Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3313935" data-attributes="member: 307">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.</blockquote>

Verification