Quote from: Batman;1065979 A deity in D&D that believes infidels, "pagans", people no of that very specific faith, etc must be put to the sword or convert probably shouldn't have the Lawful Good descriptor in their title.

That's a modernist/postmodernist standard of "good", most commonly found in superhero comics and widely imitated in other media. It has real-world antecedents, especially the Christian pacifist movements of the late 19th - early 20th century period. It is neither universal to human history and culture (contra Rousseau's "Noble Savage") nor any kind of absolute moral standard.

Quote from: RandyB;1065981That's a modernist/postmodernist standard of "good", most commonly found in superhero comics and widely imitated in other media. It has real-world antecedents, especially the Christian pacifist movements of the late 19th - early 20th century period. It is neither universal to human history and culture (contra Rousseau's "Noble Savage") nor any kind of absolute moral standard.

True, so then by who's authority does one look to when dealing with the alignment system of D&D? If what's "good" cant be agreed upon by anyone or there's no collective conformity about the subject why even bother with the notion altogether? Why the angst over LG-only Paladins if said player just says "yeah my deity said it's ok to steal and lie so long as it's when dealing with the unfaithful." At that point, you might as well open up the class to whatever alignment the player wants.

Quote from: Batman;1065989True, so then by who's authority does one look to when dealing with the alignment system of D&D?

The Great Gygax, of course! (Who shares SHARK's view of Paladins BTW).

Quote from: SHARK;1065921Hello Rawma! I see what you're saying there, I think.

No, you did not see.

QuoteHaving such *in-game* conflict between player characters can be challenging

This is not "in game" conflict; this is two players who each want to play their favorite character but one of them can't, no matter what their characters negotiate, unless you want to endorse the "mislead the lawful-stupid paladin" trope to preserve the game. Nothing to do with the specific characters involved and everything to do with an absolute prohibition in the rules; paladins of the Greyhawk supplement will associate only with lawful characters, and thieves are not lawful. (Add in that non-humans generally had to be thieves if they want to advance past relatively low levels.)

Greetings!

Well, the Paladin is inspired by a few sources culturally, historically, and theologically.

In the Scriptures, many holy Prophets and leaders--Joshua and Gideon come to mind. The Lord spoke to them, saying; "Gather up the mighty men of war. Gird thyself for battle with sword and spear, and go forth to smite the Moabites. The Moabites have killed and persecuted my prophets. The Moabites are an evil pagan race, and I have declared that they shall suffer wrath and judgement. Take your mighty men of war, and go down into the lands of the Moabites. Slay them. Pour out your wrath against them. Slay their men, their women and their children, for they have sinned against the Lord. The lands flow with milk and honey, and riches and blessings shall be given to thee and thy house, and to all of your people. Do not fear the pagans, and their great spears and horses and coats of iron. They shall be trampled under your feet with blood and fire, they shall be scattered like wheat tossed into the wind. Fear not, for the Lord shall be with you in all things." I'm paraphrasing, of course. But it's quite accurate. There is a huge amount of Christian doctrine, theology and history that contributes to the Paladin.

Next, the valiant Roland, the holy Archbishop Turpin, who led righteous warriors of Christian Europe to stand against the invading monstrous hordes of the Muslim armies, seeking to enslave all of Europe to Muhommedism.

The knights of the glorious King Charlemagne, that stood guard on the frontiers, fighting and bringing judgement and wrath against the evil pagan tribes of Germany and Bohemia. Christendom wasn't just under threat by the Muslims from the south, but also from European pagans from the north, as well as from the east. Valiant knights rose up to stand guard, and ride forth to protect the faithful during these ages. Just like the ancient Pagans that faced Joshua and Gideon, and other heroes of the Scriptures, there were evil and savage pagans facing good Christians in later ages as well, such as the Muslims, the Saxons, various Germanic tribes, as well as Bohemians and some pagan Slavic tribes--all formed a threat to the Christian community, to the very existence and prosperity of the Faith.

In the Crusades, the Muslims again were a great evil and a great threat to all of Christendom. The bells of Christiandom sounded all over Europe, and from Ireland and Britain, to Norway, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Greece--from all over Europe, brave and valiant men heard the call, and sought to serve the Lord, and defend Europe from the rising tide of Islam. And stand tall they did, as they valiantly brought war and judgement to the Muslims by conquering the Holy Land. This enormous expedition crushed the Muslim ambitions of invading Europe, and let the Mohammedans know that Europe would fight them, and not passively kneel and accept their tryanny.

