Paladins

In article <slrnglm0l0.8uv.keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org> wrote:

> Baird Stafford <baird.TakeThisOut@newstaff.com> wrote:

> > I have two series that I suggest for anyone who wants to play or DM a
> > paladin. The first is David Weber's series that begins with THE WAR
> > GOD'S OWN and ends with WINDRIDER'S OATH;

> I'm not familiar with this one.

Read it; it should be still available in paperback. Bahzell Banahkson
is, um, unexpected. And the series is downright fun.

> > the second is the David
> > Eddings series with the precious gems in the titles (the Elenium, maybe?

> _The Elenium_, sequel was _The Tamuli_

Thanks.

> > I've a cat on my lap at present who will object, vocally, to any
> > effort to get up and root through the library...). Different
> > approaches to paladinhood, but they also illustrate different
> > approaches to the moral judgements that paladins must face, by the
> > nature of their vocation, and different ways to deal with them.

> Hmm. I remember when I read _The Elenium_ for the first time (yeah, it
> was a while ago) thinking that the church knights were supposed to be
> paladins. I don't know how well that fits though, to be honest.

I was thinking mostly of the main character, who seemed to me to be
heavily influenced by John Wayne's portrayal in _True_ _Grit_. A
stained paladin and, in Edding's novels a stained Order, perhaps, but
their professed *ideals* were definitely paladin-like even if they were
inclined to be rather rough-and-ready about the accomplishment of those
ideals.

> The Pandions -- the focal order of the series, really -- are way too
> pragmatic about things to fit the D&D paladin mold. They deceive, they
> have a reputation (carefully cultivated) of torture, they get their
> powers from a goddess other than their purported patron....

The Knights Hospitaller revered St. John rather than Jesus; the
precedent has been set in the real world, I think.

> I'm not saying I don't like them, either from a character or play
> perspective, just that despite being a knightly order that not only has
> a religious association but has spellcasting ability, they don't quite
> fit the character class as described. If nothing else, it is awfully
> hard to offend on moral grounds. Also, apart from some spellcasting,
> they don't seem to have any of the other paladin abilities.

Granted - but then I was using them as examples rather than paragons.

> Rules-wise, they're probably best modeled as fighters. The spellcasters
> among them may have levels as Adepts (their exhibited spells don't
> really fit any D&D class; the mechanism is closest to Cleric, but the
> spells actually seem closer to the Wizard list... though being a plot
> device rather than a playable gaming element makes it a lot harder).

Could be done, though, and might be fun to try.

> Now, me, I wouldn't particularly mind saying 'paladins are like that'.
> They are *not* what the book says, but they have good flavor to them
> that suits how I view them. After all, 'lawful good', IMC, doesn't have
> to mean 'nice'.

Nor does it have to mean "stupid," any more than "chaotic neutral" means
players have to roll dice for every decision their character makes.

> > And the other lesson, the one for DMs, is the effort the authors went to
> > to create the Orders involved, and the worlds in which they function.
> > They did not pick the concept of "paladin" off the shelf and try for
> > "one size fits all."

> Yep.

> You might also look at the story _Talion_ by Michael Stackpole. The
> main character (Nolan) is quite close to paladin behavior, though he
> does associate with characters who could be considered 'evil'. The
> Justices are more about Law vs. Chaos than Good vs. Evil, though (and I
> have no problem reorienting paladins that way).

Good example, and one of my favorite novels. I didn't mention it more
because I'm not sure how available it might be at the moment than
because I didn't recall it.

> There's also Deed of Paksennarion (they're called paladins, exhibit many
> of the powers assigned to paladins in D&D -- including the magic horse).

That, and a very *sobering* view of what Paladins just might have to
allow to be done to themselves in order to get their point across. In
Elizabeth Moon's Gird universe, Paladins do not exist merely to smite
Evil.

Sorry, I have no excuse for forgetting Paks.

> _Paladins_ (and _Paladins II: Knight Moves_) by Joel Rosenberg. Who
> presents a rather interesting alternate version of Earth, and the White
> Swords and Red Swords have huge potential. The paladins (I forget if
> that's there title in-story or not) are knights entrusted with White
> Swords and Red Swords, and are of the highest moral calibre.

> The White Swords contain the souls of saints and innocents, freely given
> to empower the swords. One sword is called 'The Goatboy', because no
> one actually knows the origin of the soul, just that he had been a
> goatherd. The wielders of these swords *cannot* be evil -- the swords
> don't allow it.

> The Red Swords, on the other hand, contain any other soul, and are *not*
> so well-disposed toward the soul of their wielder. One is called
> 'Khan', and there are hints that this sword was empowered by the soul of
> someone called 'Ghengis'.... The wielder *must* be uncorruptible, lest
> the sword control *him*.

> I *like* this setting.

Although the same objection might be raised to it that you raised about
Eddings' novels: a great deal of the knights' power seems to flow
through Morgana rather than coming directly from the "acknowledged"
Divine.

In my opinion, this is Rosenberg's most interesting effort since his
very first book (many of his subsequent writings did more to beat the
subject into the ground than to edify or entertain, in my opinion).

In any case, the point upon which we both seem to agree is that having
paladins in a campaign would seem to require more than a player saying,
"I want to run a paladin" and a DM responding, "Go ahead" - and then
leaving the details to be hashed out on other players' time during
sessions. The "off-the-shelf" paladin works only when everybody in the
group has precisely the same understanding of the rules, in my
experience - and when has that ever happened? It's up to the DM to have
the rules for his world ready to go, or at least a concept upon which
he/she can build before the next gaming session.

Or that, at least, has always been my understanding of the DM's job:
less ego and more sweat.

Which is why I like playing better than being DM.

Baird

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"

In article <86iqp06art.fsf.RemoveThis@gareth.avalon.lan>,
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_public.RemoveThis@myrealbox.com> wrote:

> Baird Stafford <baird.RemoveThis@newstaff.com> writes:
>
> > In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> > <snip>

> >> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
> >> would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
> >> person for those evil thoughts.

> > Depends on the laws of a lawful society. If the law says that thinking
> > evil thoughts is a capital offense, then it's a capital offense.

> NO, NO, NO.

> It can't be hammered at enough: Lawful in D&D has *nothing* to do with
> the laws of the land. Otherwise a Paladin could be constrained to
> follow Evil laws.

Wrong. A Paladin is Lawful *Good* and therefore in opposition to Lawful
Evil and not constrained to follow Evil laws - nor even Lawful Neutral
laws with which he finds himself in ethical disagreement. And Lawful in
D&D has *everything* to do with the laws of the land - look again at the
various nations in the World of Greyhawk.

> Lawful has to do with a respect for order and tradition over
> individual judgment. The fact that this usually leads to being
> law-abiding is a side effect.

Chaotic individuals may also respect "order and tradition," although
never over individual judgement. Also, Chaotic individuals are much
more likely to be bound by their individual word of honor where a Lawful
individual requires a written contract (there's that "law of the land"
thing, again, not to mention the traditional workings of Mephistopheles
_et_ _al._ as instanced in all the Faust stories, poems and plays).

And Chaotic individuals, in my experience both in game and in real life,
are much more likely to adhere to the spirit of the law than Lawful
individuals, who are bound only by its letter.

Or, in recent years, by their reinterpretation of the letter of the law:
witness Dick Cheyney, who claims to belong neither to the Executive nor
the the Legislative branch and can therefore be bound by laws and
regulations exclusive to neither and bases his argument on what he
regards as the letter of Constitutional law.

Baird

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"