D&D General Deleted

[Clint_L]

I don't think this is an appropriate use of a + thread.

As I see it, a plus thread is a sort of "yes and" thread, where you are trying to constructively problem solve, or celebrate something. Like, "Name three things you love about 5e (+)" or "suggestions for how to improve sorcerers (+)."

You are engaging in what is, essentially, academic discourse, and using the (+) to curtail anyone criticizing your rather contentious reading of the text. Refusing to engage with criticism is a big no-no in academia, and frankly means that I can't take anything you've written seriously if you aren't willing to support it in respectful but open discourse.

 

[Dire Bare]

Spoiler: Spoiler for the tangent

I didn’t base my view of crusaders or D&D paladins off that video. It’s a video I saw a while ago and thought sounded correct based on the books it quoted and what I’ve heard of pre-Medieval European racism. From my understanding which you also seem to agree with, Romans didn’t care for other religions and ethnic groups, like Jews, Carthaginians, Gauls, and Germanics, but that was more based on culture than the skin color of the other racial groups. Clearly the modern association of race and skin color emerged sometime, and I thought that the explanation for it coming from the Crusades and Reconquista made sense. Again, if the video is wrong I will remedy my view. But my view of Crusaders remains the same.

And I didn’t want to turn this thread into a debate about if the Crusades were justified. This is not the site for that. I did correct one post that claimed that the Andalusian invasion of France was a cause for the crusades and add that it was the Turkic Migration into Anatolia that caused the Byzantine Emperor to seek the aid of the Pope. I decided not to engage further because the thread about “Paladins are based on crusaders and often depicted as such, that feels gross” shouldn’t have to turn into a debate about if they were justified.

But the larger point is that people still think of Paladins as Crusaders. They’re still modeled after them. “Deus Vult” is a meme. While the subclasses have a diversity of oaths/worldviews, the popular original image of Paladins is still the baseline (Xenk and Dame Aylin for example). I think that they might need to move beyond that.

As several posters above mentioned, the paladin class was directly inspired by the character of Holger Carlsen from the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson. Holger is an eternal champion type of character that serves the cosmic forces of law and good.

But yes, a large part of the D&D paladins DNA is the knight, Charlemagne's paladins, and the crusaders. While it is minimized today, its still there in the archetype the class represents. But as another poster above mentions, you can find similar problematic tropes in just about every aspect of D&D on both sides of the DMs screen.

When I was a lad in the 80s, paladins were often played at the table in very problematic ways. I'm sure it still happens today, although to a lesser degree. 5E's decoupling of the paladin from being "lawful good" has done the class a LOT of good and helped distance it from the more toxic interpretations.

Should we junk the paladin? Change the paladin? IMO, no. But we should be aware of the problematic aspects of this mythological archetype and avoid them in our games . . . unless we are creating a paladin villain!! But that's true of the other class archetypes as well, not just the paladin.

 

[MGibster]

We're talking about a game where the principle activities of the player characters are to enact violance upon other beings most typically for the greater good. i.e. Defeat the lich, the evil cult, the militant wing of the Girl Scouts, etc., etc. The origins of the various roles in D&D are long and complicated and there's something problematic in almost all of them. Let's take the Fighter for instance. What do you think Fighting Man did between 500 CE and 1450 CE? He was the guy who stole food from peasants while laying siege to the local lord's keep. He was a guy who hacked your holy men to pieces and stole artifacts from your church. He was the guy who killed someone's father and enslaved his wife and children. It's all problematic.

That doesn't mean we can't tweak things to our modern sensibilities. We've certainly done so with the Paladin. But if you go back far enough for almost any class, don't be surprised if you get the ick.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't think this is an appropriate use of a + thread.

As I see it, a plus thread is a sort of "yes and" thread, where you are trying to constructively problem solve, or celebrate something. Like, "Name three things you love about 5e (+)" or "suggestions for how to improve sorcerers (+)."

You are engaging in what is, essentially, academic discourse, and using the (+) to curtail anyone criticizing your rather contentious reading of the text. Refusing to engage with criticism is a big no-no in academia, and frankly means that I can't take anything you've written seriously if you aren't willing to support it in respectful but open discourse.

I’ve certainly seen the (+) be used in similar ways and was told the last time I made a thread of a similar topic that I should have made it a (+) thread. Not that it’s had any effect on this thread. More people are telling me that I’m wrong and Paladins are fine than are giving suggestions to alter them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This thread was a mistake and I’m abandoning it for the foreseeable future. I don’t think it has the capacity for the type of discussion I was aiming for. I would prefer if it were closed. Some day I might return to this topic with more research, better citations, and in a different, more polished form. But for now I’m taking a break from this site.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

This thread was a mistake and I’m abandoning it for the foreseeable future. I don’t think it has the capacity for the type of discussion I was aiming for. I would prefer if it were closed. Some day I might return to this topic with more research, better citations, and in a different, more polished form. But for now I’m taking a break from this site.

