D&D General Deleted

[pemerton]

As I read @Levistus's_Leviathan's OP, the concern is not the label in itself, but the archetype and what it evokes. For me, the concern sits in the same general space as the objection to Orcs et al as "placeholders" or expressions of non-European peoples whose lives and cultures don't really count.

Understanding the connections - what they are, what their nature is, etc - between the Crusades and more modern history is complex, and as I understand it is not something on which there is a uniform opinion among historians. But noting that the paladin, as an archetype - a heavily armed and armoured solider devoted to expressing and pursuing religious ideals - is intimately connected to the Crusades, seems reasonable to me. And I can easily see how coming to that recognition might sour someone on the archetype.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Please share with the whole class!

 

[pemerton]

Please share with the whole class!

I'm not going to do that. My PM to @Levistus's_Leviathan was just that.

But you can see some of my thoughts just upthread. You would know, from some of our previous conversations, that I am deeply invested in the questing knight ideal as one part of my RPGing. That doesn't mean I don't feel the force of the OP.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

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.

I am very conflicted on this, myself. On one hand, allowing every or most deities to have a Champion (the route Pathfinder 2e took for the name if I am not mistaken) makes sense, expands the universe, and adds options for the players. These are all good things on top of what you just said, and should be valued regardless of what I am going to say below.

On the other hand, I feel the LG nature of the Paladin made it compelling both as a player and as a DM. After all, deities have already their champions in the Clerics. Paladins would, if any connection is beyond any ideological alliance, be allies of LG faiths/temples/etc or in the very least share goals.
In the same way, Nature clerics would be the mirrors of Druids and often share goals (not necessarily always though), the Death God could have an assassin temple attached and so on.

Now the paragraph above can be easily countered - if you just want LG Champions and call them Paladins, just do it. Which is probably the most reasonable take. But I cannot help feeling this can lead to a sort of "dilution" of the concept. Then again, from someone that uses 40+ classes, mine could be rightly interpreted as mere hypocrisy.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

But noting that the paladin, as an archetype - a heavily armed and armoured solider devoted to expressing and pursuing religious ideals - is intimately connected to the Crusades, seems reasonable to me. And I can easily see how coming to that recognition might sour someone on the archetype.

In D&D they are moral ideals. They can also be religious, but not necessarily, especially if the Paladin is not a mini-cleric with a direct connection with a LG deity. Some versions of the game allow that.

 

[pemerton]

In D&D they are moral ideals. They can also be religious, but not necessarily, especially if the Paladin is not a mini-cleric with a direct connection with a LG deity. Some versions of the game allow that.

Someone once probably made a leather-armoured, bow-wielding paladin, too.

I don't think that changes the underlying nature of the archetype.

 

[Chaltab]

As I read @Levistus's_Leviathan's OP, the concern is not the label in itself, but the archetype and what it evokes. For me, the concern sits in the same general space as the objection to Orcs et al as "placeholders" or expressions of non-European peoples whose lives and cultures don't really count.

Understanding the connections - what they are, what their nature is, etc - between the Crusades and more modern history is complex, and as I understand it is not something on which there is a uniform opinion among historians. But noting that the paladin, as an archetype - a heavily armed and armored solider devoted to expressing and pursuing religious ideals - is intimately connected to the Crusades, seems reasonable to me. And I can easily see how coming to that recognition might sour someone on the archetype.

I would respond that the term Paladin is really only connected to the Crusades by the fact that the archetype gained prominence in Europe contemporaneously with the Crusades and thus incidentally became connected to the style of armor that the armies of the Crusades happened to wear. Thematically and mechanically, the archetype can apply to anyone who quests for a cause they consider holy, and it does not need to be tied to Europe at all.

If the argument is that we need to consider how we present TTRPG Paladins to avoid association with religiously motivated atrocities, I would agree, but I don't think that should sour the archetype.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Someone once probably made a leather-armoured, bow-wielding paladin, too.

I don't think that changes the underlying nature of the archetype.

Which part of being leather-armored and using a bow is moral and/or religious, could you kindly explain me?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which part of being leather-armored and using a bow is moral and/or religious, could you kindly explain me?

That's the point. They aren't related. And yet you can absolutely play a Paladin who does those things, rather than playing a paladin who wears shiny plate armor and wields a sword--but it'll feel like a deconstruction, or at least a modification.

The armor you choose to wear and the weapon you choose to wield are orthogonal to your claimed central thesis, and yet also part of the archetype of what "A Paladin" is.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

That's the point. They aren't related. And yet you can absolutely play a Paladin who does those things, rather than playing a paladin who wears shiny plate armor and wields a sword--but it'll feel like a deconstruction, or at least a modification.

The armor you choose to wear and the weapon you choose to wield are orthogonal to your claimed central thesis, and yet also part of the archetype of what "A Paladin" is.

It doesn't feel like a deconstruction, it feels like someone not using all the class features unless there is a solid build plan. Also you are still using martial weapons and armors so whatever.
If we have to circle back to the crusades, there were probably more crusaders equipped like that than in heavy armor.