# Breaking the stereotype of the chaste paladin



## NewJeffCT (Nov 24, 2004)

I was thinking about this the other day.  The stereotypical image of a paladin is the chaste Sir Galahad.  But, that kind of bothered me, as I saw nothing in the rules requiring chastity from a paladin – male or female – and I have been playing since early 1E days.  However, it seems that the DMs I have played with over the years seem to naturally assume this to be the case.

However, could an argument also be made that a truly pious paladin should “be fruitful and multiply”?  Do not some real world religions basically encourage child birth to increase the size of their respective flocks?  Yes, I know they try to convert non-believers, too.

My thought was that would not a male paladin be true to his religion by fathering 10 or more children with a devout follower of his own L/G religion?  A child of a paladin would probably have a greater chance genetically of following in his father’s footsteps, especially if raised by an equally devout mother.  And, there is also a greater likelihood that all 10+ children at least follow the same religion as the paladin.  (This is assuming the paladin can afford 10 or more kids and all…)

Heck, it could even be a paladinly duty – in order to increase the size of the church’s congregation, all male paladins must do their best to father one child per year after marriage.

Does anybody agree or disagree with me?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 24, 2004)

I've often been intrigued by the concept of a philandering paladin, actually -- noticing as you do that chastity is not really even implied, much less mandated, by the paladin's code.

But I've never actually played one.


----------



## fredramsey (Nov 24, 2004)

You have lots of time on your hands, eh?

Any children the Paladin might father would be raised without a father figure. Can't slay evil and come home every night at 5:00 PM.

But hey, let the paladin get his sword polished as much as the next guy. I seriously doubt any of the "real" knights were truly chaste, but it makes a good story.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 24, 2004)

in the FR you can be a paladin of Sune.

she ain't chaste in the least.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 24, 2004)

Uhm, just for kicks, you do recognize the difference between *chastity* and *celibacy*, right?


----------



## fredramsey (Nov 24, 2004)

Oops.

Uh, yeah, I mean Celibacy, yeah, that's the ticket...   



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Uhm, just for kicks, you do recognize the difference between *chastity* and *celibacy*, right?


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Nov 24, 2004)

I've never imagined the paladin as chaste... the cleric or the monk, maybe--and that is only based on sect or personal vow.  I've never had a blanket assumption like that about paladins.

Many of the paladins in the world I'm playing in right now are members of an order that heavily emphasises sex and openness with the body...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 24, 2004)

Yeah, I don't understand a requirement for Paladins to be celibate.

I *do* understand a requirement for Paladins to be chaste - they are *Lawful* Good, after all, and their codes are equal parts Law and Good.  Sowing wild oats, like any other overly-emotional activity, is definately a Chaotic infraction.


----------



## Trickstergod (Nov 24, 2004)

Typically, I attribute essentially "free love," to put it simplistically, as being rather chaotic. Nothing necessarily wrong with it, but generally more of a pleasurable, personal thing that can, to a degree, be disruptive to society. 

So while not exactly the sort of thing I'd have a paladin lose their status over for one indulgence (it's not evil, after all), it could gradually result in an alignment shift. As such, probably best strayed away from. 

Of course, so long as there's some structure to what the paladin's doing, then sure. At the very least, though, the paladin would be responsible for any children he sired and have some obligation to the woman it was with. 

It's one thing for a paladin to engage in some sort of intimate behavior with someone they care for and would feel an obligation to, though, and another entirely for a paladin to just go wenching. 

In regards to the "go fruitful and multiply" argument for a paladin - sure, I could see it working. But for me, that would effectively mean either giving up adventuring or quite likely giving up ones status as a paladin if family and questing couldn't be reconciled. 

And in regards to marriage or the rough equivalent, no, I have no problems with paladins doing that whatsoever. Some sects and versions maybe. But not all (or even most).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 24, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> Does anybody agree or disagree with me?




Well, there are a few things you have ot take into consideration here...

A paladin probably would not go around the countryside philandering and fathering children.  A child out of wedlock is an exterme burden and disruption of the mother's life.  And kids running around without fathers are a notorious source of chaos.  

Even in wedlock, there are problems.  Your typical paladin leads a violent, dangerous life hunting down some very evil things.  That leads to a high risk of leaving your kids fatherless.  And, unless the evil things are very stupid, the family would be a classic target of vengeance and blackmail.

So, while LG people in general certainly can have kids, I am not sure those active in fighting evil are going to do so.


----------



## Gez (Nov 24, 2004)

If you want to break the "chaste paladin" stereotype, read up _Three Hearts and Three Lions_. This book was the seminal inspiration for the D&D paladin (down to the special stallion and the cure disease ability), and the paladin here wasn't especially under a vow of chastity... He wasn't womanizing or promiscuous either, though.

This passage illustrates it best:

The real trouble was her own attitude toward him. Damn it, he did not want to compromise himself with her. A romp in the hay with someone like Meriven or Morgan was one thing. Alianora was something else. An affair with her wouldn’t be good for either party, when he meant to leave this world the first chance he got. But she made it hard for him to remain a gentleman. She was so shyly and pathetically hoping for an affair.​
(Alianora, by the way, was the prototype of the Swanmay.)


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 24, 2004)

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Oops.
> 
> Uh, yeah, I mean Celibacy, yeah, that's the ticket...




No, I think you meant _chaste_ when you wrote it. To be chaste is to refrain from sexual intercourse. To be celibate is to remain unmarried, but it can also refer to abstention from sex.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've often been intrigued by the concept of a philandering paladin, actually -- noticing as you do that chastity is not really even implied, much less mandated, by the paladin's code.
> 
> But I've never actually played one.



 I've been planning to play a particularly foul-mouthed, heavy-drinking and womanizing paladin for a while now. Maybe for my next PC.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 24, 2004)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> No, I think you meant _chaste_ when you wrote it. To be chaste is to refrain from sexual intercourse. To be celibate is to remain unmarried, but it can also refer to abstention from sex.




Uh, not quite.

To be chaste is to refrain from inappropriate sexual intercourse and to remain in a state of purity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chaste

To be celibate is to refrain from *all* sexual conduct whatsoever, including that of the marriage bed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=celibate

For reference, Catholic married couples are enjoined to be chaste.  Catholic priests are enjoined to be celibate.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 24, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Uh, not quite.




Uh, yes.

Main Entry: chas·ti·ty
Pronunciation: 'chas-t&-tE
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being chaste : as a : abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse b : abstention from all sexual intercourse c : purity in conduct and intention d : restraint and simplicity in design or expression
2 : personal integrity

Main Entry: cel·i·ba·cy
Pronunciation: 'se-l&-b&-sE
Function: noun
1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

Definitions courtesy of m-w.com


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 24, 2004)

Uh, no.



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> Usage Note: Historically, celibate means only “unmarried” its use to mean “abstaining from sexual intercourse” is a 20th-century development. But the new sense of the word seems to have displaced the old, and the use of celibate to mean “unmarried” is now almost sure to invite misinterpretation in other than narrowly ecclesiastical contexts. Sixty-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejected the older use in the sentence He remained celibate [unmarried], although he engaged in sexual intercourse.




Modern usage trumps older definitions, since we are modern English speaking folk here.

My additional point above, however, stands: Catholic married couples are enjoined to be _chaste_ in their love.  They are also expected to have kids.  Therefore, _chaste_ cannot mean total abstinance.

Catholic priests take vows of celibacy, in addition to vows of chastity.

Therefore, in at least the religious sense (which is the tradition the D&D paladin is based on), the two are not interchangeable terms.

Furthermore:



			
				http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/chivalry.html said:
			
		

> Thou shalt keep thyself chaste for the sake of her whom thou lovest.




Keep thyself chaste, eh?


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 24, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Uh, no.
> 
> Modern usage trumps older definitions, since we are modern English speaking folk here.




Using celibacy to denote abstention from marriage is not archaic, sorry.



> My additional point above, however, stands: Catholic married couples are enjoined to be _chaste_ in their love.  They are also expected to have kids.  Therefore, _chaste_ cannot mean total abstinance.




Clearly, you are not familiar with the concept of secondary, tertiary, etc. definitions. Chaste can and does mean sexual abstinence. However, your above usage is also appropriate.



> Catholic priests take vows of celibacy, in addition to vows of chastity.
> 
> Therefore, in at least the religious sense (which is the tradition the D&D paladin is based on), the two are not interchangeable terms.




I did not say they are interchangeable.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 24, 2004)

What the hell?  Who in the world invited the pedantic freaks to hijack the thread by arguing whether chaste or celibate was the more appropriate word to use here when clearly, not only does either one of them work fine, but everyone knew what was meant.  Can we get back to the actual topic of the thread now, if you please?


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> What the hell?  Who in the world invited the pedantic freaks to hijack the thread by arguing whether chaste or celibate was the more appropriate word to use here when clearly, not only does either one of them work fine, but everyone knew what was meant.  Can we get back to the actual topic of the thread now, if you please?




That's fine, but you are hardly free of pedantry yourself.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 24, 2004)

My original point remains:

If we are discussing D&D paladins, the more appropriate definitions of chaste to use are the "abstain from unlawful sex" and "keep yourself morally pure" definitions.  For some paladins, the only way to meet the first goal is to abstain entirely.

The above posters seemed, however, to be discussing a _celibate_ paladin - one who is not only unmarried, but abstains from all sexual intercourse as well.

As I mentioned, I don't see any reason to enforce the second, when the first should suffice for all paladin-related purposes.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 24, 2004)

Hey, Josh - if you aren't going to add anything, don't post, mmmkay?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 24, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Hey, Josh - if you aren't going to add anything, don't post, mmmkay?



That's pretty rich coming from one of the guys who's completely derailed the thread into a "who's got the best cut and paste skills from an online dictionary" discussion.

Or you may have noticed that I actually made the first reply in the thread saying that not only had it indeed occured to me, but it had occured to me to take it even further and create a character a bit like Aramis (unless I'm mixing up my musketeers) out of a paladin.  In fact, if I ever play a paladin again, that's exactly what I'll do.

Anyway, if _*you*_ want to add anything, you could do worse than respond to that.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 25, 2004)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> That's fine, but you are hardly free of pedantry yourself.



Quite true, and fairly pointed out.  Hopefully I'd let it go before I'd reached half a dozen posts in a single thread arguing about whether or not celibate or chaste was the correct word.

Besides, until one of you quotes the Oxford English Dictionary, your credentials are suspect.  Don't give me this dicionary.com or m-w.com nonsense!


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> What the hell?  Who in the world invited the pedantic freaks to hijack the thread




Sorry.  I was messing around with a new spell called "Summon Pedantic Freaks".  

I don't think that there is anything against a paladin being a sexual creature, but, like others have said, there are other considerations.  Who is going to raise the child if one does arise from the union?  (Does a female paladin have the time to raise a child while adventuring in the typical D&D sense?  I would say yes, and it could be an interesting experience to role-play, but that's just me.)  If the paladin's personal moral code goes against this kind of behaviour, it wouldn't be right to go against those beliefs.

However, in a magical fantasy world you could easily introduce spells of birth control.  The paladin might serve a goddess who grants these spells to her worshippers, and the paladin might even be expected to "share the love."

I think the paladin should also make sure that any partner knows just how much the paladin is willing to give - if both parties are just looking to "hook up", and birth control is used, then I don't think it would be a big deal.  If the paladin's partner is looking for a long-term relationship then the paladin might not want to get involved, if adventuring will prohibit such things.

At any rate, it sounds like it could make for some interesting role-playing.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 25, 2004)

Shall I point out my *other* responses  in the thread, or would that just be a little too pedantic for you?

So lay off the insults and insulting tone of post.

In other words, I posted what I did because the discussion seemed to be focusing on an incorrect assumption - that paladins were prohibited from fathering / mothering children and being married.  In other words, the discussion from the initial post seemed to be more about *celibate* paladins than chaste paladins.

By the by, it depends on which part of the Musketeer tale you intend to emulate.  Aramis, by my recollection, was a bit of a womanizer but grew out of it, eventually joining the priesthood and becoming the head of the Jesuits (at least those in Paris) - thus becoming bound by vows of both chastity and celibacy.

Perhaps Porthos is more in the vein you're looking for?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 25, 2004)

Exactly; a character like Aramis (or was it Athos?  Dang!  Which one was it?  I know it wasn't Porthos; he was the clothes horse, not the womanizer) from _The Three Musketeers_ could make a great prototype for a randy paladin-type character.

At least it'd be a nice change of pace from your standard stuffy paladin #418 that everyone else plays.


----------



## ajanders (Nov 25, 2004)

*Paladin Variants*

I want to play a paladin who debates his professional colleagues about whether he should be "celibate" or "chaste" and then settles what each word means via judicial combat.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 25, 2004)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think the paladin should also make sure that any partner knows just how much the paladin is willing to give - if both parties are just looking to "hook up", and birth control is used, then I don't think it would be a big deal.  If the paladin's partner is looking for a long-term relationship then the paladin might not want to get involved, if adventuring will prohibit such things.




That's basically how I see it, barring any Oaths or such for the specific paladin. As long as he's honest about the relationship, and it won't cause harm to the other individual or lead her on in some way, it's fine. That includes "ladies of the evening" where such is lawful and voluntary.
Heck, why else are paladin's immune to disease if not to avoid STDs?


----------



## Impeesa (Nov 25, 2004)

Well, in accordance with lawfulness and goodness, the paladin should make sure his many children are all well cared for. Better keep up on those child support payments. Beyond that, it's a great idea. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 25, 2004)

Impeesa said:
			
		

> Well, in accordance with lawfulness and goodness, the paladin should make sure his many children are all well cared for. Better keep up on those child support payments. Beyond that, it's a great idea.
> 
> --Impeesa--



 Poor guy better hope he hasn't taken a Vow of Poverty or his Paladining days may be over.


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 25, 2004)

OK, this is me from home now.  I had meant Chaste or Celibate (however one defines it!!!!) to mean the paladin refraining from any sexual intercourse whatsoever.

And, I had not meant for the paladin to be a philandering fop who fathers more out of wedlock children with different women than your typical NBA star or Ben Franklin...

As for rearing children, in many cultures (China, India, Korea to name a few, none of which are out of the way or obscure historically) it is tradition that the parents send the child off to be raised by the grandparents while the parents go out & work.  It's just that instead of being raised a few towns over or on a neighboring farm, the paladin may travel across continents or planes hunting evildoers.  Or, maybe the paladin's church has the equivalent of a nursemaid / nanny type that can raise the child?

Heck, it could even be part of the paladin sect - must return home at least once a year to attempt mating with wife in order to grow the congregation - almost like the Vulcan Pon Farr, only yearly.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 25, 2004)

Yes, and in many European cultures, children were raised by uncles, or godfathers, or all kinds of other arrangements.

I don't think its hard to imagine philandering paladins, and still keep in LG, and have the paladins be somewhat responsible in regards to their children.  It just takes a little bit of cultural ingenuity, rather than projecting our own culture into the D&D realm, which is what we typically do.


----------



## The_Universe (Nov 25, 2004)

I certainly think that chastity, thought not celibacy, are implied by the Paladin's code, and by histori-mythical archetypes upon which they are based. Were _real _knights chaste?  Perhaps, and perhaps not.  But the ideal chivalrous knight certainly was, which is why inapropriate trysts in stories of the age often led to complete disaster.  

Galahad was celibate, Arthur was chaste (YMMV quiate a bit depending on what you read), and Lancelot and Guenivere were neither - and thus caused the downfall of a kingdom. 

In D&D terms, one of the central tenets of a paladin's order would have to be the holiness of increasing the population if I were to accept a paladin that was anything other than chaste.


----------



## LurkerFreak (Nov 25, 2004)

I think it would be all in the churches doctorine. Just be careful on the wording. We had a DM made church that forbid "Free sex". It became a running gag that members of that church had to pay for it.


----------



## ptolemy18 (Nov 25, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> I was thinking about this the other day.  The stereotypical image of a paladin is the chaste Sir Galahad....However, could an argument also be made that a truly pious paladin should “be fruitful and multiply”?.... My thought was that would not a male paladin be true to his religion by fathering 10 or more children with a devout follower of his own L/G religion?




Depends entirely on your campaign world, of course.

I will say that, historically, one of the reasons that Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry and have kids is this: it kept positions in the church from becoming an inherited thing like positions in the nobility. By bringing in new people from outside the church, the church kept its clergy "fresh" and ensured that (theoretically) new clergy would be chosen based on merit and ability, rather than just because their father was a member of the clergy. In that way, it was one of the few things in the Medieval world which was open to everybody (if you were male, that is).

Jason


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 25, 2004)

*re*

Paladins are supposed to be paragons of law and order as well as goodness, It is kind of difficult to be such a thing if you are a philandering drunk. It is possible to be lawful good and have such a flaw, but I don't believe it's possible to be a Paladin and have such a flaw.

Though it is not required by the rules, it is assumed that Paladins engage in prayer and supplication often to maintain the pure and devoted spirit that receives the blessings of their god as a mandate from heaven to carry out a  war against evil. 

I don't think a Paladin must be chaste. They should not be a lecher. They would be unable to live up to the ideals of Paladinhood were they a lech. A Paladin should marry and be the ideal father according to his society. That does not mean he has to be at home all the time. Fathers in that time often let their children be raised by a favored servant or another family if their duty called them elsewhere. A Paladin who had a wife and children could do the same. Most likely his sons would be raised from a young age to fight, and depending on the flavor of the world, so might his daughters. 

Paladins receive the abilities they do for a reason. I think they have to live up to the expectation of their god. A philandering Paladin would constantly be atoning for his chaotic inability to remain faithful to a woman. That really is the key...Paladins being able to understand the concept of faith more than any other class by virtue of their profession would not encourage faithlessness in their interactions with other people including women. 

People can run the game as they wish. I would not allow a Paladin to be a faithless philanderer and maintain his Paladin status. It would be revoked until he atoned.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 25, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> That really is the key...Paladins being able to understand the concept of faith more than any other class by virtue of their profession would not encourage faithlessness in their interactions with other people including women.



Who says its faithless?  If both of them know what they're getting into, then it's not necessarily faithless.

Again, this is projecting either our own culture, or at least, historical Western culture into a fantasy realm, where it may --or may not-- belong.  It's also projecting your own ideas of what a paladin is which is not supported by the rulebook, or any setting of which I know.


----------



## dontpunkme (Nov 25, 2004)

In a former campaign world I ran back in the 2e days, the lawful good knighthood (comprised of a mixture of Paladins, Fighters, Clerics, and a few Rangers and War Wizards) had strong hereditary ties.  Ancestral weapons and armor were cherished items passed down from father to son throughout the Knighthood.  The characters in one of the parties were in said knighthood and two of the characters were cousins.  I definately have never felt that paladins would shun such a natural act as procreation, but definately they would abhor infidelity.  And in all reality, warriors aren't in combat all the time, but they do spend a decent period of time being stationed somewhere (and what large knighthood doesn't have a base of operations where more experienced veteran officers wouldn't spend a great deal stationed at.  As I saw it, most of the wiser leaders would send dispaches of lower level/lesser ranked warriors off to handle the more mundane tasks (why would a 12th level General be off in the foothills hunting orcs?)  Also, eventually constant strife would take its toll on anyone (think about pro-athletes and how old they are when they peak - 30ish).  
As far as having 10 children, I see no inherant problem so long as he can balance the responsibilities (A key element to a paladin in my mind) of work and fatherhood.  Realize however, that most societies have social mores about legitimate vs illegitimate children, rules of courting, and marriage.  Being a lawful good paladin would imply that the character would strive to fulfill these expectactions and not just be a lech enjoying a high charisma.


----------



## Maldur (Nov 25, 2004)

High charisma, immune to disease and shiny armour.

Paladins are studs


----------



## Tonguez (Nov 25, 2004)

Whilst the Arioi of Tahiti probably don't fit the DnD concept of good (their practice of infanticide definately paints them evil) they were highly disciplined (Lawful) and are an example of a group of religious functionaries whose doctrine called on them to have wonton sex!

