SO would Torquemada qualify for paladin?

[Tonguez]

Tomas de Torquemada Grand Inquisitor, responsible for the tortue and execution of 2000 heretics and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. A loyal and pious devotee to his Faith

In DnD terms what would his alignment be?

(and this is DnD related I'm going to use him as an NPC in a game)

 

[Henry]

My estimation? Lawful Neutral, by the historic stereotype.

Real people are frequently more complex than an alignment would dictate, but Torquemada would be seen carrying out the church laws with unwavering fervor, a trait of ultimate law, untempered by pity or circumstance. He of course would see himself as good, and others would see him as a devil, but his devotion to the existing religious law would be without debate.

 

[Mort]

Paladin? not a chance.

If anything Torquemada would be a cleric or an adept – after all that’s essentially what he strove for.

Forgetting that, I don’t think even the best interpretation of his actions (such as the one espoused by your link) denoted behavior worthy of a paladin.
Specifically, while I can see a paladin believing anyone who does not agree with his views is sadly misguided, I cannot see a paladin killing anyone who does not agree with him solely because they don’t.

edit for a changed opinion
If forced to pick a D&D alignment I’d go with LE (he used church law but twisted it to his own ends of expelling people he had an agenda against).

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I would disagree and say that he along with most members of the Inquisition were Lawful Evil. They murdered large numbers of people for not agreeing with them. That is evil even if the church conveniently passed laws to make it "legal and right".

 

[William Ronald]

Torquemada qualifies as Lawful Evil in my book. A lawful neutral character would try to determine whether or not someone was guilty. Torquemada and the Inquisition assumed guilt before innocence.

He may have believed in his faith, but actions speak louder -- and more accurately -- than words.

Indeed, I think a character based on Torquemada could help players see the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness.

 

[Fred Delles]

Bad idea.

I can't answer this question, mostly because there is no way to tell if so-and-so is "good" or "evil". He IS lawful, but people who follow faiths with little logic could be chaotic instead. It all depends on when you hear about it. For example, the 1936 Nazis were probably Lawful Neutral (or even Lawful/Neutral Good). Post-1945, Chaotic Evil, without a doubt. It all depends on your bias.

As for Torquemada, assuming that they follow his ideals, Lawful (or chaotic) Neutral.

Assuming that he did a bad deed, Lawful Evil.

My POV (even though I'm Roman Catholic): Lawful Evil.

There is no way I can really give a straight answer. Personally, I cannot use D&D's alignment system for a real-life person unless everyone unanimously thinks of him/her as for/against his or her general moral compass.

--------

Edit: If you seriously want to use real-life characters in your campaign, you might want to abolish the alignment system, and use mere "beliefs" in the game. What God/gods you would believe, your political compass (liberal/conservative) and what heroes you like and why (these are just examples) would help, and thus flesh out better characters. Advanced role-players only.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

I think it depends more on how you define the alignment system in your game than what Torquemada was "in real life"... Mainly because there are no alignments in real life

Basically, are good & evil absolute concepts in your campaign, or are they relativistic? Which is to say, is a character Good as long as they think they are doing Good? And evil only if they actually believe what they are doing is wrong? In that case, I'd probably put him as LG (although that depends on whether or not you assume he actually thought he was doing good, which at this point, no one can know.)

On the other hand, if you're using alignment as an absolute -- evil acts = evil alignment -- then Torquemada was probably LE. Also, it doesn't have to be one or the other: It might be a balance between relativism and absolutism, in which case he'd be LN.

Of course, that's making the assumption that he is Lawful, which is less clearly defined. I'd personally peg him as Lawful, but I could also see much the same character being run as Chaotic or even Neutral. Again, this is the problem with going between the real world and the alignment system: It's such a huge stretch to assign any alignment to a real person, that suddenly they all become equally valid (which is to say, equally inaccurate).

 

[John Smallberries]

It depends entirely on the perspective of the Big DM in the Sky.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmm...well, I suppose one could look at what one's religion--or one's interpretations of the doctrines and commandments of their religion--as some inspiration for their actions.

