A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

OOC General Discussion

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs

User avatar
Kiffeh
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 12:55 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Kiffeh » Sat May 21, 2022 11:19 pm

Ork wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 11:14 pm
I think it should be mentioned that plenty of churches are in upheaval. Helm's church particularly with the role played in Maztica. Oghma's church is in an open civil war. Torm's own church neglected their duty in Tantras during the avatar crisis in which Torm smote his own followers. It happens.
It seems to me that rather than looking for reasons not to kill a brother of the faith, you're specifically looking for reasons TO do so. We actually do have an alignment for this - its called Chaotic Evil - and a class for Paladin players who feel the need to purge all their fellow human beings from the planet or turn themselves into the enforcer of a bloated and corrupt institution - its called Blackguard.

User avatar
Ork
Arelith Gold Supporter
Arelith Gold Supporter
Posts: 2488
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:30 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Ork » Sat May 21, 2022 11:25 pm

This seems to be more of a personal assertion towards me than an actual argument towards the topic. Church civil war happens. It's a good medium for a story to be told.

User avatar
Kiffeh
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 12:55 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Kiffeh » Sat May 21, 2022 11:37 pm

Ork wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 11:25 pm
This seems to be more of a personal assertion towards me than an actual argument towards the topic. Church civil war happens. It's a good medium for a story to be told.
It isn't, and I apologize if I gave you the impression that it was. It is not my intention to attack anyone personally.

Having said that, there is a fundamental difference between collaboratively roleplaying with people and roleplaying AT people who don't want to take part in the kind of roleplay that you're getting into, and that's part of what's being talked about here. It should be the goal of every player on the server to try and make as much of this roleplay and gameplay as possible consentual between all parties. The number one rule is to be nice to each other - to try and treat each other well and to roleplay in a manner that leaves, if not all players, then at least as many as possible, leaving this medium feeling good about what took place here.

If your brothers and sisters of the faith are trying to reach a non-violent conclusion, and a Lawful Good Paladin of that faith is murdering them anyway, I would call that a move by the player of that Paladin towards an unwanted and unrequited PvP. There's a vast gap between that and doing your job as a Paladin by killing a Necromancer, for example. That is why this is being brought up - some players seem to feel very comfortable with these jarring leaps in justification that seem almost out of character and wholly unreasonable - just because they want to fight another player.

User avatar
Ork
Arelith Gold Supporter
Arelith Gold Supporter
Posts: 2488
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:30 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Ork » Sat May 21, 2022 11:43 pm

What happens when you've got a helmite sect of paladins that are generally okay with untroublesome banites and then the sect of tormtar that have a duty to hinder and halt them?

These issues arise, and conflicts within alignment and within class are great opportunities for stories to be told. Shying away from that opportunity because you personally have made a sweeping generalization that these issues should never arise is not justification to label the incident as "not true to setting". I've given plenty of references that prove that it is.

User avatar
MissEvelyn
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:43 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by MissEvelyn » Sat May 21, 2022 11:53 pm

Ork wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 11:43 pm
What happens when you've got a helmite sect of paladins that are generally okay with untroublesome banites and then the sect of tormtar that have a duty to hinder and halt them?

These issues arise, and conflicts within alignment and within class are great opportunities for stories to be told. Shying away from that opportunity because you personally have made a sweeping generalization that these issues should never arise is not justification to label the incident as "not true to setting". I've given plenty of references that prove that it is.
I don't particularly disagree, but even these conflicted paladins and acolytes of good deities would take great care to avoid innocents being hurt or drawn into such conflicts. And a civil war is an ultimate last resort.

A paladin cutting down another good humanoid for nothing more than a disagreement is neither productive nor helpful for the story, and at that point it's only fair that people begin to doubt the true OOC motives of that murderous paladin player. Would you not agree?


User avatar
Ork
Arelith Gold Supporter
Arelith Gold Supporter
Posts: 2488
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:30 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Ork » Sat May 21, 2022 11:58 pm

Definitely. In the instance of PvP between paladins, I do think it is the player's obligation to make it a big deal, and I acknowledge that anything less would depreciate from the story. Those incidents should be reported. My concern is that this story can exist, should exist, and should be built upon by both parties.

