Breaking the stereotype of the chaste paladin

[NewJeffCTHome]

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

And Gez beat me to it; Orthodox priests can marry, as I would imagine the priests of many of other branches of Christianity.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think when the Protestants broke off (name escapes me this morning pre-coffee), Catholics suddenly decided to become 'more pure' - no more priests marrying, no more gay marriage, and the like.

 

[Desdichado]

It is faithless. Just because it's an agreed-upon faithlessness doesn't make it any less so. The paladin will not be faithful to that woman, nor will the woman be faithful to him. There may not be harm in it, but that's not the point.As far as I know, this thread has nothing to do with rules support or setting support. It's here in General Discussion, not Rules. As such, I largely agree with what Celtavian posted.

And yet the rules; i.e., the alignment and "paladin code" are clearly part of the issue. This thread has everything to do with the rules, because it's asking if such a creature as a sexually active paladin is supportable.

As for faithfulness (or lack thereof) it's a bit misleading to say it's faithless of the paladin to have "casual" sex, as faith has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.

Yes, those views, and my agreement with them, are founded on the Western understanding of an archtype based on a Western, Christian even, medieval concept. The Holy Knight. Saint George, Galahad, etc. etc. That doesn't invalidate such views in the slightest. Indeed, since that was AFAIK the archtype the paladin was based on, it could even be argued that it's the only valid view. (Though I won't argue that. )

Good. Because I think that's an argument you'd likely quickly lose. The Sir Galahad interpretation of the paladin doesn't work exactly as is, because Sir Galahad, as interpreted by Sir Thomas Mallory (the "standard" version of him) is a specifically Catholic mythology. Out of context, his chastity (or celibacy; take your pick) doesn't make sense.

So unless your paladins exist in a setting that feature heavily Medieval Catholic values and beliefs, the paladin as Sir Galahad is an anachronism. Since I'd bet most paladins actually pray to Heironeous or some such fictional god, who's views on sexuality are unknown, or exist in a setting such as the Forgotten Realms, which are much closer to modern liberalism in tone and values than 14th century England, having paladins that closely resemble Sir Galahad doesn't really make much sense.

Also, so narrowly defining the class is a big problem as well from a roleplaying and character development standpoint. If there's only one way to play a paladin, you do it once, maybe, and then what's the encore? Unless it's literally your favorite archetype to play, you simply don't ever play paladins again, is my guess.

 

[Gez]

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

IIRC, until the second Lateran Council, in 1139.

 

[Cithindril]

Actually, that's false. The real reason was to one-up the Orthodox priests. IIRC, Paul said something to the effect that it's nifty-keen to stay celibate, but that not everybody have the needed resolve for that. But it doesn't matter because it was also nifty-keen to be married, as long as you stayed faithful. ("Be the man of only one wife" or something like that.) So Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, as were Catholic priests. Until the Catholics decided to tell the Orthodox "we're purer and more resolverish than you, ah!" and forbad their priests to marry.

Actually that's false...the reason was both spiritual and practical (the inheritance of church property to the son of a priest due to the customs of the day being the chief one). However, I don't see how attacks or critiques of the RCC have anything to do with RPG's specifically or generally ...why not stay on topic and discuss the fantasy character class

 

[Li Shenron]

As I see the issue with Paladins, the "archetypal" D&D pally should probably be both chaste and celibate, to imagine that the life of paladinhood implies total devotion (and therefore shouldn't have family duties to "distract" them from their life quest) and lack of bias towards some individual (shouldn't have a relationship, otherwise they may put the beloved one over the needs of others).

Incidentally, these are also the reasons I heard many times (when I was a child and went to the catholic church to learn religion) about why catholic priests and nuns shouldn't marry, shouldn't have a relationship, and shouldn't have intercourse - although I don't know the exact vows. The reason is that they would not be able to (1) attend full duties to their "life mission" and (2) treat all the people with the same love and care - because they would have partners and/or children and it would be much more difficult not to love those more.

Anyway, I don't like stereotypes very much. In early D&D days (for me), when classes were very rigid and basically all represented kind of archetypes, it was actually very interesting to have an extremely standardized paladin. Nowadays I can barely stand to see another pally played this way (not because it doesn't work, just because I expect something more original), and usually I point out to the players that the Paladin character idea can be extended to that of a holy warrior*, which can be very different for each deity in the setting. I still think the paladin / holy warrior should be very dedicated to its mission (as is a cleric by the way), whatever code of conducts it actually implies.

So in my campaigns it's pretty simple and open: if you want to play a Paladin you're encouraged to make up your code of conduct according to your faith. I'd probably expect celibacy to be one of the most common points in those codes (chastity much less common however, even less than abstinence from alcohol for example).

*Going even further, this may mean to allow paladin variants of other alignments, but that's going too far from this thread... just want to mention that those would need a code of conduct too!

 

[Cithindril]

So in my campaigns it's pretty simple and open: if you want to play a Paladin you're encouraged to make up your code of conduct according to your faith. I'd probably expect celibacy to be one of the most common points in those codes (chastity much less common however, even less than abstinence from alcohol for example).

