Preamble

For some time I’ve had this idea about signs/signifiers vs inherent qualities/factors/signified.

There’s a lot things people used to say about what makes someone a Paragon, and I did not like them:
(1) I think of [Player] when I think of [Class]
(2) If a new player wants to learn [Class] I tell them to ask [Player]

People also said, if you wanted to achieve Paragon, you should:
(3) Heavily target all the existing Paragons [Class] in games
(4) Dress like a [Class] all the time, even outside games

For reference (Amtgard Rules of Play v8.7 “Awards and Symbols – Paragon” p3 [07-06-2025 ed]) (Italic emphasis mine):

Paragon: Sometimes referred to as a ‘Class Masterhood’

this is an award given to a player for consistently being an

excellent example of their class in full-class battlegames. A

player should look like, role-play, and be highly effective at

playing their class to be bestowed a Paragon title. A Paragon

should take the lead in teaching new players how to play their

class, assist them with getting the necessary equipment, etc.

A player may receive multiple Paragon titles, one for each

class. The reserved symbol of a Paragon is silver trim on

their class sash. Monster paragons use a silver eye as their

reserved symbol.

New Vocabulary of Criteria

I propose this vocabulary in describing what it means to be a Paragon: pillars, qualities, factors, and signifier. Furthermore, I use the word “critic” to describe a person discussing or rating another. “Critic” is to be taken as in “critical interpretation” or “art critic”, not “critic” as in “detractor” in contrast to “supporter”. The person being evaluated by a critic is a “candidate”.

The pillars are the broad categorical ideals explicitly listed in the definition of Paragon (not verbatim): example of excellence, appearance and roleplay as character, effective play, teaching and otherwise making the class accessible. One can variably interpret the exact sentences in the Rules of Play, and the relation those sentences have to each other, e.g. Does “Excellence” contain 3 parts, “look like”, “role-play”, and “be highly effective”? Does roleplay off the field matter? Does “A paragon should take the lead in teaching” mean that’s what Paragons should do only after being awarded, or is it equal with the other sentence, “A player should…”? Is “should” a suggestion or a requirement? Many argue if a Paragon must fulfill all pillars, or just one, or may fall short on one if the others are truly masterly. If nothing else, these (four-ish) ideals are the specific pillars of Paragon-ness the rulebook asks from a Paragon.

The qualities are specific characteristics a candidate should have to be considered a Paragon (i.e. deserving to be awarded the title in recognition). Qualities and subqualities can be infinitely nested in scope and specificity, but would all belong to one or more of the categorical pillars described above. For example, the pillar of <Effective Play> might contain (in your opinion) qualities like <Dominates space> and <Ability to make optimal equipment/spell list decisions for particular game rules or team compositions>. The quality <Ability to make optimal….> might have subqualities like <Can make effective spell lists before team selection> or <Can adapt to missing or unhelpful teammates>, so on and so forth. To be a Paragon is to exemplify the pillars; to exemplify the pillars is to have these qualities.

Factors are pieces of specific evidence that can be referenced and evaluated. When a critic considers a candidate, they use facts they have personally observed or learned secondhand. Factors are evidence that a person has a quality. Do they have <battlefield dominance>? I remember them really effectively keeping enemies off the objective at a battlegame last event. Do they <understand the class>? My friend had a really in-depth conversation about verbal frequency economy. Factors are objective real-world occurrences which people can use to support or detract from a claim that a candidate has the required qualities in them.

Signifiers are psychological meta-statements about a third-party’s beliefs about a candidate. They are psychological; signifiers exist as critics’ thoughts and beliefs in their own mind. They are meta-statements; signifiers do not state “This player is a good teacher”, but “I think they are a good teacher”. They are spoken in third-party; signifiers say “This player is a good example to newbies”, not “This player taught me.” Signifiers reflect internal bias, first-glance assumptions, and immediate emotional reactions. Signifiers do not necessarily represent logically considered facts.

Statements like (1) and (2) are mere signifiers. Those are not the qualities of Paragon-ness. The characteristics of a being a Paragon or otherwise are within the person, and when a candidate has them, that person causes symptoms in the collective unconscious of the people around them. These symptoms are the signifiers. If [Player] is an excellent [Class], that causes people around them to know that [Player] plays [Class]. But even if an antecedent (person has quality) causes a consequent (people know about person), that does not mean that the consequent proves the antecedent. If you say [Class] and the first person I think of is [Player], that does not prove that [Player] is an excellent [Class]. Maybe [Player] is the person I see playing it the most because they’re at my local park. Maybe [Player] is in my beltline or fighting company, or talks about [Class] often on the internet. If [Player] is my first choice for a tutor for a new player, that could be because I believe they have a deep understanding of the class and are able to communicate it clearly. It could also be because they are nearby, or go to park but don’t play, or have loaner sashes. Maybe they are a good teacher in general, or especially good at communicating with new players, without having particular deep knowledge of the [Class]. A symptom can be a symptom of many things; it alone does not prove the presence of a particular causal quality.

Remember, a reasoned argument should claim that a candidate has certain qualities, and those should should be backed up by specific evidence – factors. A simple statement of “I think of [Player] as a [Class]” merely describes a critic’s own thoughts; it does not describe facts, put forth a logical argument, nor even claim that a candidate possesses a quality. This is a mere signifier.

