D&D General Deleted

[Umbran]

I know this is a + thread, but I think this might be a "you" problem. You've read literature that simply isn't associated with how people play DnD paladins and now your conflating the two as one and the same.

Mod Note:
So, what you are saying is, "I know this is a + thread, in which being on board with the base topic is required, but I'm not going to do that, and will just say you are wrong."

Which, you know, is kind of a crummy way to treat someone. You could have at least tried to work this into the basic thesis, but you don't seem to have done that.

you are reading too much into problem that isn't there.

You too. Crummy way to treat someone.

Both of you are done in this discussion.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm talking more about the idea/ideal than about the term - I mean, the class could have been called Knight Errant, or even (perhaps in a slightly different RPG) True King, and I think many of the same concerns would arise.

In imagination we can try and divorce the idea of a holy questing knight from the historical reality that enlivens the archetype, but that doesn't stop the archetype having the connotations that it has.

Sticking to the questing knight, how would we create a RPG where the quest is analogous to a Grail Quest without linking that to righteous violence, assumptions about which places are to be treated as subordinate to other places, understandings of whose claims to truth and right really count, etc? I don't think it's easy, especially when we consider the extent to which interpersonal violence is such a prominent component of most FRPGing.

I don't want to presume that any of the above is saying the same thing as @Levistus's_Leviathan. But I feel it's at least in the same general neighbourhood, and trying to give voice to some similar sorts of concerns.

 

[pemerton]

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

My point is that we don't escape the underlying archetype by pointing to the occasional departure from it.

Similarly, while it may be true that contemporary D&D play often dilutes or ignores the religious, as opposed to moral, component of the archetype, the underlying archetype endures: the notion of truth, righteousness, etc. I mean, even the 5e D&D paladin doesn't just have a hunch, an inclination or even a conviction. They swear an oath!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My point is that we don't escape the underlying archetype by pointing to the occasional departure from it.

Similarly, while it may be true that contemporary D&D play often dilutes or ignores the religious, as opposed to moral, component of the archetype, the underlying archetype endures: the notion of truth, righteousness, etc. I mean, even the 5e D&D paladin doesn't just have a hunch, an inclination or even a conviction. They swear an oath!

Further, that oath is explicitly called "sacred." It is not purely moral. It has an essential spiritual-religious element. (I know some folks think "religion" means solely "organized religion," but that link is incorrect, plenty of religions are not organized.)

 

[Kaiyanwang]

My point is that we don't escape the underlying archetype by pointing to the occasional departure from it.

Similarly, while it may be true that contemporary D&D play often dilutes or ignores the religious, as opposed to moral, component of the archetype, the underlying archetype endures: the notion of truth, righteousness, etc. I mean, even the 5e D&D paladin doesn't just have a hunch, an inclination or even a conviction. They swear an oath!

The underlying archetype, I have shown, only has an uninformed connection with its presumed problematic partial origin.
So what if they swear an oath. You are going in circles here I am sorry. If the point doesn't stick, just drop it.
And ultimately, I wish to know why the discourse in previous posts is conveniently ignored. These are ideal reflections, fairy tales elements. Same with the honorable bushido samurai and whatnot.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Further, that oath is explicitly called "sacred." It is not purely moral. It has an essential spiritual-religious element. (I know some folks think "religion" means solely "organized religion," but that link is incorrect, plenty of religions are not organized.)

But the problematic archetype is connected with a certain organized religion. In a specific historical moment.
If what you say is correct (not solely organized religions), the Paladin stops to be a problem.
What is next step, ban clerics? This is utterly ridiculous.

 

[pemerton]

The underlying archetype, I have shown, only has an uninformed connection with its presumed problematic partial origin.
So what if they swear an oath. You are going in circles here I am sorry. If the point doesn't stick, just drop it.
And ultimately, I wish to know why the discourse in previous posts is conveniently ignored. These are ideal reflections, fairy tales elements. Same with the honorable bushido samurai and whatnot.

And who thinks that the honourable bushido samurai is straightforward?

If you're not interested in reflecting on the meanings of FRPGing archetypes, including ones that - once recognised - might cause hesitation or upset, then why are you in this thread?

What is next step, ban clerics? This is utterly ridiculous.

Who's talking about banning anything?

I play paladins - actual play reports can be found on these boards. I think I'm the only poster here who GMs Prince Valiant - again, actual play posts can be found on these boards. I've got strong views on the way providence can be a theme in FRPG play, and I've posted quite a bit about that too.

I'm trying to engage seriously with @Levistus's_Leviathan serious post.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

And who thinks that the honourable bushido samurai is straightforward?

If you're not interested in reflecting on the meanings of FRPGing archetypes, including ones that - once recognised - might cause hesitation or upset, then why are you in this thread?

I responded to
1) a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of an archetype and what classes actually are in D&D (not only classes, see my first post in the thread)
2) A grave misconstruction of a very complex series of historical events, including the partial erasure of the experience of people living in the levant and mediterranean that do not belong to certain factions.
Do I have your permission to post now?

 

[Dire Bare]

I responded to
1) a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of an archetype and what classes actually are in D&D (not only classes, see my first post in the thread)
2) A grave misconstruction of a very complex series of historical events, including the partial erasure of the experience of people living in the levant and mediterranean that do not belong to certain factions.
Do I have your permission to post now?

Dude, relax. You disagree with some of the other posters here, no need to get aggressive about it.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

I wouldn't use the term "diluted", but the paladin class has certainly broadened over the decades. As have all of the other classes as well, especially in 5E.

And, IMO, that's a good thing. The fantasy genre that D&D attempts to model is also a lot broader than it was in the 70's. And the game has a broader fan base as well. So, distancing the paladin from it's "lawful stupid" roots and allowing a wider array of character types to be represented in the class is a good thing.

And you can totally play your classic lawful good pally with the 5E rules also, so everybody wins!

Note: I use "lawful stupid" with love and nostalgia!