Breaking the stereotype of the chaste paladin

[Sejs]

That leads to the question of whether Paladins can divorce if such is lawful and part of the society he's in. Could an elven paladin remarry if his wife died?

An aside on the elven paladin note - Michael Poe (the guy who did Exploitation Now and currently does Errant Story) has put up some nice angles on the elven lifestyle and way of thinking. Basically what he's put forth, and I think would make a whole lot of sense, is that for elves, with their long, long lifespans yeah it would be perfectly fine. Elven marriages on the whole don't last forever - the bride and groom are together for a time, happy as man and wife, and eventually, inevitably, they grow appart. The novelty wears off and they no longer want to be together. Divorce amongst elves is quite common and a well accepted facet of their society. For them, "till death do you part" is a pretty tall order.

Also part of what attracts elves to human mates - your human husband or wife will probably die of old age before you really get tired of one another. You get to miss the whole downward half of that spiral.

 

[Li Shenron]

Again, probably just semantics with the different definitions of what chastity and celibacy mean. I'm guessing you're saying that paladins in your campaign can't marry but also aren't denied sex? In my campaigns I treat the paladin in the opposite vein...ie: he CAN marry but if so MUST be faithful (as in all things) or he loses his status..

Different strokes

I have to add that sex is almost never part of our games however, so no player is usually specifying what their characters are doing about that

 

[sword-dancer]

This is Dr. Evil, and these are paladins. The paladins were already sworn to wipe him off the planet.

Yes, but now it is PERSONAL, and his henchman knows that.

 

[Cithindril]

Sorry you're upset here but I was not attacking your religious doctrine. I was simply pointing out an historical reality. I used to attend a Roman Catholic traditionalist weekly discussion group run by two priests ordained to perform services in Latin in the Tridentine rite. These men were deeply conservative individuals who were profoundly committed to opposing abortion, homosexuality and birth control.

But when we were discussing the Episcopalians' consecration of an openly gay bishop, both priests conceded that this man was, by no means, the first openly gay individual who had been consecrated to an episcopal see. Indeed, they agreed that, in the past, their church had probably consecrated more such bishops than have any Protestant churches. These individuals could easily disentangle their ideals, goals and theology from the sweep of the 1900+ year history of the Christian church.

I have a deep respect for your Roman Catholic beliefs and theological position. I am sorry that your interpretation of my post led you to construe otherwise.

Unfortunately, what you cite as fact is not at all true...

I'm sorry that you were so egregiously misinformed by the individuals you mentioned. This is not the proper forum for a religious discussion but I would be happy to answer your questions somewhere that is. I'm on the Yahoo Catholic Chat fairly frequently under the same alias if you'd like to continue the discussion.

To bring this back on-topic, I have typically based my interpretation of the Paladin class on Arthurian legend as opposed to any particular religious doctrine. Some great food for thought by many of the posters in this thread have led me to go back and look at how much cultural bias I was subconsciously attaching to my definition. It brings up an even wider topic: are the notions of alignment universal or can they only be relativistically described with reference to a particular culture.

Hmmmm...

 

[NewJeffCTHome]

No. The money is specifically directed to the paladin's church.

I am aware of these cultures. They tend to be cultures that have retained the vestiges of a clan system with extended families but I don't see how this is relevant to what I am saying. I am not making a statement about whether a paladin has the resources to have his children taken care of; indeed, you'll notice that in my post I suggest how a paladin who did end up with children would have them cared-for.

Whether a paladin has the resources to care for children is irrelevant. The question is: does the archetypal chivalric holy warrior have licit kids? And I think the answer is pretty clearly "no." The ideals on which this class is based are antithetical to family formation.

I don't really picture a successful paladin as an integrated part of peasant society. Even if their origins are humble, and I think you'll find that most of these figures have aristocratic origins even if juxtaposed with rustic beginnings, becoming paladins effectively makes them part of courtly society. So while technically true, I don't think the arguments you make are really engaging what I was talking about.

I think we misunderstood each other. First off, the 20% tithe to the church could be to help the church pay for raising the paladin's children.