It is possible that a Paladin could follow a fertility god who's sacraments include taking the virginity of all the young maidens so that the blessing of the diety be upon them and any resulting children (who are raised by their maternal families and consider blessed). I know of a number of legends which tell of visaiting dieties fathering children (who went on to become kings) this could be the same thing but more formalised in a fantasy world where the diety really does manifest in the virile member of its paladin!

Now thats my kind of Paladinhood baby


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Nov 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Who says its faithless?  If both of them know what they're getting into, then it's not necessarily faithless.



It is faithless.  Just because it's an agreed-upon faithlessness doesn't make it any less so.  The paladin will not be faithful to that woman, nor will the woman be faithful to him.  There may not be _harm_ in it, but that's not the point.







> Again, this is projecting either our own culture, or at least, historical Western culture into a fantasy realm, where it may --or may not-- belong.  It's also projecting your own ideas of what a paladin is which is not supported by the rulebook, or any setting of which I know.



As far as I know, this thread has nothing to do with rules support or setting support.  It's here in General Discussion, not Rules.  As such, I largely agree with what Celtavian posted.

Yes, those views, and my agreement with them, are founded on the Western understanding of an archtype based on a Western, Christian even, medieval concept.  The Holy Knight.  Saint George, Galahad, etc. etc.  That doesn't invalidate such views in the slightest.  Indeed, since that was AFAIK the archtype the paladin was _based_ on, it could even be argued that it's the _only_ valid view.  (Though I won't argue that. )

For me, Celtavian hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Gez (Nov 25, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Poor guy better hope he hasn't taken a Vow of Poverty or his Paladining days may be over.




On the other hand, how do you think they can keep their Vow of Poverty, with all the mad phat lewt they get from slaying dragons and rescuing princesses?



			
				ptolemy18 said:
			
		

> I will say that, historically, one of the reasons that Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry and have kids is this: it kept positions in the church from becoming an inherited thing like positions in the nobility. By bringing in new people from outside the church, the church kept its clergy "fresh" and ensured that (theoretically) new clergy would be chosen based on merit and ability, rather than just because their father was a member of the clergy. In that way, it was one of the few things in the Medieval world which was open to everybody (if you were male, that is).




Actually, that's false. The real reason was to one-up the Orthodox priests. IIRC, Paul said something to the effect that it's nifty-keen to stay celibate, but that not everybody have the needed resolve for that. But it doesn't matter because it was also nifty-keen to be married, as long as you stayed faithful. ("Be the man of only one wife" or something like that.) So Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, as were Catholic priests. Until the Catholics decided to tell the Orthodox "we're purer and more resolverish than you, ah!" and forbad their priests to marry.


----------



## Turanil (Nov 25, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> ... I saw nothing in the rules requiring chastity from a paladin – male or female – and I have been playing since early 1E days.
> 
> Does anybody agree or disagree with me?




Something must be made clear: celibacy is different from chastity. Paladins are not required to be either.There is no reason they should be; to begin with, paladins aren't priests, then there are priests who can marry and have children. 

My idea of it, is that paladins are responsible, and care for others. This is the main point. As such, a paladin will not risk putting a girl pregnant (or even just "break her heart"), then leave to never come back. However, he could make love with an adventurer companion if he knows there won't be bad consequences. Similarly, a paladin could marry and have children, but only if he honestly think he will be able to take care of them, not be called on duty and die on a distant battlefield. So, for the latter reason very few paladins will marry, and few will also have love / sex affairs. 

Henceforth there is nothing wrong with a paladin having sex and getting children, as long as it is made with love, and everything is done to prevent any suffering that could result from it.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 25, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> So Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, as were Catholic priests. Until the Catholics decided to tell the Orthodox "we're purer and more resolverish than you, ah!" and forbad their priests to marry.




Hmm, interesting.  Until when where Catholic priests allowed to marry?

And Gez beat me to it; Orthodox priests can marry, as I would imagine the priests of many of other branches of Christianity.


----------



## Turanil (Nov 25, 2004)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> Many of the paladins in the world I'm playing in right now are members of an order that heavily emphasises sex and openness with the body...




It's refreshing to hear someone who doesn't seem to be awash with bigot stereotypes. Phewwww...


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 25, 2004)

I played a polygamist paladin once. Several wives and children all of which he left behind to take his religion to the farest corners of the world. Obviously being thousands of miles away they didn't come into play much.

He also had no problem killing helpless prisoners if their crimes warranted it. Since in he came from a theocracy and was in commune with his god and thus effectively a judge and one of the highest laws in the land.


----------



## Blue (Nov 25, 2004)

I think the "chaste knight" has a lot of real world historical, legendary and religious overtones.  The Knights of the Round Table, among the most common role-models for paladins, were seemed chaste.

However, much of this goes back to real-world religions.  The religion in whatever world you are in may or may not have traditions of celebacy for their paladins and clerics, and may be something to talk to the DM about.

Personally, I've seen caste paladins.  I've also run a swashbuckling paladin who had a number of suitors (and lead to marriage) and seen an in-game romance between two PC paladins that lead to marriage.

What I haven't seen it many wanton sow-their-wild-oats paladins, but that to me is more an aspect fo their lawfulness then anything else.

It's amusing how often paladins are expected to be chaste but without a corresponding tradition for the clergy of the same religion.  That's a DM who needs to examine exactly what they want.

Cheers,
=Blue


----------



## Turanil (Nov 25, 2004)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> It is possible that a Paladin could follow a fertility god who's sacraments include taking the virginity of all the young maidens so that the blessing of the diety be upon them and any resulting children (who are raised by their maternal families and consider blessed). I know of a number of legends which tell of visaiting dieties fathering children (who went on to become kings) this could be the same thing but more formalised in a fantasy world where the diety really does manifest in the virile member of its paladin!




I like this too.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 25, 2004)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> It is possible that a Paladin could follow a fertility god who's sacraments include taking the virginity of all the young maidens so that the blessing of the diety be upon them and any resulting children (who are raised by their maternal families and consider blessed).




Actually they don't even need to be raised by their maternal families, they could be just be handed over to the church and raised by the church to become temple guards, priest or paladins. Can you imagine the military strength such a religion could wield?


----------



## sword-dancer (Nov 25, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> However, could an argument also be made that a truly pious paladin should “be fruitful and multiply”?  Do not some real world religions basically encourage child birth to increase the size of their respective flocks?  Yes, I know they try to convert non-believers, too.




I consider it a "cultural thing", some cultures `ve strong views about sex and children outside of marriage, others don`t or given a damn.
A child is a child is a child, and theire is no stigma for a unmarried woman with child, mybe he would only inherit from the mothers side and not from his stepfathers side OTOH, his stepfather would be expected to raise him as his own.
Also it would be expected from his father to care for  him as good as it is possible for him, even his stepmother wouldn`t be expected to`ve noPoint with that.
Also in this cultures their is family and kin(both sides), if they seen him as part of the family and the society put no Stigma on this who cares. 

If their is stigma by this, that is another Thing, then the Pally should be chaste, for the sake of responsibilities.



			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> You have lots of time on your hands, eh?
> 
> Any children the Paladin might father would be raised without a father figure. Can't slay evil and come home every night at 5:00 PM.



in some cultures family and Kin raises children, especially when the parents´ve other duties to fulfill.


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 25, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting.  Until when where Catholic priests allowed to marry?
> 
> And Gez beat me to it; Orthodox priests can marry, as I would imagine the priests of many of other branches of Christianity.




I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think when the Protestants broke off (name escapes me this morning pre-coffee), Catholics suddenly decided to become 'more pure' - no more priests marrying, no more gay marriage, and the like.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 25, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> It is faithless.  Just because it's an agreed-upon faithlessness doesn't make it any less so.  The paladin will not be faithful to that woman, nor will the woman be faithful to him.  There may not be _harm_ in it, but that's not the point.As far as I know, this thread has nothing to do with rules support or setting support.  It's here in General Discussion, not Rules.  As such, I largely agree with what Celtavian posted.



And yet the rules; i.e., the alignment and "paladin code" are clearly part of the issue.  This thread has everything to do with the rules, because it's asking if such a creature as a sexually active paladin is supportable.  

As for faithfulness (or lack thereof) it's a bit misleading to say it's faithless of the paladin to have "casual" sex, as faith has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.


			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Yes, those views, and my agreement with them, are founded on the Western understanding of an archtype based on a Western, Christian even, medieval concept.  The Holy Knight.  Saint George, Galahad, etc. etc.  That doesn't invalidate such views in the slightest.  Indeed, since that was AFAIK the archtype the paladin was *based* on, it could even be argued that it's the *only* valid view.  (Though I won't argue that. )



Good.  Because I think that's an argument you'd likely quickly lose.    The Sir Galahad interpretation of the paladin doesn't work exactly as is, because Sir Galahad, as interpreted by Sir Thomas Mallory (the "standard" version of him) is a specifically Catholic mythology.  Out of context, his chastity (or celibacy; take your pick) doesn't make sense.

So unless your paladins exist in a setting that feature heavily Medieval Catholic values and beliefs, the paladin as Sir Galahad is an anachronism.  Since I'd bet most paladins actually pray to Heironeous or some such fictional god, who's views on sexuality are unknown, or exist in a setting such as the Forgotten Realms, which are much closer to modern liberalism in tone and values than 14th century England, having paladins that closely resemble Sir Galahad doesn't really make much sense.

Also, so narrowly defining the class is a big problem as well from a roleplaying and character development standpoint.  If there's only one way to play a paladin, you do it once, maybe, and then what's the encore?  Unless it's literally your favorite archetype to play, you simply don't ever play paladins again, is my guess.


----------



## Gez (Nov 25, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting.  Until when where Catholic priests allowed to marry?




IIRC, until the second Lateran Council, in 1139.


----------



## Cithindril (Nov 25, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Actually, that's false. The real reason was to one-up the Orthodox priests. IIRC, Paul said something to the effect that it's nifty-keen to stay celibate, but that not everybody have the needed resolve for that. But it doesn't matter because it was also nifty-keen to be married, as long as you stayed faithful. ("Be the man of only one wife" or something like that.) So Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, as were Catholic priests. Until the Catholics decided to tell the Orthodox "we're purer and more resolverish than you, ah!" and forbad their priests to marry.




Actually that's false...the reason was both spiritual and practical (the inheritance of church property to the son of a priest due to the customs of the day being the chief one).  However, I don't see how attacks or critiques of the RCC have anything to do with RPG's specifically or generally    ...why not stay on topic and discuss the fantasy character class


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 25, 2004)

As I see the issue with Paladins, the "archetypal" D&D pally should probably be both chaste and celibate, to imagine that the life of paladinhood implies total devotion (and therefore shouldn't have family duties to "distract" them from their life quest) and lack of bias towards some individual (shouldn't have a relationship, otherwise they may put the beloved one over the needs of others).

Incidentally, these are also the reasons I heard many times (when I was a child and went to the catholic church to learn religion) about why catholic priests and nuns shouldn't marry, shouldn't have a relationship, and shouldn't have intercourse - although I don't know the exact vows. The reason is that they would not be able to (1) attend full duties to their "life mission" and (2) treat all the people with the same love and care - because they would have partners and/or children and it would be much more difficult not to love those more.

Anyway, I don't like stereotypes very much. In early D&D days (for me), when classes were very rigid and basically all represented kind of archetypes, it was actually very interesting to have an extremely standardized paladin. Nowadays I can barely stand to see another pally played this way (not because it doesn't work, just because I expect something more original), and usually I point out to the players that the Paladin character idea can be extended to that of a holy warrior*, which can be very different for each deity in the setting. I still think the paladin / holy warrior should be very dedicated to its mission (as is a cleric by the way), whatever code of conducts it actually implies.

So in my campaigns it's pretty simple and open: if you want to play a Paladin you're encouraged to make up your code of conduct according to your faith. I'd probably expect celibacy to be one of the most common points in those codes (chastity much less common however, even less than abstinence from alcohol for example).

*Going even further, this may mean to allow paladin variants of other alignments, but that's going too far from this thread... just want to mention that those would need a code of conduct too!


----------



## Cithindril (Nov 25, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> So in my campaigns it's pretty simple and open: if you want to play a Paladin you're encouraged to make up your code of conduct according to your faith. I'd probably expect celibacy to be one of the most common points in those codes (chastity much less common however, even less than abstinence from alcohol for example).




Again, probably just semantics with the different definitions of what chastity and celibacy mean.  I'm guessing you're saying that paladins in your campaign can't marry but also aren't denied sex?  In my campaigns I treat the paladin in the opposite vein...ie: he CAN marry but if so MUST be faithful (as in all things) or he loses his status..

Different strokes


----------



## DMScott (Nov 25, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> Does anybody agree or disagree with me?




It's entirely campaign dependent, rather than a rules matter. The rules and traditions of marriage and its relationship to religion vary widely among modern and ancient cultures, and so an individual campaign could have just about any approach to this question. I agree that celibate/chaste Paladins are probably the most common version, but that's because religion in most campaigns is based on thinly veiled Christian ideals.

A Paladin will most likely do what's expected of a pious LG warrior in his or her culture. If that means abstaining while they fight the good fight, then so be it. If that means having a large family, that's what they do. If it means sex is OK but a commitment like marriage can't be made, then go for it. Which fits best in a given setting is a matter between you and the DM.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 25, 2004)

A lot of people seem to be thinking, "Well, as long as the paladin's partner knows what he or she is getting into, there is no harm in being a sexually active paladin." While that would IMO satisfy the paladin's requirement to be Good, it ignores the requirement to be Lawful.

IMO, a paladin can have sexual relations, but only within marriage (or what passes for it in the paladin's culture). However, I don't think having consensual pre-marital sex would be a major sin and immediately lead to loss of paladinhood, but it is a black mark on the paladin's karma. If he does it regularly, he would be at risk from losing paladinhood. If the paladin *is* married and cheats on his wife (or husband), *that* would qualify for immediate loss, as would having sex with a woman married to another.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 25, 2004)

*re*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Who says its faithless?  If both of them know what they're getting into, then it's not necessarily faithless.




It is faithless because both of them know what they are getting into. The act of sex to a Paladin (who does not think in a modern sense) would be an act meant for propagation. That is the primary purpose of the act. A man who intends to sleep with a women risks giving that woman a child. A man who has not sworn faith to that woman risks giving her a child he has not sworn to care for and raise, making his child a bastard and his woman a whore. Would a Lawful Good Paladin do that?

Contrary to what you state Joshua, save for a few cult type religions, doing such a thing would be extremely poor to do to a woman and a child. That is not just in Western culture, but in Eastern culture as well. Sexual phlandering is looked down upon from a moral standpoint just about anywhere you go because it is bad for society on the whole for a variety of reasons from the spread of disease to bastard children. 

No Lawful Good Paladin trying to set a good example for those of his faith or society would engage in such behavior. Believe what you want, but sexual philandering is poor conduct and at the very least a chaotic act.




> Again, this is projecting either our own culture, or at least, historical Western culture into a fantasy realm, where it may --or may not-- belong.  It's also projecting your own ideas of what a paladin is which is not supported by the rulebook, or any setting of which I know.




It is projecting human culture upon it. The majority of cultures, whether they promote monagamy or polygamy, put forth marriage and faith as necessary to the relationship between men and women. Even in Communist China, women and men who engage in casual sex are not looked upon as good nor is the act looked upon as a social ideal.

You could create some religion that has sex rites, but if it is lawful it will require those sex rites be between two people devoted to each other. A Lawful Good Paladin must not only be good, but lawful, and you will never convince me that casual sex is good for society from a Lawful standpoint with so much evidence to the contrary.

Philandering is not the act of a Lawful Good upholder of the ideals of his religion. That is what Paladins are even if they follow a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good religion. They themselves represent a different branch of the religion more bent on order and proper social conduct.

As far as the rules go, this area is very mutable according to the inclinations agreed upon by the DM and the players. There is nothing written in stone that says a DM can't nix a Paladin's paladinhood for philandering and there is nothing that directly states a Paladin must be chaste. 

In my world, the Lawful aspect of a Paladin's alignment would be suspect if he were a philanderer. I would make him atone for overly indulging his sexual appetites, just like if he drank or ate too much. I hold Paladin's to high standards. They are the paragon's of their religion according to their god, and they must set the standard others must live up to, otherwise they mine as well just be a fighter.

Anyhow, a Paladin who lost his status because of philandering would be an interesting character. Kind of like Launcelot who could not obtain the Holy Grail because of his relationship with Guinevere. He was still the best fighter in the land, but his soul was tarnished by his adulterous love for his best friend's wife. A man who sleeps around and cannot control himself could find himself in many, many bad situations, as is oft the case for philanderous men. That could lead to many strange social events and alot quests for atonement, not to mention some son or daughter showing up later looking for daddy.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 25, 2004)

Celtavian, you really should read your post again.  The fairly thinly veiled Judeo-Christian Western bias is showing through very strongly.  You may think that those cultural mores are inherent in human behavior, but you'd be wrong, and you show that you have little experience with cultural anthropology or history for stating such.  Even a casual glance would show that you can come up with all kinds of alternate cultural mores, because people have literally done so over and over again.

There's no problem with that; I'm a Judeo-Christian westerner myself, who personally believes very strongly in chastity (not celibacy!) but I'm not trying to mandate that my fantasy settings and characters match my real-world cultural outlook.  In fact, I tend to like that they don't.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 25, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> I was thinking about this the other day. The stereotypical image of a paladin is the chaste Sir Galahad. But, that kind of bothered me, as I saw nothing in the rules requiring chastity from a paladin – male or female – and I have been playing since early 1E days. However, it seems that the DMs I have played with over the years seem to naturally assume this to be the case.



That's because many GM's and players assume the standard kinda-Puritan mindset ususally seen in bad adaptations of Arthurian tales. I've played paladins that were anything but chaste (and frequently chased, with that 17 CHA) and saw no conflict with any code the GM chose to present. I've played a couple where the code the GM provided did require it, and just sort of accepted it. Usually that was one of those 'we want to see if you're really going to obey us when things get inconvenient' laws of the code or a 'I want to make sure you obey me in the little things as well as the big things' decree from the deity/angel the paladin order reveered.

As long as there is no chance (usually through magic or herbalism) of getting some village girl pregnant with a child she can't support or getting some village boy run out of town for 'unnatural acts', and as long as whatever encounters he has are with people that want it in return, I see no conflict and no requirement for chastity.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 25, 2004)

NewJeffCTHome said:
			
		

> I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think when the Protestants broke off (name escapes me this morning pre-coffee), Catholics suddenly decided to become 'more pure' - no more priests marrying, no more gay marriage, and the like.




No.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 25, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> That's because many GM's and players assume the standard kinda-Puritan mindset ususally seen in bad adaptations of Arthurian tales.




Galahad and the idea of the chaste knight far predate Puritanism.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 25, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> So Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, as were Catholic priests. Until the Catholics decided to tell the Orthodox "we're purer and more resolverish than you, ah!" and forbad their priests to marry.




No. Enforced celibacy in the West predates the Catholic-Orthodox split. Besides which, it is my understanding that Orthodox _bishops_ must be celibate (I don't know when that was first implemented, though).


----------



## Harmon (Nov 25, 2004)

Four pallys over the years sense 3e have been played or NPCed.

My NPC is a rog/ftr turned pally in her last level, she was a slut until she hear the calling of Heironeous (she was always a follower, just didn't hear the calling) in any case that level was her last because the campaign ended (big bad is dead).  She won't return to her ways when the campaign picks up- because I see her having changed in her ways.

Follower of Yondalla rog/pal- not had the opportunity to show his chaste-ness, but I presume that he will not follow the ways of a "good paladin."

NPC in another campaign I play in has a love interest in one of the PCs and he refuses to bow to the needs of the flesh, and seemingly requires it of his love interest (she's a TN rogue).  Marriage appears to be the only way that he will be getting any.

The last- not so sure as its played by another player and social stuff seems lacking with that character- no real opportunity for it beyond hte group.

All in all it seems to be what kind of god do you follow- what do you think this god would require?

As for real world chaste-ness, please keep an eye on the news.


