In the past year or so, I have learned a lot about medieval history that I didn't know before. I'd commonly heard and spouted the phrase that D&D isn't really medieval, it's its own thing more similar to the Renaissance but is filled with anachronisms and stuff of its own inventions (obviously all the magical stuff, but also studded leather armor and similar pseudo-historical stuff). This is accurate, but I didn't understand many of the specifics aside from a few points (Rapiers, Plate Armor, etc) until recently. A lot of D&D is inspired by modern fantasy that is in turn based on aspects of the middle ages or stories from them (Mostly through Tolkien. A ton of D&D was inspired by Tolkien, who was in turn inspired by stories from the middle ages like Beowulf, Arthurian Legend, and Norse Mythology.) That is not to say that all of D&D is based on the middle ages or stories from it, there is stuff stolen from a ton of cultures and stories with varying degrees of accuracy, and of course stuff of Gygaxian invention (mimics, owlbears, displacer beasts, etc).
There is one aspect of D&D that is undoubtedly based on an aspect of the middle ages, and I think causes some issues. Paladins are undoubtedly based on stories of medieval knights, those of Arthurian Legend and stories of Charlemagne's paladins, where they get their name. While Arthurian legend as we know them today was based on earlier Brythonic stories, a major aspect of them, the stories of knights on quests traveling around killing monsters, was added later on. Medieval knights did not go on quests. Knights were the lowest form of nobility and acted as law enforcement and guards for more powerful nobles. Knights wouldn't wander the countryside on quests searching for ancient artifacts and killing dangerous beasts. They had a jobs, and no noble would just let their knights shirk their duties to explore. The closest medieval analogue to the stories of Arthurian knights going on holy quests were the Crusades, which the stories were inspired by.
Furthermore, the common image of a D&D paladin, a sword-and-board holy knight with a holy symbol on their shield is obviously based on the common image of the Knights Templar with the cross on their shield.
This type of depiction of a paladin View attachment 365307
was obviously inspired by this type of image View attachment 365308
(Not to mention that the medieval chivalric stories of Charlemagne's paladins tell tales of them fighting against Andalusian Muslims.)
The D&D paladin is rooted in the Crusades, stories based off the Crusades (Arthurian Knights) and other medieval stories about chivalric knights fighting Muslims. The "lawful good holy warriors" of D&D are based off of the knights of the middle ages that killed thousands of innocent people and started the modern western version of racism.
After the fall of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem and foundation of the Knights Templar, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, co-founder of the Knights Templar wrote in his book "In Praise of the New Knighthood" that Muslims were the embodiment of evil, subhuman monsters that it was justified to kill. He said that because killing them rid the world of evil, it was not murder to kill them, and called for genocide against Muslims. This seems awfully close to statements said by Gary "nits make lice" Gygax. (Note: I'm not accusing Gygax of racism or promoting genocide against Muslims. Just saying that it's the same type of language with the same root and that's a problem.) There's a reason why the symbol of knights in shining armor and its derivatives have been adopted as symbols for hate groups like the KKK. The modern version of western racism was rooted in the crusades and used to justify the atrocities committed by Christians against Jews and Muslims during the middle ages.
In my opinion, this is a problem. The fact that according to Gygax killing members of the always-evil races that have surrendered is in accordance with Lawful Good morals is bad and enslaving them is in accordance with Chaotic Good morals.
Paladins are a Christian power fantasy rooted in one of the most horrific series of wars of the Middle Ages. Since I've learned more about the Crusades and made this connection, Paladins just feel different. Ickier, for the lack of a better word. They don't feel the same as back when I was a teenager playing make believe with fantasy monsters. Knowing about the atrocities that inspired them and their representation throughout D&D history as holy warriors of good that must purge the evil just feels gross now. I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but this thread is largely about how learning about the medieval roots of paladins has sort of ruined them for me. I'm not saying that they should be removed from the game. I think that Paladins can be fixed for me if they change enough, it may require a new name and broadening/changing their identity. If they didn't borrow as much of their identity from medieval knights, it wouldn't be as much as a problem. The Oath of Heroism for example, which is more inspired by demigod heroes of Greek mythology don't have as much of the gross Crusader theme to them.
So, any suggestions? How can you have a holy warrior knight-in-shining-armor class without this connection to the Crusades and similar real world atrocities? Is the problem mainly with the paladin, or Gygax's version of always-evil races? How might Paladins be changed to make them feel less gross.
Keep in mind that this is a (+) thread. The last time I made a thread similar to this one, it got bogged down by posters telling me that the problem I was bringing up didn't exist and accusing me of being overly sensitive. If you disagree with the premise of the thread, move along. Make your own thread if you like. If threadcrapping/trolling occurs, it will of course be reported.