This seems more of an argument of non-conflict vs. conflict and not one of paladins and zealotry. But, I'll say that when we make assumptions about the other player that has been recycled within their own personal echo chamber, you'll never be able to create a meaningful story. The assumption already assumes the worst of the player.

User avatar
Flower Power
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:02 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Flower Power » Sun May 22, 2022 1:11 am

As a sidenote: religious conflicts within faiths, or between churches that shouldn't really have any reason to be in conflict with one another strictly by a rote reading of their dogma are actually pretty common in FR lore and are reflective of real world history. Examples:

- The Churches of Helm and Torm despise one another, despite both being active protectors of the helpless and needy.

- The Churches of Hanali and Sune despise one another, despite both being advocates of love and beauty.

- There's a schism and a tension within Helm's church that has resulted in many Helmites sent to Maztica feeling the need to find reformation and redemption.

- There's a schism within Oghma's church, over who has the right to read it (a la antipapal disputes) which at least sometimes rises to the level of violence.

These things are great and interesting and shouldn't be backed away from just because everyone shares a similar alignment.
what would fred rogers do?

IanPatron
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:59 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by IanPatron » Sun May 22, 2022 1:58 am

Paladins should be by request or award. The DMs can't sit around watching every move every paladin makes to determine who is fallen or not. But they can control the quality of the paladin RP by controlling the availability.

It's obvious there's a problem with paladin RP otherwise this topic wouldn't exist.

I've seen badly RP'd paladins before on another server(Amia). It was not pretty. Not saying this server is going that route.

Normally this is where I'd say that we have to give players the benefit of the doubt, but in all honesty, why? Why should I believe that every player means the best for the server automatically. Especially given the amount of time I spent on this game. I've seen griefers, metagamers, trolls, liars, and PvP junkies. I've seen players bad mouth one another and metagame info on a separate communications channel.

Why should I believe all those people are gone?

Which leads to my point:

Paladins have an RP advantage. If a Paladin kills someone and says that person was evil, the authorities would believe said paladin. DM controlled guards would probably help the paladin dump the body. The point is Paladins have an unfair advantage because they are automatically looked at as someone with pure intentions and authority.

But players do NOT have pure intentions. So it could very well be that the majority of paladins were formerly banned players that jumped on as paladins to get away with griefing or what have you, and then hide under the "but I'm a paladin" flag.

The second point I'm making is we have no real clue who is behind the paladin. They could be a metagaming, griefing, scumwad.

I haven't even RP'd with a paladin in years as I mainly play UD, but this argument transcends servers.

Without having read all the previous posts let me take a stab at it:

Paladins initiate PvP often, fight often, kill often, and some seem to even enjoy it. Why are they still paladins?

Was I close?

Here's the major issue: Paladins in Forgotten Realms are held to a certain standard. Our paladins have no real standards. There's advice in the wiki, but no real fallout if those guidelines aren't followed. And if a player has a threadbare excuse why doing something not good IS good, then they get away with it.

The difference is simple: Paladins in Forgotten Realms must follow strict rules and there's no room for interpretation. Here, paladins can interpret everything how they want. Killing can be the first resort instead of the last. Violence is okay, especially if the paladin is a fanatic(hint: 90% are going to be fanatic).

The fact is, with a good enough excuse or a possible loophole, everything is legal. If it can be done, it will be done.

In all the years I played NWN and all the different servers, not once have I seen a paladin that I thought to myself "That's a paladin". I just consider them good looking fighters.

And before anyone gets defensive because they play a paladin, if they were playing well we wouldn't be having this topic, would we?

Finally, Paladins of different gods don't always get along. My favorite comic book stories were when one hero fights another. The same applies to paladins. Paladin vs Paladin could make for great storytelling. What makes it great is the idea that neither truly want to hurt the other.

If you want to play a good paladin, you must convince your audience(ie all of us), that your pally doesn't enjoy hurting others. You got the lawful part right... now if only you could be GOOD.

Aelryn Bloodmoon
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Aelryn Bloodmoon » Sun May 22, 2022 2:15 am

It's worth noting that paladins fight in wars that pit them against other paladins all the time. Many battles and/or wars are fought between good-aligned races and/or nations- not over general morals and faith, but over territory and resources and rites of succession (remember Lathander is literally a god of nobility and divine right), and most paladins are subject to the allegiances of not only their faith's high priest, but their direct superior's and all their associates within earshot. These are definitely opportunities for some stellar narrative, if given the correct gravitas.