----------



## Harmon (Nov 25, 2004)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> No.




Would you care to expand on this?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 25, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> It is faithless because both of them know what they are getting into. The act of sex to a Paladin (who does not think in a modern sense) would be an act meant for propagation. That is the primary purpose of the act. A man who intends to sleep with a women risks giving that woman a child. A man who has not sworn faith to that woman risks giving her a child he has not sworn to care for and raise, making his child a bastard and his woman a whore. Would a Lawful Good Paladin do that?




It's true they might not think in a Modern Sense, but they also don't think in a Dark Ages sense either. D&D worlds are magic for starters, technological advances are going to take a back seat to magic, but the mindsets evolve at their own paces. A paladin of Sune could very well be a philandering type, so long as his relationships were thought out and truthful. As long as both parties are aware and know what will happen.

Such a relationship does not remove the paladin from responsibilities should there be a problem or child. If there are social consequences of the child then he should be aware of them and it would factor into his decision.

That leads to the question of whether Paladins can divorce if such is lawful and part of the society he's in. Could an elven paladin remarry if his wife died?

Also, it seems a female paladin would have it easier under such a situation you present.

Paladins shouldn't be sex-free, since heriditary knighthoods are more fun than banning them. And if a paladin can't succubus dance, how will he gain levels? Eating wraith corpses gets tedious after a while!


----------



## shilsen (Nov 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Celtavian, you really should read your post again.  The fairly thinly veiled Judeo-Christian Western bias is showing through very strongly.  You may think that those cultural mores are inherent in human behavior, but you'd be wrong, and you show that you have little experience with cultural anthropology or history for stating such.  Even a casual glance would show that you can come up with all kinds of alternate cultural mores, because people have literally done so over and over again.
> 
> There's no problem with that; I'm a Judeo-Christian westerner myself, who personally believes very strongly in chastity (not celibacy!) but I'm not trying to mandate that my fantasy settings and characters match my real-world cultural outlook.  In fact, I tend to like that they don't.



 I was going to respond to Celtavian's last post and point out the preconceptions he's working with, but then I read yours. Thanks


----------



## Umbran (Nov 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yes, and in many European cultures, children were raised by uncles, or godfathers, or all kinds of other arrangements.




Yes, but I see a minor issue with that - it is an example of the Paladin giving up responsibility for his own actions.  That's his child, and his responsibility.  If there's one thing paladins are supposed to do is act responsibly and not hurt innocents, right?  Should he be allowed to go away and just hope that someone else is going to take care of it?   

I'd think not.  Rather, I'd imagine that he'd really have to make darned sure that any child was going to be as well cared for as possible.  If this is within a marriage, it's not too hard.  As I understand it the traditional role of the godfather and godmother was exactly that - taking care of the child if you passed on.  Make sure the godparents are solid, make sure there's funding, and you are golden.  But a travelling, philandering paladin is goign to risk leaving behind babies who may not be well cared for.  

Does the name Modred mean anything to folks here?  He's what happens when paladins don't make sure their kids are cared for properly  

Even if they are well cared for, you have the risk from the evil doers that the paladin fights.  Have a kid, dont watch over him closely, and Dr. Evil comes along and nabs the kid to use as leverage.  What's the paladin to do then?  

Not that this means paladins can't do the thing.  Just that they ought to be thinking long and hard about it before making babies, fertility deity or no.


----------



## sword-dancer (Nov 25, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'd think not.  Rather, I'd imagine that he'd really have to make darned sure that any child was going to be as well cared for as possible. .




I thought my post should`ve covered that one. 


> Even if they are well cared for, you have the risk from the evil doers that the paladin fights.  Have a kid, dont watch over him closely, and Dr. Evil comes along and nabs the kid to use as leverage.  What's the paladin to do then?



 Wrong Question!
What is EVERY Paladin and their churches in these area at least going to do then, who hadn`t really most pressuring Matters on Hand?
Dr Evil has become Target Nr 1!
There is NO rathole on the world you and ANY of your Henchman could hope to escape, hide or whatsoever!


----------



## Tonguez (Nov 25, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> It is faithless because both of them know what they are getting into. The act of sex to a Paladin (who does not think in a modern sense) would be an act meant for propagation. That is the primary purpose of the act.
> .




1. Paladins are a rare anfd specific group of religious functionaries not just everyman in society (ie they are not held to the same standards as common folk)

2. In Polynesian societies chastity is expected for married spouses however prior to marriage sexual experimentation is allowed (which is why those 18th Century sailors (and Gaugan (sp)) created the myth of the Isles of Paradise)

3. As I stated earlier Areoi were dedicated and disciplined (Lawful) religious functionaries whose sacraments demanded they have wonton sex

4. Sex does not neccesarily result in childbirth. In the Trobiands pregnancy was said to  resultswhen a spirit of the ancestors enters the womans womb and grows to become a new child 

Anyway the point is learn a bit more about different cultures before making sweeping statements

see Trobiand Islands. 



> “the fundamental principal that shapes Trobriander’s ideas about matrilineal identity revolves around the belief that conception occurs through women and their ancestral spirits.  In this way, each infant born is both physically and socially identified with a particular matrilineage to which its mother and not its father belongs.” (page 56)  The Trobrianders believe that when death occurs, the spirit of the dead goes to the island of Tuma and becomes once again youthful, where it again grows old. When it becomes feeble, the spirit baths in seawater and takes on the form of a waiwaia, also known as “infant” or “fetus”. This spirit then enters a woman’s body and creates pregnancy.  It chooses to enter the body of a woman of the same matrilineage, and the born child is always named after a previously deceased member of the woman’s family.  This shows strong ties in the ancestral connections of the Trobrianders.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 25, 2004)

While Paladin sexual continence is a whole separate issue, I find myself siding with Umbran here. There are various religious or at least quasi-religious figures who indeed have had children by multiple women for some higher purpose, like Brigham Young or Ibn Saud but none of them fits into the crusader archetype the Paladin is supposed to represent. In 1e, I remember that there were strict limits on Paladins' material acquisitions so as to prevent them from settling down and founding established organizations like what the original poster describes. 

If I were GMing a powerful paladin, I would probably require that the character begin taking levels in a new class like Fighter or Cleric if he wanted to do something like this. It would not necessarily entail an abandonment of his former religious or political ideals, however; it would simply change how they were put into practice.

In the one campaign I GMed that contained a paladin, the all paladins were members of a holy order associated with the imperial government; only homosexuals were allowed to join... kind of like the de facto situation with parts of the Catholic church from time to time.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 25, 2004)

On the subject of paladin sexual continence, a few points:

Just as if we were talking about how monks are played I would be basing my statements on Chinese and Indian-inspired myth traditions, obviously, here I'm sticking pretty much to the Christian and Islamic worlds. 

In most stories of paladin-type figures, there is always a moment of temptation where he does, to a greater or lesser degree, lust carnally after a woman. It seems reasonable, then, to assume that paladins sometimes lapse or fall from their high ideal, even if they return to their former chaste existence (after performing the appropriate penance). Given how noble paladins are, and how inevitably fertile the chaste and pure women they fall for are, it seems likely there will be a few bastard children kicking around being raised by relatives or patrons probably without knowing the identity of their real father. 

I think a GM has more leeway in looking at same-sex relations by paladins; but even then, I think establishing a household with his sexual partner would not be an option. And in all likelihood, same-sex relations would be approached, at best, in the manner of the US military.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 25, 2004)

I have difficulty visualizing paladins as anything but chaste and celibate.  There devotion to their god is supposed to be absolute while casual sex wont necesarrily put something in a paladins life that superseds or infringes on his devotion, love and marriage would.  And casual sex at least would be seen as dangerous territory. I'm sure I can come up with some religions where sex is viewed as an act of devotion to a god, but chances are all of those religions I'd place as chaotic.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 25, 2004)

Turanil said:
			
		

> It's refreshing to hear someone who doesn't seem to be awash with bigot stereotypes. Phewwww...




this is pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle.


----------



## Turanil (Nov 25, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> this is pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle.




And this one:

In a world full of mimics, beholders, modrons, and elven druids siding with shaolin monks, I propose:

1) An order of LG gay paladins. Sex and love is good for body and soul. However, since they don't have time for raising families and are responsible (no women left pregnant here and there), the paladins of this order make love among themselves. So, no risk of problematic outcomes.

2) An order of LE (Unearthed Arcana variant) paladins. They must remain chaste and celibate for the two reasons of suffering in glory of their evil god, and above all because sexual frustration is so good for increasing one's agressiveness and lust for violence.

3) Galahad? Who's that? A halfling cook?


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 26, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I have difficulty visualizing paladins as anything but chaste and celibate.  There devotion to their god is supposed to be absolute while casual sex wont necesarrily put something in a paladins life that superseds or infringes on his devotion, love and marriage would.




No, it wouldn't.

Assume you are married and you have a son do you love your wife less? No. If anything you'ld love her more.

If you have a second child does love you have for that first son, have to get divided up with this next child? Of course not.

Now you love your god with all your heart and he blesses you with a wife and children, do you suddenly love your god less? Or at you in fact more devoted to a god that blesses you with such a wonder wife and children?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 26, 2004)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> No, it wouldn't.
> 
> Assume you are married and you have a son do you love your wife less? No. If anything you'ld love her more.
> 
> ...




sure and what do you do when a situation comes up where the best thing to do for your family is different than what is for your god.  With a family you more often than not get to decide what is best for your family overall not just for one or the other, and if you do somehting that is best for the kids but is detrimental to the wife chances are she's with you on this.  The same thing can't be said for the love for a family and a god.  Your gods goals and needs are completely separate than that of your families.  

So yes it would get in the way of your devotion and fairly frequently I suspect.  Heck in normal life without crazed cultists bent on world domination which only you can stop your job can interfere with your family and your family can interfere with your job.  And last time I checked my job doesn't require total devotion, but then again I don't work for a 80's movie japanese company in a dark future.


----------



## Cithindril (Nov 26, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> only homosexuals were allowed to join...kind of like the de facto situation with parts of the Catholic church from time to time.




I was right there with you until this last parting shot...is it possible to have a discussion on this topic without the religious attacks?


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 26, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I have difficulty visualizing paladins as anything but chaste and celibate.  There devotion to their god is supposed to be absolute while casual sex wont necesarrily put something in a paladins life that superseds or infringes on his devotion, love and marriage would.  And casual sex at least would be seen as dangerous territory. I'm sure I can come up with some religions where sex is viewed as an act of devotion to a god, but chances are all of those religions I'd place as chaotic.




Again, when I made my original post, nowhere did I say that the paladin engaged in casual sex or was a philanderer.  I specifically mentioned> "My thought was that would not a male paladin be true to his religion by fathering 10 or more children with a devout follower of his own L/G religion?"<  That was with a devout follower of his own L/G religion, not innocent farm girls in every village that he comes across.


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 26, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If I were GMing a powerful paladin, I would probably require that the character begin taking levels in a new class like Fighter or Cleric if he wanted to do something like this. It would not necessarily entail an abandonment of his former religious or political ideals, however; it would simply change how they were put into practice.




I recall 1E, and I think paladins were required to tithe 20% of their earnings to their church.  Perhaps this goes towards taking care of the paladin's children?

Again, in some cultures, if the parents directly take care of the baby, they are not doing right by the baby in the long term... the parents are more likely in the primes of their lives and can therefore plow a bit more of the field as a farmer or earn a few extra coppers as a tailor or whatnot when they are in their 20s and 30s.  (In modern times, this translates into the best time to advance your career...) The grandparents, being older, may not be able to toil 16 hours a day on the farm like they used to, so taking care of baby is the best way they can contribute.  The parents can go out & spend their 16 hours a day on the farm and be secure in their knowledge that their baby is in safe hands, while the grandparents know that their grandchild may do a little bit better than them because they are allowing the parents time to plant a few more crops, earn a few more coppers, hunt down that pack of ghouls terrorizing the neighboring town or whatnot.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 26, 2004)

NewJeffCTHome said:
			
		

> I recall 1E, and I think paladins were required to tithe 20% of their earnings to their church.  Perhaps this goes towards taking care of the paladin's children?




No. The money is specifically directed to the paladin's church.



> Again, in some cultures, if the parents directly take care of the baby, they are not doing right by the baby in the long term...




I am aware of these cultures. They tend to be cultures that have retained the vestiges of a clan system with extended families but I don't see how this is relevant to what I am saying. I am not making a statement about whether a paladin has the resources to have his children taken care of; indeed, you'll notice that in my post I suggest how a paladin who did end up with children would have them cared-for. 

Whether a paladin has the resources to care for children is irrelevant. The question is: does the archetypal chivalric holy warrior have licit kids? And I think the answer is pretty clearly "no." The ideals on which this class is based are antithetical to family formation. 



> the parents are more likely in the primes of their lives and can therefore plow a bit more of the field as a farmer or earn a few extra coppers as a tailor or whatnot when they are in their 20s and 30s.  (In modern times, this translates into the best time to advance your career...) The grandparents, being older, may not be able to toil 16 hours a day on the farm like they used to, so taking care of baby is the best way they can contribute.  The parents can go out & spend their 16 hours a day on the farm and be secure in their knowledge that their baby is in safe hands, while the grandparents know that their grandchild may do a little bit better than them because they are allowing the parents time to plant a few more crops, earn a few more coppers, hunt down that pack of ghouls terrorizing the neighboring town or whatnot.




I don't really picture a successful paladin as an integrated part of peasant society. Even if their origins are humble, and I think you'll find that most of these figures have aristocratic origins even if juxtaposed with rustic beginnings, becoming paladins effectively makes them part of courtly society. So while technically true, I don't think the arguments you make are really engaging what I was talking about.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 26, 2004)

*re*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Celtavian, you really should read your post again.  The fairly thinly veiled Judeo-Christian Western bias is showing through very strongly.  You may think that those cultural mores are inherent in human behavior, but you'd be wrong, and you show that you have little experience with cultural anthropology or history for stating such.  Even a casual glance would show that you can come up with all kinds of alternate cultural mores, because people have literally done so over and over again.




I read it. I know that many Eastern cultures do the same. It is not just Judeo-Christian. You are wrong. If you want to start bringing tribal cultures into this, then I will argue that they don't even possess Paladins.

If you want to discuss things like Roman culture, I can prove that they held virginity in the highest esteem. If you want to discuss Eastern culture, there are many relgions that hold chastity/celibacy as necessary for purity of the body. The argument can go on and on. 

Ultimately, the Lawful component when combined with the Good component will make a philandering Paladin suspect in his faith. 






> There's no problem with that; I'm a Judeo-Christian westerner myself, who personally believes very strongly in chastity (not celibacy!) but I'm not trying to mandate that my fantasy settings and characters match my real-world cultural outlook.  In fact, I tend to like that they don't.




I'm not. One of the reasons why I stated what I did. Hindu, Muslim, several of the Eastern philosophies such as Daoism and Confucianism, and several offshoots religions view casual sexual intercourse as detrimental to the spiritual well-being of the individuals for a variety of reasons. The more you search past cultures, you will find the strong trend of pushing marriage upon men and women. 

There are obvious examples of legal philandering in just about every culture. Such behavior was hardly held up as the ideal, and often indulged by the wealthy classes over the less wealthy whom they treated almost like slaves. 

If you would like to cite specific examples of what you are talking about culturally, I am almost assured that you will fail to find a culture that would have Paladins or where sexual philandering wasn't based on class and wealth. I would love to see this list.


----------



## Gez (Nov 26, 2004)

I'll be repeating myself.

If you want to break the "chaste paladin" stereotype, read up Three Hearts and Three Lions. This book was the seminal inspiration for the D&D paladin (down to the special stallion and the cure disease ability), and the paladin here wasn't especially under a vow of chastity... He wasn't womanizing or promiscuous either, though.

This passage illustrates it best:

The real trouble was her own attitude toward him. Damn it, he did not want to compromise himself with her. A romp in the hay with someone like Meriven or Morgan was one thing. Alianora was something else. An affair with her wouldn’t be good for either party, when he meant to leave this world the first chance he got. But she made it hard for him to remain a gentleman. She was so shyly and pathetically hoping for an affair.​
(Alianora, by the way, was the prototype of the Swanmay.)

There. The first D&D Paladin (who met the first D&D Gnome, the first D&D Swanmay, and the first D&D Troll) had no problems at all indulging in casual sex, like he did during the party at the elven castle.

However, he cares about feeling. That Meriven gal was a fickle elven lass, only interested in casual sex as well, so not a problem. Alianora, though, is in love -- and as our paladin do not want to stay in this world but to come back to the one he calls home, he doesn't want to break the girl's heart when he'll leave.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 26, 2004)

Cithindril said:
			
		

> I was right there with you until this last parting shot...is it possible to have a discussion on this topic without the religious attacks?




Sorry you're upset here but I was not attacking your religious doctrine. I was simply pointing out an historical reality. I used to attend a Roman Catholic traditionalist weekly discussion group run by two priests ordained to perform services in Latin in the Tridentine rite. These men were deeply conservative individuals who were profoundly committed to opposing abortion, homosexuality and birth control. 

But when we were discussing the Episcopalians' consecration of an openly gay bishop, both priests conceded that this man was, by no means, the first openly gay individual who had been consecrated to an episcopal see. Indeed, they agreed that, in the past, their church had probably consecrated more such bishops than have any Protestant churches. These individuals could easily disentangle their ideals, goals and theology from the sweep of the 1900+ year history of the Christian church. 

I have a deep respect for your Roman Catholic beliefs and theological position. I am sorry that your interpretation of my post led you to construe otherwise.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 26, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> I'll be repeating myself.
> 
> If you want to break the "chaste paladin" stereotype, read up Three Hearts and Three Lions. This book was the seminal inspiration for the D&D paladin (down to the special stallion and the cure disease ability), and the paladin here wasn't especially under a vow of chastity... He wasn't womanizing or promiscuous either, though.




Roland and Veillantif are the inspiration for the D&D paladin's special mount, and Galahad healing the "Maimed King" Pellam is the inspiration for the remove disease ability (at least by my reckoning).


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 26, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Sorry you're upset here but I was not attacking your religious doctrine. I was simply pointing out an historical reality. I used to attend a Roman Catholic traditionalist weekly discussion group run by two priests ordained to perform services in Latin in the Tridentine rite. These men were deeply conservative individuals who were profoundly committed to opposing abortion, homosexuality and birth control.
> 
> But when we were discussing the Episcopalians' consecration of an openly gay bishop, both priests conceded that this man was, by no means, the first openly gay individual who had been consecrated to an episcopal see. Indeed, they agreed that, in the past, their church had probably consecrated more such bishops than have any Protestant churches. These individuals could easily disentangle their ideals, goals and theology from the sweep of the 1900+ year history of the Christian church.
> 
> I have a deep respect for your Roman Catholic beliefs and theological position. I am sorry that your interpretation of my post led you to construe otherwise.




All true. 

Fusangite used to live with me, and the opinions he is citing are genuine.


----------



## Gez (Nov 26, 2004)

[url=http://www.geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html]Aardy R. DeVarque[/url] said:
			
		

> According to p. 224 of the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide, the following are among the books and authors that were of particular inspiration to Gary Gygax in the creation of D&D. According to Mr. Gygax, de Camp & Pratt, Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H.P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt had some of the most direct influences on the direction of the game, and the others in the list had a lesser influence. Since the list was created in part to dispel the belief that D&D was based primarily and almost solely on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, and shortly after the Tolkien estate had accused TSR of copyright infringement, Tolkien's name was intentionally left off of that short list. Even a cursory reading of de Camp, Howard, Leiber, Vance, Lovecraft, and Merritt admittedly show as great or greater influences on D&D as Tolkien, but Tolkien definitely should have also been mentioned with those.[1] Here is the list presented in the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide.
> 
> 
> Anderson, Poul. Three Hearts and Three Lions; The High Crusade; The Broken Sword
> ...




And here's the excerpt of 3H3L where our Paladin met his warsteed:


			
				Poul Anderson said:
			
		

> No, another sound. He tensed before recognizing the neigh of a horse. That made him feel better. There must be a farm nearby. His legs were steady enough now that he could push through a screen of withes to find the horse.
> 
> When he did, he stopped dead. “No,” he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 26, 2004)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> Wrong Question!
> What is EVERY Paladin and their churches in these area at least going to do then, who hadn`t really most pressuring Matters on Hand?
> Dr Evil has become Target Nr 1!
> There is NO rathole on the world you and ANY of your Henchman could hope to escape, hide or whatsoever!




