What is a Paladin?

[Celebrim]

I think any 'lawful' is going to take societies (or at least his societies) mores and laws regarding sexuality - and lets not forget that sexuality is by definition a mode of reproduction - fairly seriously. So, if your society features marriage, then a lawful will tend to see sexuality as something framed by the notion of marriage. Even if we look at a document like the Kama Sutra, we see - despite all its twisty comic loopholes (to a Western trained eye at least) - a document that is centered on lawful notions of when sex is allowable and then describes in detail all the forms in which it may lawfully take - including those twisty loop forms for which it is more famous. If we take it seriously, we aren't looking at a training manual; we are looking at a religious legal code. It is laying out limits on how you may behave. You may do A,B,C, D and E under some conditions, F with this person and not with that one, and if you don't see it in the list its not in accordance with heaven's laws.

Now obviously, a 'paladin' representing a society that produces something like the Kama Sutra as its limits of sexual expression is going to look very different than the one that praised Galahad as best of knights, but they will have in common the belief that their are laws governing thier behavior in this matter which are more important than thier personal freedom.

I'm not fond of quoting myself, but Richard Gere's display of cultural insensitivity triggered my memory of this post, and had Gere been loose with his lips prior to the post I certainly would have referrenced it. So, I'm referrencing it now as a very good example of how different sexual mores than the culture you are most familiar with do not imply that another culture doesn't have a rigid 'lawful' moral code of behavior.

 

[GreatLemur]

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.

Ah, all right, then. That's certainly Chaotic. I figured my understanding of Marx was suspect.

I don't think calling for revolution (getting back to the discussion of Trotsky, here) is necessarily Chaotic, however. Certainly, revolutions are chaotic (with a lowercase C), but I think an individual is philosophically Lawful as long as he's serving a cause or power larger than himself, and holds himself subject to its rules. If that cause or power is at odds with local authority, that definition certainly doesn't preclude revolution. (Not that I know enough about Trotsky to say whether or not he qualifies!)

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

I'm not sure if that's Chaotic so much as Evil. D&D is full of tyrannical societies that are "Lawful" because they function in an orderly manner. But, really, I think what we're seeing here is just another failure of the D&D alignment system, particularly the Law-Chaos axis. It's always got an extremely wide array of possible--and popular--interpretations. The political and philosophical discussion going on here is cool, but trying to fit real-world ideologies into D&D's flawed system is a little bit pointless, I suppose.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure if that's Chaotic so much as Evil. D&D is full of tyrannical societies that are "Lawful" because they function in an orderly manner. But, really, I think what we're seeing here is just another failure of the D&D alignment system, particularly the Law-Chaos axis. It's always got an extremely wide array of possible--and popular--interpretations. The political and philosophical discussion going on here is cool, but trying to fit real-world ideologies into D&D's flawed system is a little bit pointless, I suppose.

I think the whole Lawful Evil alignment has always been problematic, D&D devils don't serve a cause larger than themselves, they serve themselves. However I think Moorcock was a pretty smart guy and his Law-Neutrality-Chaos alignment system, copied by D&D, can work pretty well. It's the adding-on of Good and Evil in addition to create the 9-alignment system that creates something fundamentally incoherent. I grew up on 1e AD&D, but from my brief encounters with BECMI D&D I always suspected it had the better approach. I'm a lot happier now, with Lawful elves and Chaotic devils. Tolkienesque elves are practically the definition of Lawful, while Shakesperean faeries are best seen as Neutral.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think calling for revolution (getting back to the discussion of Trotsky, here) is necessarily Chaotic, however.

I agree - I don't think Oliver Cromwell or Jefferson & Adams etc were Chaotic. But Trotsky didn't just want revolution, he wanted perpetual world revolution - revolution as an end in itself. Mao followed on and expanded this. Stalin also up to 1941 kept the USSR in perpetual turmoil as a way to ensure absolute control.

Orwellian totalitarianism, with its ever-changing reality - "We have always been at war with Eurasia" - to me, is highly Chaotic. You see this today when words are declared unacceptable and new approved words are demanded, just like with Orwellian Newspeak, except Orwell's system seemed to have an intended end-point, whereas in the Maoist system change is an end in itself. By repeatedly tearing the rug of reality out from under people, you create fear and uncertainty and enable greater control.

 

[Thomas Percy]

The name "paladin" is mistake, because this class has nothing to do with Charlemagne paladins. The class can be renamed "Don Quijote de la Mancha".

 

[Celebrim]

I think the whole Lawful Evil alignment has always been problematic, D&D devils don't serve a cause larger than themselves, they serve themselves.

I think we should distinguish between whether an alignment is problimatic, or whether the presentation of beings supposedly possessing this alignment has been problimatic. I think 'Lawful Evil' can have an internally consistant meaning and that it is not problimatic to classify certain philosophies as 'Lawful Evil', but I do agree that the presentation of many beings supposedly paragons of thier alignment has been extremely problimatic. Devils are a very good example of this, and we could add Drow and Slaad to the list as well.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The name "paladin" is mistake, because this class has nothing to do with Charlemagne paladins. The class can be renamed "Don Quijote de la Mancha".

I think Charlemagne's paladins are what the class was originally based on. However, in games I've played over 30 years, the paladin tends to be more like the Arthurian ideal - the Galahad type.