These are also the battles where a code of honor and standards of conduct for taking prisoners might actually exist, appropriately enough, which lends itself to the idea.
Bane's tyranny is known throughout the continent, and his is the image most seen as the face of evil.
-Faiths and Pantheons (c)2002

gryggrstrkssontreelover
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:52 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by gryggrstrkssontreelover » Sun May 22, 2022 2:24 am

IanPatron wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 1:58 am
Paladins should be by request or award. The DMs can't sit around watching every move every paladin makes to determine who is fallen or not. But they can control the quality of the paladin RP by controlling the availability.

It's obvious there's a problem with paladin RP otherwise this topic wouldn't exist.
I don't mean to rag on you lol but as a guy who admits to sticking to the underdark and not RPing with Paladins in years are you actually an audience member to the Paladin playing crowd? Your post reads as very jilted and I don't think it's particularly reflective of the reality of Paladins as of right now.

Paladins are a very popular class and I think it would be pretty out there to ban them from play unless you have an award or DM approval. I would rather prefer that people send in reports where they think a Paladin could RP better and if the DMs agree they can speak to the Paladin player and help them ground themselves better. It comes from a better frame of mind.
- Mr. Treelover

Jeefer
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:14 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Jeefer » Sun May 22, 2022 2:27 am

be kinda funny if the people you had problems with weren't paladins as assumed

i watched one of my most successful characters be mistaken for a paladin several times
saw them argue about my alignment too

the critics never were the ones to pursue it IC and learn that way though

Gunner Recall
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:31 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Gunner Recall » Sun May 22, 2022 2:38 am

IanPatron wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 1:58 am
If you want to play a good paladin, you must convince your audience(ie all of us), that your pally doesn't enjoy hurting others. You got the lawful part right... now if only you could be GOOD.

Maybe for your human paladin.

My dwarf, on the other hand, revels in the spilled blood of righteous battle. Especially if the slain in question are ancestral enemies.

IanPatron
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:59 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by IanPatron » Sun May 22, 2022 2:59 am

gryggrstrkssontreelover wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 2:24 am
IanPatron wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 1:58 am
Paladins should be by request or award. The DMs can't sit around watching every move every paladin makes to determine who is fallen or not. But they can control the quality of the paladin RP by controlling the availability.

It's obvious there's a problem with paladin RP otherwise this topic wouldn't exist.
I don't mean to rag on you lol but as a guy who admits to sticking to the underdark and not RPing with Paladins in years are you actually an audience member to the Paladin playing crowd? Your post reads as very jilted and I don't think it's particularly reflective of the reality of Paladins as of right now.

Paladins are a very popular class and I think it would be pretty out there to ban them from play unless you have an award or DM approval. I would rather prefer that people send in reports where they think a Paladin could RP better and if the DMs agree they can speak to the Paladin player and help them ground themselves better. It comes from a better frame of mind.
Funny you think I'm jilted. I never had a bad experience here with a Paladin. But I have had bad experiences with Pallys on other servers(Amia). I can't imagine where all the old Amia players that destroyed their own server went to(hint: they're here)

That's how I managed to hit the nail right on the head when I easily predicted what this topic was about.

Lack of empathy? Check. Lack of compassion. Check.

Exactly where did I go wrong with the "reflection of the reality of Paladins"?

And actually, so what if the class is popular?

It's popular as a power build, not because a single one of those players wants to play something lawful GOOD. Emphasis on GOOD.

I'm just saying if you want quality, do quality control.

You(the DMs) want good paladins, regulate them anyhow you can. At the rate characters are leveling, remaking a character and hitting 30 will take a couple weeks, if that.

People won't be flocking to leave Arelith because you put a restriction on what is frankly, a boring class anyhow.

User avatar
Skibbles
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:25 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Skibbles » Sun May 22, 2022 3:23 am

I have few direct experiences with paladins, mostly being good experiences in those cases, but from reading the debate, which has been a fun read, it seems to be centered mostly on the class name and the headcanon it invokes.

