What is a Paladin?

[Celebrim]

IMHO, a Paladin is a holy warrior for a just cause and a righteous god. While he may ahve significant martial training, his real strength is not external but internal - his strength of faith...

The thing is, most people who actually have Faith, do not consider thier faith to be an internal strength, but an external one. They believe that it is not thier faith that makes them strong, but rather the thing that they have faith in. An inward faith is faith in oneself, which is a very different sort of outlook than that one would expect from a Paladin. Faith - if it works at all - works because of something external to oneself, not because of something inside you.

 

[Shades of Green]

The thing is, most people who actually have Faith, do not consider thier faith to be an internal strength, but an external one. They believe that it is not thier faith that makes them strong, but rather the thing that they have faith in. An inward faith is faith in oneself, which is a very different sort of outlook than that one would expect from a Paladin. Faith - if it works at all - works because of something external to oneself, not because of something inside you.

Perhaps my choice of words was inaccurate, but my point was that both the Monk and the Paladin are about devotion and strength-of-will rather than raw martial skill.

And still, the faith itself could be considered "internal" - no, its subject is rarely internal, but the faith itself is the matter of the spirit, of the heart, of the soul - not of swords, magic items and armor, and is not only a matter of skill and training.

A Fighter is a powerful combatant because he is skilled in fighting, and, usually, dressed for the kill and armed to the teeth with the most powerful tools of war he can lay his hands on.

A Barbarian is a powerful combatant because of his instincts, physical prowess, and unchained anger.

Both the Monk and the Paladin are powerful combatants ecause their spirit is strong - the Monk draws upon his strength of mind and the Paladin draws upon his strength of faith. Sure, a Paladin would usually have a good skill in combat and a fine selection of weapons, but his strength comes not from them but from his faith.

 

[Celebrim]

Perhaps my choice of words was inaccurate, but my point was that both the Monk and the Paladin are about devotion and strength-of-will rather than raw martial skill.

It's a hard thing to discuss, because we don't have accurate words for describing things we can't see. I mean, who can say what Faith looks like or where it resides? Fantasy is interesting (to me) precisely because it takes things from the nebulous sphere of ideas, and transforms them into concrete entities that we can discuss in more concrete terms.

My point is that a fighter's strength comes from his discipline, skill, strength, endurance and other things inside the fighter. The fighter's strength is fundamentally internal and personal in nature. A fighter is strong because well, he is strong.

The paladin is a different sort. Yes, his strength can come somewhat from displine and skill and strength and endurance just like the fighter, but the sort of strength that a Paladin has which is unique to the paladin is that his strength comes from without himself. The Paladin doesn't rely on himself to be strong. Rather he cultivates reliance on something external and stronger than himself. From the Paladin's perspective, faith is not a cultivation of spiritual strength, but a recognition of physical and spiritual weakness. Faith is opposite of self-reliance. It is the practice of learning not to imagine yourself strong.

To the element of Sacrifice mentioned as the defining aspect of Paladins, I would add the element Service.

 

[robberbaron]

IMC a Paladin is a Holy Warrier: the living embodiment of his God's will.

Otherwise, a Paladin is what the DM says it is.

 

[shilsen]

See the last link in my sig.

Now THAT is a paladin.

A couple of people might disagree, of course

 

[S'mon]

S'mon -

You do realize that anyone who ever gives their faith any thought (and no, this isn't an insult - I think you and most, if not all, of the people on this board would be among those) really ends up choosing their religion, or at least the way they practice it, based on compatibility their own priorities and sense of 'correctness'?
.

I think that's a very American, and very modernist, stance. All over the world most people, including intelligent people, are born, live and die in their religion with no concept of 'choosing' it.

 

[S'mon]

I think that's a very reasonable goal, but its interesting that you'd bring up a figure like Joan, who most decidely would not feel that her religious beliefs and experiences were not something she had chosen. She would most decidedly feel that she had been chosen, and that her beliefs and feelings had been chosen for her and all she really could do was choose to accept or reject what had been chosen for her. This is I think you will see a decidedly more 'lawful' view of the world, because it reduces the primacy of the self, and is I think closer to how a Paladin would feel about things. It is also I would note a decidely less current, less modern, way of looking at the world, which was I think S'mon's point.

Yes, that's right Celebrim. While I don't necessarily disagree with NG or CG type world-views in real life, I do strongly dislike attempts to shove the LG square peg concept of Paladinhood into a NG-CG round hole, the way Torm is trying to do.

 

[S'mon]

4. I never said I thought my idea for redesigned Paladins should still have a Lawful requirement. I do, in fact, but I think it should be specified in the RAW that it indicates an internal code of behavior and NOT an adherence to laws of man or deity.

IMNSHO this is because you're CG, mate.

 

[S'mon]

My distinction between law and chaos is pretty simple. If the philosophy assumes the primacy of the self, as any philosophy that assumes the primacy of internal belief would be, then its chaotic. And if the philosophy assumes the secondary status of the self, then its lawful.

Yup - "Do what thou wilt" applies as much to helping little old ladies across the road as to sacrificing infants on the altar of Orcus. IMO either you accept primacy-of-self individualism as the determinant of Chaotic within the D&D alignment system, or you're reduced to Chaotic as literally insane, which I think makes CG unworkable. I work with lots of CG type post-modernist Frankfurt School type cultural Marxist theorists at my University, and they don't seem insane. Wrong, possibly, but not insane...

 

[italianranma]

Guys, let's try to move on with the thread: No one disputes that a paladin has some kind of code of conduct, and everyone has a different opinion on what that should be, more evidence in my opinion that morality is a learned concept. In anycase you can duke it out all you want; I've already begun researching early christian morals, and that's what I'll use for my paladins. What I'd really like is for the discussion to move towards what role a paladin fulfills and what abilities a paladin needs to do that.