Knights: more like Tony Soprano than Lancelot ~the History Channel

[phindar]

That said, with a little finessing of the alignment system (or a surgical removal), and knights and paladins become fine brutes and inquisitors.

 

[S'mon]

I think "The Dark Ages" is pretty darn accurate, despite the claims of modern Politically Correct revisionism.

 

[phindar]

How are we supposed to learn history when it keeps changing?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How are we supposed to learn history when it keeps changing?

And they keep adding more of it! Sheesh!

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think the historical nature of knights has no influence whatsoever on the nature, and what is expected, of knights and paladins in the D&D game.

QFT.

 

[Ibram]

Knights in the early Middle Ages weren't the peak of virtue? Next you'll tell me that Samurai's couldn't cut buildings in half with their katanas!

In all seriousness, I am rather sick of being told that bad things happened in the past (as though I should be supprised)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In all seriousness, I am rather sick of being told that bad things happened in the past (as though I should be supprised)

Don't watch history documentaries and don't read threads about said documentaries, then.

 

[Celebrim]

I think to expect anything else of people of bygone ages other than that they were people, with dreams, aspirations, virtues, misconceptions, and flaws, filled with hate, love, and indifference, IOW, similar to people today. The exact morales and reasoning may be slightly different, yet they killed for similar reasons, they went to war for similar reasons, they fell in love for the same reasons.

Pretty much, that's what I think too. They were different than us, in ways that I think we'd find hard to understand. But they were no more different to us than many an extent culture, some of which they'd find far less strange than they'd find us.

But down at the heart of it, they were still people and people haven't changed any just because a thousand measly years have gone past. A man once accounted as wise said, "There is nothing new under the sun.", and for all of our marvels, it still rings true to me.

We think we've gotten better or gotten smarter. We think our morals to be superior. We think ourselves more mature. But for every step we've taken foward, we've probably taken another step backwards somewhere else and one thing is certain to me. We are going to look just as backwards, immoral, and stupid to our great-great-great-grandchildren as the medievals look to us - and we are both going to be ignorant for thinking that.

Anyone that has actually read Classical literature knows that we haven't gotten any smarter. I think maybe that's the best advantage one obtains by reading the Classics - humility. You realize that just maybe you and your generation aren't nearly as bright or as special as you think you are.

A particular revelation for me was reading St. Augustine's confessions about his life as a juvenile deliquent, chasing girls, getting in fights, making mischief, skipping school, rebelling against his guardians, and so forth. Our social expectations may have changed. Some of our curse words have changed, and we unquestionly consider to be common sense has changed somewhat ('Is anyone surprised...'), but basically its all just a different flavor of the same soup.

 

[Celebrim]

How are we supposed to learn history when it keeps changing?

It doesn't change.

The first person sources never change. Peoples opinions about what those sources mean, which ones are trust worthy, which ones are important, and so forth change.

That's why the only way to learn history is to read the first person sources, or barring that, read translations of them.

Never take some thrice @#$!@$ commentators word for it, including mine.

 

[Celebrim]

In all seriousness, I am rather sick of being told that bad things happened in the past (as though I should be supprised)

I'm not so sick of being told that bad things happened in the past, as I am sick of being told that the bad things that happened in the past are infinitely more important than the good things that happened in the past, to the point of - if I make a claim that something good or noble happened - I'm guilty of 'simplisme'.

I mean, geez, for one can we have a little balance? Some folks that people considered heroes were heroic, feet of clay or not. Some folks with a reputation for barbarous violence were barbarously violent, no matter how efficiently the governed thier kingdoms and got the trains to run on time. And most everyone was somewhere in the middle, with a head up or a head down and trying to or not trying to stay out of the muck.