What is a Paladin?

[GreatLemur]

I had something else I wanted to say, but, thanks to the last couple of posts, now all I can think of is an order Marxist paladins. Their doctrine is based on an economic 'reading' of sin and the belief the love of private property is the root of all evil. Through faith and works they seek to bring about the (faithful) workers paradise. And by works I probably mean 'armed conflict'.

I might need to design a whole new campaign setting just to accommodate them.

See, this is why I love ENWorld. It's inspirational.

Joseph Stalin in star-blazoned full plate armor, wielding a hammer and a sickle. Ordering a pogrom against the gnomes.

 

[Celebrim]

I had something else I wanted to say, but, thanks to the last couple of posts, now all I can think of is an order Marxist paladins. Their doctrine is based on an economic 'reading' of sin and the belief the love of private property is the root of all evil. Through faith and works they seek to bring about the (faithful) workers paradise. And by works I probably mean 'armed conflict'.

I might need to design a whole new campaign setting just to accommodate them.

I can definately see that. I plug this all the time, but if you want a take in Marxist Paladins, I strongly suggest reading the graphic novel 'Red Son', which is based on the question, 'What if Superman had have crashed as a baby in a wheatfield in the USSR rather than the USA?'

 

[Mallus]

Joseph Stalin in star-blazoned full plate armor, wielding a hammer and a sickle.

Kinda beautiful, isn't it? But we'd be better off going with Trotsky. Stalin wasn't LG ("And the award for Understatement of the Year goes to...").

Ordering a pogrom against the gnomes.

Exactly!

 

[Mallus]

I strongly suggest reading the graphic novel 'Red Son', which is based on the question, 'What if Superman had have crashed as a baby in a wheatfield in the USSR rather than the USA?'

Thanks. I remember reading previews for 'Red Son' and being really intrigued, but I forgot all about it by the time it hit the stands.

 

[Celebrim]

I think my cognitive dissonance here stems from an inability to see anarchism and socialism as being even vaguely compatible. If Marx's proposed dissolution of private property is looked at as a call for anarchy--that is, "There is no private property because there are no laws to preserve it"--then that is most certainly a very Chaotic philosophy. But if the proposal is taken to mean "There is no private property because a central authority controls and distributes all resources", then it strikes me as extremely Lawful, and very far from the primacy-of-self ideals which S'mon brought up.

I think that is about the size of it. The great thing about Marxism is that since Marx made no attempt to describe what a post-Capitalist society would be like or how it would be ordered, and instead only said 'I have scientific proof that Capitalism is unsustainable and will inevitably collapse', you can describe just about any sort of society and claim that its Marxist. The Anarco-socialists think that the problem was that the central authority. The techno-socialists, say as in the literature of our own Charles Stross (creator of the Slaad race), think that the problem was the efficiency of the decision making tree. And so forth.

 

[GreatLemur]

Kinda beautiful, isn't it? But we'd be better off going with Trotsky. Stalin wasn't LG ("And the award for Understatement of the Year goes to...").

Heh. My response to your idea was almost "Yeah, then you could have all kind of conflict between the Marxist Good and Marxist Neutral elements within the order, with the threat of a Stalinist Evil leader taking over!" I really dig the Eberron-esque take on divine power that allows for corruption and conflict within religious organizations, so I think the Socialist Paladins should have both a Trotsky and a Stalin. Also, they could be dwarves. I've always thought that, despite their famous greed, dwarves could make great commies. Hell, "Stalin" even sounds like a Dwarven name.

Anyway, just because somebody is inevitably going to post this, and I want to beat them to it: Has everybody seen this comic already?

 

[papastebu]

Agreed. Better than any character I've seen, Bahzell gets across the point that being a paladin is a calling. You don't go to paladin school; you don't seek it out. It's a burden laid down upon characters whether they like it or not. Frequently not, but anyone called as a paladin is morally incapable of ducking responsibility.

Oh, and the first volume is available free and legally on-line in the Baen Free Library. Just look under David Weber.

http://www.baen.com/library/

The amount of nagging the god has to do in order to get Bahzell to let him help Bahzell with paladin powers is highly amusing.

They made reference to it in the other two books, so I know what you're talking about. Thanks for the tip. Are you sure it's free? I haven't looked yet, but I thought I heard about them re-releasing it sometime soon.

 

[Wolfwood2]

They made reference to it in the other two books, so I know what you're talking about. Thanks for the tip. Are you sure it's free? I haven't looked yet, but I thought I heard about them re-releasing it sometime soon.

Baen Publishing is of the belief that making books freely available online will increase print sales because people will want to buy a physical copy of a book they liked reading on computer.

It's a pretty bold stance for a publisher to take, but they've had the free library for years now and seem convinced it's paying off.

 

[S'mon]

Wait, wait, wait. Marxism is Chaotic, then? That seems like an unlikely proposition, especially given your "primacy-of-self" definition of the "Chaos" pole. Or maybe my understanding of Marxism is way off base.

Cultural Marxism takes a lot from Nietzsche, actually. Think about the Cultural Marxist derived conception of Human Rights that now dominates moral-political discussion in the West. It assumes the primacy of the individual and their Rights pretty much a priori.

But yes, on a Law-Neutrality-Chaos line I would peg all the totalitarian twentieth century belief systems as Chaotic - Marxism, Nazism, Fascism; whereas both Lockean Liberalism and many traditionalist beliefs are more Lawful. This is one reason I'm a lot happier with using OD&D/Moorcockian Law-Chaos alignment, rather than the 9-pole system.

 

[S'mon]

Paradoxical indeed. I think my cognitive dissonance here stems from an inability to see anarchism and socialism as being even vaguely compatible. If Marx's proposed dissolution of private property is looked at as a call for anarchy--that is, "There is no private property because there are no laws to preserve it"--then that is most certainly a very Chaotic philosophy. But if the proposal is taken to mean "There is no private property because a central authority controls and distributes all resources", then it strikes me as extremely Lawful, and very far from the primacy-of-self ideals which S'mon brought up. .

Marx's original conception was that during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat phase the central authority is all-controlling, but then the State Withers Away and there is no more need for property, laws, etc.

I think it's a big mistake to see tyranny as Lawful. Tyranny is about primacy of self - the self of the tyrant.