Read Three Hearts and Three Lions (1961) by Poul Anderson. It's a modern medieval fantasy take on the paladin and is THE source for the paladin class in D&D along with some other D&D-isms. It's also in Appendix N.
Read Three Hearts and Three Lions (1961) by Poul Anderson. It's a modern medieval fantasy take on the paladin and is THE source for the paladin class in D&D along with some other D&D-isms. It's also in Appendix N.
Yeah I see the Paladin more rooted in this and things like Arthurian legend (that is well before the crusades). The armor of the paladin tends to be anachronistic but I wouldn't say the paladin therefore meant to reflect the crusades. I think if you did the crusades you would likely have paladins on both sides of the battle in a D&D campaign (and if you got into the historical realities of such conflicts, you would certainly want to take a hard look at things like alignment and the morality of what is going on in the war-----that would all depend on the specifics of the campaign I think)
Everything in D&D and similar games belongs to an ideal word, in a manner or another. Even the bad guys.
The fire in the forest is not just a series of chemical reaction, is something that is a manifestation of enraged spirits and channels the energy of the elemental plane of fire.The whole cosmology is constructed to illustrate this.
In the same way, we know that the codes Knights and Samurai followed didn't reflect on real life people because humans are humans. Samurai being Lawful in some setting, or Cavaliers, Paladins and Knights following edicts and codes reflect nothing of their historical counterpart - it reflects what they were idealized to be, as in a fairy tale. Because this is what the setting should be about, not a self destructing search for realism.
Trying to deconstruct everything will only bring ruin. I think is very healthy to be conscious of what history was really like, also to learn from it, especially because certain groups of people want to use idealized fake scenarios of a made-up past as an excuse for their political agenda.
But this should not be detrimental for a game that is supposed to tell stories of scoundrels and heroes. We are talking Lancelot and Rostam, not Philip IV and Shah Ismail.
In this regard, I think OP you are underplaying what happened to Anatolia after Manzikert. Is true that the crusades ended up in a crapshow (especially but not exclusively the 4th which basically destroyed the Byzantines in 1204, 1453 by the Ottomans was arguably a coup de grâce).
But the encroachment was real and started in the 600s (the caliphates), to never stop. Manzikert was lost against a different polity centuries later of course (the Seljuks) but the people of say, Ani were really killed and the city destroyed. And it happened over and over in many, many cases. The Pope didn't need to make up stuff, even if he was professionally inclined to do so in certain instances.
Here is how I address the OP's concerns.
Excerpts from Adventures in the Nine Planes, A Handbook for Players
Paladin “The world looks with some awe upon a man who appears unconcernedly indifferent to home, money, comfort, rank, or even power and fame. The world feels not without a certain apprehension, that here is someone outside its jurisdiction; someone before whom its allurements may be spread in vain; someone strangely enfranchised, untamed, untrammeled by convention, moving independent of the ordinary currents of human action.”
- Winston Churchill, Politician, speaking about T.E. Lawrence
Paladins are characters who are inspired to noble action. They find they have great power to use in the service of others. Each one can speak of the circumstances of their inspiration that caused them to set aside previous duties and choose to stand in harm’s way. However, it is always personally moving and seldom shared.
GRACE OF THE ANCIENT OF DAYS
Paladins are inspired by the Ancient of Days, that which is above any Patron or Power. They have a greater clarity about their own moral compass than most, and find their motivation in promoting the most benefit for all.
INSPIRED CALL
Paladins are inspired to guide, assist, and protect others. Should the call be forsworn or rejected, the paladin loses their abilities and becomes a fighter of the same experience. Paladins prioritize their actions and the needs of others thusly:
1. Defend the innocent and helpless
2. Assist their friends and allies
3. Pursue the unjust and profane
4. Provide for themselves
Paladins are inspired to noble heroism and are not stupid, cruel, or unjust. The ends can justify some means as long as the code above is followed.
In the past year or so, I have learned a lot about medieval history that I didn't know before. I'd commonly heard and spouted the phrase that D&D isn't really medieval, it's its own thing more similar to the Renaissance but is filled with anachronisms and stuff of its own inventions (obviously all the magical stuff, but also studded leather armor and similar pseudo-historical stuff). This is accurate, but I didn't understand many of the specifics aside from a few points (Rapiers, Plate Armor, etc) until recently. A lot of D&D is inspired by modern fantasy that is in turn based on aspects of the middle ages or stories from them (Mostly through Tolkien. A ton of D&D was inspired by Tolkien, who was in turn inspired by stories from the middle ages like Beowulf, Arthurian Legend, and Norse Mythology.) That is not to say that all of D&D is based on the middle ages or stories from it, there is stuff stolen from a ton of cultures and stories with varying degrees of accuracy, and of course stuff of Gygaxian invention (mimics, owlbears, displacer beasts, etc).
