Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What do you consider the quintessential knight in shinning armor?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tratyn Runewind" data-source="post: 181968" data-attributes="member: 685"><p>Hi again!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Paladins have divine spells and "holy" abilities. And while it's true in D&D that this doesn't necessarily mean formal association with an organized faith, the very definition of the "lawful" component of a paladin's alignment would tend mightily to encourage such association. Still, alternatives are certainly possible - say, the lone paladin maintaining the true faith in the midst of a corrupt or apathetic religious hierarchy. All you need is a reasonable explanation that will fly for your DM, or doesn't stretch your players' suspension of disbelief too far...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, and the same could be said for Roland. This is why I made the distinction between "the original paladins" and "the D&D paladin class". As with Arthur's knights, I doubt many of Charlemagne's paladins would be in the D&D Paladin class. I probably should have made the distinction a bit clearer. Among historical European knights, I'd probably reserve the Paladin class for especially devout members of orders like the Templars, the Hospitallers (and their Maltese descendants), the Knights of Christ, and the pilgrim-guarding church knights of places like Santiago de Compostella, as well as individual knights who took vows of service to particular church leaders. Some of the fighters attached to temples of the faiths of the Far East could also be considered Paladins; Li Mu Bai of <em>Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon</em> could be reasonably well-represented in D&D as a monk/paladin (of respectably high level, too).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I tend to agree with you about judging historical figures by modern standards. And I'm also fairly confident that Jerusalem's ransomed defenders and Latin Christians were happy not to be massacred. The First Crusade's conquest of Jerusalem was by no means a certain thing. The Crusaders suffered outside the walls for weeks, and took out their frustrations on the inhabitants when they breached the walls. Many of the atrocities were committed by the "Tafurs", a band of desperate street rabble that had attached itself to the Crusade, and which had supposedly sunk even to cannibalism outside the walls of Antioch. Saladin, on the other hand, gained Jerusalem through a negotiated surrender because his ability to take the city was obvious to everyone inside and out. The defenders offered Saladin ransoms for their escape, and threatened him with the killing of every Muslim in the city and the destruction of the Muslim holy places if he refused their offer. I still don't know that I'd call it praiseworthy, by their standards or ours, that he chose a big pile of money (plus his holy places and the lives of his fellow believers) over a big pile of dead, rotting Christian bodies to brag over. Even back then it would seem to have been the obvious choice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe the reasoning behind the First Crusade went something along these lines: "well, if these landless younger sons of knights and nobles are going to be raising Cain, trying to grab land and money for themselves and their families, better they should retake formerly-Christian lands from Muslims than fight over each others' land. And maybe this will get us a little respect and even gratitude from the haughty Byzantines, who have been absorbed in their own petty internal intrigues while most of their Eastern possessions were being relentlessly stripped away by advancing Muslim armies." It was certainly a land grab to the ambitious nobles who fought in it, but to the kings and bishops of Europe and Byzantium, it was simply an Eastern version of what would later be called the "reconquista", the expulsion of the Muslims from the French, Spanish, and Portuguese territories they had seized and occupied until they were stopped at Poitiers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>While your analysis is largely accurate, SHARK, I will point out here that many of the crimes committed against pilgrims and travelers were the work of bandits and pirates, pure and simple, who were Muslim in name only. Many of them happily attacked their "fellow" Muslims, justifying their acts with denunciations of their victims as unbelievers, and pointing to some alleged irregularity in their practice of the faith. Similar sordid incidents happened among the Christians, with King Phillip IV's treatment of France's Jews and then the Templars standing out most egregiously. And the Christian rulers were not quite as united as your words might imply. Many who lived far from any Islamic threat resented the diversion of fighting men from their own local conflicts, which was actually one of the main reasons for the Crusade - the Popes wanted those conflicts stopped.