Why not replace-all rename the base class (Oathbound or something?), change nothing else, and just let it stand on its own two legs with all the cool flavor subclasses that were introduced?

People's creativity will handle the rest without being bogged down by decades of dusty subjective lore just because of its name.
Irongron wrote: [...] the super-secret Arelith development roadmap is a post apocalyptic wasteland populated with competing tribes of hand-bombard wielding techno-giants, and strewn with the bones of long dead elves.

So we're very much on track.

Richrd
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:03 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Richrd » Sun May 22, 2022 12:23 pm

TL;DR: Paladins should not be whack murderhobos to anybody, even for good causes. Few bad apples spoil the overall image of Paladin RP on Arelith. Current system is flawed, needs some sort of automated process.


1. Conflict between Paladins and their general conduct :
Yes, you can totally disagree with your fellow holy warrior crusaders from another sect/church/religion.
That does not mean that you should killbash their faces in over something as simple as a disagreement.
Because you, as a Paladin, are not supposed to merely be lawful, stick to your beliefs and represent your God in all aspects ... you are also supposed to be a stalwart pillar of fundamentally speaking moral goodness and mercy. Even if the Paladin you are in opposition with commits something that'd be seen as heresy from your character's point of view does not mean you ought to hostile him immediately. There is very little good about being a dictating murderhobo, even if you do it for what you believe to be a righteous cause. Want examples of characters/factions acting the way of murderhobo dictators? The Scarlet Crusade from World of Warcraft, Senator Armstrong from Metal Gear Rising Revengeance or Thanos from the MCU.

2. Paladins on Arelith :
IMHO the currently existing playing field for Paladins on Arelith is quite flawed, for a couple of reasons.
2.1. Last time I played on Arelith Paladins all pretty much had to enlist themselves under the banner of the Radiant Heart to gain the power advantage of that ring they'd get there. Maybe this has been changed by now. I would certainly hope so, because the idea that you'd be cut off from a quite powerful trinket unless you constrict your RP choices to fit into the Radiant Heart is strange considering how Arelith is supposed to be all about player freedom and a sandbox-cooperative-narrative.
2.2. Due to the factors of Paladins not being an app-only class and Arelith giving you too much freedom in how you can go about your RP we've had some quite frankly terrible examples of Paladin RP. Not going to name any examples, anyone who's played a few years at least can think of a few. Of course the numbers of bad apples is miniscule compared to the good examples of Paladin RP, not to mention the overall amount (even including those that used to or still go for a mere level dip into the class). But people will always have an easier time remembering the bad rather than the good. Why? Because with Paladins in particular you as a player are basically expected to bring a certain level of self-discipline and understanding of the game's world to the table. It's like a surgeon who can save the lives of a hundred people but then lose his career over messing up one operation badly.

3. What can be done to improve the situation?
Some would and have said already that we need stricter DM supervision. But the DMs are free time volunteers and they can't be everywhere at every time of the day, especially not to just babysit Paladins.
Even my own idea hinted at under 2.2. of how Paladins should be app-only would be flawed, again for the reasons that Arelith's player numbers are ridiculous and that DMs can only do so much with their time.
So we need an automated process of some sorts.
Frankly, I don't know what sort of process to think of. If it were that easy the devs would've already solved this issue themselves.


EDIT: Just a small addendum since it always boggles my mind and is a constant talking point in these discussions. Whoever you are up against, if they are a Banite ... ? Does not mean you get a free pass to smash their face in as a Paladin. Please don't play one if you think that's the case, go read up on Bane and his religion first. Ideally do some reading on some other common "evil" religions too. Realize that you can be LN as a loyal follower of the God of Tyranny. Evil God =/= necessarily evil followers.

User avatar
The GrumpyCat
Dungeon Master
Dungeon Master
Posts: 6572
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by The GrumpyCat » Sun May 22, 2022 1:30 pm

'I want to play a paladin of smiting! Who goes out and deals with the evils that beset the isle! Sword in hand!'
'NOOOOOOO! That's way too violent and hash! Paladins should be forgiving and kind and should give people a second chance, only killing if they absolutly need to!'
'... Ok I'll play a kind and merciful paladin, trying to redeem before destroying, talking with ill doers and seeking to-'
NOOOOOOOO! Paladins must not consort with evil or vileness! They would never associate with such villains!' '
'... Ok I'll just sit in a corner and try and avoid all evil pc stuff and concentrate on npc- content?'
'NOOOOO! Paladins must be active and unafraid of dealing with Evil!'
'... Ok so I'm just gonna roll up a hexblade I think...'