There is one aspect of D&D that is undoubtedly based on an aspect of the middle ages, and I think causes some issues. Paladins are undoubtedly based on stories of medieval knights, those of Arthurian Legend and stories of Charlemagne's paladins, where they get their name. While Arthurian legend as we know them today was based on earlier Brythonic stories, a major aspect of them, the stories of knights on quests traveling around killing monsters, was added later on. Medieval knights did not go on quests. Knights were the lowest form of nobility and acted as law enforcement and guards for more powerful nobles. Knights wouldn't wander the countryside on quests searching for ancient artifacts and killing dangerous beasts. They had a jobs, and no noble would just let their knights shirk their duties to explore. The closest medieval analogue to the stories of Arthurian knights going on holy quests were the Crusades, which the stories were inspired by.
Furthermore, the common image of a D&D paladin, a sword-and-board holy knight with a holy symbol on their shield is obviously based on the common image of the Knights Templar with the cross on their shield.
This type of depiction of a paladin View attachment 365307
was obviously inspired by this type of image View attachment 365308
(Not to mention that the medieval chivalric stories of Charlemagne's paladins tell tales of them fighting against Andalusian Muslims.)
The D&D paladin is rooted in the Crusades, stories based off the Crusades (Arthurian Knights) and other medieval stories about chivalric knights fighting Muslims. The "lawful good holy warriors" of D&D are based off of the knights of the middle ages that killed thousands of innocent people and started the modern western version of racism.
After the fall of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem and foundation of the Knights Templar, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, co-founder of the Knights Templar wrote in his book "In Praise of the New Knighthood" that Muslims were the embodiment of evil, subhuman monsters that it was justified to kill. He said that because killing them rid the world of evil, it was not murder to kill them, and called for genocide against Muslims. This seems awfully close to statements said by Gary "nits make lice" Gygax. (Note: I'm not accusing Gygax of racism or promoting genocide against Muslims. Just saying that it's the same type of language with the same root and that's a problem.) There's a reason why the symbol of knights in shining armor and its derivatives have been adopted as symbols for hate groups like the KKK. The modern version of western racism was rooted in the crusades and used to justify the atrocities committed by Christians against Jews and Muslims during the middle ages.
In my opinion, this is a problem. The fact that according to Gygax killing members of the always-evil races that have surrendered is in accordance with Lawful Good morals is bad and enslaving them is in accordance with Chaotic Good morals.
Paladins are a Christian power fantasy rooted in one of the most horrific series of wars of the Middle Ages. Since I've learned more about the Crusades and made this connection, Paladins just feel different. Ickier, for the lack of a better word. They don't feel the same as back when I was a teenager playing make believe with fantasy monsters. Knowing about the atrocities that inspired them and their representation throughout D&D history as holy warriors of good that must purge the evil just feels gross now. I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but this thread is largely about how learning about the medieval roots of paladins has sort of ruined them for me. I'm not saying that they should be removed from the game. I think that Paladins can be fixed for me if they change enough, it may require a new name and broadening/changing their identity. If they didn't borrow as much of their identity from medieval knights, it wouldn't be as much as a problem. The Oath of Heroism for example, which is more inspired by demigod heroes of Greek mythology don't have as much of the gross Crusader theme to them.
So, any suggestions? How can you have a holy warrior knight-in-shining-armor class without this connection to the Crusades and similar real world atrocities? Is the problem mainly with the paladin, or Gygax's version of always-evil races? How might Paladins be changed to make them feel less gross.
Keep in mind that this is a (+) thread. The last time I made a thread similar to this one, it got bogged down by posters telling me that the problem I was bringing up didn't exist and accusing me of being overly sensitive. If you disagree with the premise of the thread, move along. Make your own thread if you like. If threadcrapping/trolling occurs, it will of course be reported.
I agree that there is some real-world inspiration to parts of the class. However, it is very easy to play the class (especially in 5E) without touching any of that.
One of the reasons I typically play Oath of Ancients Paladins is because, in my head, it's more connected to older pagan religions, champions of the wild, and other such things. This can cover a lot of different things.
You might instead decide to take inspiration from Samurai/Ronin legends (mixed with a dash of your religion of choice), and you would have a perfectly viable concept for a warrior of reknown who is imbued with blessings from the heavens. Alternatively, perhaps you have a mystical metaphysical benefit from having an honorable connection to your daimyo (who may not even be human).
Yet anther option would be to take inspiration from the other side of the Crusades. Non-Christian military orders and holy orders existed (and some still do in various forms). Sufi Warriors, Ottoman special forces, and various others have a long history from which to draw inspiration. In modern times, Fedayeen still exist (and, in a previous career, I've actually been in conflicts involving groups connected to them). There is plenty of inspiration to draw from real-world non-Christian warriors*.
(*Though, note that, if the Crusades and militant Christianity make you feel "icky" about paladins, you may not feel much better about the "icky" realities of real-world war and the people involved in fighting them.)