This is Dr. Evil, and these are paladins.  The paladins were _already_ sworn to wipe him off the planet.  It isn't like the paladins were going to be willing to let his nasty evil ways pass if he hadn't grabbed the kid.  Like now they're "double dog" sworn to kill him or something? 

This also assumes that paladins are commonplace enough and set up as a single organized and communicating force.  Where I come from, there aren't too many people willing to be paladins.  That's part of what makes them special.  And being rare, each one is busy with his own fighting of evil, and probably cannot afford to drop what he's doing and ride across the country to help.   

And, it isn't as if Dr. Evil hasn't said, "Come alone!  If I see or hear of any of your paladin buddies coming, Timmy dies!"


----------



## reanjr (Nov 26, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> I was thinking about this the other day.  The stereotypical image of a paladin is the chaste Sir Galahad.  But, that kind of bothered me, as I saw nothing in the rules requiring chastity from a paladin – male or female – and I have been playing since early 1E days.  However, it seems that the DMs I have played with over the years seem to naturally assume this to be the case.
> 
> However, could an argument also be made that a truly pious paladin should “be fruitful and multiply”?  Do not some real world religions basically encourage child birth to increase the size of their respective flocks?  Yes, I know they try to convert non-believers, too.




Here's an argument:

It is an accident of history that Catholic priests are celibate.  Paul was the only disciple of Christ that promoted celibacy, and he offered it simply as a suggestion to those who would devote themselves to Christ.  Peter (the first pope of the Catholic church - if you accept that) was actually married.  Somewhere down the line the church decided on celibacy.

The term paladin, of course, refers to Charlemagne's paladins, though our current ideal of the paladin, as you said, seems to stem more from Arthurian legend.  Both are steeped in Christian (Catholic) mindset, even if Arthurian legend also adds paganistic ideas.  But since any idea of celibacy from either of these groups (the inspiration for the D&D paladin, and I don't think Charlemagne's paldins were celibate anyway) is based on a confused doctrine from the Catholic church, I think it would be reasonable to assume that a D&D paladin would have no issues with intercourse or marriage.  I can see an edict against premarital relations and I would imagine a paladin's courtship ritual would be steeped in tradition and rules.

Want an even better argument?

2nd edition Complete Paladin's Handbook had over a page (I believe) on paladin courtship rules and courtly love.  Having this information would seem to me to indicate that paladins can "get in on" like the rest of us.


----------



## Sejs (Nov 26, 2004)

> That leads to the question of whether Paladins can divorce if such is lawful and part of the society he's in. Could an elven paladin remarry if his wife died?



  An aside on the elven paladin note - Michael Poe (the guy who did Exploitation Now and currently does Errant Story) has put up some nice angles on the elven lifestyle and way of thinking.  Basically what he's put forth, and I think would make a whole lot of sense, is that for elves, with their long, long lifespans yeah it would be perfectly fine.  Elven marriages on the whole don't last forever - the bride and groom are together for a time, happy as man and wife, and eventually, inevitably, they grow appart.  The novelty wears off and they no longer want to be together.  Divorce amongst elves is quite common and a well accepted facet of their society.  For them, "till death do you part" is a pretty tall order.  

Also part of what attracts elves to human mates - your human husband or wife will probably die of old age before you really get tired of one another.  You get to miss the whole downward half of that spiral.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 26, 2004)

Cithindril said:
			
		

> Again, probably just semantics with the different definitions of what chastity and celibacy mean.  I'm guessing you're saying that paladins in your campaign can't marry but also aren't denied sex?  In my campaigns I treat the paladin in the opposite vein...ie: he CAN marry but if so MUST be faithful (as in all things) or he loses his status..
> 
> Different strokes




I have to add that sex is almost never part of our games however, so no player is usually specifying what their characters are doing about that


----------



## sword-dancer (Nov 26, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> This is Dr. Evil, and these are paladins.  The paladins were _already_ sworn to wipe him off the planet.



Yes, but now it is PERSONAL, and his henchman knows that.


----------



## Cithindril (Nov 26, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Sorry you're upset here but I was not attacking your religious doctrine. I was simply pointing out an historical reality. I used to attend a Roman Catholic traditionalist weekly discussion group run by two priests ordained to perform services in Latin in the Tridentine rite. These men were deeply conservative individuals who were profoundly committed to opposing abortion, homosexuality and birth control.
> 
> But when we were discussing the Episcopalians' consecration of an openly gay bishop, both priests conceded that this man was, by no means, the first openly gay individual who had been consecrated to an episcopal see. Indeed, they agreed that, in the past, their church had probably consecrated more such bishops than have any Protestant churches. These individuals could easily disentangle their ideals, goals and theology from the sweep of the 1900+ year history of the Christian church.
> 
> I have a deep respect for your Roman Catholic beliefs and theological position. I am sorry that your interpretation of my post led you to construe otherwise.




Unfortunately, what you cite as fact is not at all true...

I'm sorry that you were so egregiously misinformed by the individuals you mentioned.  This is not the proper forum for a religious discussion but I would be happy to answer your questions somewhere that is.  I'm on the Yahoo Catholic Chat fairly frequently under the same alias if you'd like to continue the discussion.

To bring this back on-topic, I have typically based my interpretation of the Paladin class on Arthurian legend as opposed to any particular religious doctrine.  Some great food for thought by many of the posters in this thread have led me to go back and look at how much cultural bias I was subconsciously attaching to my definition.  It brings up an even wider topic: are the notions of alignment universal or can they only be relativistically described with reference to a particular culture.

Hmmmm...


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 26, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> No. The money is specifically directed to the paladin's church.
> 
> I am aware of these cultures. They tend to be cultures that have retained the vestiges of a clan system with extended families but I don't see how this is relevant to what I am saying. I am not making a statement about whether a paladin has the resources to have his children taken care of; indeed, you'll notice that in my post I suggest how a paladin who did end up with children would have them cared-for.
> 
> ...




I think we misunderstood each other.  First off, the 20% tithe to the church could be to help the church pay for raising the paladin's children.

And, when I mentioned that paladin's parents taking care of their grandchild, I had used plowing the field as an example.  However, that is not exclusive to farming.  It could be the paladin's mom or dad is a retired paladin and is now staying at home to raise the grandchildren while junior paladin goes out & slays evil.

And, these cultures that send children off to be raised by grandparents are not exacly obscure cultures - it is still common practice in countries like India & China, both of which have a much longer history than the United States.

I just think it is limiting to define a paladin by a narrow interpretation of something that is 1,000 to 1,500 years old where we cannot even be sure of the true meaning - especially when D&D is also specifically polytheistic and the "stereotypical" paladin is based on the Catholic holy warrior.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 26, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Aardy R. DeVarque
> 
> Paladin class Based largely on the character of Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, as well as Anderson's original sources, Charlemagne's paladins in the medieval French chansons de geste ("songs of deeds"), particularly The Song of Roland and Ariosto's Orlando Furioso. The paladin's tie to a special war-horse is also from Three Hearts and Three Lions. ("I do not mean a saint, but a warrior whom God gave more than common gifts and then put under a more than common burden." -- Martinus, in Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson.)




You are certainly welcome to this person's opinion regarding the inspiration for the D&D paladin, but it is no more authoritative than mine.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 26, 2004)

IMC, the rules for a paladin's behavior is dictated by the society that bore him, his personal code and the deity with which he is associated, if any.

 One of my player is an elven paladin of Sehanine Moonbow.  He is neither chaste nor prudish.  He does not actively seek liasons simply for the thrill of them, but enjoys the company of the opposite gender when it affords itself, such as at festivals and such.  He has not, to date, fathered a child.  Elves generally regard marriage as a social union, much less than humans do.  Elves regard sexual encounters as primarily a shared pleasurable pasttime that, when consensual, is nothing more than a physical act not unlike dancing, but obviously more instense.

 By the same token, in the same campaign, the human cleric of Pelor has a paladin cohort (also of Pelor, in Greyhawk's Ahlissa).  The cohort and the cleric's sister fell in love...but the paladin refused to consumate their relationship unless they were married.  In an uncharacteristic act, they married secretly, which led to some awkward moments when the cleric teleported into his sister's chambers while they were...ahem....otherwise occupied.  Further, said cleric is engaged to another paladin, but this one from the Greyhawk country of Ekbir.  Any such relations are completely out of the question until such time as they are rightfully married following all the customs of their respective peoples...which hasn''t stopped the paladin from making it clear that she can both bring home the bacon, and fry it up in a pan, so to speak.

 The point being that in my games, one cannot separate the paladin's code from the culture and societies involved.   A halfling paladin of Yollanda (another NPC in game) wouldn't fret about marriage, as long as he remained committed to his partner.  Sometimes good is stronger, sometimes law...sometimes the two come into direct conflict.  C'est la vie.

 And for what it's worth, I don't see the paladin as a stereotype, but an archetype.  YMMV.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 26, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> I'll be repeating myself.
> 
> If you want to break the "chaste paladin" stereotype, read up Three Hearts and Three Lions. This book was the seminal inspiration for the D&D paladin (down to the special stallion and the cure disease ability), and the paladin here wasn't especially under a vow of chastity... He wasn't womanizing or promiscuous either, though.
> 
> ...




Interesting to know. As with most story books, they do away with the social consequences of certain types of behavior to please their audience. I would not buy into a Paladin of this type because I have read of the great lengths holy men have gone to mythically and historically to obtain their divine connection with a given god. The level of discipline and devotion required is immense and leaves little time for the pursuit of base vices such as lechery and gluttony. 

As I see it, we are all open to choose the nature of our worlds. That is the beauty of D&D. The classes are rather open-ended in their interpretation. I believe it is intended to be so to give DM's the leeway to develop their own societies.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 26, 2004)

NewJeffCTHome said:
			
		

> I just think it is limiting to define a paladin by a narrow interpretation of something that is 1,000 to 1,500 years old where we cannot even be sure of the true meaning - especially when D&D is also specifically polytheistic and the "stereotypical" paladin is based on the Catholic holy warrior.




Certainly, that's a matter of taste when it comes to running a campaign. The degree to which one de-couples a character class from the mythic tradition it is attached to is up to the GM and player. But, for me, character classes tend to be rooted in the mythic or historical traditions that inspired them. Many of the arguments you employ regarding paladins I see employed to justify the monk class outside of East and South Asian cultures. And the rules certainly permit that but when I GM, monks are not acceptable characters. 

My argument is simply that, based on the best data we have about mythic and historical paladin archetypes, paladins conceiving a bunch of kids does not really fit with the class.

Also, I think that you may want to rethink how extended family units work. While it is true that extended family units, be they matrilocal or patrilocal, tend to decentralize responsibility for child-rearing, I think it is a mistake to see these units as equally willing to raise children conceived out of the context of marriage as it is to raise children conceived within that context. Whether you want to look at modern Hindu or medieval Slavic extended family units, neither appears adapted to or approving of (a) a male member of the family wandering around, knocking up women and sending their offspring home to be cared-for or (b) a female family member conceiving a child out of wedlock. Regardless of the resources a culture deploys to raise a child, few if any Eurasian cultures of which there is an historical record approve of children being conceived outside of marraige.

Nonetheless, this happens. But my point is not that paladins don't have kids but that when they have kids, it is because something has gone wrong -- they have failed to embody the ideal towards which they strive.

Now, if a paladin wants to marry each of the diverse women with whom he conceives a child, one would have to look to polygamous/polygynous traditions for appropriate behaviour. And what I see in the polygamous/polygynous cultures I have studied is that men who have multiple wives take on the role of patriarch of a household. 

What I am getting at here is that it seems near-universal that when a good man has a large number of children, he becomes the centre of a household, even if he had a crusading past. Thus, my declaration that a paladin who established a household would need to switch classes.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 26, 2004)

Thanks Cithindril for your restraint in not engaging this argument more fully; that's something I have a tough time resisting, as you can see. I would indeed be happy to correspond with you further privately on this question. 

I'm pleased to see that our actual views about paladins are not that far apart in that we both see Arthurian literature as the primary source. 

This nicely leads into the case that Gez makes. Gez is, in a sense, adopting the Jerry Bruckheimer position regarding how texts work. Bruckheimer's Arthur was an attempt at the "historical" Arthur. For him, portraying Arthur was about discovering (however ineffectually) the individual to whom Bede devoted one line in his _Ecclesiastical History of Britain_. For most of us, portraying Arthur is about discovering the individual whose court Chretien de Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Thomas Mallory and others portrayed centuries later. 

For me, D&D is the game that has evolved from people playing it and publishing about it for the past 30 years. D&D does not live in the mind of its creator. If understanding D&D was simply about discovering what Gary Gygax intended, we would resolve our questions simply by posting to Gary's Q&A thread. 

Just look at the other texts Gygax recommends. Lovecraft and Derleth are some of the most prominently featured writers; in the first edition of the DDG, the Cthulu mythos was prominently featured. Yet, over the ensuing quarter century, these elements have substantially receded from D&D and are now represented in different gaming traditions. 

Original D&D was a semi-coherent hodgepodge of neat ideas that have been gradually systematized in the past three decades through new editions, third party material and an evolving community of players. To make a religious analogy, original Scripture is not all that matters here; we are part of an open canon system with a rich exegetical tradition. What concept existed in Gary Gygax's mind when he wrote the class is but a small part of what the class is today.


----------



## Cithindril (Nov 26, 2004)

Fusangite,

Good points, I also believe that D&D is as rich as it is because it does grow and develop over time.  For me, I think the Paladin is defined by struggling to live out the demands of his/her LG alignment within the greater context of serving the god / church to which the character is pledged.  So again, while I've always tended to cast this calling in Arthurian terms I think the first question a player or DM will have to address is the nature of alignment in their setting (ie: are alignments absolute moral standards, or do their definitions depend on the cultural mores of the society?).  It's an interesting question and becomes very relevant when you consider a setting like Eberron which does not adhere to the traditional interpretation of what alignments mean.

PEACE!


----------



## Gez (Nov 26, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Interesting to know. As with most story books, they do away with the social consequences of certain types of behavior to please their audience. I would not buy into a Paladin of this type because I have read of the great lengths holy men have gone to mythically and historically to obtain their divine connection with a given god. The level of discipline and devotion required is immense and leaves little time for the pursuit of base vices such as lechery and gluttony.




Which is where one of the most original aspect of 3H&3L comes. Holger Danske, which is known in chansons de geste as Ogier the Dane, comes from our very own Earth. He was an engineer, who was sent to this mythical world after being wounded during a gunfight with Nazis, during WW2. He discovers that he actually belong to both world, ours and the mythical one, and that he is a sort of Eternal Champion of Law. (Moorcock took his inspiration for the war between Order and Chaos, and for the concept of the Eternal Champion, in this novel.)

So, you have a Paladin who is a Paladin because he is chosen to be one. When his mind is still fresh from his rational, modern, upbringing, he doesn't involve in "discipline and devotion to obtain his divine connection with God."

He engages in several things that would be considered very unpaladinish -- like casual sex with Meriven, or when he uses the wizard Martinus' services to magically disguise himself, his horse, and his shield, so as to avoid being identified by a stranger that is looking for him. Yet, he was the prime inspiration for the Paladin class -- and he his an overall good guy, brave, resourceful, and just.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 26, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Interesting to know. As with most story books, they do away with the social consequences of certain types of behavior to please their audience. I would not buy into a Paladin of this type because I have read of the great lengths holy men have gone to mythically and historically to obtain their divine connection with a given god. The level of discipline and devotion required is immense and leaves little time for the pursuit of base vices such as lechery and gluttony.



 Do you envision a scenario where casual, consensual sex is not a base vice?  There seems to be an implication in your statement that sex for a paladin is essentially a sin regardless of the circumstances, and that even marriage would be considered a vice.

 Several folks seems also to be almost suggesting that having children, for a paladin, is a terrible thing.  Frankly, that almost makes it sound like children are a penalty or a consequence, not a goal, which is hard for me to wrap my head around.  Is a paladin nothing more than a suicide squad member?

 It seems that the Arthurian myths are filled with plenty of knights who had consensual sex.  One also has to consider that Mallory filtered many of the stories, because he had his own goals to bring to his interpetation, some of which included his own statements about making commentary of love and religion in the England of his time.  None of which invalidates peoples notions of what he wrote, just pointing out that there are lots of variants.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 26, 2004)

Turanil said:
			
		

> 1) An order of LG gay paladins.
> 
> 2) An order of LE (Unearthed Arcana variant) paladins.




Those are some cool ideas.


----------



## Sejs (Nov 26, 2004)

> 1) An order of LG gay paladins.




Heh, the first thing that sprang to mind: Sparta meets Heironious.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 27, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> In 1e, I remember that there were strict limits on Paladins' material acquisitions so as to prevent them from settling down and founding established organizations like what the original poster describes.




Actually, I'm pretty sure you could specifically set aside money for a base of operations/ home. 1e is quite buried right now.
(Though, the tithe was 10%, plus all the excess you didn't use.)


----------



## fusangite (Nov 27, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm pretty sure you could specifically set aside money for a base of operations/ home. 1e is quite buried right now.
> (Though, the tithe was 10%, plus all the excess you didn't use.)




I seem to recall a very small list of the maximum number of items a paladin was allowed to own. Perhaps someone with a 1E PHB will jog our memories.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 27, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I seem to recall a very small list of the maximum number of items a paladin was allowed to own. Perhaps someone with a 1E PHB will jog our memories.



If I remember correctly, the limit was only for magical items. I do not recall a limit for ordinary items beyond a statement that the paladin should not retain more than enought funds to support himself in a moderate manner (no hoarding of gold to upgrade his gear, for example). The ten-item limit was as follows (again, IIRC):

1. Four weapons
2. One suit of armor
3. One shield
4. Four other magic items of any kind


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 28, 2004)

I remember the 10% tithe, the ten item limit (with various clarifications for years thereafter.) and you can't keep excess gold beyond what you needed for upkeep and later on for the castle/ tower/ followers.


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 28, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I seem to recall a very small list of the maximum number of items a paladin was allowed to own. Perhaps someone with a 1E PHB will jog our memories.




Unfortunately, I recently moved and my long retired 1E PHB & DMG are still in boxes in my basement.


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 28, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Do you envision a scenario where casual, consensual sex is not a base vice?  There seems to be an implication in your statement that sex for a paladin is essentially a sin regardless of the circumstances, and that even marriage would be considered a vice.
> 
> Several folks seems also to be almost suggesting that having children, for a paladin, is a terrible thing.  Frankly, that almost makes it sound like children are a penalty or a consequence, not a goal, which is hard for me to wrap my head around.  Is a paladin nothing more than a suicide squad member?
> 
> It seems that the Arthurian myths are filled with plenty of knights who had consensual sex.  One also has to consider that Mallory filtered many of the stories, because he had his own goals to bring to his interpetation, some of which included his own statements about making commentary of love and religion in the England of his time.  None of which invalidates peoples notions of what he wrote, just pointing out that there are lots of variants.




Well said WizardDru.  While the thread has often gone off on tangents, include one making the paladin a philanderer, I have not said I had intended to make my paladin that way.  I had just intended him to father multiple children through marriage to a like minded woman - maybe just a devout follower of the L/G god, or maybe a female cleric of the deity, a female adventurer or noblewoman, or even a female paladin.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 28, 2004)

Exactly.  I find it easy to envision an order that provides protection at the chapterhouse for the paladin's family, as devout followers.  The paladin's family may or may not be in more imminent danger than virtually anyone else.  Is there a danger? Certainly.   But this applies to many professions and even standard NPCs live at risk in a D&D world.  A sheriff or noble is as much a target as a paladin.  The paladin may even consider it a duty to raise a family in the face of such adversity, to show that he has no fear that his god would protect the faithful and the just.


----------



## fusangite (Nov 28, 2004)

I think part of the debate here in this thread is a tension between modern and medieval Christianity. I think that what you guys are doing is updating the paladin into the post-reformation world. 