If one supposes that there really is a spiritual realm, and that people who are swayed, influenced, and/or possessed by evil demonic spirits, and that their heretical attitudes and actions can, *in fact* have an evil influence on other people, whom you are trying to save from such evil, then it could be argued that executing such people is the highest good. Doing so through the order and discipline of the law would be Lawful, so perhaps there could be the argument for Torquemada being "Lawful Good".

Indeed, it is popular to assume that Lawful Good people must be compassionate and merciful, but that isn't what is in the Player's Handbook--where it says that "Alhandra, a Paladin, fights against evil, showing no mercy."

There is a spiritual warfare paradigm that Torquemada is operating under. Demons really *do* exist, and work their evil through human beings on a daily basis. In some ways, it can be seen as being a type of cancer, that spreads throughout the community. There are examples in the Old Testament where it is decreed that all of one's enemies--be they men, women, children, even their animals and other livestock--are to be slain, because God chose to punish whatever evil nation for their evil and wickedness, and because God did not want the Jews to be contaminated physically and spiritually by the people of the evil nations.

In a similar fashion, it is these kinds of ideas that seem to have inspired Torquemada, and may have been an aspect of their interpretation of the particular Scriptures and the doctrines contained therein. There are so many different paradigms and underlying assumptions about spirituality and reality that can be considered. If one assumes that the paradigm that Torquemada was operating under, then he would be Lawful Good, because the spiritual purity of the community, the defeat of evil, and the absolute obedience to God is seen as the highest good. All other considerations are of far less importance than these things. One must remember, people of the 15th century did not share the same world view that modern people of a democracy do. In fact, under the concept of the "Divine Right of Kings"--that is, the King is annointed and raised up by God Himself to rule a nation, defend the faith, and defeat evil. By such, "Democracy" could be seen as a form of political and spiritual rebellion. Torture, for example, was seen as something that was good. In general, throughout various nations at the time, many who were accused of various crimes, it was considered that they were guilty, unless *proven* innocent. That is an entirely different paradigm than what is held in America, for example. Still, if one desired to look at many different details, there are many things that nearly everyone in the 15th century considered to be just and good, that we today would consider horribly evil. Likewise, there is a great deal of things and ideas that we, today, consider just, tolerant, right, and good, that those of the 15th century--from the lowest peasant to the highest noble--would consider abominably evil and wicked. The contrast in world views really is stark and hugely different, even greatly in opposition.
__________________________________________________

Well, at least that is how in some ways such a paradigm could have been embraced by Torquemada, among others.

I would say that in alignment, Torquemada is probably Lawful Neutral, and from his training and position, I would say he would be a Cleric, rather than a Paladin.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[William Ronald]

I suppose one can argue over alignment.

For example, one could theoretically argue that making sure the crops grow properly is necessary for a just and orderly society. Thus, those who sacrificed children to ensure good crop yields would argue. Similar arguments would likely have been made by the Aztecs to keep the sun shining daily.

I define good generally as being concerned about the welfare of others, and law being concerned with having an orderly society. (Note that lawful societies can have a certain degree of freedom in them. It does depend on the society. A meritocracy, for example, would encourage social mobility based on achievement.)

SHARK, I would advise against dragging real world religions too much into the thread. I should point out that most religious scholars view the works you have cited as being composed after the fact, and many of the commandments to eliminate one group or another are often viewed as wishful thinking from a latter day. ((I could discuss this elsewhere if you wish.)

Getting back to Torquemada, I would argue that he profited personally from the suffering of others. It should also be mentioned that he was The Inquisition also profited quite handsomely from its victims. I suppose any sort of law can be claimed to be good. Indeed, most governments historically portrayed their actions as being taken for the greater good of society. However, if that is the case, I fully expect a Josef Stalin the Paladin thread soon. (Oh, wait he was an atheist. Maybe he might qualify under the Cult of Personality rule.)