I could go on, but the point is that a warrior inspired by faith isn't unique to one religion. That is true even before adding fantasy religions, different races/species, and the various planes of D&D cosmology.
The D&D paladin is rooted in the Crusades, stories based off the Crusades (Arthurian Knights) and other medieval stories about chivalric knights fighting Muslims. The "lawful good holy warriors" of D&D are based off of the knights of the middle ages that killed thousands of innocent people and started the modern western version of racism.
After the fall of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem and foundation of the Knights Templar, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, co-founder of the Knights Templar wrote in his book "In Praise of the New Knighthood" that Muslims were the embodiment of evil, subhuman monsters that it was justified to kill. He said that because killing them rid the world of evil, it was not murder to kill them, and called for genocide against Muslims. This seems awfully close to statements said by Gary "nits make lice" Gygax. (Note: I'm not accusing Gygax of racism or promoting genocide against Muslims. Just saying that it's the same type of language with the same root and that's a problem.) There's a reason why the symbol of knights in shining armor and its derivatives have been adopted as symbols for hate groups like the KKK. The modern version of western racism was rooted in the crusades and used to justify the atrocities committed by Christians against Jews and Muslims during the middle ages.
This is a bit tangential to your main point, but I got a somewhat different impression from Bernard of Clairvaux essay. He does indeed say that killing of infidels is justified and should not be consider murder, because he likens that to the killing of a criminal. He also adds that killing of infidels should be avoided if other means to prevent them from oppressing Christians could be found, but says that given the current state of things killing them is preferable to leaving Christians under their yoke. He speaks about expelling Muslims from Jerusalem, of "routing the Nations of the infidels", but I do not see a call for a blank extermination of Muslims. This is specifically about Christian control of Jerusalem and neighbouring territories, which itself builds on centuries of conflict between Europeans and Muslims, going back to the Arab conquests of several territories previously part of the Roman Empire or its successor states. There is no point in denying the various atrocities by the crusaders, but some of your characterisations seem to me partly excessive and partly missing some aspects of the broader context.
I don't think this significantly impacts your main issue regarding the uncomfortable parallels between paladins and templars. But other people have already pointed out that in current versions of D&D that connection has been significantly watered down.
It's fine if you still find it problematic. It's also fine if you don't have same issues with classes like Fighter and Rogue, whose real life counterparts committed atrocities on par of the crusaders (and in fact, templars were a minority among crusaders, most soldiers would fall under Fighters in D&D terms).
We all have a line we are not comfortable crossing, and it may well be that for you things like Rogues and Fighters fall this side of the line while Paladins go too far. But to me where the line is and what falls to either side, boils down to a matter of personal sensibilities and if you agree with this, I think that you'll also agree that this kind of thread likely won't help, even if you mark it with a (+). It's kind of like asking "why am I in love with person X rather than person Y?".
The area of discomfort that you mention feeling may be inspiration for a campaign setting or an adventure.
Two groups of holy warriors who both see themselves as "good" (whatever that means to you, your group, and the in-world fiction of the groups) could find themselves in conflict due to disagreement over how best to use a holy site.
There are a lot of different hooks for characters in that, as well as many different stories that could be told without either side being presented as an objective villain.
Perhaps an option for "dealing with" the "ick" is to lean into it and use it as inspiration for adventure rather than shying away from it.
There is no point in denying the various atrocities by the crusaders, but some of your characterisations seem to me partly excessive and partly missing some aspects of the broader context.
This. Also, posting that youtuber is not a good look, that guy is misinformed and biased. Is like the that infamous guy that starts with W, but on the other end of the political spectrum.
Overall, youtube channels should be avoided as a primary source of history analysis and interpretation.
Wait...Paladins aren't bigoted religious zealots?
news to me.
Why did their alignment was named Lawful stupid then? Because of their charming personality?
That was really the direct result of how absolute morality's unknowable murk encouraged stupid players to act stupid. d&d has been moving away from that since somewhere in the 3.5 days when the ECS introduction included
2. Tone and attitude. The campaign combines traditional medieval DSLD fantasy with swashbuckling action and dark adventure. Alignments are relative gauges of a character or creatures viewpoint. and not absolute barometers of affiliation and action; nothing is exactly as it seems. Alignments are blurred. so that it's possible to encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire. Traditionally good-aligned creatures may wind up opposed to the heroes. while well-known agents of evil might provide assistance when
it's least expected. To help capture the cinematic nature of the swordplay and spellcasting. we've added action points to the rules mix. This spendable. limited resource allows players to alter the outcome of dramatic situations and have their characters accomplish the seemingly impossible.
The 5e PHB has other changes that others have already noted & eberron rising from the last war has a point isimilar to the quoted one in its introduction equivalent.
