What do you consider the quintessential knight in shinning armor?

[hong]

(deleted; that was perhaps a bit uncalled for)

 

[NiTessine]

Prince Ashi+aka from Mononoke Hime was the most LG guy I've ever seen.
Some others might include Sir Sparhawk, King Arthur (naturally), and Gotrek Gurnisson. Just kidding about that last one.

As for the Saladin matter, I think he wasn't any worse than King Richard. Both were noble, honorable, capable leaders, and did some rather nasty things. It's the nature of war. Nobody comes away clean. *Shrug*

 

[DM_Matt]

RE: those quotes

Again, so he had the more standard niceties of diplomacy and kingship down, as was religious.....still a butcher who inspired butchery for ages to come. Yes, that was a time of butchery upon butchery from all sides, but......

When was the last time that you've heard a Westerner, let alone a Western leader, said he wanted to be like <fill in the crusader> for reasons primarily associated with the genocidal butchery part as opposed to any personal qualities. I say that yes, if one's legacy is to be the inspiration, almost soley, of butchers throughout the ages, and you just happened to be pious/classy/somewhat enlightened, then the legacy itself does indeed detract from your good qualities.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

John Steinbeck's portrait of Lancelot is the one I prefer.

Superman - sure, he has powers, but he's been shown to consistently take on much more than he can handle, including when he's been powerless.

The only Dragonlance character I like is Sturm. He fits the knight mold perfectly.

Prince Imrahil from LotR is a fine example, as is Aragorn and Faramir (do they really have to wear shining armor?)

John Sheridan and Jeff Sinclair of Babylon 5. Lennier is a great example of a knight whose resolve weakens for a moment, but he ultimately gains redemption for his lapse.

It's tough to find real-world examples without drawing arguments, so I won't.

 

[hong]

RE: those quotes

Again, so he had the more standard niceties of diplomacy and kingship down, as was religious.....still a butcher who inspired butchery for ages to come. Yes, that was a time of butchery upon butchery from all sides, but......

But what, exactly? Every military leader from every historical era has blood on their hands. Some transcend this, to gain the respect and even the acclamation of their enemies. Saladin achieved this. Godfrey of Buillon, Bohemond, Raymond of Toulouse, and the other leaders of the First Crusade did not.

When was the last time that you've heard a Westerner, let alone a Western leader, said he wanted to be like <fill in the crusader> for reasons primarily associated with the genocidal butchery part as opposed to any personal qualities.

This is utterly irrelevant when it comes to Saladin himself. And besides which, you're frothing. Please to stop before your keyboard goes bang.

I say that yes, if one's legacy is to be the inspiration, almost soley, of butchers throughout the ages, and you just happened to be pious/classy/somewhat enlightened, then the legacy itself does indeed detract from your good qualities.

This basically amounts to "the better the legend, the worse it gets". It is illogical, unsupportable, biased, and stupid.

Other than that, I guess it makes perfect sense.

 

[hong]

The only Dragonlance character I like is Sturm.

Good heavens, not Raistlin?

 

[ninthcouncil]

Re Saladin the paladin (sorry, couldn't resist it).

It is a mistake to judge historical figures by the people who later invoke them. Just because the National Front in France idolise Jeanne d'Arc doesn't mean she was a deranged religious maniac manipulated by one of the most deeply dubious figures in European history.... oh well, perhaps it does

And as for Richard the Lionheart.... what an ass. At least John, for all his faults, actually attempted to administer his kingdom.

And King David - an adulterous murderer.

I goes on. Almost any "heroic" figure, examined too closely, begins to wilt, some of them rather alarmingly. Which is why the "best" ones are largely or wholly fictional, or at least obscure beyond scholarly examiniation (e.g. Arthur).

 

[GrimJesta]

There are plenty of separatist right-wing bigots in the US who quote Thomas Jefferson to justify their actions. Does this mean Jefferson is unworthy of reverence?

Well, alot of us on the left and extreme left also quote him. Hes just one of those people that everyone could agree with.

As for my choices of the quintessential knight would be:

Theo Bell of the World of Darkness, minus the whole blood-drinking thing.

Gawyn Trakand and Galadedrid Damodred from the Wheel of Time. They are both opposing extremes of Lawful Good IMHO.

And if Ralph Nader could use a sword...

-=Grim=-

 

[Irda Ranger]

I have to disagree with the Don Quixote votes. The man of la Mancha never really was aware of his world (IMO). He was perpetually delusional (whether by insanity or choice could be debated I suppose) and refused to admit that the world could be imperfect.

A true Knight chooses good and virtue with full knowledge of evil and vice. They make hard choices, choosing right over worng. Otherwise there would be no real choice made, which proves nothing. And no, I don't think they really need shining armor. So, with that in mind ...


Paksenarrion Dorthansdotter (amazing I still can spell that)

Sturm Brighblade (despite his shining armor)

Kaz the Minotaur was twice the Knight Huma was

El Cid

Luke Skywalker

Lord Algemar of Fal Dara, and brothers Gawyn and Galain (Wheel of Time)

At first I was thinking al'Lan Mandragoran, but I have changed my mind. Whether it was his sword's legacy, Moiraine's commands or Nyneave's love, Lan never made hard choices. He let others make them for him.

Dragonbait (Finder's Stone)

William Wallace as portrayed by Mel Gibson. Frankly I don't know enough about the hirtorical figure to make an argument for that, so lets not start a new Saladin debate.

I may commit myself to D&D Purgatory for admitting this, but I have never read an Arthurian Legend or The Lord of the Rings, so I will leave that debate to others .

Irda Ranger

Edit, PS - Oh yeah, and Hong, chill out. Ignorance can't be cured in a day. I do think that real historical figures should be avoided though. They are too complex to fit the "Quintessential Knight"s narrow little niche.

 

[Green Knight]

It's true you can't cure ignorance in a day. Hong's positively riddled with that disease!

But anyway, being the Arthurian fan that I am, here's my list.

King Arthur
Galahad
Lamerok
Percival
Tristram
Gawain
The Green Knight
Palomides

Lancelot isn't on my list, due to that whole affair with Gwenivere. It's stupid, but I get pissed off every time I think of it, as that was the catalyst for the trouble that was to come. And Palomides is one of the most interesting characters in Arthurian fantasy. The Green Knight was so pious a knight that he could even judge a knight like Gawain (who was a much more noble knight in Sir Gawain & The Green Knight then he was in Le Morte D'Arthur).

As for Don Quixote, I don't think he fits as he's deluded. Though he IS a great character. Read the book years ago and loved it. In fact, I'm currently playing a similar character in Living Force. A 74 year old Noble/Force Adept who thinks he's a Jedi Knight, wields a rusty, dull sword which he believes to be a lightsaber, sees cantinas as castles, believes female droids to be Noble Ladies, and is named "Don Quijana De Saavedra".