08-09-2022, 08:45 PM
Casting résurrection on this thread.
There is a new YouTube video of an interview with Mike Carr at GenCon. While Carr says he does not recall much about his cleric, he does say the rules about blunt weapons was there from the start.
So, on the one had we have Mike Mornard recalling something about Gary and the Archbishop Turpin. Which is odd since in the Song of Roland, Turpin is the Archbishop of Rheims and is a warrior-priest, wielding a sword. It seems to be assumed that Monard or Gary meant Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who supposedly used a mace because he did not want to shed blood, though, that could pertain to the Bishop of Beauvais as well. William of Breton describes the actions of Philippe de Dreux, Bishop of Beauvais, in 1214:
Who knows, maybe Gary was talking about Archbishop Turpin and using that justify sword wielding clerics. Or perhaps to make the mace the weapon of choice or to simply explain something already in Blackmoor.
Either way, one did not need to know about Odo or Philippe de Dreux to come the conclusion that clergy should not use swords, prohibition existed as part of church canon law—an occasionally contested and ignored canon law, but not an obscure one. Point is, as a scholar of history, this was something Arneson would have likely been exposed to.
There is a new YouTube video of an interview with Mike Carr at GenCon. While Carr says he does not recall much about his cleric, he does say the rules about blunt weapons was there from the start.
So, on the one had we have Mike Mornard recalling something about Gary and the Archbishop Turpin. Which is odd since in the Song of Roland, Turpin is the Archbishop of Rheims and is a warrior-priest, wielding a sword. It seems to be assumed that Monard or Gary meant Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who supposedly used a mace because he did not want to shed blood, though, that could pertain to the Bishop of Beauvais as well. William of Breton describes the actions of Philippe de Dreux, Bishop of Beauvais, in 1214:
Quote:"Indeed, the Bishop of Beauvais… became unhappy, and since by chance he happened to have a mace in his hand, hiding his identity of bishop, he hits the Englishman on the top of the head, shatters his helmet, and throws him to the ground forcing him to leave on it the imprint of his whole body. And, since the author of such a noble deed could not remain unnoticed, and since a bishop should not be known to have carried arms, he tries to hide as much as possible and gives orders to John… to put the warrior in chains and to receive the prize for the deed. Then the bishop, throwing down several more men with his mace, again renounces his titles of honor and his victories in favor of other knights so as not to be accused of having done work unlawful for a priest, as a priest is never allowed to be present at such encounters since he must not desecrate either his hands or his eyes with blood. It is not forbidden, however, to defend oneself and one’s people provided that this defense does not exceed legitimate limits.
Who knows, maybe Gary was talking about Archbishop Turpin and using that justify sword wielding clerics. Or perhaps to make the mace the weapon of choice or to simply explain something already in Blackmoor.
Either way, one did not need to know about Odo or Philippe de Dreux to come the conclusion that clergy should not use swords, prohibition existed as part of church canon law—an occasionally contested and ignored canon law, but not an obscure one. Point is, as a scholar of history, this was something Arneson would have likely been exposed to.