Until Calvin's reformulation of Christianity, Saint Paul spelled it out pretty clearly: "better to marry than to burn." The asexual life was always morally superior to the sexual life. With the advent of Calvinism, the cloistered monk and mendicant friar were deposed as the social ideal and replaced with the patriarchal family. 

I think the issue is that for some people like me, having people think in pre-Reformation yet Western ways is central to suspension of disbelief whereas for others, this isn't a particularly important thing at all. 

Thus, in modern Christian morality, be it fundamentalist or liberal, there is no inherent conflict between marriage and the embodiment of an heroic ideal. But, in the culture from which we receive the paladin archetype, this conflict was real. 

One of the reasons we know this conflict was real is that it is consistently presented as a tension within the heroes of Arthurian romances. The sexuality of the characters humanizes them; it makes them real; it makes readers identify with them. What it does not do is bring them closer to the ideal for which they strive. 

I don't think any of us who strongly link fantasy gaming and certain pre-modern forms of thought are stating that it is always wrong for people to de-couple these things. I think what we are doing is noting that there are consequences to this. When you drag the Fighter class across the 16th century, the archetype(s) on which it is based are almost completely unscathed. The same is true of the Wizard. But when you drag the Paladin forward, sideways or backwards in time or geography to when people thought about virtue differently than medieval Europeans, great violence is done to the archetype. Much the same thing happens when you drag the Monk class outside of an Asian setting; the class survives as a mechanic but is not meaningfully linked to the archetype that inspired it. 

We can all agree that since 2E, the game mechanics have permitted paladins to support households; so clearly this thread cannot be engaging a mechanical or technical question. It must, therefore, be a cultural question. Issues of resource distribution are essentially irrelevant. Some people are taking the position that the paladin class is inextricably linked to a medieval Christian value system; others are arguing that the idea of paladin as champion can be generalized to other cultures. 

This leads me to a certain conclusion about the basic core classes: unfortunately, D&D classes widely vary in how universal or transcultural the archetype on which they are based actually is. At the one extreme, there is the completely transcultural Fighter. At the other are classes that clearly refer to a narrow range of cultures at a particular point in time such as the Monk and Paladin. Different classes can be situated at different points along this continuum. Or, like the Ranger, they may not appear on the continuum at all. 

This thread reflects two schools of thought in how we deal with classes at the Monk end of the continuum. I am on the side that limits the use of these classes to circumstances where they fit with the archetype to which they correspond. WizarDru and others are on the side that generates new social roles, behaviours and cultural characteristics in order to accommodate the use of the core classes in any world regardless of whether it is connected to the archetypes on which they were originally based. Neither approach is wrong, per se -- I think it just speaks to the tastes of the GM or player in questions.

I think the reason conflict has arisen in this thread is that those of us which see cultural archetypes as a limiting factor assumed that the initial poster had the same concern and responded as though he shared our values. At the end of all this, I am bewildered because I can't really figure out what NewJeffCTHome wanted to know. If you wanted to know if modern Christian morality, the alignment system and the mechanics of the game permitted you to do what you wanted, the answer to your question was, of course, an unequivocal 'yes.' But if you're actually interested in harmonizing your class with the archetype from which it is derived, I cannot understand how you have found the opposing arguments persuasive.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 28, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> This thread reflects two schools of thought in how we deal with classes at the Monk end of the continuum. I am on the side that limits the use of these classes to circumstances where they fit with the archetype to which they correspond. WizarDru and others are on the side that generates new social roles, behaviours and cultural characteristics in order to accommodate the use of the core classes in any world regardless of whether it is connected to the archetypes on which they were originally based. Neither approach is wrong, per se -- I think it just speaks to the tastes of the GM or player in questions.



 I certainly don't think there is a 'wrong' answer, obviously.  I think part of the issue may be, as you specify, a cultural and personal interpetation.  The paladin has always, afaic, been subject to often drastically different interpeations, and the code even moreso.  Personally, it's not that I don't recognize that the moral code that I envision for the paladin is anachronistic...it's more that I'm willing to apply it along with all the other anachronisms inherent in the system and have grown comfortable with, over time.  I mean, we are talking about the archetypical christian holy warrior ideal...in a game where Christianity doesn't exist.

 To me, the nature of the paladin within D&D is directly related to the deity he venerates.  I am curious, though...now that I think about it, isn't Jesus' basic doctrine essentially one of 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's'?  (please excuse the rough nature of the interpetation here...no offense is meant....my Catholicism lapsed many moons ago ).  How did the archetypical Christian warrior deal with this conflict?  Was it perceived as one?  I only ask because you sound more informed on the topic, and I'm curious for your take.  Was this an issue for the Templars, Hospitallers or crusaders, for that matter?


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

One thing that occurs to me is that this is one pretty hot thread.  We're up to 115 posts right now and we have not come to any sort of agreement.

Now seeing as this is an adventure game, and adventure is bred in conflict, this would make a fine problem to fit into the game.  Just as in the real world, there are different interpretations of faith and law, the game world should have the same.  I suggest creating several paladin orders for the characters to choose from or modify for their own beliefs.  The order that the paladin chooses may have a great disagreement with the other orders, possibly resulting in violence, even though all are supposed to be Lawful Good.  The DMG states that Evil isn't monolithic, good doesn't have to be either.  This may open a whole new vista of depth in the campaign.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 29, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting.  Until when where Catholic priests allowed to marry?
> 
> And Gez beat me to it; Orthodox priests can marry, as I would imagine the priests of many of other branches of Christianity.




Obviously most of them. I've yet to have seen an unmarried priest at any church I've been to.

I wouldn't see my paladin "fooling around" as, unlike all the other responses abt paladins revolve around MALE paladins, mine's a female and not wanting to be "sidelined" nor does she feel that anyone would be much too interested in a half dragon.....  Closest she'd ever gotten was threatening to kiss the male cleric/paladin in the party for sleeping thru a melee fight.....  

As far as I know, noone has any paladin subscribe to the "MUST BE CHASTE" doctrine in any game. Anything sexual doesn't really come up in gameplay so it doesn't really matter. Besides, our paladins are too busy playind "Judge Dredd"... (both are worshipers of Tyr in the FR world)

Just remember, not all paladins are guys......


----------



## Stormrunner (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I seem to recall a very small list of the maximum number of items a paladin was allowed to own. Perhaps someone with a 1E PHB will jog our memories.




Me! Me! (raises hand and jumps up and down)

page 22-24 (23 is the famous "A Paladin in Hell" full-page illo):



> The following strictures apply to paladins:
> 
> 1. They may never retain more than ten magic items; these may never exceed:
> armor, 1 suit
> ...


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 29, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Just remember, not all paladins are guys......




I never forgot that.  If you look at my original post way back when, you'll see that I said that I never remembered seeing a requirement that a male or female paladin go without sex (chaste or celibate or however you define it... I had meant it to mean that the paladin forgoes sex completely)

While childbirth obviously precludes a human female paladin from adventuring for the better part of a year and is quite inconvenient for a female PC paladin, there is nothing that says that it can't happen to an NPC paladin.  Heck, it could be a good campaign idea:  Female NPC paladin takes a 9 month in-game break for the last 7-8 months of pregnancy and a month or two after childbirth, and then returns "out of the blue" to assist the PCs in a dire situation.  I'm guessing that if it's an intense campaign, she could have been almost forgotten by the PCs (something similar happened in a campaign of ours several years back, just not involving an NPC paladin...)


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 29, 2004)

As long as they can do so within the limits of their code and alignment, paladins should, in fact, be able to "get some."

In our Birthright game, the priest-paladin married and had children.  He didn't do quite the sowing of wild oats as did certain other party members, either.  His cohort, who also had paladin levels, married a woman he dallied with after an encounter led to pregnancy.  Of course,  in that case, the "woman" was a dragon in human form, which the cohort had no idea about.  Of course, other party members did, and we had visions of a swarm of half-dragon children wandering around...

Brad


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I am curious, though...now that I think about it, isn't Jesus' basic doctrine essentially one of 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's'?  (please excuse the rough nature of the interpetation here...no offense is meant....my Catholicism lapsed many moons ago ).  How did the archetypical Christian warrior deal with this conflict?  Was it perceived as one?  I only ask because you sound more informed on the topic, and I'm curious for your take.  Was this an issue for the Templars, Hospitallers or crusaders, for that matter?




Well, there are many contradictory or apparently contradictory statements that Christ and his interpreters make about church-state relations. At different times, different ideas on this front have been ascendant. But remember that for most of history, the lines between church and state were very blurred. It was hard to discern where on started and the other stopped. The Holy Roman Empire's creation, the Spanish ownership of the New World -- these were things decreed by the pope. And, of course, until 1870, there were the Papal States in Central Italy. Other versions of Christianity often conflate church and state even more; in the Eastern Orthodox faith, the Emperor or Czar is described as "equal to the apostles."

While there was a fair amount of what we would now call church-state conflict in the medieval world, nobody thought that the solution to this was to disentangle the two things. Such an idea would be beyond people's frame of reference.


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think the reason conflict has arisen in this thread is that those of us which see cultural archetypes as a limiting factor assumed that the initial poster had the same concern and responded as though he shared our values. At the end of all this, I am bewildered because I can't really figure out what NewJeffCTHome wanted to know. If you wanted to know if modern Christian morality, the alignment system and the mechanics of the game permitted you to do what you wanted, the answer to your question was, of course, an unequivocal 'yes.' But if you're actually interested in harmonizing your class with the archetype from which it is derived, I cannot understand how you have found the opposing arguments persuasive.




I was not expecting an unequivocal yes or no answer.  I am frankly shocked that this thread has gotten over 115 responses and has gone on for 4-5 days now since I started it before Thanksgiving.  I'm usually thankful if threads I post go past 10 responses!  

My original thought was I was wondering if people have played the paladin differently than I have seen it played in my 25+ years of gaming.  For me, in all the gaming groups I've been involved in, it always seems to be that the paladin has completely foregone sex of any kind, be it a one nighter with a local barmaid (or barmaster if it's a female paladin) or within a lifelong boundary of faithful marriage.

While some agree with that method of playing the paladin, others do not, as evidenced by this thread.  I was just looking for feedback into playing something other than what I thought was the only "paladin" out there.

Granted, I could run the idea past the group DM and he'd think it goofy or stupid, or actually listen to my thoughts about it.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> One of the reasons we know this conflict was real is that it is consistently presented as a tension within the heroes of Arthurian romances. The sexuality of the characters humanizes them; it makes them real; it makes readers identify with them. What it does not do is bring them closer to the ideal for which they strive.




I think the important part to remember is that the main "bad sex" in Arthurian mythos is due to the betrayel to King Arthur. Not sex with a barmaid, but the broken oath's and betrayel.

I'm sure a paladin who had a relationship with his liege's wife would lose paladinhood.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 29, 2004)

NewJeffCTHome said:
			
		

> While some agree with that method of playing the paladin, others do not, as evidenced by this thread.  I was just looking for feedback into playing something other than what I thought was the only "paladin" out there.




The paladin is like that. Everyone either thinks its only one type of PC, or feels it's a holywarrior archetype. I like the holy warrior archetype, and can imagine a guerilla fighter, or almost any archetype for deity and Lawful Goodness.

If a particular church has decided that seduction by evil is the leading cause of Paladins falling from grace, maybe they'll institute Mandatory Prostitute Visits once a week.

Same thing with the eternal Paladin as Prestige Class stuff. Some people think it's a knighthood that must be earned, while I have nothing against a pre-first level PC getting The Call. I do think it was best said that the paladin is the ultimate Christian warrior in a land without Christians. The polytheistic paladin almost HAS to change from the singular archetype.


----------



## Kilmore (Nov 29, 2004)

I would like to expand on what Vocenoctum (hell of a name) said.  There's more than one way to make a paladin.  In fact, I would have more than one order of paladin available to play in my campaign, each with different customs and codes.  Some strictly prohibiting hanky-panky, others ignoring it, some condemning missile weapons, others that prefer to dispatch evil "humanely" with poison, so on.  

Each one thinks the others are wrong, some more wrong than others.


----------



## tonym (Nov 29, 2004)

Hi, attached is a JPEG of cartoon strip I did for Dragon Magazine, one that I thought some of you folks would get a kick out of, considering the topic.



Me, I like the idea of some paladins not being chaste.  As long as they are nice about it.

Tony M


----------



## Agback (Nov 29, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting.  Until when where Catholic priests allowed to marry?




There is a discussion of the issue in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The upshot is that various authorities such as popes and councils have been enjoining bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons to celibacy since at least the 4th century AD. But a serious attempt to impose this as law throughout the Latin Rite did not occur until the Hildebrandtine Reforms c. AD 1059-1123. This made the marriage of the higher clergy illegal (but not invalid), and imposed sanctions on teh children and wives of clergymen (ie. excluding the children from the clergy, or from succeeding to their fathers' benefices).

The marriages of the higher clergy were not declared invalid by clear and explicit legislation until the Fourth Lateran Council AD 1215. Until that date clergymen could still marry (though they were forbidden to do so).

The Catholic Encyclopaedia does not say so, but the celibacy of the clergy was a Roman custom and at odds with the custom of other parts of western Christendom. In some parts of France there were until the Hildebrandtine Reforms hereditary parishes, canonries, and bishoprics. The rise and spread of the power of the popes led to increasing standardisation from AD 800 onwards, a process that was not complete until AD 1215 or so. As part of this standardisation, the power of the pope to appoint bishops replaced the other systems: heredity, election by the canons, election by the congregation, and nomination by the benefactor who created the church. Some historians have seen the celibacy of the clergy as a scheme on the part of hte pope to bring the clergy under their sway by cutting off their roots in the community. But I think that on the whole it seems more likely that the reformers of 1059-1123 were trying sincerely to correct genuine abuses, such as hereditary parish priests with no training whatsoever. The celibacy of the clergy (a) seemed right and proper to people with a background in Rome, where it was a custom of long standing, and (b) seemed necessary to eradicate hereditary church offices, which observably promoted blatantly unfit priests and prelates.


----------



## Agback (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> The question is: does the archetypal chivalric holy warrior have licit kids? And I think the answer is pretty clearly "no."




However not all actual examples match with simplified stereotypes. Let me draw to your attention the Order of Santiago, a crusading order of  warrior-monks who were allowed to marry. Also, let me remind you that _confreres_ on temporary vows fought as brothers with the Templars and Hospitallers without giving up their wives, estates, and dynastic responsibilities.

If the warrior-monks of the Holy Fighting Orders are the achetype of paladins, then yes, most were just as celibate as other Christian monks. But not all.


----------



## hong (Nov 29, 2004)

Holy crap, it's Mr Evill!

Where you BEEN, mang?


----------



## Henry (Nov 29, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I've been planning to play a particularly foul-mouthed, heavy-drinking and womanizing paladin for a while now. Maybe for my next PC.




I've played those before - they were called Fighters, I think.


----------



## Henry (Nov 29, 2004)

For my thought on it, there's nothing against a paladin siring children within a committed relationship, as long as it's committed (commitment being kind of a Lawful thing); but the paladin should make such arrangements that their children and spouses will be cared for if something should befall him. "One night stands" I've personally seen as a Chaotic sort of activity, for many of the reasons others have stated above; depending on outlook, not providing for family in the event of death could be seen as neutral or even evil behavior. I've never seen sex come up for a paladin, casual or no, but then I rarely see sex come up in our games as anything more than "glossing over" the issue anyway. The characters who are known for it, will visit the brothels. Those who don't, won't.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Well, there are many contradictory or apparently contradictory statements that Christ and his interpreters make about church-state relations. At different times, different ideas on this front have been ascendant. But remember that for most of history, the lines between church and state were very blurred. It was hard to discern where on started and the other stopped. The Holy Roman Empire's creation, the Spanish ownership of the New World -- these were things decreed by the pope. And, of course, until 1870, there were the Papal States in Central Italy. Other versions of Christianity often conflate church and state even more; in the Eastern Orthodox faith, the Emperor or Czar is described as "equal to the apostles."
> 
> While there was a fair amount of what we would now call church-state conflict in the medieval world, nobody thought that the solution to this was to disentangle the two things. Such an idea would be beyond people's frame of reference.



 That's pretty interesting.  The idea of Paladin as both Holy Warrior and Patriot at the same time has a lot of potential.

 However, I was thinking at a more basic level: the paladin is a warrior, by profession.  Doesn't his very existence somewhat conflict with some of the base tenets of 'turn the other cheek'?  Or is the issue that different sects and religions place different emphasis on different translations and passages?  I only ask as it seems that, in some ways, the Paladin is a very 'old testament' warrior serving a 'new testament' faith.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 29, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I've been planning to play a particularly foul-mouthed, heavy-drinking and womanizing paladin for a while now. Maybe for my next PC.






			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I've played those before - they were called Fighters, I think.




A hit! A palpable hit!


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> sure and what do you do when a situation comes up where the best thing to do for your family is different than what is for your god.




Then you decide if you want to follow your god or your family. I think there is a biblical story about that exact situation.



> Your gods goals and needs are completely separate than that of your families.




Well chances are your family worship the same god, so conflicts are likely to be pretty infrequent.



> So yes it would get in the way of your devotion and fairly frequently I suspect.




If you really think so I'ld like some examples. 

I certainly think a family that worships the same god and has the same beliefs is less likely to get in your way than the usual adventuring party that most likely follows different gods, and may have conflicting alignments and goals, and yet a Paladin tends to work around those.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 29, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> For my thought on it, there's nothing against a paladin siring children within a committed relationship, as long as it's committed (commitment being kind of a Lawful thing); but the paladin should make such arrangements that their children and spouses will be cared for if something should befall him. "One night stands" I've personally seen as a Chaotic sort of activity, for many of the reasons others have stated above; depending on outlook, not providing for family in the event of death could be seen as neutral or even evil behavior. I've never seen sex come up for a paladin, casual or no, but then I rarely see sex come up in our games as anything more than "glossing over" the issue anyway. The characters who are known for it, will visit the brothels. Those who don't, won't.




Granted, most of the groups I have gamed with have been all male and sex does not come up very often, except in passing mention like "my rogue looks for a cheap harlot for as much fun as 10gp can buy..."  Though, I think a good DM could take advantage of a potentially tempted paladin.  I mean, if the paladin truly has a very high CHA, he or she will likely attract the opposite sex quite easily (and, probably a few of the same sex, too!)

However, I had started a thread on another board elsewhere about using a paladin as an adversary for a good-aligned party and got to thinking about what if this adversarial paladin-king decided he would best promote his god's wishes by fathering 25 children (within marriage, of course) to fulfill his interpretation of some prophecy?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think the important part to remember is that the main "bad sex" in Arthurian mythos is due to the betrayel to King Arthur.




I wonder how you can say that, when Arthur winds up struck down by his own bastard son, Modred.  It isn't just the Arthur/Gwen/Lance triad.  There are examples of romance causing issues all over Arthurian legend.  

Merlin is betrayed by Nimue, and locked in a cave forever.  Merlin's no knight, but his philandering certainly has bad consequences, as Merlin isnt there when the bubble gum hits the fan...

Gawain philanders with the wife of the Green Knight, which almost ends very badly. 
Gareth has issues with Lynette.
IIRC, Galahad is Lancelot's bastard son.
Lancelot gets involved with Elaine the Fair as he heals from a wound.  He then spurns her, and she winds up floating down the the river to Camelot, dead on Lancelot's shield.

Yeah, obviously romance and sex cause the Round Table no issues at all...


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> However not all actual examples match with simplified stereotypes. Let me draw to your attention the Order of Santiago, a crusading order of  warrior-monks who were allowed to marry. Also, let me remind you that _confreres_ on temporary vows fought as brothers with the Templars and Hospitallers without giving up their wives, estates, and dynastic responsibilities.
> 
> If the warrior-monks of the Holy Fighting Orders are the achetype of paladins, then yes, most were just as celibate as other Christian monks. But not all.