The Arthurian tales, of course, as a reflection of the smaller-scale affairs of defending the Faith throughout a mysterious and Pagan Britian, essentially during the Dark Ages. The Church had much work to do in Britian, and the Pagans resisted and fought against the new wave of Christian expansion after the fall of the Roman Empire. The native Pagans were of course strengthened by the arrival and invasion of the Danes and Norse Vikings from across the sea. Though fictionalized, the Arthurian tales are a reflection of the struggles and concerns of a Christian community and kingdom throughout a dark, Pagan Britian during the Dark Ages and early Medieval Era.

In America, and the Western Frontier. Way back then, in the great Land of Texas, the savage pagan Commanche didn't just bring turkey and sing kumbyyah. In a land so distant and far from any help the United States Army could hope to provide, the simple Christian farmers of the land were vulnerable, and ripe for slaughter. I bet you've never heard of whole villages of Texans being slaughtered and burned alive? Men, women, children, all hacked apart, tortured, and roasted alive in great fires by the Commanche. Well, it happened. The Commanche Indians were warlords of their realm, excellent horsemen, and ferocious warriors. They were also pagan, savage, and cruel. Even to other Indian tribes, they were feared and hated. The white Christian Texans were just some other tribe to be crushed, and forced into subjection. The Commanche were quite successful at launching a bloody, ferocious war all along the south-western frontier for many years. Many ranches and communities were slaughtered en masse by the Commanche. Women were raped. Men were skinned and tortured. Children thrown into the fires. Terror spread like a wildfire amongst all of the people of Texas, and beyond. Homesteads, ranches, whole villages and towns literally wiped off the face of the earth by the savage Commanche. It was a terrifying time for the early settlers and farmers of Texas and the south-west. Finally, however, the Texas Rangers rose up, and gathered new men to their banners in leading a new kind of war against the Commanche. Preachers in churches--both Catholic and Protestant--sounded the call. Who would join the local militia, and ride with the Texas Rangers? Who would rise up to smite the pagan Commanche? Who would stand to defend their Faith and community, their people from the savage Commanche? Well, many good Christians heard the call, and the Texas Rangers, amongst other leaders, began prosecuting a whole new kind of war against the Commanche. In the past, battles had been fought in daytime, during the spring or summer, essentially between small bands of Commanche warriors and small bands of Militia, or rangers and lawmen. Now, however, there would be no quaint little battles, only in the daytime, and only in the spring and summer. The Texans led the way in a months and several years long campaign of a new kind of brutal war--a sort of total war against the Commanche. Night and day, columns of American Militia rode out against the Commanche. The Texas Rangers led the way, ferociously attacking the Commanches, and then pursuing them deep into the wilderness. The Commanche camps were attacked, and seething with vengeance for their own slaughtered people, the Rangers and Militia likewise slaughtered the Commanches--men, women, and children. Night and day, the Commanche camps were attacked and put to the torch. The campaigns even continued into the cold, snowy months of Fall and Winter. Relentlessly, the Texans pursued the war against the savage Commanche season after season, year after year, until the power of the Commanche was broken.

I picked the Commanche War as merely one amongst many. The frontiers had long been a source of warfare, and embraced both cultural and religious conflict, whether the enemies were the Iroquois, the Cherokee, the Wampanoags, the Delaware, the Seminoles, the Sioux, the Nes Pierce, the Cheyenne, the Pawnee, the Apache, and many others. In all such cases, however, the Church was heavily involved. Not merely the preachers, but the ordinary, Biblically literate church people would ask, "Like Joshua and Gideon, like Lancelot and Galahad, who shall stand for the faith? Who shall stand and defend the people of the faith?"

