Storm Raven said:
Well, no. Paladins are based pretty much entirely on literary antecedents. Primarily they are based upon a single character in Three Hearts and Three Lions, but they also have a limited amount of influence from the Arthur cycle, the tales of Charlemange's paladins and a few other sources. No figure in actual human history could successfully abide by the paladin code as presented in any iteration of the D&D RAW.
I agree to some extent. But there is an ancillary point too - the PHB description of the alignment lawful good excludes most historical characters. It certainly excludes the 14th/15th century nobles who were empowered to render on-the-spot justice and engaged in summary executions. So the historical precedent of such individuals existing in our history is not really relevant to this discussion.
I didn't say eating babies. I said roasting babies. The Russians accused the Teutonic knights who invaded their country in the 13th century of exactly that crime. The Teutonic knights are one of the crusader orders that is often cited as a real world prototype for paladins. I submit that (even if these charges were not true, and they probably were not) the documented evidence concerning the various crusader orders shows that the individuals who made up these orders could never qualify as paladins or even as LG using the PHB definitions.
No, if she had killed him, even if he had been guilty, that would have still been an evil act. His guilt or innocence is entirely separate from whether he was evil, and even if evil, striking down an unamred defenseless man when viable alternatives are not only present, but are better alternatives, remains an evil act.
This is just wrong. Killing an evil person in D&D may or may not be an evil act, depending upon the circumstances.
Not in DnD evil is a real and tangible thing. Not an abstract as it is in our world where we base decisions of law on guilt or innocence not good vs evil.
A paladin's duty is to deal with evil. Either by reforming it, or making sure it cannot contiune to do its deeds. And that is accomplished by either some kind of prison or death. Nowhere in the PHB does it say which path the paladin must choose.
We are going around and around on this historical morality. I never said that you should play with a complete historical mindset. What I said was that the game does not easily support playing with a modern mindset.
It needs to have both. If you do not use some historical mindset then a lot of pCs actions are unlawful and evil.
Killing unarmed prisoners evil , looting and plundering their bodies unlawful, a paladin detecting evil without a warrant or permission of some kind from the person unlawful. Forcing criminals into slavery like in the Kingdom of Kalamar unlawful and most likely evil.
Executing criminals in some modern countries is considered evil and unlawful.
Cutting off a thieves hand wow could you imagine the outcry over that.
Slaying goblins and kobolds because they are in a dungeon and you want what they have would get the adventures brought up on charges not to mention getting the ire up of the people for the ethical treatment of goblins.
You are saying that paladins are not based on an idolized version of historical knights but on fictional knights. You are splitting hairs there because fictional knights are based on idolized versions of historical knights.
Poul Anderson who I meet with and talked with when he was guest of honor at a local SF con that I helped run was a history buff. Both he and his wife were involved with the SCA. He based the character in Three Hearts and three Lions on real knight orders from the medieval times. Sure it is not a totally historical accurate version but then he practiced the philosophy of the SCA which is the middle ages as they should have been.
Which is how I view most DnD games as an idolized version of the middle ages.
