PSA: "Druid" and "Paladin" as in-game terms

[Pandip]

Outside of immersion breaking references to pizza and cheese sticks, I'm not one to ever have a desire to tell anyone how to roleplay. We're all here for our own purposes and each of us enjoy varying aspects of the EFU experience. But I want to bring a pet peeve of mine to the discussion table, hopefully without offending anyone:

I absolutely hate whenever someone refers to another person as being a  paladin or druid in character.

The first and biggest issue I have with this is the fact that these titles/names/designations are often used based off an assumption that's made from OOC experiences and observations rather than IC ones. You see someone throw down some bark and become one with the land and maybe lay down camoflague on themselves, and immediately you (as a player) label that character as being a druid -- because that's the class that casts all those spells together. And that recognition is totally fine; we all do it, consciously or otherwise. But things become problematic when you transfer this knowledge into your character without giving any consideration towards whether or not such is appropriate.

A quick trip into the Stewards' forum will show you that there are in fact Arch Druids and a Great Druid and a Heirophant and so forth. But these are all titles that are to be earned; just because a character is the druid class does not necessarily mean that they should (or even want to be) referred to as a druid in character. This title-washing affect is even more perplexing for paladins, who don't really have enforced, lore-related titles to make everyone and their cousin call them a single name. Furthermore, the paladin class represents such a wide array of concepts that calling a paladin of Azuth and a paladin of Kossuth the same thing seems outright silly. In the same way it's good form for a paladin not to shout "eevvviil!" whenever he detects evil, it should be good form for people not to arbitrarily throw the title of 'paladin' around whenever they see someone cast bless weapon, especially if the character in question hasn't even introduced that title in the first place.

Making these assumptions cramp a player's style, and they can sometimes be frustrating when they're introduced. Take for instance the whole surname issue that people have run into in the past -- a character introduces themselves without giving their surname, but a week later, someone uses that surname despite not having heard it in character... and then another person assumes they can use it, and it catches on, and so forth. Nobody wants to be the person who has to have to tip-toe up to someone, tap them on the shoulder, and remind them OOCly that their character shouldn't know xyz. It's awkward. In the same way, if a character doesn't mention that they're a druid or a paladin, you shouldn't be so apt to call them such. If they're introducing themselves as a shaman or a wychlaran or a miniature space hamster, it's entirely your character's decision to call them that -- but ifyour character refuses to use the introduced title, at least have the decency not to default to a boring, inaccurate OOC title that neither the character nor the player want to use.

It's funny, too, because we don't do this for any of the other classes, either. Nobody is walking around saying "'ey, we need to grab a FIGHTER or BARBARIAN, to do all sorts of tanking." Instead, we tend to make an effort to continue our immersion and say that we're looking around for a good shield-arm. Rogue, as a class, represents anything from a pickpocket to a politician. Nobody ever calls a character a rogue when they start disarming traps and sneaking around with their xd6 backstabbiness. Bards are not bards, but minstrels, artists, songstresses, warscreamers. Even clerics, who are colloquially referred to as priests, are allowed to get creative with titles. We have Battlemaidens of Tempus, Gloomhands of Beshaba, and so forth. Why, then, must a druid always be a druid and a paladin always be a paladin?

This isn't necessarily a hot-button issue and I've probably written more than I should have on the subject. But at the very least, let this be a reminder that druids and paladins don't need to be inhibited by singular, all-encompassing titles, and that they can be just as fluid and florid in concept and design as any other class. The next time you see one out and about, refrain from the inclination to slap an abitrary, arguably OOC title onto them. Besides, the word 'paladin' is so lame. Don't use lame titles. Nobody wants a lame title. Yuck.


tl;dr I'm not a raindrop I'm a special snowflake please get your shit straight people.
plusalso stop running through the Underdark you're disturbing all the lizards with your loud and rapid footsteps.

[Ebok]

Paladin is a word depicting the top tier of knight in faerun. It's certainly a popular fiction within the realms. It was born out of a storybook idealism, enforced by the deities granting of power. They are, however, very much Paladins. Crusaders. And ICly cannon-wise that title is universally applied. If you are playing a Paladin and do not wish others to know, DO NOT REVEAL YOURSELF. If you are playing a paladin and want to be called something else, GIVE THEM ANOTHER TITLE TO CALL YOU.