In World War II--yeah, the Christian ethos, yea, even the ethos of the Paladin can be seen reflected in American society back to Europe. As the Nazis marched over Europe, and Britain was being slowly bombed and starved into submission, Winston Churchill said something to the effect that "Thank God. The Alimighty has answered our prayers. We shall not end in slavery and ruin. America shall rise in righteous wrath and bring liberation to Europe. We our saved! America will join now with us from across the sea, and we shall have our salvation. Europe shall be freed from darkness." It took a while to get things going for sure--but just like in the past, gathered at church, and around the dinner table, families would pray, and ask, "Who shall defend our land? Who shall defend Christianity from the Nazi hordes? Who shall stand to bring liberty and freedom to Europe?" America very much viewed World War II especially as a holy crusade to save the world from barbarism and tyranny. President Roosevelt told the American people that our Christian faith was under attack, and the enemy would annihilate our faith from the land. Christendom would end, if we did not rise up and defend the faith.

So, the Paladin has a number of cultural, historical, and religious sources of inspiration. That's what I've always gotten from them. It's what I've always read from what Gary Gygax said.

Oh, I don't believe in any such of these situations, some brave young man, eager to defend his people, his faith, his community,--heard his mother, or his sister, or his wife, say to him by the mantled fireplace, as he gathered his weapons and prepared to join the other men to ride out into the wilderness--"Now, my brave Tom, you shouldn't be involved in any of this. Don't you realise that you're acting...like Hitler's SS stormtroopers?"

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon;1066014The Great Gygax, of course! (Who shares SHARK's view of Paladins BTW).

Yea, not everyone praises at that dude's alter.

Holy hell! That's a remarkably one-sided tirade, SHARK. Having expressed an interest in real-world history, I am surprised that you would have such a view. Christian countries have frequently made unjust and unprovoked violent attacks on other countries. That's not really up for debate - it requires massive blinders not to see that.

But speaking about RPGs,

Quote from: Batman;1065989True, so then by who's authority does one look to when dealing with the alignment system of D&D? If what's "good" cant be agreed upon by anyone or there's no collective conformity about the subject why even bother with the notion altogether? Why the angst over LG-only Paladins if said player just says "yeah my deity said it's ok to steal and lie so long as it's when dealing with the unfaithful." At that point, you might as well open up the class to whatever alignment the player wants.

Yeah, it's a tricky question. Alignment in D&D inherently means that there is an absolute morality, not a relative one. There are definitions of good and evil in the books, and for any game that uses alignment, that will be important for world-building. For the paladin, though, 5E at least separates the paladin's oath from their alignment. I appreciate the flexibility of this.

In my current campaign, one of my players is new to D&D, and she picked a pregenerated orc paladin that I had made. (In my game, orcs are generally good-aligned while humans are evil.) I had originally made her character for her with Oath of Devotion. However, she developed the background that the paladin's family were slaughtered by humans, and she is now devoted to putting all humans to the sword. Even though she is still marginally Lawful Good, I recommended that instead of the Oath of Devotion - she would fit much better with the Oath of Vengeance. It really fit perfectly.


I think there is definitely an appeal to the fantasy of having evil hordes out there, and that it is righteous to just go out and kill them. That's something we can engage in within games. I think my player is having fun with her character, and I think other people also enjoy this sort of paladin concept. The problem is mistaking fantasy for reality - like thinking that white Texans invading Comanche territory were innocent and peaceful. But that's an aside from RPGs.

Quote from: rawma;1065910I think I agree with all of this but I'm going to offer some additional comments anyway.

Making a paladin a subclass or some other add-on to another specific class would either be unbalanced (being a fighter or whatever augmented with the powers of the paladin) or would give an odd result (hey, fallen paladin, you lost your spells and laying on hands and smiting but you gained another Extra Attack and five other Fighter-specific powers when you became an ordinary Fighter!). It might have worked out better with some sort of template that adds on to a character (as was suggested for things like lycanthropy) but then players would add the paladin template on to warlock or rogue characters and spawn another thread just like this one.

Mechanical benefits that are ostensibly balanced by role-playing requirements never seem to work well; the game turns into one of playing the GM to evade or minimize the impact of those requirements, to the general detriment of the game. And that's ignoring the additional problem of interfering with other players' choices ("you can't play your Thief character because I'm playing my Paladin character.").

Balancing mechanical benefits with roleplayig requirements can work if it's tailored specifically by the GM for the campaign they're running. But yeah it can cause a lot of problems if it's just laid out in the rulebook as different GMs are going to approach things very differently.