Paladins are set on this very wierd pedistal that honestly no one can ever fit, so unless you're trying seriously to go completely off the rails with your concept, (see my post about snogging warlocks, summoning undead and literally going out mass murdering perfectly innocent folk) I really wouldn't stress about it.

I mean I do get the argument here.

'Paladins are just murdering people without giving rp!' or whatever. But... and big thing here, here's the head-explosion moment...

That's not a problem with Paladins, that's a problem in general.

PvP is cool. PvP is neccesary, PvP Is useful. I like PvP. BUT! Killing (or at least killbashing) someone should not be your first call of option because, in my expereince, it is ultimatly Dull.

This goes the same for Paladins, for Underdarkers, for Warlocks, for Fighters, For Guards, for everyone. Ok? The only difference between a Paladin doing this and a Blackguard doing this is the Blackguard has the easier wrangrod defence of 'It's what my character would do.'

I'm not saying 'you should never kill someone in pvp' to be clear. I'm saying that it's generally better to look at the situaiton and think 'How can I make more story out of this? How can I make a situation the other player would enjoy' out of this? If possible. Sometimes it won't be sure. But if your first response to meeting 'team red' or 'team blue' is 'kill' then honestly that's a problem whether you are a Paladin, Blackguard, Fighter, or Commoner.

I'll now slip back into the background like a shadow.
This too shall pass.

(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)

TooManyPotatoes
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:14 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by TooManyPotatoes » Sun May 22, 2022 1:53 pm

I think much of the issue with paladins is that with a lot of other classes you, as a player, can more easily rationalise that the fighter/hexblade/warlock/rogue/AA had a good RP reason to attack your character. You afford them a little bit of mental leeway.

When a paladin (or cleric of certain GOOD/pacifist deities) kills your character it can be a lot more difficult to rationalise. It can be so difficult to rationalise that you, as a player, stop thinking about the CHARACTER in front of you and think about how awful the PLAYER is playing this character.

The player may have a perfectly lorefriendly, well RPed background reason for acting how they did but you just can't comprehend it.

Have this play out across the game world over years. Have certain people always play the same sort of characters. You can see how all this bad sentiment quickly builds up - specifically directed at paladins much of the time.

User avatar
Eira
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:59 am
Location: Denmark

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Eira » Sun May 22, 2022 2:55 pm

There is a mental thing that can happen with justification in a player's brain. I know I struggle with this and I have seen it from others as well.

"I play a flawed character who believes they are doing the right thing while actually ends up doing the wrong thing" in many many cases refers to "the wrong thing" or mistake that only affects the character themself.

To phrase in a simpler manner, the player is wholly willing to believe that the character messes up when it is only the character who is affected. It's titillating to be the underdog.

It's much harder to go "my character thought they were doing the right thing but messed up and it screwed with a ton of other people". This happens more rarely. Most often, when it is actions that end up with consequences for others or disagreement by others, the player feels that their character is justified and right.

But it's also not entirely them; it can be hard to willingly play a screwup that makes things difficult for others. The ones who normally do, are often in a comedic manner. But as a thought exercise, think about what happens, say, in a dungeon when character accidentally friendly fires on a party member they don't know well or runs out of healing kits or messes up in some way.

This is most often assumed to be player error. It genuinely sucks to step wrong, accidentally or on purpose as there are many instances (not all; I'm not saying people never deal with things completely ingame) where annoyance is targeted at the player. Someone roleplaying a fumble and then dropping grease on their party, will likely get a "wtf is wrong with you" in tells

There is an unwillingness present from the player to accept a character's fallibility when it does not have preplanned personal consequences, especially when they are trying to play a character they can stand 100% behind in actions. So when that character messes up, which they will, it then feels like a reflection on the player's choices (which they were since most situations are not done through a lense of deliberate messup) and people get defensive.

My only solution I can see for now is to ensure your characters have flaws and don't always make the right decisions or the decisions you would. I know this is basically repeating what others hve said, but it's what I got. And on that note, as a player, be more aware that a character error may not be a player error. Accept that infallible people make for a boring story.