Statements like (3) and (4) are what I would call “strategizing to get an award”. It is attracting attention in order to build signifiers. These behaviors are not necessarily contributory to actually gaining the qualities of Paragon-ness, but they are also not necessarily not contributory. For example, a Warrior candidate who constantly wears their armor off the field is doing so to remind people they play Warrior, but is also portraying the image of a Warrior – one of the pillars of Paragon-ness. On the other hand, consider an Assassin candidate who follows around and only tries to kill existing Paragon Assassins – to the detriment of contributing to the team in more productive ways – in order to get their attention, because they will relatively larger voice in recommending new Paragon Assassins. This candidate is intentionally neglecting battlefield excellence in order to be noticed.

Watchlist, Updated

Many moons ago, I wrote about “The Paragon Watchlist”, and proposed a different system for describing candidates:

1P – Paragon: Absolutely there; no discussion necessary. Already a Paragon-in-waiting for recognition.

2N – Near Peer: One step away, could be proven in the next event. Probably just has one weakness that needs to be improved, or just needs one opportunity to confirm they’re there.

3D – Developing Power: Definitely not there, but has shown consistency and dedication. Every event is a meaningful opportunity to track their progress. Will likely achieve Paragon in an intermediate time frame.

4R – Relevant Player: Relatively novice player. Has established a propensity for the class. Probably in need of guidance. May pursue paragonhood, but has not yet necessarily established dedication.

I specifically framed this not merely as a tierlist, because it is not merely a sliding scale of 1 is bestest and 4 is worstest; unfortunately, it is often used this way. The words are important, because the distinction between each level is much more nuanced than “close”, “kinda close”, “kinda far”, “very far”. With this new vocabulary, I can expatiate.

Whether you think someone is a Paragon is calculated on the basis of the pillars. By your standards, you may believe they require all pillars fully built. You may think one of them is the true pillar. You may think 2 or 3 of them are required, and the 4th is a boost if the others are on the edge. Whatever your final formula is, it is calculated on the basis of these pillars.

Each pillar is filled in degree by its constituent qualities. The pillar of effective play is filled with qualities like <shapes the battlefield>, <supports teammates>, or <blunts enemy advances>. High-level qualities <blunts enemy advances> is formed of lower-level qualities like <overcomes protective enchantments>, <holds off multiple foes>, or <reacts productively to being cast upon>, so on and so forth.

Paragon (1P): Fully qualified. All pillars filled as necessary. Qualities are demonstrated as necessary. We have considered factors of evidence over many battlegames and many events, and they indicate that the candidate has everything sufficient. There are no deficiencies. There are no missing qualities nor obvious failings. If I were Monarch, I would give them the award right now.

Near Peer (2N): The calculus nearly qualifies the candidate. There is only a single high-level quality missing, or a very small number of low-level qualities. If they have one previously-observed deficiency, I might see sufficient proof of them having overcome it by watching closely for a single battlegame. A single event could produce enough positive factors to demonstrate multiple specific qualities, or substantial evidence for a high-level one.

Developing Power (3D): The candidate is not on the verge of being a Paragon. They may be nearly qualified by multiple pillars, but one pillar is lacking multiple significant qualities. Alternatively, it may be that all pillars have substantial progress, but the candidate is lacking many unrelated qualities in different spheres of activity. On the other end of the spectrum, any candidate has made mediocre progress on all or many pillars, or substantial progress on one, could be considered at this level. The majority of players who care about class excellence will be in this layer. I can expect consistent progress out of this candidate; there are so many deficient qualities, any occasion where they are trying will produce significant factors.

Relevant Player (4R): The candidate probably has passion for their chosen class. The candidate has not mastered any high-level qualities, though may have shown progress to substantial progress on one or more. It only takes one good showing to produce enough factors to place a candidate here. The candidate may not have passion nor dedication, but should have interest in mastering the class.

One important reason I rewrite this is emphasize the idea that proximity to Paragon is not a single bar nor metric. It should not be envisioned as a one-dimensional sliding scale of closer and more distant. There are avenues for growth in multiple directions. Ratings of [1P, 2N, 3D, 4R] should not be conceived of as mathematically proportional slices of excellence. Rather, each bracket is a meta-description relating how well a candidate meets the pillars and qualities of excellence. A candidate meriting 3D is not twice as far away as a 2N. A 2N candidate has nearly fully built pillars, and in one good day, if observed, could prove total excellence. A 3D is lacking more than minimal important qualities, and could show significant new growth in multiple different areas of activity on every occasion.

Afterword

These ideas don’t just apply to Paragon, but to other unnumbered awards as well. You’ll note I defined the pillars here with reference to the text definition of Paragon, but the pillars of Master† [Ladder Award] or Knight of [Path] or Dreamkeeper, so on and so forth, could be created with reference to the text definitions of those titles. The framework of pillars, qualities, factors, and signifiers, is a guide to understanding how to break down and analyze objective criteria, and differentiating them from mere incidental thoughts. Proximity bracketing with 1P/2N/3D/4R is similarly useful vocabulary for discussion of a candidate with rejections more nuanced than “Yes” and “Not there yet”. You would, of course, have to replace references to “battlegames” and “events” to the appropriate medium of demonstrating quality.

†You’d have to live in a Kingdom that doesn’t pretend Mastery means “Ten good at something”