And, when I mentioned that paladin's parents taking care of their grandchild, I had used plowing the field as an example. However, that is not exclusive to farming. It could be the paladin's mom or dad is a retired paladin and is now staying at home to raise the grandchildren while junior paladin goes out & slays evil.

And, these cultures that send children off to be raised by grandparents are not exacly obscure cultures - it is still common practice in countries like India & China, both of which have a much longer history than the United States.

I just think it is limiting to define a paladin by a narrow interpretation of something that is 1,000 to 1,500 years old where we cannot even be sure of the true meaning - especially when D&D is also specifically polytheistic and the "stereotypical" paladin is based on the Catholic holy warrior.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Originally Posted by Aardy R. DeVarque

Paladin class Based largely on the character of Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, as well as Anderson's original sources, Charlemagne's paladins in the medieval French chansons de geste ("songs of deeds"), particularly The Song of Roland and Ariosto's Orlando Furioso. The paladin's tie to a special war-horse is also from Three Hearts and Three Lions. ("I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden." -- Martinus, in Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.)

You are certainly welcome to this person's opinion regarding the inspiration for the D&D paladin, but it is no more authoritative than mine.

 

[WizarDru]

IMC, the rules for a paladin's behavior is dictated by the society that bore him, his personal code and the deity with which he is associated, if any.

One of my player is an elven paladin of Sehanine Moonbow. He is neither chaste nor prudish. He does not actively seek liasons simply for the thrill of them, but enjoys the company of the opposite gender when it affords itself, such as at festivals and such. He has not, to date, fathered a child. Elves generally regard marriage as a social union, much less than humans do. Elves regard sexual encounters as primarily a shared pleasurable pasttime that, when consensual, is nothing more than a physical act not unlike dancing, but obviously more instense.

By the same token, in the same campaign, the human cleric of Pelor has a paladin cohort (also of Pelor, in Greyhawk's Ahlissa). The cohort and the cleric's sister fell in love...but the paladin refused to consumate their relationship unless they were married. In an uncharacteristic act, they married secretly, which led to some awkward moments when the cleric teleported into his sister's chambers while they were...ahem....otherwise occupied. Further, said cleric is engaged to another paladin, but this one from the Greyhawk country of Ekbir. Any such relations are completely out of the question until such time as they are rightfully married following all the customs of their respective peoples...which hasn''t stopped the paladin from making it clear that she can both bring home the bacon, and fry it up in a pan, so to speak.

The point being that in my games, one cannot separate the paladin's code from the culture and societies involved. A halfling paladin of Yollanda (another NPC in game) wouldn't fret about marriage, as long as he remained committed to his partner. Sometimes good is stronger, sometimes law...sometimes the two come into direct conflict. C'est la vie.

And for what it's worth, I don't see the paladin as a stereotype, but an archetype. YMMV.

 

[Celtavian]

I'll be repeating myself.

If you want to break the "chaste paladin" stereotype, read up Three Hearts and Three Lions. This book was the seminal inspiration for the D&D paladin (down to the special stallion and the cure disease ability), and the paladin here wasn't especially under a vow of chastity... He wasn't womanizing or promiscuous either, though.

This passage illustrates it best:

The real trouble was her own attitude toward him. Damn it, he did not want to compromise himself with her. A romp in the hay with someone like Meriven or Morgan was one thing. Alianora was something else. An affair with her wouldn’t be good for either party, when he meant to leave this world the first chance he got. But she made it hard for him to remain a gentleman. She was so shyly and pathetically hoping for an affair.​

(Alianora, by the way, was the prototype of the Swanmay.)

There. The first D&D Paladin (who met the first D&D Gnome, the first D&D Swanmay, and the first D&D Troll) had no problems at all indulging in casual sex, like he did during the party at the elven castle.

However, he cares about feeling. That Meriven gal was a fickle elven lass, only interested in casual sex as well, so not a problem. Alianora, though, is in love -- and as our paladin do not want to stay in this world but to come back to the one he calls home, he doesn't want to break the girl's heart when he'll leave.