But ofc to bring it back to paladins... well, people need to think about this too. When they are willing to believe their character is capable of error by deliberately choosing smaller ways they can act in error, they are more willing to believe in their fallibility. But if you think your character is Justified and Right, anyone else's words just bounce off.

I exist to describe the world around us.

Akorae

Keth'ym Evanara - wandering better paths
Veriel Xyrdan - married and happy
Reena Welkins - Dead

Discord: eighra


Richrd
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:03 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Richrd » Sun May 22, 2022 5:00 pm

Wrote up a big text, with quotes from all kinds of sources to back up why I think Paladin RP should be held to a higher standard and why the class would even deserve to be changed into being a PRC (which obviously would never happen anyways but one can hope) ... but then Grumpy's post there really took the wind out of my sails of motivation.

It's not just about "NOOOO! YOU CAN'T PLAY A PALADIN LIKE THAT, YOU HAVE TO PLAY IT THE WAY I WANT TO." Nobody says that here. This is about a class that is described across most iterations of DnD and even Arelith's own wiki to be elite material. To be infallible and yet if they do fail to at least repent for their mistakes. To be an example to the people, not to get it's image dragged so much through the mud, all because of a few terrible examples, that it's become almost a joke IC and OOC. But yeah, let's instead just make this about single-minded arguments nobody made.

UilliamNebel
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:12 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by UilliamNebel » Sun May 22, 2022 5:23 pm

Can see a lot of points.

My take, modern on the web cynicism of morality informed by religion, coupled with a need to be edgy.

Unlike a careful preface made in the OP, I'll be blunt. Social media clicktivism and bringing political ideological lenses into a fantasy game space, poisoned the well. I see it in other classes to. Modern, uninformed, radical environmentalism combined with political ideological lenses making a lot of continual push to extremism the norm among wilderness types. Applying thoughts, and values, toward something meant to address global industrialization in the real world, toward the nature reverence of the Forgotten Realms is insane, and I do mean insane, as it holds no internal consistency to any of its values at that point. Coupled with all the cherry picking of lore, or outright misrepresenting of its context (or a particularly insidious Arelith'ism 'FOiG' where I am the only source and if you look at D&D source material you are a meta gamer).

Basically, the same people who poison discourse on social media, bring those same tactics to the D&D hobby, to 'win', by engaging in scorched Earth on the social aspect. Its why we have folk from 4Chan here, for the LoLs using cancel culture on certain players as a way to create disruption. While also having genuinely political ideologically motivated people, who because of their online engagement and indoctrination now have to make everything a battleground for the culture war.

In the case of paladins, the class roleplay features, the cynicism of many toward social constructs (regardless their actual benefits and detractions), religion, and morality, just have made it a flame for the moths more so than any other class. If anything, the creep of political modernity into the setting and hobby, seen across a lot of hobby subcultures in the last two decades, is perhaps the single greatest issue here.

IanPatron
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 9:59 pm

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by IanPatron » Sun May 22, 2022 6:32 pm

The problem with the above line of thinking is simple:

This problem has existed WAY BEFORE cancel culture even existed. This is not a new problem.

Somehow I just don't see Arelith as big enough for cancel culture people to be a part of and want to destroy, so I just don't agree with your conspiracy theory.

User avatar
Kiffeh
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 12:55 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Kiffeh » Sun May 22, 2022 7:06 pm

UilliamNebel wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 5:23 pm
My take, modern on the web cynicism of morality informed by religion, coupled with a need to be edgy.
There's a lot of truth in this post too. People are often allowing modern morality and modern political constructs creep into their characters because they cannot help (or do not wish to help) turning Arelith into a site for culture war. Just in this last week on Skalsjard I've seen characters championing for veganism, total racial equality and universal atheism, the special level of hell that Toril reserves for atheists notwithstanding.

I think a lot of people do need to take a step back from these kinds of politics and ask themselves seriously if these things would be something anyone reasonable would champion for in Toril, much less as a foregone conclusion in the manner of modern morality, e.g. 'This is already normal and right and you're an awful person if you don't already believe the way I believe!' It really doesn't make any sense in character context.

