The Misunderstood Paladin

[Volaran]

The Paladin mentality is not focused on "success". It is focused on the state of the Paladin's soul/spirit at all times. The Paladin strives to serve his/her patron/ethos to the best of his/her ability while setting an example of absolute adherence to tough moral standards. The Paladin is more about martyrdom than success. Dying in the service of his/her patron is the ultimate act of faithful devotion.

Though would say that "success at any cost" would not be part of a paladin's goal...the ideals that they seem to stand for in many of the views I've seen don't suggest to me that the state of his own soul shoul be the paladin's only guiding thought. It is far too self-centered. I might however, put forth that he maintains the ideal (whatever a DM may decide that to be) out of a concern for the souls of others.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The Paladin mentality is not focused on "success". It is focused on the state of the Paladin's soul/spirit at all times. The Paladin strives to serve his/her patron/ethos to the best of his/her ability while setting an example of absolute adherence to tough moral standards. The Paladin is more about martyrdom than success. Dying in the service of his/her patron is the ultimate act of faithful devotion.

Interesting points. Here's where I disagree with you: I do think that the paladin's goals of defending the innocent, punishing the guilty, preserving Order, and defeating Evil are more important than the paladin's personal honor. A paladin who would say "Better to fight fair against steep odds, lose the battle, and have the village slaughtered than to deceive the enemy with false information" is not Good. Such a character is too selfish, too concerned with his own image. And if he is acting in accordance with a god's dictates, then that god isn't a Good deity. And, if this is the best Good has to offer, then "Evil will always triumph because Good is Dumb."

Perhaps part of our difference of opinion could be on what makes a deity "good" (and I know paladins don't need to have patrons, but assume this one does). The god asks the paladin to do something evil, such as sacrifice his innocent son on an altar. It's a test. What should the paladin do? Could a god capable of having paladins value obedience more than doing Good? Part of the issue is that the legendary paladin-type code you refer to comes from a mindset that is rather LN and worships a view of a god that is basically LN - obedience is paramount.

I don't see the European medieval heroic knight archetype as necessarily LG, and therefore I don't see it as the definition of a D&D paladin. And, because there are literal physical manifestations of Evil in the D&D worlds that present a very real threat to the existence of all else, the Paladin *has* to succeed. Especially at high levels, where the party is fighting to save the world on a regular basis.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I don't see the European medieval heroic knight archetype as necessarily LG, and therefore I don't see it as the definition of a D&D paladin. And, because there are literal physical manifestations of Evil in the D&D worlds that present a very real threat to the existence of all else, the Paladin *has* to succeed. Especially at high levels, where the party is fighting to save the world on a regular basis.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I see you are in Arlington, VA. We need to hook up and game sometime.

 

[Silveras]

Interesting points. Here's where I disagree with you: I do think that the paladin's goals of defending the innocent, punishing the guilty, preserving Order, and defeating Evil are more important than the paladin's personal honor. A paladin who would say "Better to fight fair against steep odds, lose the battle, and have the village slaughtered than to deceive the enemy with false information" is not Good. Such a character is too selfish, too concerned with his own image. And if he is acting in accordance with a god's dictates, then that god isn't a Good deity. And, if this is the best Good has to offer, then "Evil will always triumph because Good is Dumb."

I do not think the Paladin puts his/her personal honor above the needs of the people. S/he puts the purity of their souls, the quality of his/her faith and that of the people, above the need to live longer. The Paladin lives by the tough code to show the "lower born" masses how it is done.

Much of this comes from a tenet of faith that Good will always triumph over Evil. Good does not cheat (including lies and deception) because Good does not have to; Evil only wins when Good people let their fear overcome them, and succumb to the temptation to hedge their bets by "cheating". Therefore, it is important to never fall to such temptations.

As a literary reference, consider Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The Green Knight enters Arthur's hall while the Knights of the Round Table are gathered. He agrees to let one of them try to take his head off if the other will, in turn, agree to let the Green Knight return the blow, assuming he survives. Sir Gawain accepts the challenge, and cuts off the head of the Green Knight. The Green Knight laughs, picks up his head from the floor, and says something like "A good blow, well struck." The Green Knight then tells Sir Gawain that must present himself in the Green Knight's hall for the promised return blow in 1 year. True to his word, and confident in his faith, Sir Gawain journeys to the hall of the Green Knight (the Chapel of Green Silences, IIRC). There, the Green Knight's wife offers Sir Gawain a token to protect him from the Green Knight's blow. Gawain lets his doubts overrule his faith, and accepts the small token, a garter. The next day, he kneels before the Green Knight, as agreed. The Green Knight raises his axe and lets it fall, stopping at the last second so that he only nicks the back of Sir Gawain's neck. He then tells Sir Gawain that the whole had been a test of faith, which Sir Gawain failed - marginally. Had Gawain simply trusted to his faith, as he knew he should, the Green Knight would have made a token tap with the axe and sent Gawain on his way. Because Gawain gave into the temptation to seek protection beyond his faith, the Green Knight gave him an actual cut proportionate to the token he accepted.

