Breaking the stereotype of the chaste paladin

[shilsen]

That depends entirely on the style of game you play. In some people's playing style those things don't matter very much. In my playing style, they matter a lot.

Big assumption on your part. It is possible for those things to matter for others and also for those others to not come to the same conclusions you have.

It only "works" for those things if you don't care about the things I care about. You are free to not care about them. Nowhere in my posts do I suggest that classes cannot be viewed in exclusively mechanical terms with no reference to culture. I'm simply saying that if you view them in those terms, you are playing a different style of D&D than I am.

Again, an assumption (that I am viewing the classes in a completely culture-free context). Your argument seems to be that if you view certain classes with reference to culture, you have to place them in the historical culture that they draw upon. What I'm saying is that it's not an either-or situation as you represent it.

For someone like me, Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe is a very important text and the Forgotten Realms corpus is best ignored. For someone like you, the reverse is likely true.

Wrong.

I'm simply saying that if you care about things like cultural resonance and mythological archetypes, it is very problematic to decouple the Paladin from chivalric culture.

And I'm saying that you can have cultural resonance and mythological archetypes (both of which I enjoy having in my games) and easily decouple the paladin from chivalric culture. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'm not arguing about the text of the PHB. The text of the PHB encourages you to have Shaolin monks wandering around 13th century Europe. It also encourages you to have societies where there is no such thing as gender only sex -- and Forgotten Realms is an ideal example of this. If this were an argument about the rules, it would have ended on the first page -- you would be right and I would be wrong. But, from the poster's original comments, and the way the thread has unfolded it seems clear to me that we are discussing what range of options people playing Paladins have; and it seems pretty clear to me that the range of options you have is determined by how important you think mythic and cultural resonance are in your game.

Actually, since the original post says:

"The stereotypical image of a paladin is the chaste Sir Galahad. But, that kind of bothered me, as I saw nothing in the rules requiring chastity from a paladin – male or female – and I have been playing since early 1E days. However, it seems that the DMs I have played with over the years seem to naturally assume this to be the case."

it seems to me that the poster is using the rules as a take-off point for his assumptions about the range of options, as many people do. Even if one ignores the PHB, I figure that the range of options are not as narrow as you apparently think.

We all have our own requirements for making D&D play "feel real." What I am stating is that if a person shares my requirements, the chaste Paladin is the way to go.

Again, I think you're working too much on "either-or" assumptions. Your claim seems to be that one either cares for 'cultural resonance and mythological archetypes' (and if so, has to agree with you and use the chaste Paladin) or one doesn't. I think it's quite possible to have the one without the other.

I think the difference in our positions comes down to what one thinks is possible in a campaign or not. So until we're in a position where either of us can partake in the other's game, I think we're stuck with agreeing to disagree. As I said in another thread, the cool thing is that we can do that and both enjoy our respective campaigns. Man, I love this game !

 

[fusangite]

I think the difference in our positions comes down to what one thinks is possible in a campaign or not. So until we're in a position where either of us can partake in the other's game, I think we're stuck with agreeing to disagree. As I said in another thread, the cool thing is that we can do that and both enjoy our respective campaigns. Man, I love this game !

Fair enough. I won't belabour the point further but I do have a question...

And I'm saying that you can have cultural resonance and mythological archetypes (both of which I enjoy having in my games) and easily decouple the paladin from chivalric culture. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.

 

[Vocenoctum]

So far so good.
It only "works" for those things if you don't care about the things I care about. You are free to not care about them. Nowhere in my posts do I suggest that classes cannot be viewed in exclusively mechanical terms with no reference to culture. I'm simply saying that if you view them in those terms, you are playing a different style of D&D than I am.

Minor quible, but "cares about" seems misplaced. "Shares my thoughts" or "has the same opinions as me" seem more to fit. You obviously prefer a strict medieval setup and dislike anything that strays from that. That doesn't mean anyone that things Paladins are a broader class than Galahad don't care about historical accuracy.

As was said earlier (in regard to me using D&D's setting to explain D&D's rules), you're saying that your opinion is right to people that share your opinion.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'm not arguing about the text of the PHB. The text of the PHB encourages you to have Shaolin monks wandering around 13th century Europe. It also encourages you to have societies where there is no such thing as gender only sex -- and Forgotten Realms is an ideal example of this. If this were an argument about the rules, it would have ended on the first page -- you would be right and I would be wrong. But, from the poster's original comments, and the way the thread has unfolded it seems clear to me that we are discussing what range of options people playing Paladins have; and it seems pretty clear to me that the range of options you have is determined by how important you think mythic and cultural resonance are in your game.

The thread is about options in D&D. I guess my problem is that you're not argueing what paladins are, you're repeating what the Grail Knights were. If someone says "paladins can also be this" answering "no, Grail Knights can't do that" is working around the discussion IMO. Granted, in any discussion "in my opinion" is to be taken for granted, but in this discussion a lot of the "must be chaste" side seems to present their opinion as an absolute.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.

They work for generally any lawful good holy warrior archetype. If the class didn't exist, you could work it as a fighter-cleric or something certainly, but that's like saying without the Bard you can make it with a rogue-sorcerer.

Real world mythology has some good stuff, but D&D isn't real world. The archetype for a paladin depends on the individual campaign world more than a real world mythological precursor.

I don't think mounts were especially important in the grail series (no more than any other "we're important and have horses" epic of the time that is.) I don't think turning undead was every important, and the 1e "only have 10 items" doesn't strike a bell either.

I guess my point is, you could build probably build the grail knights from the fighter class easier than the Paladin class.