I think a good way of approaching it is how things worked in Three Hearts and Three Lions, the main source of D&D paladins, in that one the paladin made a circle of protection vs. evil that failed as soon as a sinful act happened inside the circle. So have powers be tied to moral behavior on a case by case basis.

Quote from: jhkim;1066038Yeah, it's a tricky question. Alignment in D&D inherently means that there is an absolute morality, not a relative one. There are definitions of good and evil in the books, and for any game that uses alignment, that will be important for world-building. For the paladin, though, 5E at least separates the paladin's oath from their alignment. I appreciate the flexibility of this.

I do as well, as it allows for multiple interpretations of what someone sees when they play a Paladin. Playing the same ol' Holier than thou, paragon of Christendom despite there being any notion of the word in D&D always made me shake my head. Like, I get it, but....all the time? Geez.

Quote from: jhkim;1066038In my current campaign, one of my players is new to D&D, and she picked a pregenerated orc paladin that I had made. (In my game, orcs are generally good-aligned while humans are evil.) I had originally made her character for her with Oath of Devotion. However, she developed the background that the paladin's family were slaughtered by humans, and she is now devoted to putting all humans to the sword. Even though she is still marginally Lawful Good, I recommended that instead of the Oath of Devotion - she would fit much better with the Oath of Vengeance. It really fit perfectly.

Yea, that definitely sounds like an Oath of Vengeance. Are there any humans in the ground how does that play out with her dedication to the extinction of their race?

Quote from: jhkim;1066038I think there is definitely an appeal to the fantasy of having evil hordes out there, and that it is righteous to just go out and kill them. That's something we can engage in within games. I think my player is having fun with her character, and I think other people also enjoy this sort of paladin concept. The problem is mistaking fantasy for reality - like thinking that white Texans invading Comanche territory were innocent and peaceful. But that's an aside from RPGs.

I feel there is definitely a place for Alt-History style games, especially if you're throwing Magic into the story. An alternate-Earth world set around the early 12th century during the 3rd Crusades where Paladins of the Holy Roman church were defending (or were they attempting to re-take?) Jerusalem, I could see them smiting 'Infidel' Saracens. That would make sense in that setting (and Saracens would probably use their own smites vs. the Knights templar for being evil religious fanatics taking their home).

Quote from: jhkim;1066038Holy hell! That's a remarkably one-sided tirade, SHARK. Having expressed an interest in real-world history, I am surprised that you would have such a view. Christian countries have frequently made unjust and unprovoked violent attacks on other countries. That's not really up for debate - it requires massive blinders not to see that.

But speaking about RPGs,


Yeah, it's a tricky question. Alignment in D&D inherently means that there is an absolute morality, not a relative one. There are definitions of good and evil in the books, and for any game that uses alignment, that will be important for world-building. For the paladin, though, 5E at least separates the paladin's oath from their alignment. I appreciate the flexibility of this.

In my current campaign, one of my players is new to D&D, and she picked a pregenerated orc paladin that I had made. (In my game, orcs are generally good-aligned while humans are evil.) I had originally made her character for her with Oath of Devotion. However, she developed the background that the paladin's family were slaughtered by humans, and she is now devoted to putting all humans to the sword. Even though she is still marginally Lawful Good, I recommended that instead of the Oath of Devotion - she would fit much better with the Oath of Vengeance. It really fit perfectly.


I think there is definitely an appeal to the fantasy of having evil hordes out there, and that it is righteous to just go out and kill them. That's something we can engage in within games. I think my player is having fun with her character, and I think other people also enjoy this sort of paladin concept. The problem is mistaking fantasy for reality - like thinking that white Texans invading Comanche territory were innocent and peaceful. But that's an aside from RPGs.

Greetings!

One-sided tirade, jhkim? I was merely alluding to much of the source material. As for "expressing such a view"--I didn't express any personal view, jhkim. The attitudes concerning the Commanches, and many other Indian groups--were detailed in *primary* sources, jhkim. In sermons, public gatherings, diary entrees, letters by normal, ordinary farmers to relatives back east, as well as reports and materials maintained by the Texas Rangers--it becomes clear--that the people of Texas and other areas of America during the Indian Wars were absolutely terrified of the Indian tribes. *I* haven't made this up. Professional historians reviewed such material with myself and the entire class throughout many projects concerning American History. In understanding history, what you or I *believe* in our sweet modern Egg of Modernism has zero relation to what really happened in history, and various perspectives from different sources, that are available to the modern historian and student in understanding the history of past ages.