I think you miss my point Agback. All of my examples are from myth; none are from history. There is only a mythological paladin; there is no historical paladin. Also, as many others have pointed out, the paladin resides in mythic time from the outset -- he comes into being in the Arthurian romances of the 12th-14th centuries.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think you miss my point Agback. All of my examples are from myth; none are from history. There is only a mythological paladin; there is no historical paladin. Also, as many others have pointed out, the paladin resides in mythic time from the outset -- he comes into being in the Arthurian romances of the 12th-14th centuries.




Just curious as to your sig line... assuming that the distance is correct from Beijing to Japan, it is 12,000 li east of Beijing.  I would guess that it is northern Japan. 7,000 li to the north would (I think) put them in Siberia (Wen Schin) and 5,000 li to the East is Alaska (Tahan), which is 20,000 li from Fusang, or I'm assuming some place in western Canada or northwestern US.  Am I correct?  

However, 5,000 li East to Tahan may just put them in Eastern Siberia, making Fusang Alaska?


----------



## kenobi65 (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> There is only a mythological paladin; there is no historical paladin. Also, as many others have pointed out, the paladin resides in mythic time from the outset -- he comes into being in the Arthurian romances of the 12th-14th centuries.




Quick, someone tell Charlemagne (742-814).  He was apparently under the mistaken impression that he had paladins serving him.


----------



## Tonguez (Nov 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> That's pretty interesting.  The idea of Paladin as both Holy Warrior and Patriot at the same time has a lot of potential.
> 
> However, I was thinking at a more basic level: the paladin is a warrior, by profession.  Doesn't his very existence somewhat conflict with some of the base tenets of 'turn the other cheek'?  Or is the issue that different sects and religions place different emphasis on different translations and passages?  I only ask as it seems that, in some ways, the Paladin is a very 'old testament' warrior serving a 'new testament' faith.




With reference to the earlier comment about Jesus saying "Render unto God that which is Gods and 'Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasars" there is a branch of 'radical christianity' which says that since ALL THINGS belong to God this statement is a call to Rebellion amongst the Jews. 
Similarily when Jesus conferred upon his followers the 'Authority to work amongst lions - trample upon serpents and scorpions etc' it was a militant call to Spirutual warfare

The Paladins mission then should be one of spiritual warfare with his/her campaign being against Spiritual powers (including those in human(oid) form

The Paladin as Patriot need not conflict with this - Kings rule according to the Grace of God, but at no time should the authority of the physical King impinge upon the sanctity of the spiritual Church. A Paldin is part of the Spiritual realm doing battle there however as a mortal s/he must still comply with the laws as imposed in the Physical realm of the King though he need not submit to temporal authority.

Thats how I'd see it


----------



## Agback (Nov 29, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think you miss my point Agback. All of my examples are from myth; none are from history. There is only a mythological paladin; there is no historical paladin. Also, as many others have pointed out, the paladin resides in mythic time from the outset -- he comes into being in the Arthurian romances of the 12th-14th centuries.




Well, if you insist that the paladin is based only on literary figures, and not on the actual example of warriors dedicated to God, then the case for their celibacy and chastity becomes _weaker_. Among the knights of the Round Table, only Galahad was mentioned as chaste: Lancelot and Perceval had conspicuous flings and most of the rest were married. And among the Twelve Paladins of Charlemagne, only Turpin was unmarried (and he was a bishop).

Regards,


Agback


----------



## fusangite (Nov 29, 2004)

*Fun Tangent*



			
				NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> Just curious as to your sig line... assuming that the distance is correct from Beijing to Japan, it is 12,000 li east of Beijing.  I would guess that it is northern Japan. 7,000 li to the north would (I think) put them in Siberia (Wen Schin) and 5,000 li to the East is Alaska (Tahan), which is 20,000 li from Fusang, or I'm assuming some place in western Canada or northwestern US.  Am I correct?
> 
> However, 5,000 li East to Tahan may just put them in Eastern Siberia, making Fusang Alaska?




I'm from Vancouver, BC but have recently moved to Toronto. It's a bit of a shame: according to the Fusang manuscript, 20,000 li east of Fusang is a country of women. But I haven't been able to find it. Perhaps I've overshot or perhaps they are referring to Oprah's Chicago.


----------



## Agback (Nov 29, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> However, I was thinking at a more basic level: the paladin is a warrior, by profession.  Doesn't his very existence somewhat conflict with some of the base tenets of 'turn the other cheek'?  Or is the issue that different sects and religions place different emphasis on different translations and passages?  I only ask as it seems that, in some ways, the Paladin is a very 'old testament' warrior serving a 'new testament' faith.




Indeed. But tens of thousands of Knights Templars and Knights Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights, Knights of St Thomas Acon, Mercedarian Knights, Knight of Calatreva, Knights of Alcantara, Knights of Santiago, Knights of Aviz, and Knights of Sao Thiago found ways to reconcile the two. If you are interested in this rationalisation, I suggest that you Google up a copy of _In Praise of the New Knighthood_ by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. You might also be interested in Saint Augustine of Hippo's theory of 'Just War', which is outlined in _The City of God_.

"While loathing the destruction and loss of life that attend war, Augustine nonetheless believed that a "just war" might be preferable to an unjust peace. Drawing on the apostle Paul's New Testament injunction to submit to governing authorities, "who do not bear the sword for nothing" (cf. Romans 13:1-7), Augustine recognized biblical mandates for individuals to love their neighbors (to the point of renouncing self-defense) even while defending government's duty to preserve civic peace and to secure justice. He maintained that use of force is necessary—though always regrettable—in a fallen world in order to restrain evil, but that its ultimate goal must be to restore peace. "

Regards,


Agback


----------



## Driddle (Nov 29, 2004)

My paladin has the lawful responsibility to have sex with as many women as possible, so that they will give birth to a multitude of pure, righteous souls. And that is good thing in accordance with church doctrine.

Amen.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 29, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I wonder how you can say that, when Arthur winds up struck down by his own bastard son, Modred. It isn't just the Arthur/Gwen/Lance triad. There are examples of romance causing issues all over Arthurian legend.



 Well, that depends on a few factors:  which version of the arthurian myths are you using, and what you choose to focus upon.  A lot of the relationship stuff comes from Mallory, and doesn't appear with the same connotations in the Wace, Vulgate or the Boron versions. Tristram and Isolde, of course, didn't originate in the Arthurian mythos, Mallory transplanted them there.  And they're classic star-crossed lovers...clearly meant to be together, but separated by circumstance, duty and the trickery of others.

 In fact, trickery and deception by others is the main problem for most of these myths.  I mean, a lack of communication is what plagues these people.  That, and lots of malcontents with potions, most of which are responsible for people getting busy with other folks.  Lots of characters in the stories have no consequences for their actions, at least not directly:  Mordred rapes his way across half of England, sleeps with a large number of married women and still manages to join the round table, and eventually claims the kingship and Guiniveire....until he is finally slain by Lancelot, iirc.

 I mean, Lancelot is tricked into sleeping with Elayne...and the result of that union is Galahad, the Grail Knight...and possibly tied with Lancelot or Percival as the quintisential paladin archetypical character.  Not too shabby.


----------



## The Sigil (Nov 30, 2004)

Haven't read all the pages, so don't know if this was discussed earlier, but here's my two cents...

Core D&D, for better or for worse, is a game of moral absolutes.  This is the only way the alignment/outer planar/alignment subtype/holy weapon/etc. system presented in the D&D cosmos can be internally consistent.

A "lawful good" sword, for example, bestows a negative level of anyone of chaotic or evil alignment that picks it up.  Suppose for a moment that the sword is an intelligent one (work with me here).  What happens when Character X picks it up?

Well, if you subscribe to absolute morality, it's pretty clear.  Either Character X is chaotic/evil or he is not.  If he is, he gets a negative level (or two).  If he's not, he doesn't.

But if your world is based on culture-based morality, it's not so clear.  Suppose the intelligent sword's "culture" requires chastity of paladins.  Character X is a "paladin who is required to by his religion to spread his seed far and wide."  Does the character get to determine whether or not he's "lawful" and thus avoid the negative level?  Does the sword?  If the sword makes the determination and bestows a negative level on him, what happens if the sword is NOT intelligent but crafted by the same culture?  

If the "sword" determines it, now you have to track every single cultural moor of every culture that crafted magic swords!  If it doesn't, you have the odd spectacle of a "lawful" intelligent sword being dragged along by a character that it clearly believes to be non-lawful without penalty.

Now, if you wish to scrap the alignment system, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, but the point is... in "core/default" D&D there *are* moral absolutes (the Book of Vile Darkness, IIRC, speaks to this fact).  

A culture that preaches "sow your wild oats" as a tenant of its cultural norms is therefore *incapable* of producing paladins if "sowing your wild oats" is an inherently chaotic act.

Thus, it falls to the individual group to define a certain set of moral absolutes that a paladin must adhere to, *regardless of culture*.  In other words, you can't have two paladins with diametrically opposed moral codes on the excuse that they come from different cultures and have a different view of "what is lawful."  The system simply isn't set up that way.

Whether or not you feel that "sowing your wild oats" should be considered outside the realm of "lawful" is, of course, left to the discretion of your own gaming group, but in archetypal medieval/fantasy culture, doing so is generally not considered "lawful" for many of the reasons mentioned above... not the least of which is "fidelity" (not speaking here strictly of "marital fidelity" but rather a sense of responsibility and duty toward certain people, and I think it's a fairly compelling argument that you are responsible for any life you decide to create/sire - so a paladin who wantonly has sexual relations but does not follow up and/or support and raise and protect his children is guilty of neglect of duty to his offspring... thus, infidelity).

=============================

FWIW I see the paladin's code as a sort of modified "Asimov's laws of robotics" - i.e., a set of laws, which when applied to any given situation, will tell the paladin either how he must act or that it doesn't matter how he acts (e.g., applying these laws tells you that it doesn't matter whether or not you order the roast mutton or boiled chicken in most circumstances - it's a neutral choice unless church or local law proscribes one or both).

Law 1: The paladin will never harm an innocent, nor through inaction, allow an innocent to come to harm.

Law 2: The paladin will always offer evildoers a chance to repent in order to bring them from guilt to innocence except where doing so would violate the first law (e.g., if the villain is about to offer up a child sacrifice, you do not wait to save the child in order to offer the villain a chance to repent).

Law 3: The paladin's conduct must always be honorable and truthful, except where conducting oneself honorably would put him in violation of one of the first two laws (e.g., when you stumble upon the villain about to offer up the child sacrifice, you are permitted to attack immediately; you do not have to waste the time announcing your presence and challenging him to a formal duel while he kills the child).

Law 4: The paladin will protect those/that to whom/which duty binds him (including deity, kin, church law/tradition, kith, and local law in that order) except where doing so would put him in violation of one of the first three laws (i.e., the paladin cannot lie to save his dishonorable comrades as this puts him in violation of Law 3; where the paladin must choose between local law and his "church law", he sides with his church, etc.).

Law 5: The paladin will seek self-preservation only when it does not violate one of the first four laws (i.e., a paladin is permitted to withdraw from danger, but only after all others to whom duty binds him have already withdrawn AND provided he does it in an honorable fashion AND provided there are no innocents put at risk by his withdrawal.

From application these five laws, just about any morally sticky situation can usually be handled with relative confidence as to whether or not the paladin is acting as a paragon of "lawful good."

Using this standard, a paladin who sows wild oats, under most circumstances, would lose his paladinhood as he is in violation of the fourth law, neglecting his duty to kin (unless, I suppose, the paladin's deity personally commanded the paladin otherwise; church law/tradition is lower on the heirarchy than duty to kin so culture is not an excuse).

Thoughts?

--The Sigil


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 30, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I wonder how you can say that, when Arthur winds up struck down by his own bastard son, Modred.  It isn't just the Arthur/Gwen/Lance triad.  There are examples of romance causing issues all over Arthurian legend.
> 
> Yeah, obviously romance and sex cause the Round Table no issues at all...



The problem is that the stuff you name is in general activity that would have a bad end, regardless of the issue of sex. Broken oaths and such are bad for the Paladin Code, regardless of the issue of sex.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 30, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Using this standard, a paladin who sows wild oats, under most circumstances, would lose his paladinhood as he is in violation of the fourth law, neglecting his duty to kin (unless, I suppose, the paladin's deity personally commanded the paladin otherwise; church law/tradition is lower on the heirarchy than duty to kin so culture is not an excuse).




The code you've got is pretty cool, I gotta say.  However, I'm not sure how, by having wanton mad sex, the paladin is neglecting a duty to his kin.


----------



## Hida Bukkorosu (Nov 30, 2004)

some d&d worlds have magic herbs that work better than our modern birth control (cassil and nararoot in FR) - and this would have an affect on the morality attached to casual sex in that world.


----------



## The Sigil (Nov 30, 2004)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> The code you've got is pretty cool, I gotta say.  However, I'm not sure how, by having wanton mad sex, the paladin is neglecting a duty to his kin.



I'll note that the following example is applicable only to male paladins; obviously, female paladins know darn well when their sexual habits have led to the appearance of kin on the scene. 

One assumes, absent herbal/magical contraceptives, that at some point a habit of "wanton mad sex" is going to lead to conception of a child.  

That child is kin to the paladin.  

Unless the paladin makes it a point to keep track of those that might bear his children to make sure he DOES take care of any children he might sire, that's neglecting duty to kin.

Depending on how you play this, you could see a paladin lose his abilities for not keeping in touch with the object of his coupling at all (because even if a child has not yet been sired, he is neglecting a duty to check)... or it could be that in your campaign paladins use "loss of paladinly abilities" to determine whether or not the person they just knocked up and left is pregnant with their child... even better than a paternity/pregnancy test!

On the other hand, such situations - either way - might lead to some marvelously delicious role-playing situations.

On the OTHER other hand, it just occurred to me that since paladins are immune to disease, one supposes that they would have fewer "non-pregnancy" worries about high rates of sexual activity and number of partners than most... and thus might make them even more promiscuous than most... that is, until they start fathering children.

*ducks*

(Or in the case of a female paladin, she could be very promiscuous with little worry since she won't have to worry about abandoning kin... though probably I would probably NOT interpret the paladin's code this way in one of my own campaigns).

In any case, it seems clear that a paladin who decides to marry (for whatever reason) is likely to see his nookie curtailed significantly else he breaks his word of honor in his marriage vows (**insert joke about nookie trailing off significantly after marriage regardless here**).

EDIT: Which brings one other thought to my mind... in such a culture, would promiscuity among male paladins be frowned upon while promiscuity among female paladins not bring dishonor... i.e., kind of the reverse of the mentality a couple of decades ago where men were supposed to be somewhat sexually experienced and could attain that experience without social disgrace, but a woman gaining sexual experience was frowned upon (which, of course, makes one wonder where the men got all their experience...)?  Just an interesting turn of the tables, I guess. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Trickstergod (Nov 30, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> EDIT: Which brings one other thought to my mind... in such a culture, would promiscuity among male paladins be frowned upon while promiscuity among female paladins not bring dishonor... i.e., kind of the reverse of the mentality a couple of decades ago where men were supposed to be somewhat sexually experienced and could attain that experience without social disgrace, but a woman gaining sexual experience was frowned upon (which, of course, makes one wonder where the men got all their experience...)?  Just an interesting turn of the tables, I guess.
> 
> --The Sigil




Well, keep in mind the difficulty that promiscuity would bring to a female paladin. The male one would have to worry about neglecting children he may or may not even know about; on the other hand, the female paladin who winds up getting pregnant has a few other problems. Either the paladin needs to step aside from playing at hero for a while during the pregnancy and even afterwards, or the paladin would, in my opinion, be neglecting her duty by knowingly committing actions that could place a child in danger with no intention of holding back from danger should a pregnancy occur. 

Also, notably, I believe it's possible to have cultural and absolute morals coexist. It's just that let's say, lawfulness, for example, isn't defined by "Don't sow your wild oats," but instead, "Recognize and pay heed to your heritage and its laws and traditions." So there's the absolute "Recognize and pay heed to your heritage and its laws and traditions," while the culture itself defines what those laws and traditions are. The two can mesh together, at least enough to allow some leeway.

Edit: Freudian slip


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Dec 1, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> kind of the reverse of the mentality a couple of decades ago where men were supposed to be somewhat sexually experienced and could attain that experience without social disgrace, but a woman gaining sexual experience was frowned upon (which, of course, makes one wonder where the men got all their experience...)?  Just an interesting turn of the tables, I guess.
> 
> --The Sigil




I had always assumed in those cultures that when men gained their "experience" it was either through "those women" with bad reputations or through prostitutes.

Are there actual real world examples of cultures where human female promiscuity is socially acceptable but male promiscuity is not in history?  I think there are examples in nature, if I recall.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Dec 1, 2004)

Driddle said:
			
		

> My paladin has the lawful responsibility to have sex with as many women as possible, so that they will give birth to a multitude of pure, righteous souls. And that is good thing in accordance with church doctrine.
> 
> Amen.




Is there a guarantee that the children of the paladin will be pure, righteous souls?  Could be an interesting twist to a long running campaign - paladin fathers child with what he thought was innocent barmaid, but it was really an evil priestess who is intent on fathering a Dark Child of prophecy via the paladin.


----------



## Wraith Form (Dec 1, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> What the hell? Who in the world invited the pedantic freaks to hijack the thread by arguing whether chaste or celibate was the more appropriate word to use here when clearly, not only does either one of them work fine, but everyone knew what was meant. Can we get back to the actual topic of the thread now, if you please?



 Heh heh heh. 

  You're funny when you're angry.

 Sorta the anti-Hulk.


----------



## mmadsen (Dec 2, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> If you want to break the "chaste paladin" stereotype, read up _Three Hearts and Three Lions_. This book was the seminal inspiration for the D&D paladin (down to the special stallion and the cure disease ability), and the paladin here wasn't especially under a vow of chastity... He wasn't womanizing or promiscuous either, though.



As I recall, the moment he began to act on any "impure" thoughts, his magical _protection from evil 10'_ (to use 1E terms) failed, and his supernatural opponents could attack him.


----------



## mmadsen (Dec 2, 2004)

reanjr said:
			
		

> 2nd edition Complete Paladin's Handbook had over a page (I believe) on paladin courtship rules and courtly love.  Having this information would seem to me to indicate that paladins can "get in on" like the rest of us.



I think you should research _courtly love_ before you draw the conclusion that _paladins can "get in on" like the rest of us_.  Courtly love is an idealized (fictional) form of love, typically between a young knight and a noble lady --  idealized often to the point of a platonic relationship.  It inspires the young knight to noble deeds, but it might very well _never_ be consummated.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Dec 2, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> Does anybody agree or disagree with me?




Somebody's probably already said this, but...

This was more-or-less covered in the _Quest for Glory IV_ -- Paladins can't go around doing the entire sexual liberation thing unless you've got a whole lot of contraceptives and no STDs because it's wholly irresponsible of them to go having a bunch of kids (all of whom are loved and wanted, right) because they may be laying down their life for the greater good tomorrow and leaving grieving widows waiting for them to come home -- never mind the example that it sets for the peasants that don't have Divine Health or whatever it's called these days.

If you're not familiar with QfG4, part of a quest is to recover the gear of a long-dead paladin who got killed by a barrow-wight, leaving behind a pregnant fiance who thought that she'd been dumped thus her kid spites anybody who claims to be honorable.  You give the gear to the now-grown kid to prove that there is such a thing as honor, yadda yadda blah blah.  But really you're thinking to the paladin's ghost "Geez, couldn't you have kept it in your pants until *after* you offed that last barrow wight?"

The short of it is this: Starting a family isn't really compatible with a job which will ultimately result in you dying painfully and possibly alone if you just keep at it long enough.

That said, I fully expect that a retired Paladin would readily start a family -- using Lay Hands on skinned knees instead of going toe-to-toe with a Pit Fiend, you know?  But if you've still got a hankering for Pit Fiends, then it's irresponsible to leave all those skinned knees in the lurch.

Above and beyond all that, I don't think that the wild-and-promiscuous(sp?) type would really qualify as a Paladin due to the lawlessness involved.  After all, bards are specifically _not_ allowed to be lawful, while Paladins are required to be Lawful Good.

