Breaking the stereotype of the chaste paladin

[NewJeffCTHome]

I think the reason conflict has arisen in this thread is that those of us which see cultural archetypes as a limiting factor assumed that the initial poster had the same concern and responded as though he shared our values. At the end of all this, I am bewildered because I can't really figure out what NewJeffCTHome wanted to know. If you wanted to know if modern Christian morality, the alignment system and the mechanics of the game permitted you to do what you wanted, the answer to your question was, of course, an unequivocal 'yes.' But if you're actually interested in harmonizing your class with the archetype from which it is derived, I cannot understand how you have found the opposing arguments persuasive.

I was not expecting an unequivocal yes or no answer. I am frankly shocked that this thread has gotten over 115 responses and has gone on for 4-5 days now since I started it before Thanksgiving. I'm usually thankful if threads I post go past 10 responses!

My original thought was I was wondering if people have played the paladin differently than I have seen it played in my 25+ years of gaming. For me, in all the gaming groups I've been involved in, it always seems to be that the paladin has completely foregone sex of any kind, be it a one nighter with a local barmaid (or barmaster if it's a female paladin) or within a lifelong boundary of faithful marriage.

While some agree with that method of playing the paladin, others do not, as evidenced by this thread. I was just looking for feedback into playing something other than what I thought was the only "paladin" out there.

Granted, I could run the idea past the group DM and he'd think it goofy or stupid, or actually listen to my thoughts about it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

One of the reasons we know this conflict was real is that it is consistently presented as a tension within the heroes of Arthurian romances. The sexuality of the characters humanizes them; it makes them real; it makes readers identify with them. What it does not do is bring them closer to the ideal for which they strive.

I think the important part to remember is that the main "bad sex" in Arthurian mythos is due to the betrayel to King Arthur. Not sex with a barmaid, but the broken oath's and betrayel.

I'm sure a paladin who had a relationship with his liege's wife would lose paladinhood.

 

[Vocenoctum]

While some agree with that method of playing the paladin, others do not, as evidenced by this thread. I was just looking for feedback into playing something other than what I thought was the only "paladin" out there.

The paladin is like that. Everyone either thinks its only one type of PC, or feels it's a holywarrior archetype. I like the holy warrior archetype, and can imagine a guerilla fighter, or almost any archetype for deity and Lawful Goodness.

If a particular church has decided that seduction by evil is the leading cause of Paladins falling from grace, maybe they'll institute Mandatory Prostitute Visits once a week.

Same thing with the eternal Paladin as Prestige Class stuff. Some people think it's a knighthood that must be earned, while I have nothing against a pre-first level PC getting The Call. I do think it was best said that the paladin is the ultimate Christian warrior in a land without Christians. The polytheistic paladin almost HAS to change from the singular archetype.

 

[Kilmore]

I would like to expand on what Vocenoctum (hell of a name) said. There's more than one way to make a paladin. In fact, I would have more than one order of paladin available to play in my campaign, each with different customs and codes. Some strictly prohibiting hanky-panky, others ignoring it, some condemning missile weapons, others that prefer to dispatch evil "humanely" with poison, so on.

Each one thinks the others are wrong, some more wrong than others.

 

[tonym]

Hi, attached is a JPEG of cartoon strip I did for Dragon Magazine, one that I thought some of you folks would get a kick out of, considering the topic.



Me, I like the idea of some paladins not being chaste. As long as they are nice about it.

Tony M

 

[Agback]

Hmm, interesting. Until when where Catholic priests allowed to marry?

There is a discussion of the issue in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The upshot is that various authorities such as popes and councils have been enjoining bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons to celibacy since at least the 4th century AD. But a serious attempt to impose this as law throughout the Latin Rite did not occur until the Hildebrandtine Reforms c. AD 1059-1123. This made the marriage of the higher clergy illegal (but not invalid), and imposed sanctions on teh children and wives of clergymen (ie. excluding the children from the clergy, or from succeeding to their fathers' benefices).

The marriages of the higher clergy were not declared invalid by clear and explicit legislation until the Fourth Lateran Council AD 1215. Until that date clergymen could still marry (though they were forbidden to do so).

The Catholic Encyclopaedia does not say so, but the celibacy of the clergy was a Roman custom and at odds with the custom of other parts of western Christendom. In some parts of France there were until the Hildebrandtine Reforms hereditary parishes, canonries, and bishoprics. The rise and spread of the power of the popes led to increasing standardisation from AD 800 onwards, a process that was not complete until AD 1215 or so. As part of this standardisation, the power of the pope to appoint bishops replaced the other systems: heredity, election by the canons, election by the congregation, and nomination by the benefactor who created the church. Some historians have seen the celibacy of the clergy as a scheme on the part of hte pope to bring the clergy under their sway by cutting off their roots in the community. But I think that on the whole it seems more likely that the reformers of 1059-1123 were trying sincerely to correct genuine abuses, such as hereditary parish priests with no training whatsoever. The celibacy of the clergy (a) seemed right and proper to people with a background in Rome, where it was a custom of long standing, and (b) seemed necessary to eradicate hereditary church offices, which observably promoted blatantly unfit priests and prelates.

 

[Agback]

The question is: does the archetypal chivalric holy warrior have licit kids? And I think the answer is pretty clearly "no."

However not all actual examples match with simplified stereotypes. Let me draw to your attention the Order of Santiago, a crusading order of warrior-monks who were allowed to marry. Also, let me remind you that confreres on temporary vows fought as brothers with the Templars and Hospitallers without giving up their wives, estates, and dynastic responsibilities.

If the warrior-monks of the Holy Fighting Orders are the achetype of paladins, then yes, most were just as celibate as other Christian monks. But not all.

 

[hong]

Holy crap, it's Mr Evill!

Where you BEEN, mang?

 

[Henry]

I've been planning to play a particularly foul-mouthed, heavy-drinking and womanizing paladin for a while now. Maybe for my next PC.

I've played those before - they were called Fighters, I think.

 

[Henry]

For my thought on it, there's nothing against a paladin siring children within a committed relationship, as long as it's committed (commitment being kind of a Lawful thing); but the paladin should make such arrangements that their children and spouses will be cared for if something should befall him. "One night stands" I've personally seen as a Chaotic sort of activity, for many of the reasons others have stated above; depending on outlook, not providing for family in the event of death could be seen as neutral or even evil behavior. I've never seen sex come up for a paladin, casual or no, but then I rarely see sex come up in our games as anything more than "glossing over" the issue anyway. The characters who are known for it, will visit the brothels. Those who don't, won't.