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

 

[DMScott]

Does anybody agree or disagree with me?

It's entirely campaign dependent, rather than a rules matter. The rules and traditions of marriage and its relationship to religion vary widely among modern and ancient cultures, and so an individual campaign could have just about any approach to this question. I agree that celibate/chaste Paladins are probably the most common version, but that's because religion in most campaigns is based on thinly veiled Christian ideals.

A Paladin will most likely do what's expected of a pious LG warrior in his or her culture. If that means abstaining while they fight the good fight, then so be it. If that means having a large family, that's what they do. If it means sex is OK but a commitment like marriage can't be made, then go for it. Which fits best in a given setting is a matter between you and the DM.

 

[Staffan]

A lot of people seem to be thinking, "Well, as long as the paladin's partner knows what he or she is getting into, there is no harm in being a sexually active paladin." While that would IMO satisfy the paladin's requirement to be Good, it ignores the requirement to be Lawful.

IMO, a paladin can have sexual relations, but only within marriage (or what passes for it in the paladin's culture). However, I don't think having consensual pre-marital sex would be a major sin and immediately lead to loss of paladinhood, but it is a black mark on the paladin's karma. If he does it regularly, he would be at risk from losing paladinhood. If the paladin is married and cheats on his wife (or husband), that would qualify for immediate loss, as would having sex with a woman married to another.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Who says its faithless? If both of them know what they're getting into, then it's not necessarily faithless.

It is faithless because both of them know what they are getting into. The act of sex to a Paladin (who does not think in a modern sense) would be an act meant for propagation. That is the primary purpose of the act. A man who intends to sleep with a women risks giving that woman a child. A man who has not sworn faith to that woman risks giving her a child he has not sworn to care for and raise, making his child a bastard and his woman a whore. Would a Lawful Good Paladin do that?

Contrary to what you state Joshua, save for a few cult type religions, doing such a thing would be extremely poor to do to a woman and a child. That is not just in Western culture, but in Eastern culture as well. Sexual phlandering is looked down upon from a moral standpoint just about anywhere you go because it is bad for society on the whole for a variety of reasons from the spread of disease to bastard children.

No Lawful Good Paladin trying to set a good example for those of his faith or society would engage in such behavior. Believe what you want, but sexual philandering is poor conduct and at the very least a chaotic act.

Again, this is projecting either our own culture, or at least, historical Western culture into a fantasy realm, where it may --or may not-- belong. It's also projecting your own ideas of what a paladin is which is not supported by the rulebook, or any setting of which I know.

It is projecting human culture upon it. The majority of cultures, whether they promote monagamy or polygamy, put forth marriage and faith as necessary to the relationship between men and women. Even in Communist China, women and men who engage in casual sex are not looked upon as good nor is the act looked upon as a social ideal.

You could create some religion that has sex rites, but if it is lawful it will require those sex rites be between two people devoted to each other. A Lawful Good Paladin must not only be good, but lawful, and you will never convince me that casual sex is good for society from a Lawful standpoint with so much evidence to the contrary.

Philandering is not the act of a Lawful Good upholder of the ideals of his religion. That is what Paladins are even if they follow a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good religion. They themselves represent a different branch of the religion more bent on order and proper social conduct.

As far as the rules go, this area is very mutable according to the inclinations agreed upon by the DM and the players. There is nothing written in stone that says a DM can't nix a Paladin's paladinhood for philandering and there is nothing that directly states a Paladin must be chaste.

In my world, the Lawful aspect of a Paladin's alignment would be suspect if he were a philanderer. I would make him atone for overly indulging his sexual appetites, just like if he drank or ate too much. I hold Paladin's to high standards. They are the paragon's of their religion according to their god, and they must set the standard others must live up to, otherwise they mine as well just be a fighter.

Anyhow, a Paladin who lost his status because of philandering would be an interesting character. Kind of like Launcelot who could not obtain the Holy Grail because of his relationship with Guinevere. He was still the best fighter in the land, but his soul was tarnished by his adulterous love for his best friend's wife. A man who sleeps around and cannot control himself could find himself in many, many bad situations, as is oft the case for philanderous men. That could lead to many strange social events and alot quests for atonement, not to mention some son or daughter showing up later looking for daddy.

 

[Desdichado]

Celtavian, you really should read your post again. The fairly thinly veiled Judeo-Christian Western bias is showing through very strongly. You may think that those cultural mores are inherent in human behavior, but you'd be wrong, and you show that you have little experience with cultural anthropology or history for stating such. Even a casual glance would show that you can come up with all kinds of alternate cultural mores, because people have literally done so over and over again.

There's no problem with that; I'm a Judeo-Christian westerner myself, who personally believes very strongly in chastity (not celibacy!) but I'm not trying to mandate that my fantasy settings and characters match my real-world cultural outlook. In fact, I tend to like that they don't.