On a related note... http://www.madman.com.au/tism/comp.html

::Kaze (notes that none of the active _LotR_ protagonists settled down for family life until after Sauron was destroyed -- not that they were paladins, but why would paladins behave more recklessly?)


----------



## mmadsen (Dec 2, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> One of the reasons we know this conflict was real is that it is consistently presented as a tension within the heroes of Arthurian romances. The sexuality of the characters humanizes them; it makes them real; it makes readers identify with them. What it does not do is bring them closer to the ideal for which they strive.



Well said.  Arthur and his knights were heroic, but flawed, and their very human actions had consequences.  Only Galahad remained pure -- and found the Grail.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 2, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think you should research _courtly love_ before you draw the conclusion that _paladins can "get in on" like the rest of us_.  Courtly love is an idealized (fictional) form of love, typically between a young knight and a noble lady --  idealized often to the point of a platonic relationship.  It inspires the young knight to noble deeds, but it might very well _never_ be consummated.




Thanks for quoting that.  I'd missed it the first pass through.

The section on courtly love in the Complete Paladin's handbook actually mentions bonuses that a paladin could recieve for being in such a relationship - things like what would be in D&D 3E morale bonuses to saves, attack rolls, whatver.

Those bonuses go away if the paladin marries or sleeps with the object of his courtly love.

Case closed?


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Dec 3, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Well said.  Arthur and his knights were heroic, but flawed, and their very human actions had consequences.  Only Galahad remained pure -- and found the Grail.




I thought Percival found the Grail, but it's been a while?


----------



## NewJeffCTHome (Dec 3, 2004)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> Somebody's probably already said this, but...
> 
> This was more-or-less covered in the _Quest for Glory IV_ -- Paladins can't go around doing the entire sexual liberation thing unless you've got a whole lot of contraceptives and no STDs because it's wholly irresponsible of them to go having a bunch of kids (all of whom are loved and wanted, right) because they may be laying down their life for the greater good tomorrow and leaving grieving widows waiting for them to come home -- never mind the example that it sets for the peasants that don't have Divine Health or whatever it's called these days.
> 
> ...




Some good points.  However, as a counter point:
1) As another in this thread pointed out, paladins are immune to disease, so no worry about STDs.  
2) In some historical cultures, it was acceptable for both men & women to have several lovers, even if married (Greece, for example, as well as some Polynesian & Eskimo cultures).  If a paladin was in a Greek-like society, it may be less lawful for him to stick with 1 woman than it would be for him to sleep around.
3) Any adventurer runs the risk of dying & leaving children without a parent.  As does any knight or man-at-arms.  Heck, Bob Peasant could get kicked in the neck by a mule and die in the fields if he goes out of the hovel.  I think with a paladin, at least, his connection to the church would at least make the nearest cleric of that religion see to the child's upbringing.  Would the local thieves' guild do the same?


----------



## fusangite (Dec 3, 2004)

Depending on your sources and interpretation, up to four knights achieve the grail: Galahad, Bors, Perceval and Gawain. But in all cases, rejection of the carnal is one of the themes.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 3, 2004)

NewJeffCTHome said:
			
		

> 2) In some historical cultures, it was acceptable for both men & women to have several lovers, even if married (Greece, for example, as well as some Polynesian & Eskimo cultures).  If a paladin was in a Greek-like society, it may be less lawful for him to stick with 1 woman than it would be for him to sleep around.




I'm curious about this contention regarding Greek culture. In many historical cultures male infidelity has been "officially" frowned upon but generally accepted anyway. However, it seems at odds with what I know of greek culture to say that female infidelity enjoyed the same acceptance. The trojan war was fought over Helen, Ulysses killed all of Penelope's suitors (and his wife was intentionally putting them off), and Aphrodite was punished for her unfaithfulness to Hephaestus (even though that is portrayed as a rather horrific mismatch in the tales). Plato, of course thought all of these tales of the gods' infidelities to be scandalous and expected the audience of his dialogues to agree with him.

That doesn't sound a whole lot like acceptance of married women having multiple lovers to me. (Even if it is usually the womens' lovers who are killed rather than the women themselves--a more likely read on the attitude might be that taking another man's wife is an insult to him and if he doesn't repay you with violence then you're obviously stronger and better than him. (An attitude that Elijah Anderson finds to still be present in the street codes of inner city youth). So, taking another man's woman gets you respect if he doesn't do anything about it but his killing you in revenge gets him respect. That would account for nearly all of the literary reactions to infidelity I know of: Menelaus had to get Helen back, Ulysses had to kill his wifes' suitors, etc but Ulysses time with Circe and Calypso just makes him more the man).

For that matter, the tales of Hera's wrath at Zeus and Medea's vengeance upon Jason seem to indicate a certain ambivalence towards even male infidelity.

And, of course, it's a huge leap to step from tacit acceptance of infidelity to positive expectation of it.



> 3) Any adventurer runs the risk of dying & leaving children without a parent.  As does any knight or man-at-arms.  Heck, Bob Peasant could get kicked in the neck by a mule and die in the fields if he goes out of the hovel.  I think with a paladin, at least, his connection to the church would at least make the nearest cleric of that religion see to the child's upbringing.  Would the local thieves' guild do the same?




Given my experience playing D&D and the knowledge that only actual PCs have their encounters (generally) crafted to be winnable, I would say that there are several orders of magnitude in the difference of the odds of the paladin dying and not coming back and Bob Peasant being killed by an angry housecat. (Not that the housecats aren't a grave danger  )


----------



## Agback (Dec 3, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Ulysses killed all of Penelope's suitors




Odysseus (we are discussing Greek here) not only killed all of Penelope's suitors, he also hanged all of his own concubines who had not repulsed the suitors.



> Ulysses time with Circe and Calypso just makes him more the man).




Well, I seem to recall that Odysseus tried to resist the advances of both Circe and Calypso. I think that Calypso even offered to have him made immortal if he would put out. But he preferred to return to his wife, son, and homeland.

I think a better illustration of your point would be the existence of Odysseus's harem.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Dec 3, 2004)

Agback said:
			
		

> Odysseus (we are discussing Greek here) not only killed all of Penelope's suitors, he also hanged all of his own concubines who had not repulsed the suitors.




Yeah, but see, I always misspell Odysseus and that's rather embarrassing. Ulysses may be latin, but I can remember it when I'm not looking at someone else's post with the right spelling.


----------



## Goblyns Hoard (Dec 3, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I wonder how you can say that, when Arthur winds up struck down by his own bastard son, Modred.  It isn't just the Arthur/Gwen/Lance triad.  There are examples of romance causing issues all over Arthurian legend.




I think his point was that there's also plenty of good sex that doesn't bring about bad influences... the good sex between Arthur and Guenevere is never a problem.  And the Lancelot Guenevere thing is the main story arc in so many of the more basic retellings of the Arthurian legends - there are some in which Mordred barely gets a mention (not saying this is a good thing... just that it's happened).

My take on Paladins and sex and marriage... it really has to depend on the campaign.  

If your campaign is going for the high chivalric fantasy in the Arthurian vein then faithfulness is required, celibacy is showing an admirable devotion to your god, lechery and casual sex are indescribable sins and will bring about your ultimate downfall.

If you have a different campaign style then the decision has to be based on the god that the paladin worships.  Someone like Tyr is probably less concerned about celibacy that someone like Helm or Heironious.  I have my own gods - Paladins of Kin (Goddess of Community, Justice and Tyranny) would probably be required to abstain from all sexual conduct, Paladins of Lymos (God of Light, War and Prejudice) would be expected to marry, have many offspring, but also to remain faithful (and your spouse better be of the same race).  We currently have a Paladin of Fera (Goddess of Nature, Life and Lust) and he is required to NOT remain celibate, though he is required to be faithful to his chosen partner (he is lawful after all).

I feel the important point is that the paladin, whilst derived originally from the Arthurian legends (and the various works of fiction that they inspired), should not be limited to such.  I don't have Eberron but my brief skims through it at the FLGS certainly don't inspire me with tales of knights in shining armour, neither does FR.  Greyhawk itself probably more so, but not absolutely.  Kara-Tur, Al-Quadim definitely not.  But all these worlds have paladins, and the concept of a paladin has to be geared toward a holy warrior of a particular culture... so the prevailing culture and their social mores have to be what's used to determine whether or not sex is permissible.

The Hoard


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 3, 2004)

I never had the impression that a paladin had to be chaste or celibate in any edition of DnD.


----------



## Goblyns Hoard (Dec 3, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> FWIW I see the paladin's code as a sort of modified "Asimov's laws of robotics" - i.e., a set of laws, which when applied to any given situation, will tell the paladin either how he must act or that it doesn't matter how he acts (e.g., applying these laws tells you that it doesn't matter whether or not you order the roast mutton or boiled chicken in most circumstances - it's a neutral choice unless church or local law proscribes one or both).
> 
> Law 1: The paladin will never harm an innocent, nor through inaction, allow an innocent to come to harm.
> 
> ...




Sigil - I like this... personally I don't use as strict a form of defined morality in my homebrew (my gods don't have alignments), so some of your starting points about culture vs alignment don't quite fit... means I'm going to have to take into account a magic item's culture as and when that has to be considered.  Could have some fun implications.

However your set of rules work out fairly well.  I don't want to codify too much - mainly I'll go with as long as the Paladin is doing what Clark Kent would do it's pretty much the right action.  However this is a good basis to go from.

I certainly agree that any Lawful character that want's to remain so has to show faithfulness.  That doesn't require marriage but some sort of bond, the breaking of which would have lose their status.  That said if the other partner broke the bond would the paladin be required to remain faithful to someone that has shown themselve unworthy?  Would that betrayal of the bond free the paladin to seek a new partner.

Will have to give this all some thought


----------



## fusangite (Dec 3, 2004)

Goblyns Hoard said:
			
		

> My take on Paladins and sex and marriage... it really has to depend on the campaign.
> 
> If your campaign is going for the high chivalric fantasy in the Arthurian vein then faithfulness is required, celibacy is showing an admirable devotion to your god, lechery and casual sex are indescribable sins and will bring about your ultimate downfall...
> 
> I feel the important point is that the paladin, whilst derived originally from the Arthurian legends (and the various works of fiction that they inspired), should not be limited to such.  I don't have Eberron but my brief skims through it at the FLGS certainly don't inspire me with tales of knights in shining armour, neither does FR.  Greyhawk itself probably more so, but not absolutely.  Kara-Tur, Al-Quadim definitely not.  But all these worlds have paladins, and the concept of a paladin has to be geared toward a holy warrior of a particular culture... so the prevailing culture and their social mores have to be what's used to determine whether or not sex is permissible.




I think this is just a difference in GMing philosophy. In the campaign I'm currently in, we had a similar disagreement over the Monk class. Some people believe that the core classes should be used in all settings; others believe that they should only be used in settings where they correspond to a cultural archetype. For me, having the Paladin class exist outside of medieval Christendom and Islam is as absurd as the Monk class existing within medieval Christendom and Islam. 

In my view, if one wants to create a non-spell casting holy warrior for another sort of culture, the Paladin is a less than ideal starting point, just as the Monk is a less than ideal starting point for a generic or European-style ascetic. In my view, non-chivalric holy warriors shouldn't be locked into the code requirement, alignment requirement or pushed so vehemently towards mounted combat. 

I have no objection to what people who are trying to universalize the Paladin are trying to achieve. I'm just questioning whether universalizing the Paladin is the most efficient or logical way to do it. Aren't there prestige classes or variant core classes that do a better job of creating warriors dedicated to Tyr and other gods ill-suited to code-following men on horseback?


----------



## shilsen (Dec 3, 2004)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> I never had the impression that a paladin had to be chaste or celibate in any edition of DnD.



 True. Chastity/celibacy only becomes an issue if you think all D&D paladins should aspire to be like Galahad, which is apparently the aim for some people (fusangite, for example, if I'm not misreading) posting to this thread. I personally find that incredibly reductionist and not borne out by the PHB paladin's description, so I do not.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Dec 3, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> True. Chastity/celibacy only becomes an issue if you think all D&D paladins should aspire to be like Galahad, which is apparently the aim for some people (fusangite, for example, if I'm not misreading) posting to this thread. I personally find that incredibly reductionist and not borne out by the PHB paladin's description, so I do not.




Agreed - my original post on this subject over a week ago was me wondering if people played the paladin any differently than the chaste/celibate/sexless Sir Galahad archetype.  I've been gaming for a good 25 years and that always has seemed to be the stereotype for a paladin, even though there was nothing in the rules specifically requiring a paladin to be sexless.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Dec 3, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think this is just a difference in GMing philosophy. In the campaign I'm currently in, we had a similar disagreement over the Monk class. Some people believe that the core classes should be used in all settings; others believe that they should only be used in settings where they correspond to a cultural archetype. For me, having the Paladin class exist outside of medieval Christendom and Islam is as absurd as the Monk class existing within medieval Christendom and Islam.
> 
> In my view, if one wants to create a non-spell casting holy warrior for another sort of culture, the Paladin is a less than ideal starting point, just as the Monk is a less than ideal starting point for a generic or European-style ascetic. In my view, non-chivalric holy warriors shouldn't be locked into the code requirement, alignment requirement or pushed so vehemently towards mounted combat.
> 
> I have no objection to what people who are trying to universalize the Paladin are trying to achieve. I'm just questioning whether universalizing the Paladin is the most efficient or logical way to do it. Aren't there prestige classes or variant core classes that do a better job of creating warriors dedicated to Tyr and other gods ill-suited to code-following men on horseback?




For somebody like me with little time to devote to gaming (unfortunately) due to a very active 21 month old daughter, a full time job with a long commute and a non-gaming wife, it is easier for me to adapt a paladin or monk to a different culture than it is for me to develop a whole new character or prestige class that is more culturally correct.  The group I game with rarely uses prestige classes as it is - I think we have had 1 or 2 since the advent of 3E - so, using a new prestige class potentially opens up a can of worms.

And, it's not like we say "no" to prestige classes - we just don't have that much interest.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 3, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> True. Chastity/celibacy only becomes an issue if you think all D&D paladins should aspire to be like Galahad, which is apparently the aim for some people (fusangite, for example, if I'm not misreading) posting to this thread. I personally find that incredibly reductionist and not borne out by the PHB paladin's description, so I do not.




You're only kind of misreading. The Readers Digest condensed version of my argument is this:

*Part I*
1. Core D&D character classes are not all equally culturally universal. 
2. Some classes clash with the cultures from which they are not derived such as the Monk and Paladin.
3. There is plenty of D20 material that contains core and prestige classes that are culturally compatible. Thus, if you want to have a divine champion or holy warrior in a non-chivalric culture, you should look in those books. Similarly, if you want to have an ascetic or martial artist in a non-oriental culture, you should look in those books. 

*Part II*
There is a lot of confusion arising from people failing to make distinctions between what archetypal Paladins *did* and what archetypal Paladins _*aspired to*_. Grail knights _*aspired to*_ celibacy; the fact that not all achieved it does not mean that this is not what they were striving for. In Wolfram von Escheback's _Parzifal_, the story begins with Parzifal accidentally/innocently raping a woman and killing the Red Knight. But the fact that he does those things doesn't make them part of the ideal behaviour of a grail knight; carnality is depicted in these stories as something that stands between the self and God. People cite the example of Guenivere and Arthur's carnal relationship; but isn't this married status part of what disqualifies Arthur from achieving the grail himself?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 4, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> You're only kind of misreading. The Readers Digest condensed version of my argument is this:
> 
> *Part I*
> 1. Core D&D character classes are not all equally culturally universal.
> ...



I simply have to disagree.
There are entire orders of monks and paladins in FR. I think you're reading too much into the paladin that simply isn't there. To put it another way, it's possible to build your grail knight from the paladin class, but not everyone of the paladin class must be, or aspire to, the Grail Knight archetype.



> *Part II*
> There is a lot of confusion arising from people failing to make distinctions between what archetypal Paladins *did* and what archetypal Paladins _*aspired to*_.




How many times in the arthurian mythos were they called paladins? Taking only first edition's paladin, they are charitable warriors of good that fight evil, and must adhere to a code of lawfulness and goodness. They (unlike most people) are punished for straying by lose of powers. Anything else is simply added by your own preconceptions, not the material.

I think the grail knights are more Exalted types, rather than paladins. It's not like paladins are the top of the Good Pile.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 4, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Anything else is simply added by your own preconceptions, not the material.



And yet, the fact that many of us share those preconceptions might indicate something in the material itself is fostering them, don't you think?

Incidentally, FR is a world created around the foibles of D&D.  It's nonsensical to try and use FR to in turn justify those foibles.







> I think the grail knights are more Exalted types, rather than paladins. It's not like paladins are the top of the Good Pile.



I disagree.  I believe that the entire "exalted" concept is an way to bring the goodness that paladins exemplify in the standard D&D game to the rest of the classes.  A paladin is a bastion of good right out of the box.  To get the same thing as a rogue, you tack on "exalted."  Using "exalted" when describing a paladin is, IMO, superfluous.


----------



## Agback (Dec 4, 2004)

NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> Agreed - my original post on this subject over a week ago was me wondering if people played the paladin any differently than the chaste/celibate/sexless Sir Galahad archetype.




I have done so. My last paladin was married, and he considered his wife to be the best thing in his life except for God. He didn't like fighting, and found the necessity of using violence from time to time in his calling very distressing. If he had not been married he would have become an Augustinian monk, so basically his wife was the only thing that kept him paladining. (The campaign year was AD 1092, so it was too early for him to join a fighting order, and I doubt he would have wanted to.)


----------



## Victim (Dec 4, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> And yet, the fact that many of us share those preconceptions might indicate something in the material itself is fostering them, don't you think?
> 
> Incidentally, FR is a world created around the foibles of D&D.  It's nonsensical to try and use FR to in turn justify those foibles.I disagree.  I believe that the entire "exalted" concept is an way to bring the goodness that paladins exemplify in the standard D&D game to the rest of the classes.  A paladin is a bastion of good right out of the box.  To get the same thing as a rogue, you tack on "exalted."  Using "exalted" when describing a paladin is, IMO, superfluous.




Perhaps the reason you share those preconceptions is because the game mechanical idea of a paladin evolved while your idea stayed the same.  While the paladin is based on chivalric knights, and can be used to create them, it can also be used to do other things.  While the current rogue is based on the old thief class, and readily supports sneaky robbers and backstabbers, not all rogues have to be sneaky robbers and backstabbers.

Yeah, that's why the restrictions for exalted characters are harsher than the paladin code (although you seem to want to force exalted restrictions on paladins by default), and why paladins can gain quite a bit from exalted mechanics too.  In fact, characters that already have alignment contraints can lose the least from Exalted feats, since the power up is generally the same while the increase in restrictions is less.  An exalted rogue gives up alot of flexibility in use of his skill set, while the paladin gives up little - and part of that burden will be shared by other characters.

I don't find it difficult at all to rationalize different takes on classes.


----------



## War Golem (Dec 4, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Core D&D, for better or for worse, is a game of moral absolutes. This is the only way the alignment/outer planar/alignment subtype/holy weapon/etc. system presented in the D&D cosmos can be internally consistent.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Hi The Sigil,

I couldn't agree more about your point of D&D being a game of moral absolutes. I think many people overlook this aspect of D&D, some intentionally, some quite knowingly. But core D&D is a setting with a cosmology that is structured around planes and beings that are absolute exemplars and personifications of various, defined moralities. Thus, there are beings that are GOOD, and beings that are EVIL. No ifs, ands, or buts.

That said, I disagree with your Law 2. In their aspect as a holy warrior, I view paladins more as destroyers than redeemers. When confronted with a clear "evil-doer," I believe a (Lawful Good) paladin is mandated to kill/destroy, not redeem.

I'm not saying there's never any gray area in these situations, but there is certainly a lot less in the campaigns I run than (apparently) those of many other people on these boards.

p.s. And one note on topic, I don't agree that there should be special restrictions on paladins' sexual activities.

