D&D General The Problem With Paladin's Medieval Origins (+)

[Zardnaar]

Your last sentence has too many typos for me to be able to understand it. I am aware that the Muslims conquered Roman territory (Africa, the Levant, and Egypt). They had controlled those lands for several hundred years by the time of the crusades. The Crusades were motivated by the Pope wanting to gain authority over the Orthodox and the Byzantines wanting to defeat the Sultanate of Rum. That does not justify the many atrocities committed by the crusaders.

The wars and raiding kept going was my main point. Ghazi raids were an annual event in the east while slave raids depopulated several islands. Crete was occupied up until 961.

If you're fine justifying some imperialism......

Armies go one way they can go the other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Paladin has always been a bit ick class for me. I think it does poor job representing Arthurian knights apart Galahad, and the super religious knight of faith definitely most strongly corresponds to the crusading knightly orders such as Templars.

Paladins are the class for being a judgemental religious jerk, whilst pretending to be good, and unless the player is highly aware and does it as satire, it is super annoying.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I think it's important to remember that Gygax's game is the dungeon crawler. The game we turned D&D into after Against the Cult of the Reptile Gods and after Dragonlance is not a game whose morality system is intended or designed to tackle global politics or holy wars. It's just meant to tell you which are the monsters you're supposed to kill and which are the people you're supposed to talk to. It's red vs green morality of the sort you find in a video game. The fact that it falls apart when you poke it is not really a valid criticism. It's not intended to endure rigorous Socratic examination.

More than that, I don't think I understand your goals.

Clerics are just as much crusaders and templar knights as paladins, except more so. They don't have any specific origin or inspiration except the Knights Templar. The reason they avoid edged weapons is because some crusaders did. That's where that came from. [Edit: To be clear, this is a myth to the best of my knowledge, but it was a commonly believed myth during Gygax's time and it's what justified this mechanic... it's like ring mail and banded mail.]

Rangers are problematic, too. They're literally forest cops originally centered around the extermination of indigenous humanoids deemed undesirables, and in the context of the Americas are essentially agents of Victorian era colonization.

Monks are David Carradine and Bruce Lee transported to Medieval Europe and still Asian coded.

Barbarians are Conan, but also are indigenous savage tropes from simple brutes to noble savages. Until recently they were illiterate for fluff reasons.

Druids and Bards are caricatures of celtic religion and culture. Warlocks are caricatures of Christian religious oppression. The game freely uses or used terms like shaman, golem, phylactery, djinn, and wendigo.

If you're looking for a game with a problem free use of culture and history, you are looking at the wrong game.

 

[Horwath]

Paladin has always been a bit ick class for me. I think it does poor job representing Arthurian knights apart Galahad, and the super religious knight of faith definitely most strongly corresponds to the crusading knightly orders such as Templars.

Paladins are the class for being a judgemental religious jerk, whilst pretending to be good, and unless the player is highly aware and does it as satire, it is super annoying.

it's only when the player wants to enforce his "lawful stupid" alignment on other players, I'm fine with your actions towards NPC, but do not limit my fun because of it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can play am assassin and thief, but not a religous knight? Under your logic in the OP, there isnt a real difference.

Where did I ever say that I don’t think you should be allowed to play a paladin? Wait, let me answer that for you. Never. I didn’t say that. This is the type of bullcrap that made me reluctant to post this thread.

I am talking about the roots of the class and how they are depicted in the game. I think it would be interesting if a Templar-inspired class was depicted more regularly in a negative light, like Dragon Age’s Templars or the many, many other examples from fantasy media of bigoted religious zealots. Or if they changed a bit to be less themed on Medieval knights and were more like Greco-Roman demigods. But I think invoking the symbols of groups that committed horrific atrocities for the basis of the most stereotypically good class in D&D history is bad.

Please direct me to any official D&D setting that depicts Rogues anywhere near as favorably as it does Paladins.

 

[Horwath]

I am talking about the roots of the class and how they are depicted in the game. I think it would be interesting if a Templar-inspired class was depicted more regularly in a negative light, like Dragon Age’s Templars or the many, many other examples from fantasy media of bigoted religious zealots.

Wait...Paladins aren't bigoted religious zealots?
news to me.
Why did their alignment was named Lawful stupid then? Because of their charming personality?

Or if they changed a bit to be less themed on Medieval knights and were more like Greco-Roman demigods. But I think invoking the symbols of groups that committed horrific atrocities for the basis of the most stereotypically good class in D&D history is bad.

then we should rename fighter also.
fighting men or men-at-arms certainly committed more war crimes that "paladins", there were more of them and certainly less disciplined with more loose chain of command.

 

[Shardstone]

Where did I ever say that I don’t think you should be allowed to play a paladin? Wait, let me answer that for you. Never. I didn’t say that. This is the type of bullcrap that made me reluctant to post this thread.

I am talking about the roots of the class and how they are depicted in the game. I think it would be interesting if a Templar-inspired class was depicted more regularly in a negative light, like Dragon Age’s Templars or the many, many other examples from fantasy media of bigoted religious zealots. Or if they changed a bit to be less themed on Medieval knights and were more like Greco-Roman demigods. But I think invoking the symbols of groups that committed horrific atrocities for the basis of the most stereotypically good class in D&D history is bad.

Please direct me to any official D&D setting that depicts Rogues anywhere near as favorably as it does Paladins.

All of them depict rogues as dashing prince charmings whose crimes are forgivable for sny number of reasons.

Also, why is it wrong to reclaim an idea (historic paladin) and reclaim it (oathbound hero)? Because that is what 5e did. Ancients, Glory, Seeker, Vengeance -- none of these subclasses are very Christian. You have yet to prove Paladin as bigoted zealot as opposed to superhero in 5e.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't understand the point of thevthread other than to stir controversy and get people fighting, + notwithstanding.

The OP themselves recognize that the Paladin is an Arthurian questing figure (who are more interested in courtly romance than muderhoboing) but then goes on to explain how we should think about them in more historical, racist terms just so we can be upset? I don't get it.

This post is not meant to stir controversy. I very nearly didn’t post this thread because I knew it would be controversial and the dumb repetitive arguments in these sorts of threads are a major reason why I haven’t been as active as I used to be on this site. I thought I explained my mindset in the OP. The actual details of the Middle Ages, such as the actual role of medieval knights, the Crusades, and so on are newer knowledge for me. A lot of my knowledge has bettered my ability to create stories for D&D, but it also tainted my perception of the history of Paladins and their roots. Paladins are pretty uniquely treated as the “stereotypical good guy class” in D&D, even in 5e where they’re not required to be good anymore, so it was jarring to have the knowledge of their source material when compared to how they’re typically depicted in D&D. It’s similar to being taught that a certain historical figure was a hero while a kid and learning that they were actually a terrible person. This thread is about finding ways to rectify/reconcile that dissonance.

 

[Shardstone]

Note 5e specicially says Paladins do not have to be religious, and there is an offically published Evil Conquest paladin.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wait...Paladins aren't bigoted religious zealots?
news to me.
Why did their alignment was named Lawful stupid then? Because of their charming personality?


then we should rename fighter also.
fighting men or men-at-arms certainly committed more war crimes that "paladins", there were more of them and certainly less disciplined with more loose chain of command.

That stereotype is more stupid players being stupid.

I've never really had a problem as such players don't get into my games generally.

Less of a problem than Kender players.