Perhaps part of our difference of opinion could be on what makes a deity "good" (and I know paladins don't need to have patrons, but assume this one does). The god asks the paladin to do something evil, such as sacrifice his innocent son on an altar. It's a test. What should the paladin do? Could a god capable of having paladins value obedience more than doing Good? Part of the issue is that the legendary paladin-type code you refer to comes from a mindset that is rather LN and worships a view of a god that is basically LN - obedience is paramount.

I don't think I can touch that example without getting very specific to a real world religion, so I won't even try.

I will say that part of the code is indeed very Lawful Neutral. That's why the Paladin is Lawful Good and not Neutral Good. The Paladin is a concept that upholds nearly equally the value of Lawfulness and Goodness. Good is slightly more important to the Paladin, obviously, as Chaotic actions can be atoned for while Evil ones cannot.

I don't see the European medieval heroic knight archetype as necessarily LG, and therefore I don't see it as the definition of a D&D paladin. And, because there are literal physical manifestations of Evil in the D&D worlds that present a very real threat to the existence of all else, the Paladin *has* to succeed. Especially at high levels, where the party is fighting to save the world on a regular basis.

"All Paladins are Knights" does not reverse to "All Knights are Paladins", any more than "All basketballs are spheres" reverses to "All spheres are basketballs".

The medieval heroic knight archetype is certainly more Lawful than Good, is often Neutral and may even be Evil (in D&D terms). That does not mean that some of them are also shining examples of a more specific type. This is also why, by the way, at one point in 1st Edition the Paladin was changed from being a Sub-Class of Fighter to being a Sub-Class of Cavalier (1st edition Unearthed Arcana). The Cavalier was a specifically Good Knight type of class.

 

[billd91]

The medieval heroic knight archetype is certainly more Lawful than Good, is often Neutral and may even be Evil (in D&D terms). That does not mean that some of them are also shining examples of a more specific type. This is also why, by the way, at one point in 1st Edition the Paladin was changed from being a Sub-Class of Fighter to being a Sub-Class of Cavalier (1st edition Unearthed Arcana). The Cavalier was a specifically Good Knight type of class.

Actually, I believe you have that backwards. The 1st edition cavalier had no alignment restriction regarding good and evil. I'm not even sure they had one regarding lawful and chaotic. The cavalier was specifically a knight class, yes, with the codes of behavior regarding showing fearlessness, honor, and all that. The paladin was a subclass as a specifically religiously charged version.

The way I see it, being both lawful and good, the paladin is neither pure in either realm. He can't submit wholely to being just good or just lawful and has to balance the tenets of good vs the tenets of law. If commanded by his god to kill an innocent, he should protest because it is not good. If helping someone in need should require the overthrow of a legitimate, if misguided, authority, he should protest because it goes against being lawful.

I think there's a bit of trouble in using historical literature as examples of how a paladin should behave. In historical literature, the god who might be demanding absolute obedience is the only god there is. Monotheists are very touchy about disobeying the dictates of their god since that god is typically defined as the source of all that is good. Being against that god is the very definition of evil. Not so in D&D where there is a higher authority (the rules on alignment that define the cosmology). You may expect a paladin of Hieroneous to obey his god, but you can also expect Hieroneous to be bound by his own LG alignment. He wouldn't demand you to do something evil to prove the purity of your soul (as ridiculous a notion as that is to modern post-enlightenment sensibilities). If he did, you'd probably suspect that something isn't right.

 

[Dogbrain]

Indeed it is. The knight Ogier du Dansk, of Charlemagne's Paladins, and his 20th century alter-ego, Holger Carlsson (sp? It has been a while). Oh, wait, that makes the dictionary reference correct, also.

Not in the least, because the novel has a very specific and unique interpretation of matters that does not perfectly overlap with the dictionary definition.

 

[Silveras]

Actually, I believe you have that backwards. The 1st edition cavalier had no alignment restriction regarding good and evil. I'm not even sure they had one regarding lawful and chaotic. The cavalier was specifically a knight class, yes, with the codes of behavior regarding showing fearlessness, honor, and all that. The paladin was a subclass as a specifically religiously charged version.

