Talk:Paladin (character class)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the MMORPG World of Warcraft, Paladins are a class exclusive to the Human, Dwarf, and Draenei races of the Alliance, as well as the Horde race, the Blood Elves." - This shouldnt be there. In World of Warcraft, Paladins are a class exclusive to the Humans Dwarves. Period. The other races are in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade.

You can only create a Draenei or Blood Elf paladin if you have the The Burning Crusade (the expansion pack) installed. But they still exist in the game even if you haven't done so. If you really want to make the distinction, perhaps the wording paragraph should read "In the MMORPG World of Warcraft, Paladins are a class exclusive to the Alliance races of Humans and Dwarves, and - since the release of the expansion pack The Burning Crusade - the Draenei (also Alliance) and the Blood Elves (Horde)." Besides, I'm sure most players refer to the game itself as 'World of Warcraft, regardless of whether or not they have TBC installed. Wardog 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Appropriate Media? 2 Proposed merge 3 References 4 "Generally"? 5 Redundant

[edit] Appropriate Media?

The addition of Warcraft II and III were removed from the list because, I believe, that they technically aren't RPGs. Due to some of the depth of games outside the RPG genre, I think it would be beneficial to exand the offical title of the list to other genres computer games, and maybe even Pen & Paper RPGs. Comments? --Kaziel 17:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article says only "Paladin (character class)" (as opposed to the historical, real-life paladins), so I think Paladins in any game (pen and paper, computer, etc.) would be valid for inclusion in this article in some fashion, if only as an overview. If it said "Paladin (RPG), that would be different, IMO. RobertM525 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Kaziel is referring to this edit of the section on 'Other computer role-playing games'. Perhaps the whole article should be restructured, so that the major sections are (for example) P&P RPGs versus computer games (with RPGs and non-RPGs as subsections of the latter)? -- Perey 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perey is correct, I was referring to that change. And I think his suggestion is with much merit, since the concept of the Paladin as Holy Crusader of God(s) is something that is pretty well entrenced in modern fantasy. --Kaziel 16:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's something that could be a bit tricky: how common is the paladin in fantasy outside of games? I haven't seen one outside of a game (be it an P&P RPG or a computer/video game), but if the mythological "holy warrior" paladin archetype exists in other, non-interactive media, perhaps that warrants an article of its own or an expansion of this one and a change of its title. (Thus we would have an article on the historical paladin and the fictional paladin it all its potential forms.) RobertM525 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well depends on how you define them showing up in non-interactive media. I say this, b/c there are numerous novels where paladins have shown up, but the majority of them are based on either video games (such as the Warcraft e-novel: Of Blood and Honor) or P&P RPGs (such as The Paladins a novel taking place in the Forgotten Realms setting). But those are both pushing the limit, since they are based on either video games or P&P RPGs, but I believe I've found some cases of Paladins in an original series, such as this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581690029/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/104-8608617-5121568?%5Fencoding=UTF8 In the meantime, I'm going to do some asking around to folks I know to see if anyone has read about a Paladin-esqe character in an original setting. --Kaziel 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if the word "paladin" isn't use in other media, then perhaps the idea of an article dedicated to fictional paladins as holy warriors isn't such a good idea. I believe that paladins are primarily a gaming convention, not a fantasy one in general (as opposed to the wizard/mage). Thus I would say that, for now, keeping this article specific to gaming (regardless of the type) probably is a good idea. RobertM525 02:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's already the main Paladin article, at least, for non-gaming material (i.e. those instances where there's no implication of 'character class'; DnD and Warcraft merchandise can stay here, methinks). And keep in mind that there's a very fine line between the 'historical' and (non-gaming) 'fictional' paladins (unless you take the Chanson de Roland to be history). In short: I don't think we need to include more here than what we've already got (so no article renaming or anything). -- Perey 11:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I am proposing to merge all releavant character class article from different games into one coherent article. It seems compeletely redundant to have seperate articles on the same character class for each game. I also see the potential to evolve the article to better depict the character class of Paladin rather than a clear game guide entry, a la Paladin (World of Warcraft) which is against WP:NOT and is more appropriate a specific game Wiki rather than Wikipedia. Please understand that I am only using the character class of Paladin as a starting point and if it is successful other articles would likewise follow the same process eg, Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons) and Rogue (World of Warcraft) and Thief (character class). Discuss. čĥàñľōŕď 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a horrible idea, as the classes vary greatly from one game to another. Paladins for example might have some basic similarities in WoW and AD&D for example, but the details are quite different. The article I came from specifically deals with WoW Paladins, and I am not interested in the specifics of paladins of other games (or else I'd read up on the pally pages for *those* games). I don't mean this as an attack or anything, but using your logic, we might as well merge all articles on every type of tree into one page because they are all made of wood. I am against this idea completely. 24.226.125.244 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. While I'm all for organiztion, I think by combining them in one giant article you'd lose information, and that is something I can not support. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a lot besides D&D so I don't kow about similarities and differences, but would everybody agree in separate pages about each kind of Paladin in all universes?~~

