Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Altin" data-source="post: 225150" data-attributes="member: 3107">PaladinsGood call by the person who reminded us all of Archetypology 101, which has to be one of the most awesome fantasy columns on the net. For those who aren't familiar with it, I direct you to <a href="http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/archetypology.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/archetypology.html</a> (the Paladin article is the 9th in the series, from memory but all are worth a read). But back onto the topic at hand: the Paladin. Right off the bat, I should confess that I love Paladins to death. I find them to be by far the most complex and challenging class in the D&D spectrum and their bad rep pains me greatly. I have a bias, is what I'm saying. I've always liked to apply to the paladin the famous description of another, quite distant archetype - the private detective. I quote Raymond Chandler, slightly modified for context: "Down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. [He] ... must be a complete man and a common man, and yet an unusual man. He must be a man of honor ... with ... a disgust for sham and a contempt for pettiness" Does this mean Lawful Stupid? It doesn't have to. But nor does it mean Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good, which is what most Paladins end up being played as (the former is the well-known inflexible and stern stereotype and there are a few examples of the later in this thread). The challenge of the paladin lies in the inherent contradiction between the Lawful and Good parts of his alignment, often further complicated by the fact that the world he interacts with is seldom clearly either. The 'lawful stupid' paladin is, in my opinion, a response by people who can't be bothered working out how exactly one reconciles what is good and what is right (ie. in accordance to their code) when these come into conflict.The point of the Paladin is not merely that he fights the good fight but also that he fights it in the right way. Why is this important? I paraphrase the famous Nietzsche quote: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.".  If the Paladin is corrupted on his way to victory, if he lowers himself to the cowardice and underhandedness of his enemies, then he has lost much more than had he died on the battlefield. This means the Paladin fights always with one hand tied behind his back. There are things to which he will not stoop and this makes his vulnerable. But does it also make him Lawful Stupid? Not necessarily. Morality and ethics define mostly what one will not do, rather than direct one's actions. Part of the challenge of playing this class is finding ways to defeat the foe without compromising one's principles. This may not always be possible and that is why Paladins often make great angst characters; rare is the man of honor who sleeps easily at night.Anyway, just my 2 cents.Yours,        Altin</blockquote>

Verification