Druids should not be hard to pick out. That title is as much slander as it is held in pride. They are hooded and secretive savages. They are widely known within the realms as druids, although some call them Witches, Oathkeepers, Keepers, etc. You might be able to go as far as to embrace another title, but it does not remove the word-use of Druid from IC play. The titles you have listed in the steward forum are add-ons to the title Druid

Neither of these are classes that should be concealing what they are, but both could easily do so.

Anyhow, I reject your opinion.

[Big Orc Man]

I'm a little confused by this.

I certainly agree that calling someone a "Rogue" or "Fighter" based on their class is a bit silly, but other classes, like "Monk", "Cleric", "Druid", "Barbarian", "Palad, but in", "Ranger", "Bard", "Wizard", "Sorcerer", etc. can absolutely be used ICly.

A paladin is a paladin, and a druid is a druid.  A layman might not know exactly what a druid is, and might call anyone who sleeps outside and avoids town a druid, while an expert might differentiate.

Being called a paladin is both an accurate title and an immense compliment.  Citizens in dark times often feel that a wandering paladin is the only one they can truly trust to at least try to do what's best.  Why would you not call a paladin a paladin, or a druid a druid?

If I'm a peasant and I hear that Joe is a paladin, I immediately know that he will not lie, cheat, steal, or betray me.  That's a powerful and rational thing.

[Diz-e]

I think what Pandip was really trying to say is, not only is it lame and immersion breaking when folks get wholly uncreative with how they refer to someone's profession, name, title, etc - but it's OOC to assume that someone is a certain class because of spells used or certain visible effect, or whatever. Logger Joe might call a barkskinned person who revived the forest a 'druid' or an 'oathkeeper', but a city dweller who has no connection to such things save by minstrel's tales is more likely to use terms like 'monster', 'savage' or 'wildling' or even 'forest-witch'.

Try to think from the perspective of a living, breathing persona in this realm, and at least come up with some flavorful ways to talk about someone that aren't the verbatim NWN or DnD nomenclature.

Something I like to do when fleshing out a character is to create a tailored vocabulary for them. I make a list of common colloquialisms or even ways of writing that come up in play, and tweak them to fit the concept I have created. Each word and phrase that comes out of their mouth then becomes a descriptive element of awesome flavor to your character.

I know there are just as many out there that do use such techniques and it shows. But for the rest, just throwing this out there as a friendly tip!

[Inquisitor]

I see no problem with people calling me a Druid or Paladin, as I've played both classes now. I mean; if you see me cast barkskin and instantly call me a Druid it can be a little annoying, but it's not bad.

[putrid_plum]

I think it's silly to assume all characters have no spellcraft or lore to identify such a thing.  Also, this is a fantasy realm where paladin and druids exist and it is KNOWN they exist.  It's not like they are some unknown new force in the realms.

If I see a dude walking around covered in bark or fungus, wearing a loin cloth, and sleeping outside instead of a lovely inn.  Then yes, it's fair to say a commoner might assume HEY THATS A DRUID.

Also to be fair, most paladins claim it openly, since it's an extreme honor to be one!  So calling someone a great paladin hero ICly seems legit and pretty cool to me, it would show he is actually upholding paladin ideals ICly and it's showing.

Plus I've seen people call others fighter, barbarians, bards, clerics / priests, and basically all the other classes.

[PlayaCharacter]

I agree 100% with OP and I am astonished that people don't understand the problem here. For my part, I use more generic terms like "wild walker" or "sworn / holy knight" to avoid this problem. I can't even type the word "paladin" ICly without cringing. The term is loaded with all sorts of OOC knowledge and as soon as you invoke it suddenly everyone just assumes they know what your character is all about. It's one of the main reasons I don't play paladins.

[Divine Intervention]

A paladin is a paladin though, they all share a specific intent to fight evil, live by a strict moral code, have the same powers and various other things.  I don't get what the problem here is at all, there is a class called "Knight" does that mean we should stop using the word knight to describe a Sir?