While I agree that each type doesn't deserve it's own page, if there is enough information, such as with WoW Paladins, it should get it's own page. If the proposed merge would happen, the Paladin (character class) would have become much larger than it needed to be. In certain cases, a merge would be a good move, but with the amount of info available for WoW Paladins, I would rather have it on it's own page, for people who are looking for neutral information about Paladins. --Kaziel 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that size plays a role in this scenario. Paladin (character class) and Paladin (Dungeons & Dragons) are both relatively small articals, while Paladin (World of Warcraft) Is much more in-depth. Due to size and detail, I think we could afford to merge D&D with Character Class, though WoW should remain its own article. For reference, I used to play Dungeons & Dragons some time ago, and have never played World of Warcraft. As a result I cannot properly compare similarities and differences, but instead refer to space and detail of writing alone.

(See my comments below.) Another option, BTW, is to include a summary of each type of paladin and then let each one have its own individual article that can go into as much over-kill as it wants to (a la Hundred Years' War (1337-1360) and Hundred Years' War). I'm not keen on the idea, but it's another option. RobertM525 11:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of merging all the Paladin character class articles into one article. Why? Because most of them are too over-blown for Wikipedia in the first place and need to be trimmed down to only what's relevant for the people who don't play the games that use them. Afterall, if someone wants a ton of information on the World of Warcraft paladin, they'd be much better served going somewhere else (like the WoW-Wiki) than here. Conversely, someone who's after general information on Paladins in games (like WoW) doesn't care what the class's stats are, what every single spell the paladin can cast as of the 1.9 patch is, and all the other minutae included in the Paladin (World of Warcraft) article. It's gratuitous and completely unnecessary on Wikipedia. Perfect for the WoW-Wiki, but not here. Ditto any other similar articles on paladins in other games. But maybe I'm in a minority with that opinion... RobertM525 11:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a better idea to merge the relevant info from this article into Paladin (Dungeons & Dragons). The other D&D classes already have titles of "Class (Dungeons & Dragons)", so it would be good to continue that pattern.

Your argument that a person looking for information on the archetypal paladin class would be overwhelemed by the information on Paladin (World of Warcraft) is just wrong. A person looking for general information on the paladins would come HERE (Paladin (character class)), instead of going to the WoW Paladin page. There is, after all, a reason why one article has a more general name than the other. By your reasoning, we should merge President of the United States into President because a person looking for information on the office of the president would be overwhelmed by the details listed in the President of the United States article. There are enough differences in the WoW Paladin and the archetypal paladin class to make this merge unwarranted. --Arabani (Talk ∞ Contribs) 12:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed merge. I think it's clear that Wikipedia is not a gamers guide and the encyclopedic interests of Wikipedia would be better served by the merge. Information such as lists of class spells, weaknesses, blessings, strengths, etc all has a much more pertinent place at WowWiki[1]. --Hetar

