Which also has an effect on the classification and expectation of what an RPG is for some. I know when I consider an RPG, it is based on what Gygax did with AD&D and his desire to bring some order to the first basic edition release. Basic was neat, but it really was horrible for people who didn't have a background in wargames and resulted in a lot of people just playing make believe with the occasional dice throw.GalwainOthmark wrote: ↑ September 19th, 2024, 14:04At least in its origins (AD&D) Paladins felt more like Arthurian knights/Charlemagne paladins than templars. In fact, it's the Cleric the one that is compared with the armed monks of a Holy Order, not the Paladin.Rand wrote: ↑ September 18th, 2024, 21:51Well, a Paladin would be a holy knight. Being a knight meant a significant position in that time, even if you were nominally a monk.
This is not as clear cut as you seem to assume: Check out the Finder's Case. The Satanic Panic actually has a (small) basis in reality and there's evidence of cultic "satanic" activity related to the kidnapping of children around this time. That said, the D&D-related panic was pure noise and completely unrelated to this.rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ September 18th, 2024, 22:38That's the funny/ironic part. Their religion blinded them to the people (some of them, anyway) orchestrating their ruin.
It's important here to also point out that AD&D 1e worked far more like a wargame than a modern ttrpg, and the players were expected to act within very well-defined roles. What role a champion of evil has in a team, exactly? The Paladin as a class isn't just absurdly difficult to qualify to (I have rolled 50 different characters in a spread sheet using the methods of the DMG and only 5 or 7 can be paladins), but its function is to basically fuck over any evil monster the party may encounter, a type that is overwhelmingly dominant in the MM. What would the anti-paladin do? Be a strong counter to what?rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ September 18th, 2024, 20:04To better understand Gygax's reasoning, remember that paladin used to have significant drawbacks in play. An "anti-paladin" would have no such drawbacks, and just be a munchkin class.
AD&D brought structure to the system and made it more of a tangible means to connect with reality. Some of the most frustrating games in my youth were with the ones who simply wanted to LARP rather than play a game (always excusing illogical, impractical, or imbecilic actions as "its magic!, its fantasy!") and honestly, this same type of thing is a major division with gaming today with how many people simply dismiss the importance of a cohesive structure and symmetry within the system.
I mean, I have no problem with people who want that, but they also tend to be the ones that constantly dismiss the relevance of such systems and the purpose of play as if somehow it is a determent to game play when in fact it is the core aspect of what game play is.