Many elements of early D&D--and inspirations for the Paladin--are found within the histories, stories, and *dynamics* of the American West, and the Frontier. Isolated communities, frontier forts, *savage tribes*, bands of outlaws, on and on. There's too many. At any rate, jhkim, that is what I was referencing. I don't think you would really like to know what my *personal* views are on the issues of war and conquest in the Americas. I couldn't possibly discuss it in any meaningful way in a paragraph, or three.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1066042One-sided tirade, jhkim? I was merely alluding to much of the source material. As for "expressing such a view"--I didn't express any personal view, jhkim.

Choosing one set of sources and ignoring another with conflicting messages is expressing a view. Interestingly, jhkim did not appear to have anything to say about your Comanche example, and yet you defend nothing else in the rest of this post.

QuoteThe attitudes concerning the Commanches, and many other Indian groups--were detailed in *primary* sources, jhkim. In sermons, public gatherings, diary entrees, letters by normal, ordinary farmers to relatives back east, as well as reports and materials maintained by the Texas Rangers--it becomes clear--that the people of Texas and other areas of America during the Indian Wars were absolutely terrified of the Indian tribes.

Fear is not a basis for being a paladin. Fear is the path to the dark side.

QuoteMany elements of early D&D--and inspirations for the Paladin--are found within the histories, stories, and *dynamics* of the American West, and the Frontier. Isolated communities, frontier forts, *savage tribes*, bands of outlaws, on and on. There's too many.

What do any of these have to do with paladins like those in Charlemagne's court or like Galahad?

You started with "Well, the Paladin is inspired by a few sources culturally, historically, and theologically." and ended with "So, the Paladin has a number of cultural, historical, and religious sources of inspiration." so it seems reasonable to read everything in between as being about the inspirations for paladins, but if you want to claim you were mostly talking about elements of early D&D, at least have the courtesy to make your retreat explicit.

Quote from: Batman;1066036Yea, not everyone praises at that dude's alter.

You don't have to worship him to use his model.

Quote from: rawma;1066043Choosing one set of sources and ignoring another with conflicting messages is expressing a view. Interestingly, jhkim did not appear to have anything to say about your Comanche example, and yet you defend nothing else in the rest of this post.



Fear is not a basis for being a paladin. Fear is the path to the dark side.



What do any of these have to do with paladins like those in Charlemagne's court or like Galahad?

You started with "Well, the Paladin is inspired by a few sources culturally, historically, and theologically." and ended with "So, the Paladin has a number of cultural, historical, and religious sources of inspiration." so it seems reasonable to read everything in between as being about the inspirations for paladins, but if you want to claim you were mostly talking about elements of early D&D, at least have the courtesy to make your retreat explicit.

Greetings!

Well, Rawma, how acquainted are you with American Frontier history? More pointedly--how familiar are you with the popular songs, novels, and Western Films made concerning and depicting the American Frontier?

As for the other side--Rawma. I'm part Native American. Cherokee to be precise. I had an Indian ancestor--my great, great grandmother, as I recall--from my mother's father's lineage--she was on the infamous "Trail of Tears". The Trail of Tears was where the United States Army forcibly re-located, medieval-style, at bayonet-point, the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes in Tenessee and the Carolinas all the way out to the fucking desert in Oklahoma. My mother used to tell me various stories told to her from her grandmother, who had them passed down to her by her grandmother, and so on. I'm well aware of the history of racism, genocide, rape, mindless bloodlust, wicked greed and treachery of every kind imposed upon the Native Americans by the Whites from the early 1600's all the way through to the "Closing of the Frontier" in the 1880's and even beyond. It's a monstrous tragedy of epic proportions. Roughly four hundred years--four centuries--the Native American tribes on one hand tried to befriend the white man, and accomodate the new white settlers in a generous land, and share things. On the other hand, they fought and resisted, every step of the way...from when the "Western Frontier" wasn't the Mississippi River, but a few miles from the Atlantic shoreline, when the American Colonies were still new, only a few generations off the boat. Every step of the way, every 5 to 10 years, the Whites always wanted more. More land. More animals. More gold. More trees. More corn. More, more, more. And always more fucking treaties. Everything signed with such solen hypocrisy, on fancy paper and ink. Like a Cherokee chieftain said of the treaties with the White Man, "The treaties are like Talking Leaves. When the wind blows the leaves away, whatever the leaves said is now gone and forgotten"