[Vlaid]

Paladin is indeed a paladin. The term is very IC to use.

But for example, I portray Torrak that paladin is a "human word", and use oath-sworn Hammer of Moradin as my profession title. If you don't like being called paladin or druid, define the RP of your profession yourself so other people don't have to do it for you.

[TheTurboNerd]

THIS THREAD IS RELEVANT TO MY INTERESTS

It is a little awkward to introduce yourself as a Paladin. It sounds unhumble. I try to be flavorfully vague - "neither priest nor lay-sword, but that order which lay inbetween".

But when pressed, you can't really call yourself anything but "Paladin", and my IC book - which you should totally read - explains the Faerunian etymology of the word that I completely pulled out of my ass

[Dillusionist]

Both of these classes, druid and paladin, do have very specific identities. All druids are druids. Some might call themselves oathkeepers, or stewards, but the title druid is absolutely valid. Additional titles such as "Archdruid of the Scamander", "Great Druid of Ymph", "Grand Druid", or "Heirophant" are extras and part of a very SPECIFIC hierarchy to which all druids are subject. The druid class, at least so far as I've seen it presented, is not just a skill-set for nature-themed spellcasters as some people treat it. Paladin is a little more nebulous and I suppose some may identify themselves as knights, templars, inquisitors, crusaders, holy warriors, etc.

Certainly not every PC will know the details of druid heirarchy, or the nuances of paladin titles. Some less educated PCs and certainly might refer to a druid as a witch or shaman, or confuse paladinhood and knighthood - but a PC's background, and IG experiences should dictate how much they know about the world.

Referring to Fighters as Fighters, Rogues as Rogues, and Sorcerers (whose powers might stem from a myriad of different lineages, pacts, and supernatural phenomena) as Sorcerers... is a lot more awkward.

[Inquisitor]

Bitches be like, "I ain't no Paladin, I'm a CAVALIER!"

[Wrexsoul]

I would actually argue that for someone who -isn't- knowledgable about the specifics of druids, it actually makes more sense for them to use the term. My own character never refers to a character based on their class. He refers to each character, if he refers to them in a titular/labelling sense, as what he perceives them as IC. He still calls druids druids. He also, having zero ranks in spellcraft and being a city man, likely would also call a nature-based sorcerer a druid, and so on. For him, the term roughly means "lives outside the city, has a deep connection with nature and balance, uses some kind of magic that looks natureish". He makes sweeping statements about "the druids" when referring to the Stewards, because he doesn't know better, and because it's a convenient label he has had introduced to him as a city man. If he had intimate knowledge of the differences between the various nature dwelling folks out there, he would be more specific in his referral to them. Just like someone with no knowledge of magic who saw a person cast a spell might refer to them as a "mage", while someone with specific knowledge in the field might refer to them as a "conjurer", "blood-mage", "spellblade", etc. I would even argue that a "wild walker" is not exactly a fitting description for a druidic character, since it's too generic - it fits in on anyone who walks the wilderness regularly, including rangers and suchlike.

I agree with the above people in that when the name of a class also happens to be an actual sweeping description of that type of "profession", I can't see why it would break immersion to use it. I would never call a rogue a rogue, but why not call someone who professionally practises the bardic profession a bard? Referring to someone as a "barbarian" because it's their class is immersion-breaking, but referring to someone as a barbarian because they actually fit the description is fine, in my opinion.

[PlayaCharacter]

What TurboNerd said.

[Haer Dalis 83]

Both paladins and druids are very ic terms, unlike fighter, barbarian or ranger. Because every druid must take a druidic oath, else he won't be a druid. If he does, he is aware of being a druid. Not a wild walker or a tree hugger. He's a druid, and he knows. The same happens for paladins. They are not knights, cavaliers or whatever. They take a paladin oath, and therefore are fully aware of being a paladin.

Unlike with other terms like rogue or fighter, the names "paladin" and "druid" do not refer only to a class, but also icly speak of belonging to the group of individuals who have taken a specific oath.