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

[Shardstone]

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.

You say Paladin in 5e do not have to be good anymore. So what else should change? You already won, in terms of reality conforming to your biases and your perspective being proven right. What should further change?

 

[Reynard]

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.

Paladins have been divorced from their "templar" origins for the vast majority of the life of the game. It seems counterproductive and intentionally controversial to refocus on it. I understand that wasn't your intent but I honestly don't know what else you expected.

IMO the paladin may have needed a polish, but that happened in Dragonlance if not earlier. It is a solved problem.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I actually can understand and sympathize where @Levistus's_Leviathan is coming from. D&D over the years has occasionally changed naming/identity/theming of certain parts of their game based on the evolution of culture over time and what is now no longer considered acceptable to large portions of society. So the fact that the term 'paladin' (and 'druid' for that matter) have specific cultural origins to certain people does inspire some questioning as to what those term represent and whether they are valid options to use in the game going forward. I do not begrudge the conversation about it.

That being said... in this particular case I do think the word 'paladin' has evolved its definition culturally (with D&D doing its part to assist in that) to the point where it's no longer connected to the Crusades and those atrocities, but rather has become its own identity of the knight-in-shining armor trope. It's no different than words like 'Knight' or 'Samurai' being elevated to people of stature, even if historically the actual knights and samurai were not nearly as important. And depending on how 21st century culture changes over time with regards to religion, the word 'Cleric' may become verboten as well.

We just never know what words will become offensive to people because oftentimes it seems rather random (I'm sometimes surprised words like 'idiot' or 'dumb' haven't had their champions trying to remove their usage in modern parlance due to their origins as words denoting people with mental or physical challenges like the R-word did.) So at some point if there is a reckoning to re-examine the Crusades from a specifically non-Western view of the history, who knows how the terms from that time might age?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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.

I'll admit, as much as I support paladin's as a class, I do find the base class to be more overtly restrictive in theme and mechanics compared to most. Even if 'lawful good holy warrior' isn't required anymore, the base class still tries to force you down that route.

I feel if a lot more was moved off the base class onto the subclass, then it would open up far more variation in both theme and how the class plays. For example moving divine smite into the subclass allows the base smite to be far more varied in both effect and theme.

Oathbreaker is a good example here. It's meant to be some 'corrupted evil knight', but 90% of your stuff is still divine and good themed, so actually playing it that way is really unsatisfying.

 

[aco175]

I recall a time when paladins were like Anakin and that the were supposed to be the chosen one. They were supposed to save us, not join them. They were the Lancelot to our Percival, so much that the only way to be one was to 'roll' him up at home and hope the DM let you in.

Now, we have exposed the great OZ for just a man behind the curtain and let anyone be a paladin. Then we add more water to the Cool-Aid and drop the good part, then the god part, then the rest that made the class special. It makes it hard to know what flavor the Cool-Aid was to start.

 

[Meech17]

I've always thought that the "Lawful" part was more important than the "Good" part.

5e's change away from requiring LG alignment, and even requiring the worship of a deity is a good move. Paladin's get their power from their Oath, whether that is an Oath sworn to a Lawful Good god, or an Oath sworn to an Ideal, or an Oath sworn to an evil lich determined on world domination. Perhaps you haven't experienced it in any games you've played, but Paladins make for great villains. Namely as Captains/ Lieutenants who serve under a greater villain.

I think ultimately though, that @Bacon Bits made the point best. This entire game is based off of romantic fantasy from a bygone era. We're never going to escape from various problematic themes in it's roots unless we tear it down and start from scratch. Even then if we made a game that was perfect and non-problematic, that would only be by the standards of today. Give it 50 years and I'd be willing to bet gamers in 2074 would be tearing it apart for misconceptions we believe currently.

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.

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.

Honestly, this all just kind of makes me feel like there's a really good idea for a campaign here. An order of paladins/clerics start the campaign positioned as the defacto good guys for the party to align with, and then over the course of the campaign they get to struggle with the fact that maybe this order of paladins isn't all that good after all. Maybe a lot of choices where they are doing increasingly bad things in the name of "The Greater Good". At first you can put these choices aside, as the ends seem to justify the means, but eventually the line will move to the point where the party can no longer abide by these justifications.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

IMO we don't get much of the Arthurian Knights because of the limited mechanics within D&D which are focused predominantly in the combat pillar, some in exploration pillar and little to nothing for social.

We had Alignment but that proved to be a poor mechanic. They introduced Ideals, Bonds and Flaws but it was half baked IMO.

The RPG Pendragon on the other hand does introduce mechanised personality traits (virtues/vices) and passions which allows one to better roleplay an Arthurian knight.

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.

Like roleplaying in general it requires a level of maturity.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I actually can understand and sympathize where @Levistus's_Leviathan is coming from. D&D over the years has occasionally changed naming/identity/theming of certain parts of their game based on the evolution of culture over time and what is now no longer considered acceptable to large portions of society. So the fact that the term 'paladin' (and 'druid' for that matter) have specific cultural origins to certain people does inspire some questioning as to what those term represent and whether they are valid options to use in the game going forward. I do not begrudge the conversation about it.

That being said... in this particular case I do think the word 'paladin' has evolved its definition culturally (with D&D doing its part to assist in that) to the point where it's no longer connected to the Crusades and those atrocities, but rather has become its own identity of the knight-in-shining armor trope. It's no different than words like 'Knight' or 'Samurai' being elevated to people of stature, even if historically the actual knights and samurai were not nearly as important. And depending on how 21st century culture changes over time with regards to religion, the word 'Cleric' may become verboten as well.

We just never know what words will become offensive to people because oftentimes it seems rather random (I'm sometimes surprised words like 'idiot' or 'dumb' haven't had their champions trying to remove their usage in modern parlance due to their origins as words denoting people with mental or physical challenges like the R-word did.) So at some point if there is a reckoning to re-examine the Crusades from a specifically non-Western view of the history, who knows how the terms from that time might age?

I think with "idiot," "dumb," "imbecile," etc., some of the issue is that they're so far back in the dysphemism treadmill, it's not worth fighting them--most people today don't even see "dumb" as being a word that reflects mental diagnosis, and it's so mild that it's widely used in children's media. Having words to refer to a thing or behavior seeming to lack intelligence, forethought, or consideration is useful, and that's what those words now are. The issue with the R-word was that people tried to nip the dysphemism treadmill in the bud, and...kinda-sorta succeeded. Mostly in making the word nearly verboten anywhere, even in technical uses, but the breakup of the treadmill seems to have delayed or even completely derailed its effect on newer terms.

With regard to Paladin, I definitely agree that a vaguely similar process has happened, not because of D&D strictly, but because of the video games it inspired. "Paladin" has become shorthand for an archetype, and often one that gives a voice within gaming spaces for that which is best in us: compassion, hope, kindness, wisdom, courage, magnanimity, forgiveness, valor, honor, love. I can't bring myself to call that the fruit of a poisoned tree.

 

[Krachek]

Actual DnD already toss away the concept of Evil race.
The Ranger choosing two humanoid races as favored ennemies is way more « racist » than the paladin.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

You could always do what Paizo did with Pathfinder 2E, and rename the class to something else. They picked Champion, which is pretty good.