</p><p></p><p>Yes, there's plenty of intrigue, conflict, and adventure just waiting to be mined from the history of the Crusading period and adapted into gaming campaigns. Just talking about it is making me pine for a 3e rebirth of the Birthright setting <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> ...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tratyn Runewind, post: 181968, member: 685"] Hi again! Paladins have divine spells and "holy" abilities. And while it's true in D&D that this doesn't necessarily mean formal association with an organized faith, the very definition of the "lawful" component of a paladin's alignment would tend mightily to encourage such association. Still, alternatives are certainly possible - say, the lone paladin maintaining the true faith in the midst of a corrupt or apathetic religious hierarchy. All you need is a reasonable explanation that will fly for your DM, or doesn't stretch your players' suspension of disbelief too far... Yes, and the same could be said for Roland. This is why I made the distinction between "the original paladins" and "the D&D paladin class". As with Arthur's knights, I doubt many of Charlemagne's paladins would be in the D&D Paladin class. I probably should have made the distinction a bit clearer. Among historical European knights, I'd probably reserve the Paladin class for especially devout members of orders like the Templars, the Hospitallers (and their Maltese descendants), the Knights of Christ, and the pilgrim-guarding church knights of places like Santiago de Compostella, as well as individual knights who took vows of service to particular church leaders. Some of the fighters attached to temples of the faiths of the Far East could also be considered Paladins; Li Mu Bai of [i]Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon[/i] could be reasonably well-represented in D&D as a monk/paladin (of respectably high level, too). I tend to agree with you about judging historical figures by modern standards. And I'm also fairly confident that Jerusalem's ransomed defenders and Latin Christians were happy not to be massacred. The First Crusade's conquest of Jerusalem was by no means a certain thing. The Crusaders suffered outside the walls for weeks, and took out their frustrations on the inhabitants when they breached the walls. Many of the atrocities were committed by the "Tafurs", a band of desperate street rabble that had attached itself to the Crusade, and which had supposedly sunk even to cannibalism outside the walls of Antioch. Saladin, on the other hand, gained Jerusalem through a negotiated surrender because his ability to take the city was obvious to everyone inside and out. The defenders offered Saladin ransoms for their escape, and threatened him with the killing of every Muslim in the city and the destruction of the Muslim holy places if he refused their offer. I still don't know that I'd call it praiseworthy, by their standards or ours, that he chose a big pile of money (plus his holy places and the lives of his fellow believers) over a big pile of dead, rotting Christian bodies to brag over. Even back then it would seem to have been the obvious choice. I believe the reasoning behind the First Crusade went something along these lines: "well, if these landless younger sons of knights and nobles are going to be raising Cain, trying to grab land and money for themselves and their families, better they should retake formerly-Christian lands from Muslims than fight over each others' land. And maybe this will get us a little respect and even gratitude from the haughty Byzantines, who have been absorbed in their own petty internal intrigues while most of their Eastern possessions were being relentlessly stripped away by advancing Muslim armies." It was certainly a land grab to the ambitious nobles who fought in it, but to the kings and bishops of Europe and Byzantium, it was simply an Eastern version of what would later be called the "reconquista", the expulsion of the Muslims from the French, Spanish, and Portuguese territories they had seized and occupied until they were stopped at Poitiers. While your analysis is largely accurate, SHARK, I will point out here that many of the crimes committed against pilgrims and travelers were the work of bandits and pirates, pure and simple, who were Muslim in name only. Many of them happily attacked their "fellow" Muslims, justifying their acts with denunciations of their victims as unbelievers, and pointing to some alleged irregularity in their practice of the faith. Similar sordid incidents happened among the Christians, with King Phillip IV's treatment of France's Jews and then the Templars standing out most egregiously. And the Christian rulers were not quite as united as your words might imply. Many who lived far from any Islamic threat resented the diversion of fighting men from their own local conflicts, which was actually one of the main reasons for the Crusade - the Popes wanted those conflicts stopped. Yes, there's plenty of intrigue, conflict, and adventure just waiting to be mined from the history of the Crusading period and adapted into gaming campaigns. Just talking about it is making me pine for a 3e rebirth of the Birthright setting :) ... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What do you consider the quintessential knight in shinning armor?
Top