Well put. RobertM525 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on merging information from multiple games into single articles, they tend to turn into paragraphs consisting mainly of: "in Game X thingummy does this, whereas in Game Y it does this. Game Z, however, allowed the player to this". If a particular character class from a game has enough notable information to relay then it should have its article. If it doesn't, then perhaps a List of Game X character classes is a solution, with notable classes linking off from it. >Gamemaker 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, we could do something akin to the way the Hundred Years' War and Hundred Years' War (1337-1360) articles were done: include basic information in the main "Paladin (character class)" article, and have sub-articles that go into greater detail. However, I do not mean to suggest I support the idea of continuing to use Wikipedia as a "gamer's guide." RobertM525 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree – The proposed merge is totally necessary and I agree with it wholeheartedly in this case. Most of the information in these articles, especially the Paladin (World of Warcraft) article, is completely superfluous to the needs of Wikipedia. SaintedLegion 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Strongly with merge for reasons stated above. In fact, I'm not sure why WOW Paladin requires a section in this article in the first place (why is there not a section for every other game's Paladin). Don't eliminate the Paladin (World of Warcraft) article, eliminate Paladin World of Warcraft from this article. Also, this article should state a history and trends of the use of the Paladin as a character class in games over time, its popularity, and possibly how the Paladin has changed or evolved over time, if at all, and any generalities that exist between most games. Leaving the D&D Paladin section is okay since that was the original Paladin character class. 24.11.36.143 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I Disagree with the this merge. The WoW Paladin is his own entity, and not to be confused with other paladin's (also thier basic ideals are the same). People searching for info on the WoW Paladin classes will have to sort through usless info to get the detail they want. A simple link to the other material will be fine for example: For more information, and the origins on Paladin's in general please see Paladin (character class) Komplex 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The WOW paladin is nothing like paladins from other games, so I strongly disagree it should be merged. If it has to be , then merge it with the cleric(d&d) class description as this is what the WOW paladin is.

Comment: Say what now? A character class by the name of 'paladin'? Combines melee ability with blessing and healing powers? It's a whole lot like paladins from other games. -- Perey 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would hazard that this person is one of those who believes that a WoW Paladin's ability to deal damage is non-existant, thus is making gross exaggeration of it, either to try to make a point, or to make a joke. --Kaziel 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure why we are still talking about or considering this merge. It's like proposing a merge with the Mustang and the camaro.. Well why not? their both rear wheel drive.. they both come in red... Its because the users that are searching are looking for SPECIFIC information on a subject.. Merging just mean a user has to filter through text and content that might be interesting but is COMLETLY useless and void of the info they are looking for.. case in point THIS merge.. im searching for "wow paladin" I don't want to know where they started I want to know where they started in WOW anything else is a link at the bottom stating "more info on Paladins and there origin in RPG".. I vote that this merge be discontinued and removed. --komplex 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ending The Merge: I also disagree with the merge. Seeing as how there has been no discussion on this for the entire month of April, and the majority on this page do not agree with the merge, I'm going to kill the merge banner from Paladin (Dungeons & Dragons) -AndyBQ 02:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I must also say that I disagree with merging this. From game to game the features of the various classes can be quite different, even if they have the same name. Keeping the current level of detail would also make for an enormous article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging this article. First of all, the content of this article is informational, not strategic. I don't play WoW but I came here to see what the classes were like. Maybe some things that are similar to 'strategy guide'-style things could be pruned, but it doesn't seem that bad to me. Second of all, if you want to merge this article into the generic paladin character class page, the necessary consequence is that you'd have to merge all the pages about paladin classes, and all individual pages of character classes from video into generic pages. That would be rampant overgeneralization and would make the pages all but useless. I agree that the generic pages ought to exist, but the variations are sufficient - and some individual game's classes are noteworthy enough by themselves - to merit their own pages. WoW happens to be one of those games. MrCheshire 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, the way the articles have been changed now, there's no longer a need for a merge, IMO. RobertM525 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm not sure that Baldur's Gate should be noted as a game that includes paladins. Baldur's Gate is based off of Dungeons & Dragons, and since Dungeons & Dragons has paladins so does Baldur's Gate. If we include BG, then it would seem that every game based off Dungeons & Dragons that includes paladins would have to be listed, including Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil. -- Raveled

Agree: It will cut down on the list size. -AndyBQ 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Generally"?

Does it make sense to say that "generally" inn DnD paladins are Lawful Good? They are always Lawful Good. --Mo-Al 00:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mance 05:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, actually it looks like (from the dnd paladin article) that there are some variants which are not LG. I'll change it to "almost always".--Mo-Al 05:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant

It seems redundant to list Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate as games that have Paladins. They use the D&D system, including the base classes, ergo they have Paladins. It's kind of like saying Neverwinter Nights has paladins: it's taken as a given. — Raveled 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)