 

[countgray]

I am running a Paladin of Sune (goddess of beauty & love) in a Forgotten Realms campaign and he is decidedly not chaste, and in fact seeks actively to convert pretty much almost every female NPC he meets to the worship of Sune by sharing love with them, either the physical kind or just flirting and paying attention to them. He is lawful good but he is definitely not chaste.

 

[sword-dancer]

As is abundantly evident by other posts in this thread, many people who play D&D see the Paladin as referencing the same chivalric ideal.

No, I don`t see Pallys so, not in the first place.
The Knight I see followed by the an subset of the fighter class, the same as the samurai(who is only a variant of the knight).

A Paladin may follow the chivalric ideal, or the the äquivalent of another culture, but first and formost he is an warrior chosen or accepted by his god(s) the forces of good, because he deemed worthy and capable to fight for their cause!
Even in an medieval Setting a pally may be an commoner, a foot soldier, a sailor, or an outrider.
Also he could be an diplomat, judge, Mentor.

 

[sword-dancer]

Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.

Solomon Kane, chivalric yes!,Horse No! A dark and grim Paladin.
Short said it`s powers didn`t made a pally, the reasons why he for what act, and how he act made him a pally.

 

[shilsen]

Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.

As Vocenoctum said, you can use the paladin for a lot of different LG holy warrior archetypes. Being a mythologist for a few decades (started reading the Ramayana and Mahabharata in kiddie version when I was 3), I've pulled ideas from mythic traditions like the Indian, Greek, Teutonic, etc. Also, I find it fairly easy to create fantasy societies with a discrete cultural flavor that doesn't necessarily fit anything in the real world but may have some analogs (after all, a holy warrior tradition in a culture of people who live over 700 years is going to be very different from one set among pseudo-historical middle-ages/renaissance humans).

I have used chivalric traditions (without necessarily using the grail knight) too, obviously. I've recently been thinking of pulling some ideas from the Faerie Queene (been reading a lot of Spenser recently), which tends to just up-end the chivalric tradition while still remaining within the boundaries of the tradition. Is Red Crosse a LG holy warrior? Definitely. Is Britomart? Sure. Is Artegall? Yep (heck, I can see him doing "detect evil and smite" daily!). Calidore? Arguably. But none of them are celibate and some might not count as chaste.

 

[fusangite]

As Vocenoctum said, you can use the paladin for a lot of different LG holy warrior archetypes. Being a mythologist for a few decades (started reading the Ramayana and Mahabharata in kiddie version when I was 3), I've pulled ideas from mythic traditions like the Indian, Greek, Teutonic, etc. Also, I find it fairly easy to create fantasy societies with a discrete cultural flavor that doesn't necessarily fit anything in the real world but may have some analogs (after all, a holy warrior tradition in a culture of people who live over 700 years is going to be very different from one set among pseudo-historical middle-ages/renaissance humans).

I have used chivalric traditions (without necessarily using the grail knight) too, obviously. I've recently been thinking of pulling some ideas from the Faerie Queene (been reading a lot of Spenser recently), which tends to just up-end the chivalric tradition while still remaining within the boundaries of the tradition. Is Red Crosse a LG holy warrior? Definitely. Is Britomart? Sure. Is Artegall? Yep (heck, I can see him doing "detect evil and smite" daily!). Calidore? Arguably. But none of them are celibate and some might not count as chaste.

I think our positions are much closer than I anticipated. I also see Spenser as occupying a liminal position within the chivalric/grail corpus but had not previously thought through the implications of this. In retrospect, it all makes sense -- of course post-Reformation Protestant texts would allow for non-celibate Paladin models. In fact, the argument I've been making in this thread should have predicted this. I simply failed to think through the fact that the literary genre we were discussing continued past 1517.

Although I would not use the Paladin class but instead construct my own core class or prestige class for the holy warriors you describe in your first paragraph, you make an excellent case for a non-celibate Paladin in the second. I had not previously considered the Faerie Queen in this way and am quite happy to yield to your opinion that this is a mythologically legitimate model for the Paladin that does not include celibacy. Well done!

 

[fusangite]

They work for generally any lawful good holy warrior archetype. If the class didn't exist, you could work it as a fighter-cleric or something certainly, but that's like saying without the Bard you can make it with a rogue-sorcerer.

But a Rogue 2/Sorceror 5 does not model an archetypal bard better than a Bard 7. There are the inappropriate powers like evocation spells and sneak attacks, there is the absence of bardic music, there are none of the divination and enchantment spell advantages. So no -- a Sorceror/Rogue does not model a bard better than a Bard.

It is harder to make that argument about a Fighter 2/Cleric 5 vs a Paladin 7 if one is modeling non-chivalric holy warriors.

Real world mythology has some good stuff, but D&D isn't real world. The archetype for a paladin depends on the individual campaign world more than a real world mythological precursor.

I'm repeating myself again: I'm not telling you what your priorities should be. I'm telling you what I think you should do if you share my priorities.

I don't think mounts were especially important in the grail series (no more than any other "we're important and have horses" epic of the time that is.) I don't think turning undead was every important, and the 1e "only have 10 items" doesn't strike a bell either.

You could make the turning undead argument about each individual spell too but that side-steps the point. The point is that Lay on Hands, Turn Undead and the spells all indicate that the Paladin shares a priest's special relationship with the deity.

As for your point about the horses, it depends which story but I think what is being put across here is the idea that the mount is part of what identifies a person as a Paladin. The idea -- being mounted is part of what makes you who you are -- is the clearest of all the mechanical indicators that Paladins represent a chivalric archetype.

I guess my point is, you could build probably build the grail knights from the fighter class easier than the Paladin class.

The mechanic that is invaluable for grail-type stories in the Paladin is the fact that the character's power is inextricably linked to his moral virtue. For this reason, the Paladin is vastly better than the fighter for building grail knights in mechanically representing this realtionship through the code.