Post by geneweigel on Dec 3, 2012 11:15:06 GMT -5
Never in the history of me playing D&D has there been such a problem as the "paladin". This character has been misused and mischaracterized for ages.
1976 GREYHAWK a "lawful" character who must be aware of expenses
1978 PLAYERS HANDBOOK same as above but an emphasis on "good" is made.
1980 unoffical Dragon article describing the "anti-paladin" a kind of reverse paladin/assassin weighs in on what a paladin isn't in a kind of crude way wear they eat/drink/shit evil.
1985 upgraded to "cavalier" with more bonuses, stricter strictures (etiquette, first-in-battle, etc). and loss of ability score bonus.
1988 2E reduces xp to ranger levels and homogenized as different type of "ranger" (note Ranger homogenized towards paladins' by having weapon specialization removed)
So all that said what is it about these characters that just takes a great style of gaming and throws it on its head?
The number one problem is player's need for expression of "good" to fit into the complexities of the alignment system.
1974 alignment lawful -> neutral -> chaotic
1976 alignment system overhauled in STRATEGIC REVIEW #6 to fix the paladin to lawful and good.
1977 DRAGON #9 Gygax discusses problems with people playing alignments absolutely and how variants are the solution (this is subsumed in Greyhawk material but never reiterated elsewhere in TSR)
1980 DEITIES & DEMIGODS introduces standard divine abilities in gods who can "detect alignment" without error.
1985 UNEARTHED ARCANA gives M-Us and druids the cleric spell "know alignment" (without precursor in the Gygax article on new spell additions and flies in under radar.) (NOTE: both are kept in 2E in 1988)
in 1978 lawful good was describer as:
in 1979 lawful good was further described as:
Elsewhere it noted:
in 2E (1988) its described as:
2E 1988 introduces "buffer states" (sort of contradicting the LG vs. LG example from the DMG above)
On the "playing side" emphasizes cheapness trumps alignment:
Plus we can also factor in the ultra-cheapened treasure charts and treasure-rolling policies of 2e (1988) as having a direct effect on character choice. Priorly the fighter class was the character of choice as having the most versatility regarding weaponry and armor magic items over all other characters thats why they were kept "vanilla". In a system (2E 1988) where items are not given for random encounters and hard pressed in even fortified magic-user bank vaults the fighter was left holding his ass. This was the beginning of the non-paladin type player playing paladins for the free "power ups" that trump all DMs' treasure giving. So you had the button-pusher type players take these over so much that you can't even recall the time when paladin type players were thoughtful and low key.
1976 GREYHAWK a "lawful" character who must be aware of expenses
1978 PLAYERS HANDBOOK same as above but an emphasis on "good" is made.
1980 unoffical Dragon article describing the "anti-paladin" a kind of reverse paladin/assassin weighs in on what a paladin isn't in a kind of crude way wear they eat/drink/shit evil.
1985 upgraded to "cavalier" with more bonuses, stricter strictures (etiquette, first-in-battle, etc). and loss of ability score bonus.
1988 2E reduces xp to ranger levels and homogenized as different type of "ranger" (note Ranger homogenized towards paladins' by having weapon specialization removed)
So all that said what is it about these characters that just takes a great style of gaming and throws it on its head?
The number one problem is player's need for expression of "good" to fit into the complexities of the alignment system.
1974 alignment lawful -> neutral -> chaotic
1976 alignment system overhauled in STRATEGIC REVIEW #6 to fix the paladin to lawful and good.
1977 DRAGON #9 Gygax discusses problems with people playing alignments absolutely and how variants are the solution (this is subsumed in Greyhawk material but never reiterated elsewhere in TSR)
1980 DEITIES & DEMIGODS introduces standard divine abilities in gods who can "detect alignment" without error.
1985 UNEARTHED ARCANA gives M-Us and druids the cleric spell "know alignment" (without precursor in the Gygax article on new spell additions and flies in under radar.) (NOTE: both are kept in 2E in 1988)
in 1978 lawful good was describer as:
lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order,
characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the
common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to
bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great
importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.
in 1979 lawful good was further described as:
LAWFUL GOOD: Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos
with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. They are convinced
that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good
is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number
of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.
Elsewhere it noted:
The overall behavior of the
character (or creature) is delineated by alignment, or, in the case of player
characters, behavior determines actual alignment. Therefore, besides
defining the general tendencies of creatures, it also groups creatures into
mutually acceptable or at least non-hostile divisions. This is not to say that
groups of similarly aligned creatures cannot be opposed or even mortal
enemies.
Two nations, for example, with rulers of lawful good alignment
can be at war.
in 2E (1988) its described as:
Lawful Good: Characters of this alignment
believe that an orderly, strong society
with a well-organized government can work
to make life better for the majority of the
people. To ensure the quality of life, laws
must be created and obeyed. When peoplc
respect the laws and try to help one another,
society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful
good characters strive for those things
that will bring the greatest benefit to the
most people and cause the least harm. An
honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and
wise king, or a stern but forthright minister
of justice are all examples of lawful good
people.
2E 1988 introduces "buffer states" (sort of contradicting the LG vs. LG example from the DMG above)
Such neutral territories often act as buffer states between lands of extreme alignment
difference (for example, between a lawful good barony and a vile chaotic evil
principality). They shift allegiance artfully to preserve their borders against the advances
of both sides in a conflict.
On the "playing side" emphasizes cheapness trumps alignment:
Remember, however, that alignment is not personality. If every lawful good merchant
is played as an upright, honest, and friendly fellow, NPCs will become boring in a hurry.
Just because a merchant is lawful good doesn't mean he won't haggle for the best price, or
even take advantage of some gullible adventurer who is just passing through. Merchants
live by making money, and there is nothing evil about charging as much as a character is
willing to pay.
Plus we can also factor in the ultra-cheapened treasure charts and treasure-rolling policies of 2e (1988) as having a direct effect on character choice. Priorly the fighter class was the character of choice as having the most versatility regarding weaponry and armor magic items over all other characters thats why they were kept "vanilla". In a system (2E 1988) where items are not given for random encounters and hard pressed in even fortified magic-user bank vaults the fighter was left holding his ass. This was the beginning of the non-paladin type player playing paladins for the free "power ups" that trump all DMs' treasure giving. So you had the button-pusher type players take these over so much that you can't even recall the time when paladin type players were thoughtful and low key.