Interesting to know. As with most story books, they do away with the social consequences of certain types of behavior to please their audience. I would not buy into a Paladin of this type because I have read of the great lengths holy men have gone to mythically and historically to obtain their divine connection with a given god. The level of discipline and devotion required is immense and leaves little time for the pursuit of base vices such as lechery and gluttony.

As I see it, we are all open to choose the nature of our worlds. That is the beauty of D&D. The classes are rather open-ended in their interpretation. I believe it is intended to be so to give DM's the leeway to develop their own societies.

 

[fusangite]

I just think it is limiting to define a paladin by a narrow interpretation of something that is 1,000 to 1,500 years old where we cannot even be sure of the true meaning - especially when D&D is also specifically polytheistic and the "stereotypical" paladin is based on the Catholic holy warrior.

Certainly, that's a matter of taste when it comes to running a campaign. The degree to which one de-couples a character class from the mythic tradition it is attached to is up to the GM and player. But, for me, character classes tend to be rooted in the mythic or historical traditions that inspired them. Many of the arguments you employ regarding paladins I see employed to justify the monk class outside of East and South Asian cultures. And the rules certainly permit that but when I GM, monks are not acceptable characters.

My argument is simply that, based on the best data we have about mythic and historical paladin archetypes, paladins conceiving a bunch of kids does not really fit with the class.

Also, I think that you may want to rethink how extended family units work. While it is true that extended family units, be they matrilocal or patrilocal, tend to decentralize responsibility for child-rearing, I think it is a mistake to see these units as equally willing to raise children conceived out of the context of marriage as it is to raise children conceived within that context. Whether you want to look at modern Hindu or medieval Slavic extended family units, neither appears adapted to or approving of (a) a male member of the family wandering around, knocking up women and sending their offspring home to be cared-for or (b) a female family member conceiving a child out of wedlock. Regardless of the resources a culture deploys to raise a child, few if any Eurasian cultures of which there is an historical record approve of children being conceived outside of marraige.

Nonetheless, this happens. But my point is not that paladins don't have kids but that when they have kids, it is because something has gone wrong -- they have failed to embody the ideal towards which they strive.

Now, if a paladin wants to marry each of the diverse women with whom he conceives a child, one would have to look to polygamous/polygynous traditions for appropriate behaviour. And what I see in the polygamous/polygynous cultures I have studied is that men who have multiple wives take on the role of patriarch of a household.

What I am getting at here is that it seems near-universal that when a good man has a large number of children, he becomes the centre of a household, even if he had a crusading past. Thus, my declaration that a paladin who established a household would need to switch classes.

 

[fusangite]

Thanks Cithindril for your restraint in not engaging this argument more fully; that's something I have a tough time resisting, as you can see. I would indeed be happy to correspond with you further privately on this question.

I'm pleased to see that our actual views about paladins are not that far apart in that we both see Arthurian literature as the primary source.

This nicely leads into the case that Gez makes. Gez is, in a sense, adopting the Jerry Bruckheimer position regarding how texts work. Bruckheimer's Arthur was an attempt at the "historical" Arthur. For him, portraying Arthur was about discovering (however ineffectually) the individual to whom Bede devoted one line in his Ecclesiastical History of Britain. For most of us, portraying Arthur is about discovering the individual whose court Chretien de Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Thomas Mallory and others portrayed centuries later.

For me, D&D is the game that has evolved from people playing it and publishing about it for the past 30 years. D&D does not live in the mind of its creator. If understanding D&D was simply about discovering what Gary Gygax intended, we would resolve our questions simply by posting to Gary's Q&A thread.

Just look at the other texts Gygax recommends. Lovecraft and Derleth are some of the most prominently featured writers; in the first edition of the DDG, the Cthulu mythos was prominently featured. Yet, over the ensuing quarter century, these elements have substantially receded from D&D and are now represented in different gaming traditions.

Original D&D was a semi-coherent hodgepodge of neat ideas that have been gradually systematized in the past three decades through new editions, third party material and an evolving community of players. To make a religious analogy, original Scripture is not all that matters here; we are part of an open canon system with a rich exegetical tradition. What concept existed in Gary Gygax's mind when he wrote the class is but a small part of what the class is today.