Having said that and in reference to Grumpycat's post - part of the issue is that there is a group of players on the server for whom PvP is the point, not a means to an end. As previously stated, if you're specifically looking to PvP someone from the outset going into a social situation, its pretty easy to find a justification for it. There's a strong disconnect between the players on the server who are here to play a living, breathing character who treats death as the horrific mystery it is - and co-existing with other characters who kill 40+ entirely normal, productive, good-aligned people a day because of personal grudges.

In any real sort of context, these people would be removed from society. In Arelith context, they have the blessing of both the DMs in an OOC context to do what they're doing (Although it is strongly discouraged, but when has that ever stopped anyone from anything?) and the leadership in most towns in an IC context, who recognize that there's no point to wasting resources and effort trying to stop these players from doing what they're doing. Its a bit like trying to hold the ocean back with a broom. This becomes even more jarring for many characters who then rush to the authorities expecting help, only to then come face to face with the leadership either being jaded to, acceptant of, or outright ignoring - the crimes.

So people just fall into their camps and cliques and don't roleplay with the other side of the aisle, who they quickly come to understand as unreasonable. From both sides of the aisles' points of view, they would be right. We do always come back around to the original old debate.

Is Arelith an RP server in which PvP is an option, or is Arelith a PvP server in which RP is encouraged?
Should PvPing solely for the sake of PvPing and for no other reason be considered bad behavior?
How should a character rationalize living with open, unabashed serial killers who call themselves Lawful in an IC context?
The world wonders.
Last edited by Kiffeh on Sun May 22, 2022 7:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.

UilliamNebel
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:12 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by UilliamNebel » Sun May 22, 2022 7:20 pm

IanPatron wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 6:32 pm
The problem with the above line of thinking is simple:

This problem has existed WAY BEFORE cancel culture even existed. This is not a new problem.

Somehow I just don't see Arelith as big enough for cancel culture people to be a part of and want to destroy, so I just don't agree with your conspiracy theory.
Oh? And how is it a conspiracy theory? Or are you just using that as a pejorative?

Yes, a general consensus on the social term of cancel culture is younger than the social interaction issues it encapsulates. Thats not a refuting of the point, that is just semantics.

As for it not being big enough, or the saying it is a need to destroy, I'd say those are both strawman on your part. Arelith's size isn't any sort of issue, if the wider culture it is a sub culture to, is awash in this all across its online social interaction, which it is.

User avatar
Hazard
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:27 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by Hazard » Sun May 22, 2022 7:46 pm

I just want to clarify that when I made the little comment about paladin 'not being good' I did not mean killing is evil or anything even close to that. I fully expect paladins to smite evil.

I was poking fun at all the obviously evil (but mechanically good) paladins I have come across over the years. The ones that slaughter innocents, or go into murderous rages, the ones that take great pleasure in the suffering of others whether it be simply killing them, or ruining their lives, or just making them miserable.

I've seen some really nasty, horrible "paladins", that if they were blackguards I'd recommend an RPR boost, but they weren't. They were paladins.

That's what I meant. I just wanted to make that clear, so that I'm not put in the camp of 'paladins should be nice' or whatever is going on above me.

User avatar
garrbear758
Posts: 1521
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:20 am

Re: A discussion on paladins, and zealotry

Post by garrbear758 » Sun May 22, 2022 8:29 pm

Hazard wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 7:46 pm
I just want to clarify that when I made the little comment about paladin 'not being good' I did not mean killing is evil or anything even close to that. I fully expect paladins to smite evil.

I was poking fun at all the obviously evil (but mechanically good) paladins I have come across over the years. The ones that slaughter innocents, or go into murderous rages, the ones that take great pleasure in the suffering of others whether it be simply killing them, or ruining their lives, or just making them miserable.

I've seen some really nasty, horrible "paladins", that if they were blackguards I'd recommend an RPR boost, but they weren't. They were paladins.

That's what I meant. I just wanted to make that clear, so that I'm not put in the camp of 'paladins should be nice' or whatever is going on above me.
Except we're talking about a world where good and evil don't mean nice and mean. Killing innocent goblin children is considered "good" in FR. The best played paladins I've seen were terrifying.
You've done it [Garrbear], you've kicked the winemom nest. -Redacted

Locked