A cavalier character must initially be of good alignment (Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good).

Note that this does not prevent them from changing alignment, later, however.

Also:

In order to become a cavalier, a character must be in service to some deity, noble, order, or special cause.[/B] (emphasis mine)

Cavaliers could be religious knights without being Paladins.

The way I see it, being both lawful and good, the paladin is neither pure in either realm. He can't submit wholely to being just good or just lawful and has to balance the tenets of good vs the tenets of law. If commanded by his god to kill an innocent, he should protest because it is not good. If helping someone in need should require the overthrow of a legitimate, if misguided, authority, he should protest because it goes against being lawful.

The Paladin is one of those people who believes Lawful Good ... being BOTH in equal part to the best of your ability ... is the best way to live.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

It sounds like you are saying you think Paladins should be Lawful, except when it is inconvenient, then they should be allowed to act Chaotically for the greater good, but return to being Lawful when it is convenient again ?

I think there's a bit of trouble in using historical literature as examples of how a paladin should behave. In historical literature, the god who might be demanding absolute obedience is the only god there is. Monotheists are very touchy about disobeying the dictates of their god since that god is typically defined as the source of all that is good. Being against that god is the very definition of evil. Not so in D&D where there is a higher authority (the rules on alignment that define the cosmology). You may expect a paladin of Hieroneous to obey his god, but you can also expect Hieroneous to be bound by his own LG alignment. He wouldn't demand you to do something evil to prove the purity of your soul (as ridiculous a notion as that is to modern post-enlightenment sensibilities). If he did, you'd probably suspect that something isn't right.

You will note that I did not address Brother MacLaren's example, mostly because I did not want to get into real-world beliefs issues.

I think you are confusing the details with the theme of the example. A Paladin who serves a D&D deity is very close to a medieval knight sworn to a religious order based on a servitor or companion of the monotheristic deity. The entity that is directly served is itself a conduit of a higher force. That in no way lessens the Paladin's, or Knight's, veneration of the higher force through the patron being.

D&D does have a specific definition for each of Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic. As exemplars of Lawful Good, Paladins are expected to behave according to both of those definitions. As noted previously, DMs are free to make changes in their individual game worlds; but in doing so, they are no longer playing what is described in the Players' Handbook and SRD.

 

[Silveras]

Not in the least, because the novel has a very specific and unique interpretation of matters that does not perfectly overlap with the dictionary definition.

Perhaps, but since the book is about Ogier, one of Charlemagne's Paladins, even if only by 60%, I still submit that you colorful "That is wrong. So wrong. Wrong... etc." is refuted. I really just want to get the Margaret Thatcher image off the record. :: shudder ::

 

[Krieg]

Then again the dictionaries you specified are also written in a world without magic, dragons, and other monsters. Charlemagne doesn't exist in any of the D&D campaign settings. Wouldn't the definition of "Paladin" depend on the setting since it would be the people in that setting who attach meaning to the word?

My last statement was deliberately TIC to help illustrate the fallacy of the mindset that the Paladin must be "X" because the dictionary says so.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Wow... looks like I stirred up a hornets nest with this one.
Last night in my game I came upon this situation with my group. One of the party members is a Cleric of Torm. Torm represents the ideal of the Paladins in the Forgotten Realms and the Cleric is Lawful Good. The party is going through the Sunless Citadel and just stumbled into the room with Calcyrix, the white dragon wyrmling. Instead of having it attack them or try to escape right away Calcyrix began to parley with the party. The party agreed to return the dragon to the kobold clan but Calcyrix doesn't want to go back to a life of living in a cage as a kobold mascot. The dragon has agreed to help the party deal with the goblins while the party looks for the missing adventurers if they agree to assist him in his revenge on the kobolds. If they choose not to the dragon simply wants to be let free and wants the party to accompany him to the surface just in case they run into The Hunter who captured Calcyrix in the first place. Now, the Cleric doesn't want to renege on his agreement with the kobolds but he also believes that taking Calcyrix back when he doesn't want to go back isn't exactlly a good thing either. In fact the issue wasn't resolved when we broke for the night. IMHO I believe that when you create your character it might be helpful to decide on which side of your alignment you more strongly favor. If you favor the good then you won't let the cause of good suffer for the persuit of law. If the Cleric felt that way then he wouldn't return the dragon to his life of captivity. If it was the other way around and the Cleric favored law over good then he'd grudgingly uphold his agreement even if good has to suffer for it. This keeps the game going when there is a moral dilema and helps the PC's to be decisive.