Sorry but you started posting a video with a complete misconstruction and misinterpretation of basic history by a tankie.
And more importantly, you wanted to force a connection between a character class and its possible historical inspirations ignoring that such inspirations went through the filters of fiction over and over and over before reaching D&D. As many pointed out, if we go on that route, nothing is acceptable and everything becomes problematic. This would be an horrible path to take.

 

[RangerWickett]

How can you have a holy warrior knight-in-shining-armor class without this connection to the Crusades and similar real world atrocities?

I ran a Pathfinder campaign with a party of four paladins, and I tried to make it a compelling analysis of what it even means to 'do good,' and how that interacts with prejudice and systems of oppression. Not every foe is a demon summoner; some are poor gnolls who just want to have access to the lush land the humans deny them, and who are willing to kill so that their children might have a better future. How do you deal with that while maintaining your morals?

I think it went fabulously well. Best campaign I've ever run, and I've f***ing published two previous campaigns I ran (War of the Burning Sky and ZEITGEIST).

So I'm writing a book right now, loosely inspired by the campaign. It's set in a Bronze Age society - think Sumeria or Babylon, where the great ziggurat that holds the holy tablets of the gods is called the Palace Hill.

Some centuries ago, servants on that hill who represented the interests of one of the gods of the pantheon, but who were not themselves called priests, were called paladins (which is the same etymology as the real world, coming from 'palatine,' meaning palace).

There were a few somewhat arbitrary restrictions on who could be a paladin - they could not be a member of the sprawling royal family, and while there were a few dozen gods recognized by the Palace Hill, no god was permitted to have more than 12 paladins, and they had to be the 'only child' of a parent (or at least not have any siblings within 12 years of them). In exchange for their child serving the Palace Hill, the parents and their village would receive extra support, serving as a way to strengthen the social fabric between the great central city and the smaller towns, remote villages and nomadic tribes.

At four different points in history, different crises arose where the Palace Hill needed people it could trust to fight for it. Each time, the high priest during that crisis decreed that paladins would be granted a new magical accolades to serve the will of the Palace Hill, so long as they remained in good stead with their gods. One also expanded the limit from 12 paladins per god, now allowing 12 'gallants' who had basic powers, and up to 12 'champions' who had superior powers.

Over time there came to be four accolades, after which further were forbidden, out of concern the paladins might become too powerful.

• Blessed Health.
  Paladin gallants are granted superior stamina, protection from supernatural threats, and the ability to heal simple wounds with a touch. Paladin champions enjoy further protection and may heal other illnesses if they can name the affliction.
• Sacred Bond.
  Paladin gallants can bond with an animal who will understand their commands. Paladin champions provide to their chosen animal the protections granted by the first accolade.
• Divine Sense.
  Paladin gallants gain the ability to open their senses to normally invisible signs created when one person harms another, though the intensity of the mark fades quickly for most acts. Paladin champions can further detect invoked divine magic and otherworldly entities.
• Holy Smite.
  Paladin gallants can call upon divine ire against a single creature each day, draping their weapon in a power in keeping with their god’s nature. Paladin champions can do this against two creatures.

In this dynamic, paladins often come from humble backgrounds, but then are drawn into a very dominant power structure of the nation, which depending on the era might not be so pure and noble as the rhetoric claims. Some temples have found the value of paladins so great that they have strict limits on who attains the station, requiring shows of loyalty. Others treat the boons as incidental to more traditional power like money and soldiers, so they hand out paladinhoods to people who are politically connected, somewhat perverting holy blessings into trophies and perks.

But there are still honest and decent paladins, those who roam the wilds to protect travelers, to hunt wild monsters, to advocate for the weak, negotiate for peace, and stand in defense against the wicked.

Like any institution, there are dark parts of the history. There are present abuses. But that's the point of heroes: to inspire us to be better.

 

[Dire Bare]

Sorry but you started posting a video with a complete misconstruction and misinterpretation of basic history by a tankie.
And more importantly, you wanted to force a connection between a character class and its possible historical inspirations ignoring that such inspirations went through the filters of fiction over and over and over before reaching D&D. As many pointed out, if we go on that route, nothing is acceptable and everything becomes problematic. This would be an horrible path to take.

Dude, be like Elsa.

 

[pemerton]

This thread was a mistake and I’m abandoning it for the foreseeable future. I don’t think it has the capacity for the type of discussion I was aiming for. I would prefer if it were closed. Some day I might return to this topic with more research, better citations, and in a different, more polished form. But for now I’m taking a break from this site.

I don't think it was a mistake. I'll send you a PM.

 

[Clint_L]

My suggestion, if you want to make it a + thread, is don't lay out your thesis, since you don't wish to debate it. Something like: "Assuming "paladin" is problematic, suggest alternatives (+)." Then the onus is on those who don't share that assumption to not engage.

I'd be happy with the term "heirophant." Though at this point "paladin" is pretty attached to D&D, so I don't see it going anywhere. Although it does have a somewhat chequered history, it's still less objectionable than "barbarian."