic order I've ever heard represented. Paladins tend to be closer to the model Jedi, then crazed zealot, street preacher or homeless vagabond.
They're measured, codified. They're knowledgeable, trained, competent and respected, as warriors, champions and defenders, but also as sages, advisers and sources of perspective.
Still, it's a fun concept. Testy young paladins or aspirants on personal journeys, sleeping around in their basic armour, trying to gain skill and experience.
>Not being a sodomite land baron is... le bad!
Who are you talking to?
>morality is extremism
Take your post modernist bullshit and frick right off.
You don't have to follow a Paladin Oath to be Good. Hell, Clerics literally receive divine powers from their gods and they don't have to take oaths. The extremely stringent moral behavior of the Paladin is an anomaly even amongst normal moral people.
>click on thread for cute boy knight
>it's a tomboy
This makes me want to play a barbarian who thinks he’s a paladin but is just schizo
OP, paladins in almost every single setting uphold the status quo, have mainstream beliefs and are widely welcomed and accepted by everyone. I have no fricking idea what kinda dnd game you played where that wasn't the case
you do play games, right?
>Adhere to extremist moral principles that make them outcasts from society
Citation needed for them being societal outcasts
>Take vows of poverty that prevent them from owning more than a small amount of property, mostly for combat purposes
Citation needed
>Follow extremely rigid sets of rules that even other divinely-empowered members of their religion don't need to follow
Have you ever looked at paladin oaths? I assume not.
>Tend to behave somewhat schizophrenically or autistic
Citation needed.
>Mostly focused on violence, less divinely empowered than their ironically less extremist religious brethren the Clerics
Holy warriors act like holy warriors? NO WAY!
I rate 1/10 shit quality
>Adhere to extremist moral principles that make them outcasts from society
From which society? Which principles? Which brand of paladin? Which game system? Which setting?
>Take vows of poverty that prevent them from owning more than a small amount of property, mostly for combat purposes
Is that always the case? isn't that based on whatever church or oath they're bound to? is that all of them or just some of them? What system or world is this based in? What are you talking about?
>Follow extremely rigid sets of rules that even other divinely-empowered members of their religion don't need to follow
Is that always the case? Like what? what principles? and what sets them apart from the other members of that particular order? Or is that conjecture? it would help if you mentioned what system or setting this was based in...
>Tend to behave somewhat schizophrenically or autistic
Now I'm just convinced you're basing this on one bad experience you had with one player. Am I right? Please tell me, what system or setting was it?
>Mostly focused on violence, less divinely empowered than their ironically less extremist religious brethren the Clerics
Wouldn't that entirely depend on the character? Or even the directives of their order or even their deity? I suppose that also depends on what system or setting you're playing in.
>Adhere to extremist moral principles that make them outcasts from society
SINCE WHEN, paladins are often knights, nobles
>Take vows of poverty that prevent them from owning more than a small amount of property, mostly for combat purposes
oh yeah, the cheap ass magical artifacts, horse and plate armor
>Follow extremely rigid sets of rules that even other divinely-empowered members of their religion don't need to follow
that's religion
>Tend to behave somewhat schizophrenically or autistic
says who?
>Mostly focused on violence, less divinely empowered than their ironically less extremist religious brethren the Clerics
a cleric would get trashed by a palain in 1 on 1 combat
>that's religion
Clerics are religious and they don't have that same set of rules to follow yet they're still divinely empowered.
Not everyone who practices the same faith has the same rules. A priest, a nun and a monk don't all use the same manual, Anon.
No, I'd say priests, nuns and monks do follow mostly the same ruleset for most interactions. They may not do the same things in their daily life and obviously there's things one of them does that the others don't (for example, I'm pretty sure a normal monk or nun isn't qualified to grant absolution for you sins) but you can generally expect them to behave similarly if confronted with the same problems.
Okay, how about a lay knight sworn to chivalry so hard that he gets power from it, who also happens to be a member of the faith?
Define chivalry. If it's the actual chivalric code developed from Christian teachings then he should be expected to still behave similarly to a priest in many matters.
It's a romanticized version of chivalry mostly based on the knights of the round table and the peers of Charlemagne.
Actual chivalry is something to be ignored, especially when those pesky priests tell you to only war on Tuesdays and not kill each other so much in tournaments.
Generally similar yes, but there's plenty of variation.
Unfortunately I don't think there's a rule against making you upset, and people post pictures on /tg/ all the time.
you have a name!
We all have names anon, it is the social tyranny of anonymous board culture that seeks to rob you of your individuality. Free yourself!
you're from reddit, aren't you?
Why are you avoiding responding directly? Are you hoping he'll miss your post so you can get the last word in?
What's this 'calling people out' and the idea of being good, meaning you punish your neighbors/call them out? The paladin isn't some fricking nosy frick trying to figure out who left their garbage out too early or sneaking up behind people doing pre-marital boning or some shit to spank them or some shit.
morons project a lot over this because IRL church people give them shit about something. So, they object to the idea that a church person, even fictional, can be anything but a self righteous busybody. I know a guy who's so deep into ACAB that he decided Robocop is a bad movie now because it has cops as anything but evil.
Nah, I just don't like giving trolls (You)s since they really only want a reaction out of you.
I think it's because you're a coward, personally. "They only want a reaction" is a pussy's cop out.
Okay, that's fine.
>Follow extremely rigid sets of rules that even other divinely-empowered members of their religion don't need to follow
This was always moronic, paladins, clerics, priests etc should all follow the same code set down by their faith. DnD and its consequences have been a disaster for the fantasy genre.
>should all follow the same code set down by their faith
See
Paladins are knights, not priests. They follow a romanticized version of the code of chivalry in early editions, then pivot to "follow an extreme alignment code" later, then in 4e, they finally got to be explicitly powered by a god through a church (and it had to be through a church due to a very specific ritual that imbues paladinhood), ironically losing all codes since they can't fall in 4e, then there was a final pivot to "follow any of these codes, one of which is chivalry, some of which may relate to gods" in 5e.
>then there was a final pivot
Anon, you are super optimistic thinking it's the final change.
5.5 is coming in 2024, where they plan to make the Tasha changes part of core. 6e where they might pivot it again isn't even on the horizon. I'm not expecting any change in paladins this decade.
>DnD and its consequences have been a disaster for the fantasy genre.
Yes.
Breh, do you even the rules of St. Benedict?
The thing about making Paladins DEUS VULT Christian crusaders is that they live in a world where there's a different church to a different god over every hill. Even priests can't function if they're xenophobic about religion, because they can't separate themselves or their communities from other faiths.