Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7680543" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't really feel the force of the contrast between "being a holy warrior, like a Knight Templar", and "being a warrior of a particular religion". Knights Templar are (or were) warriors of a particular religion - they were Catholic Christians living under a rule authored by St Bernard and modelled very closely on that of the Cistercians. Their principal purpose was to wage war on Muslims. St Bernard <a href="http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~amtower/bernard.html" target="_blank">writes</a> of the "new knight" thatHe is truly a fearless knight and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armor of faith just as his body is protected by armor of steel. He is thus doubly armed and need fear neither demons nor men. Not that he fears death--no, he desires it. Why should he fear to live or fear to die when for him to live is Christ, and to die is gain? Gladly and faithfully he stands for Christ, but he would prefer to be dissolved and to be with Christ, by far the better thing. Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!The idea that the peers of Charlemagne, or the knights of the Round Table, are not distinctively sectarian is also puzzling to me. The Song of Roland has Charlemagne and the peers fighting Muslims in Spain. The Arthurian stories are likewise infused with Catholic Christianity.I think there are two things going on here, though they are interconnected.They are (i) must all paladins be of the same religion, and (ii) can adherents of differing religions nevertheless demonstrate the same virtues? The answer to (ii) in real life seems to me to continue to be a matter of contention in human affairs, and addressing it would violate board rules. I only note the fact of contention to make the point that it should be no surprise if D&D has also had difficulties addressing this question.In 1st ed AD&D, the PHB draws no very strong distinction between religion and alignment. For instance, in Appendix IV (p 120) we are told that the Outer Planes are "the source of alignment (religious/philosophical/ethical ideals)" as well as the home of the deities. The DMG, written later than the PHB, notes (p 23) that "alignment does not necessarily dictate religious persuasion, although many religious beliefs will dictate alignment". This is a stronger distinction than that drawn in the PHB, but it is not that strong.The upshot is that 1st ed AD&D is ambivalent on whether or not there can be multiple LG religions, to any of which (or none of which) a paladin might adhere, but the general implication is that the common Lawful-Goodness of these religions is far more important to their character than possibly different names for divine beings, beliefs about holy days, etc.There is certainly no real scope, though, in 1st ed AD&D, for the idea that two characters might both be LG paladins and also be engaged in religious war against one another - so the attempt to group both the Templars and Saladin as paladins will not work within the published 1st ed AD&D framework. (An excellent article explaining how this might be done, by dropping the alignment system, was published in Dragon 101: "For King and Country".)</blockquote>

Verification