So, chew on that. As a Historian, historians are supposed to know all the main perspectives of a topic--whether they personally like them or agree with such perspectives is entirely irrelevant. So, I was talking about how such attitudes and culture influenced Paladins. In the Old West, lots of white people even back then--before D&D--drew inspiration and paralelles between ancient, valiant knights and western marshals, Texas Rangers, and so on. In my mind, I can easily see the connections and sources of cultural inspiration.

All of which--in my experience--clearly depicts the Texas Rangers, and various stripes of frontiersmen and lawmen--as incarnations of the "Paladin" from ancient and medieval sources. Hell, there was even a western series named Paladin. Many such characters in the comics, novels, and films depict characters that resemble very much the medieval knight, and Paladin. The depicted heroes--yes, heroes, not villains or Hitler's SS--were typically shown routinely fighting against savage Indians, evil outlaws, cattle-rustlers and assorted villains of the Old West.

I think the literary and cultural inspirations are quite clear in inspiring the Paladin, and in turn, being inspired *from* the Paladin of medieval times.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think the problem is the Alignment.  People take it to mean different things.  Some think it's objective, subjective, some think it's stupid, others think it's part of D&D, but because the Paladin is tied to it, it affects players and DMs in different ways, depending on how you see alignment.

(to me)

Quote from: SHARK;1066042Many elements of early D&D--and inspirations for the Paladin--are found within the histories, stories, and *dynamics* of the American West, and the Frontier. Isolated communities, frontier forts, *savage tribes*, bands of outlaws, on and on. There's too many. At any rate, jhkim, that is what I was referencing. I don't think you would really like to know what my *personal* views are on the issues of war and conquest in the Americas. I couldn't possibly discuss it in any meaningful way in a paragraph, or three.

(to rawma)

Quote from: SHARK;1066049I'm well aware of the history of racism, genocide, rape, mindless bloodlust, wicked greed and treachery of every kind imposed upon the Native Americans by the Whites from the early 1600's all the way through to the "Closing of the Frontier" in the 1880's and even beyond. It's a monstrous tragedy of epic proportions. Roughly four hundred years--four centuries--the Native American tribes on one hand tried to befriend the white man, and accomodate the new white settlers in a generous land, and share things. On the other hand, they fought and resisted, every step of the way...from when the "Western Frontier" wasn't the Mississippi River, but a few miles from the Atlantic shoreline, when the American Colonies were still new, only a few generations off the boat. Every step of the way, every 5 to 10 years, the Whites always wanted more. More land. More animals. More gold. More trees. More corn. More, more, more. And always more fucking treaties. Everything signed with such solen hypocrisy, on fancy paper and ink. Like a Cherokee chieftain said of the treaties with the White Man, "The treaties are like Talking Leaves. When the wind blows the leaves away, whatever the leaves said is now gone and forgotten"

Thanks, Shark, for the clarification. Your previous post read really strangely, and it seemed like you were talking about real history rather than popular stories of the Frontier. Your post to rawma did clarify about real history.

I agree that early D&D did take a lot from popular depictions of the American wild west. I suppose the paladin does take from that mythology, though I hadn't thought of it previously. The Western genre has an archetype in particular of the lone wandering gunman who shoots the bad guy and then moves on. The AD&D1 paladin is like this - not part of any organization, and taking only what they can carry with them.

But the mythology is adaptable. Just as AD&D1 mixed and matched from different genres for its archetypes, individual campaigns can mix and match for their inspirations. I'm taking a lot of D&D as written, but also reversing many things by having a different set of core races. There are also new takes on a given genre. I'm in the middle right now of reading a Western genre book of sorts from a Lakota point of view, called Hundred in the Hand ( https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Hand-Novel-Lakota-Western/dp/1555916538 ). I'm only halfway through, but its pretty good.