Cheers,
-War Golem


----------



## fusangite (Dec 4, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I simply have to disagree.
> There are entire orders of monks and paladins in FR. I think you're reading too much into the paladin that simply isn't there. To put it another way, it's possible to build your grail knight from the paladin class, but not everyone of the paladin class must be, or aspire to, the Grail Knight archetype.




Yes. But this is a matter of taste; people who like Faerun are people who are not especially concerned with their world making sense culturally or mythologically. I would make the case that Paladins in Faerun are no more out of place than anything else because _everything_ in Faerun is out of place. Faerun is a fine world to play in if you don't see realistic or culturally resonant mythology or culture as important things in your game. I'm not telling you that you have to run Paladins the way I run them; I'm just saying that if you care about the kinds of things I care about, Paladins and Monks are problematic classes. 



> How many times in the arthurian mythos were they called paladins?




Never. But that's a spurious argument. I'm not arguing about what Paladins and Monks are called. I'm arguing about what they refer to. You could use the same argument to argue that D&D halflings have nothing to do with hobbits. 



> Taking only first edition's paladin, they are charitable warriors of good that fight evil, and must adhere to a code of lawfulness and goodness. They (unlike most people) are punished for straying by lose of powers. Anything else is simply added by your own preconceptions, not the material.




There is a middle ground you are missing here. If my perception is part of a shared cultural understanding of something, it has an actual reality to it beyond the inside of my head. As is abundantly evident by other posts in this thread, many people who play D&D see the Paladin as referencing the same chivalric ideal.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 4, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> You're only kind of misreading. The Readers Digest condensed version of my argument is this:
> 
> *Part I*
> 1. Core D&D character classes are not all equally culturally universal.
> 2. Some classes clash with the cultures from which they are not derived such as the Monk and Paladin.




This is where I differ with you. I agree that the ideas for the monk and the paladin class were predicated upon certain cultures. But I don't think those cultural assumptions are necessary to the existence of such classes in the game, and I don't think the classes as they exist in 3e even necessarily call on the original source material as much as you do. Does the PHB monk work for a half-orc order which completely mimics, say, historical Japanese martial arts monasteries? Sure. Does it work for an order of elven mystics whose power comes from their kinship with nature? Sure. Does it work for a secret order of urban halfling commandos who train their bodies and minds to achieve extraordinary physical feats without the benefit of weapons and armor? Sure. The same is true for the paladin. It works well with the grail knight ideal. It also works well with a number of other ideals without having to change anything from the PHB.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 4, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> This is where I differ with you. I agree that the ideas for the monk and the paladin class were predicated upon certain cultures.




So far so good.



> But I don't think those cultural assumptions are necessary to the existence of such classes in the game, and I don't think the classes as they exist in 3e even necessarily call on the original source material as much as you do.




That depends entirely on the style of game you play. In some people's playing style those things don't matter very much. In my playing style, they matter a lot. 



> Does the PHB monk work for a half-orc order which completely mimics, say, historical Japanese martial arts monasteries? Sure. Does it work for an order of elven mystics whose power comes from their kinship with nature? Sure. Does it work for a secret order of urban halfling commandos who train their bodies and minds to achieve extraordinary physical feats without the benefit of weapons and armor? Sure.




It only "works" for those things if you don't care about the things I care about. You are free to not care about them. Nowhere in my posts do I suggest that classes cannot be viewed in exclusively mechanical terms with no reference to culture. I'm simply saying that if you view them in those terms, you are playing a different style of D&D than I am. 

For someone like me, _Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe_ is a very important text and the _Forgotten Realms_ corpus is best ignored. For someone like you, the reverse is likely true. I'm simply saying that if you care about things like cultural resonance and mythological archetypes, it is very problematic to decouple the Paladin from chivalric culture. 



> The same is true for the paladin. It works well with the grail knight ideal. It also works well with a number of other ideals without having to change anything from the PHB.




I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'm not arguing about the text of the PHB. The text of the PHB encourages you to have Shaolin monks wandering around 13th century Europe. It also encourages you to have societies where there is no such thing as gender only sex -- and _Forgotten Realms_ is an ideal example of this. If this were an argument about the rules, it would have ended on the first page -- you would be right and I would be wrong. But, from the poster's original comments, and the way the thread has unfolded it seems clear to me that we are discussing what range of options people playing Paladins have; and it seems pretty clear to me that the range of options you have is determined by how important you think mythic and cultural resonance are in your game. 

We all have our own requirements for making D&D play "feel real." What I am stating is that _if_ a person shares my requirements, the chaste Paladin is the way to go.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 4, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> That depends entirely on the style of game you play. In some people's playing style those things don't matter very much. In my playing style, they matter a lot.




Big assumption on your part. It is possible for those things to matter for others and also for those others to not come to the same conclusions you have.



> It only "works" for those things if you don't care about the things I care about. You are free to not care about them. Nowhere in my posts do I suggest that classes cannot be viewed in exclusively mechanical terms with no reference to culture. I'm simply saying that if you view them in those terms, you are playing a different style of D&D than I am.




Again, an assumption (that I am viewing the classes in a completely culture-free context). Your argument seems to be that if you view certain classes with reference to culture, you have to place them in the historical culture that they draw upon. What I'm saying is that it's not an either-or situation as you represent it. 



> For someone like me, _Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe_ is a very important text and the _Forgotten Realms_ corpus is best ignored. For someone like you, the reverse is likely true.




Wrong.



> I'm simply saying that if you care about things like cultural resonance and mythological archetypes, it is very problematic to decouple the Paladin from chivalric culture.




And I'm saying that you can have cultural resonance and mythological archetypes (both of which I enjoy having in my games) and easily decouple the paladin from chivalric culture. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.



> I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'm not arguing about the text of the PHB. The text of the PHB encourages you to have Shaolin monks wandering around 13th century Europe. It also encourages you to have societies where there is no such thing as gender only sex -- and _Forgotten Realms_ is an ideal example of this. If this were an argument about the rules, it would have ended on the first page -- you would be right and I would be wrong. But, from the poster's original comments, and the way the thread has unfolded it seems clear to me that we are discussing what range of options people playing Paladins have; and it seems pretty clear to me that the range of options you have is determined by how important you think mythic and cultural resonance are in your game.




Actually, since the original post says:

"The stereotypical image of a paladin is the chaste Sir Galahad. But, that kind of bothered me, as I saw nothing in the rules requiring chastity from a paladin – male or female – and I have been playing since early 1E days. However, it seems that the DMs I have played with over the years seem to naturally assume this to be the case."

it seems to me that the poster is using the rules as a take-off point for his assumptions about the range of options, as many people do. Even if one ignores the PHB, I figure that the range of options are not as narrow as you apparently think.  



> We all have our own requirements for making D&D play "feel real." What I am stating is that _if_ a person shares my requirements, the chaste Paladin is the way to go.




Again, I think you're working too much on "either-or" assumptions. Your claim seems to be that one either cares for 'cultural resonance and mythological archetypes' (and if so, has to agree with you and use the chaste Paladin) or one doesn't. I think it's quite possible to have the one without the other.

I think the difference in our positions comes down to what one thinks is possible in a campaign or not. So until we're in a position where either of us can partake in the other's game, I think we're stuck with agreeing to disagree. As I said in another thread, the cool thing is that we can do that and both enjoy our respective campaigns. Man, I love this game !


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I think the difference in our positions comes down to what one thinks is possible in a campaign or not. So until we're in a position where either of us can partake in the other's game, I think we're stuck with agreeing to disagree. As I said in another thread, the cool thing is that we can do that and both enjoy our respective campaigns. Man, I love this game !




Fair enough. I won't belabour the point further but I do have a question... 



> And I'm saying that you can have cultural resonance and mythological archetypes (both of which I enjoy having in my games) and easily decouple the paladin from chivalric culture. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.




Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> So far so good.
> It only "works" for those things if you don't care about the things I care about. You are free to not care about them. Nowhere in my posts do I suggest that classes cannot be viewed in exclusively mechanical terms with no reference to culture. I'm simply saying that if you view them in those terms, you are playing a different style of D&D than I am.



Minor quible, but "cares about" seems misplaced. "Shares my thoughts" or "has the same opinions as me" seem more to fit. You obviously prefer a strict medieval setup and dislike anything that strays from that. That doesn't mean anyone that things Paladins are a broader class than Galahad don't care about historical accuracy.

As was said earlier (in regard to me using D&D's setting to explain D&D's rules), you're saying that your opinion is right to people that share your opinion.



> I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'm not arguing about the text of the PHB. The text of the PHB encourages you to have Shaolin monks wandering around 13th century Europe. It also encourages you to have societies where there is no such thing as gender only sex -- and _Forgotten Realms_ is an ideal example of this. If this were an argument about the rules, it would have ended on the first page -- you would be right and I would be wrong. But, from the poster's original comments, and the way the thread has unfolded it seems clear to me that we are discussing what range of options people playing Paladins have; and it seems pretty clear to me that the range of options you have is determined by how important you think mythic and cultural resonance are in your game.




The thread is about options in D&D. I guess my problem is that you're not argueing what paladins are, you're repeating what the Grail Knights were. If someone says "paladins can also be this" answering "no, Grail Knights can't do that" is working around the discussion IMO. Granted, in any discussion "in my opinion" is to be taken for granted, but in this discussion a lot of the "must be chaste" side seems to present their opinion as an absolute.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.



They work for generally any lawful good holy warrior archetype. If the class didn't exist, you could work it as a fighter-cleric or something certainly, but that's like saying without the Bard you can make it with a rogue-sorcerer.

Real world mythology has some good stuff, but D&D isn't real world. The archetype for a paladin depends on the individual campaign world more than a real world mythological precursor.

I don't think mounts were especially important in the grail series (no more than any other "we're important and have horses" epic of the time that is.) I don't think turning undead was every important, and the 1e "only have 10 items" doesn't strike a bell either.

I guess my point is, you could build probably build the grail knights from the fighter class easier than the Paladin class.


----------



## countgray (Dec 5, 2004)

I am running a Paladin of Sune (goddess of beauty & love) in a Forgotten Realms campaign and he is decidedly not chaste, and in fact seeks actively to convert pretty much almost every female NPC he meets to the worship of Sune by sharing love with them, either the physical kind or just flirting and paying attention to them. He is lawful good but he is definitely not chaste.


----------



## sword-dancer (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> As is abundantly evident by other posts in this thread, many people who play D&D see the Paladin as referencing the same chivalric ideal.



No, I don`t see Pallys so, not in the first place.
The Knight I see followed by the an subset of the fighter class, the same as the samurai(who is only a variant of the knight).

A Paladin may follow the chivalric ideal, or the the äquivalent of another culture, but first and formost he is an warrior chosen or accepted by his god(s) the forces of good, because he deemed worthy and capable to fight for their cause!
Even in an medieval Setting a pally may be an commoner, a foot soldier, a sailor, or an outrider.
Also he could be an diplomat, judge, Mentor.


----------



## sword-dancer (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.




Solomon Kane, chivalric yes!,Horse No! A dark and grim Paladin.
Short said it`s powers didn`t made a pally, the reasons why he for what act, and how he act made him a pally.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Other than the chivalric/grail ideal, what are some mythic archetypes you see the Paladin with his special mount, capacity to channel divine power, specifically lawful goodness and ethical code corresponding to better than a prestige- or multi-classed fighter or cleric of one sort or another? I'm not meaning to be argumentative, only curious.




As Vocenoctum said, you can use the paladin for a lot of different LG holy warrior archetypes. Being a mythologist for a few decades (started reading the Ramayana and Mahabharata in kiddie version when I was 3), I've pulled ideas from mythic traditions like the Indian, Greek, Teutonic, etc. Also, I find it fairly easy to create fantasy societies with a discrete cultural flavor that doesn't necessarily fit anything in the real world but may have some analogs (after all, a holy warrior tradition in a culture of people who live over 700 years is going to be very different from one set among pseudo-historical middle-ages/renaissance humans).

I have used chivalric traditions (without necessarily using the grail knight) too, obviously. I've recently been thinking of pulling some ideas from the Faerie Queene (been reading a lot of Spenser recently), which tends to just up-end the chivalric tradition while still remaining within the boundaries of the tradition. Is Red Crosse a LG holy warrior? Definitely. Is Britomart? Sure. Is Artegall? Yep (heck, I can see him doing "detect evil and smite" daily!). Calidore? Arguably. But none of them are celibate and some might not count as chaste.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> As Vocenoctum said, you can use the paladin for a lot of different LG holy warrior archetypes. Being a mythologist for a few decades (started reading the Ramayana and Mahabharata in kiddie version when I was 3), I've pulled ideas from mythic traditions like the Indian, Greek, Teutonic, etc. Also, I find it fairly easy to create fantasy societies with a discrete cultural flavor that doesn't necessarily fit anything in the real world but may have some analogs (after all, a holy warrior tradition in a culture of people who live over 700 years is going to be very different from one set among pseudo-historical middle-ages/renaissance humans).
> 
> I have used chivalric traditions (without necessarily using the grail knight) too, obviously. I've recently been thinking of pulling some ideas from the Faerie Queene (been reading a lot of Spenser recently), which tends to just up-end the chivalric tradition while still remaining within the boundaries of the tradition. Is Red Crosse a LG holy warrior? Definitely. Is Britomart? Sure. Is Artegall? Yep (heck, I can see him doing "detect evil and smite" daily!). Calidore? Arguably. But none of them are celibate and some might not count as chaste.




I think our positions are much closer than I anticipated. I also see Spenser as occupying a liminal position within the chivalric/grail corpus but had not previously thought through the implications of this. In retrospect, it all makes sense -- of course post-Reformation Protestant texts would allow for non-celibate Paladin models. In fact, the argument I've been making in this thread should have predicted this.   I simply failed to think through the fact that the literary genre we were discussing continued past 1517. 

Although I would not use the Paladin class but instead construct my own core class or prestige class for the holy warriors you describe in your first paragraph, you make an excellent case for a non-celibate Paladin in the second. I had not previously considered the _Faerie Queen_ in this way and am quite happy to yield to your opinion that this is a mythologically legitimate model for the Paladin that does not include celibacy. Well done!


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> They work for generally any lawful good holy warrior archetype. If the class didn't exist, you could work it as a fighter-cleric or something certainly, but that's like saying without the Bard you can make it with a rogue-sorcerer.




But a Rogue 2/Sorceror 5 does not model an archetypal bard better than a Bard 7. There are the inappropriate powers like evocation spells and sneak attacks, there is the absence of bardic music, there are none of the divination and enchantment spell advantages. So no -- a Sorceror/Rogue does not model a bard better than a Bard. 

It is harder to make that argument about a Fighter 2/Cleric 5 vs a Paladin 7 if one is modeling non-chivalric holy warriors.



> Real world mythology has some good stuff, but D&D isn't real world. The archetype for a paladin depends on the individual campaign world more than a real world mythological precursor.




I'm repeating myself again: I'm not telling you what your priorities should be. I'm telling you what I think you should do if you share my priorities. 



> I don't think mounts were especially important in the grail series (no more than any other "we're important and have horses" epic of the time that is.) I don't think turning undead was every important, and the 1e "only have 10 items" doesn't strike a bell either.




You could make the turning undead argument about each individual spell too but that side-steps the point. The point is that _Lay on Hands_, _Turn Undead_ and the spells all indicate that the Paladin shares a priest's special relationship with the deity. 

As for your point about the horses, it depends which story but I think what is being put across here is the idea that the mount is part of what identifies a person as a Paladin. The idea -- being mounted is part of what makes you who you are -- is the clearest of all the mechanical indicators that Paladins represent a chivalric archetype.



> I guess my point is, you could build probably build the grail knights from the fighter class easier than the Paladin class.




The mechanic that is invaluable for grail-type stories in the Paladin is the fact that the character's power is inextricably linked to his moral virtue. For this reason, the Paladin is vastly better than the fighter for building grail knights in mechanically representing this realtionship through the code.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But a Rogue 2/Sorceror 5 does not model an archetypal bard better than a Bard 7. There are the inappropriate powers like evocation spells and sneak attacks, there is the absence of bardic music, there are none of the divination and enchantment spell advantages. So no -- a Sorceror/Rogue does not model a bard better than a Bard.
> 
> It is harder to make that argument about a Fighter 2/Cleric 5 vs a Paladin 7 if one is modeling non-chivalric holy warriors.



I think the Perform skill is more of the bard than anything. Weaving spells into the music is as easy for a sorcerer as it is for a bard.




> I'm repeating myself again: I'm not telling you what your priorities should be. I'm telling you what I think you should do if you share my priorities.



Right, that was my point. If someone shares your opinion, they will agree with your opinion. If you only see the paladin archetype as the grail knight, then all the rules of the grail knight apply. The thing is, you seem to present the opinion that anyone that doesn't assign Grail Knight as the paladin archetype is somehow not interested in a deep cultural basis for the paladin in the setting.




> As for your point about the horses, it depends which story but I think what is being put across here is the idea that the mount is part of what identifies a person as a Paladin. The idea -- being mounted is part of what makes you who you are -- is the clearest of all the mechanical indicators that Paladins represent a chivalric archetype.



I haven't read the book (3 something and 3 hearts?) mentioned earlier in this thread which is apparently the basis for the mount. For myself, I can understand why a smiter of evil must be mobile.
In fact, providing a mount is redundant to a chivalric type. They'd already have a mount and I don't really think any one specific horse retained it's position as favored mount for 10 years.

The Mount ability of the paladin is actually more useful to a paladin that is NOT a member of the knightly social ranks, but I don't think that's how it was intended. (The 3.5 special mount seems particularly good for my Halfling Guerilla Paladin idea.)



> The mechanic that is invaluable for grail-type stories in the Paladin is the fact that the character's power is inextricably linked to his moral virtue. For this reason, the Paladin is vastly better than the fighter for building grail knights in mechanically representing this realtionship through the code.




I think it's better represented by Exalted feats. Having more feats lends more powers, and the Vow feats add to your responsibility at the same time gifting you with more ability. It means the knight that has sworn the Vow of Celibacy is indeed more "holy" than the knight who just has a vow of obedience. It allows for the individual knights of the round table more as well. (Not all really had the same vow in practice as it were.)


----------



## shilsen (Dec 5, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think our positions are much closer than I anticipated. I also see Spenser as occupying a liminal position within the chivalric/grail corpus but had not previously thought through the implications of this. In retrospect, it all makes sense -- of course post-Reformation Protestant texts would allow for non-celibate Paladin models. In fact, the argument I've been making in this thread should have predicted this.   I simply failed to think through the fact that the literary genre we were discussing continued past 1517.




Happens to the best of us. Spenser didn't exactly do a great job at predicting some of the problems his consideration of fissures in the chivalric code would cause for his own epic. 



> Although I would not use the Paladin class but instead construct my own core class or prestige class for the holy warriors you describe in your first paragraph, you make an excellent case for a non-celibate Paladin in the second. I had not previously considered the _Faerie Queen_ in this way and am quite happy to yield to your opinion that this is a mythologically legitimate model for the Paladin that does not include celibacy. Well done!




Thanks. I'm taking a Ph.D. preliminary exam on the Renaissance on Tuesday. Here's hoping that I'm as successful at persuading the examiners as I was with you.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 5, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think it's better represented by Exalted feats. Having more feats lends more powers, and the Vow feats add to your responsibility at the same time gifting you with more ability. It means the knight that has sworn the Vow of Celibacy is indeed more "holy" than the knight who just has a vow of obedience. It allows for the individual knights of the round table more as well. (Not all really had the same vow in practice as it were.)




Are these in the core rules? I've never heard of them.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 6, 2004)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Are these in the core rules? I've never heard of them.




Book of Exalted Deeds. For the Gooder than Good Goodie Goodies.


----------



## Agback (Dec 6, 2004)

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> Even in an medieval Setting a pally may be an commoner, a foot soldier, a sailor, or an outrider.
> Also he could be an diplomat, judge, Mentor.




Mine was a doctor.


----------



## Agback (Dec 6, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I haven't read the book (3 something and 3 hearts?) mentioned earlier in this thread which is apparently the basis for the mount.





_Three Hearts and Three Lions_, by Poul Anderson. It is also the main source for Law and Chaos and for regenerating trolls.


----------

