GameBanshee Forums

As it appears I misunderstood your tone, then you most certainly have an apology from me. But what was I to make of a line that starts out like, "This is the Baldur's Gate: Shadows of Amn forum Fable"? Since this is a given, it appears you're trying to remind me of the obvious, because you think I've forgotten it. Similarly, "the culture the Paladin would have been raised in would have an awful lot more in common with medieval Europe, inquisition and all, than it would with the cultures you and I were brought up in Fable," seems to show you think I needed this most elementary of reminders. If it weren't for the fact that I am a student of the period/place, and have had to deal over the years and in various forums with correcting many who believe their current culture is an unchanging, permanent one, I probably would have still regarded the comments as condescending--but would have dropped the matter with a chuckle. In any case, no harm done.

If I can explain a bit about why I brought up Ajantis...? It's clear the Bioware development team bent the rules in Helm's case to suit their needs. We both know they did this elsewhere, as well. My point wasn't so much to focus on Helm as it was on the fact that a roleplayer can, if they wish, turn a set of rules governing the environment they DM or play within into something of a living culture populated, not just by stereotyped trades, but by individuals with occupations. The occupations form a framework, to my way of thinking, and I strongly suspect, to yours, while the roleplaying comes in the extent to which you fill the outlines of that frame with experiences, background, temperament, training, etc. We may differ on the extent to which the frame informs each individual.

Galahad's of French origin, in so far as being educated in England during the period when the so-called Vulgate Galahad was being written (parts of which date back to the 13th century) meant being scholarly in Latin and entertaining in French and contemporary French urban culture. I think you're right that he represents the Lull pole of knighthood, the one that sees the knight as basically an avatar of Christ. However, there were many orders of knighthood created that had nothing whatever to do with performing a mini-Augustine and bringing Christ (as opposed to Jerusalem) down to earth. Some were designed as political powerbases, or social clubs, or for a specific function--like the Knights Templar, originally created to protect Roman Catholic pilgrims (which is to say, all pilgrims from Western Europe) in the Middle East. Many of the finest knights by our modern standards showed personally deplorable character, aside from valor. Thomas Malory himself, the author-compiler of Le Morte D'Arthur and the Galahad material, was almost certainer a extortionist, thief, and murderer, and possibly a rapist.

But I'm getting away from the subject. As I see it, playing the perfect paladin would be to play many carbon copies of one another, and that would be pretty boring. If the laws of whatever god a paladin followed were simple and immutable, requiring unhesitating obedience without any personal background or necessary interpretation, the profession might as well be reduced to a series of ubiquitous guards, only with religious overtones. On the other hand, roleplaying also detects that we can't have a bunch of people claiming to worship a law deity who basically do what they want. I think that somewhere between the two lies an area where paladins can make interesting characters that fit into their assigned professions and belief systems.

And in a sense, this also duplicates Lull. After all, where Lull did constantly urge his readers to look to and analyze the bible for qualities befitting human behavior, he also considered that there were literally hundreds of these godly qualities within the basic ones provided in his text about knighthood. (Lull actually created a system of mnemonics involving revolving wheels-within-wheels, triangles and squares to track all this, called the Lullian Circle. Fascinating stuff. His methods are still in secular use, heavily modified, today. I've had occasional good results with them, though I prefer Simonides' Method of Loci.) Consequently, each Christly knight had a selection of approaches based on what behavior seemed best to them for a given circumstance: kill or establish heavy penance? If kill, seek to convert first? If convert, what examples to use to bring about a conversion? If the conversion is true, is death still required? If it is, what form should it take, and when should it be done? If heavy penance is needed, what sort, and should it be aimed primarily at the eventual reconciliation of the sinner with the kingdom of the faithful, or at reassuring the flock that God and their Mother Church cares for them? Those are strictly either/or, but in fact there were many choices at any given time, all informed by biblical and patristic study, that might yield any number of contradictory results upon which to fashion a godly life. Of course, we can't take this stuff too far. But my point is that knighthood wasn't a simple thing, a one-path-fits-all. Lull points to a distant, shining star, and says that's what knights should aim for. But each knight must chart their own course. I can pull out plenty of individual historical examples form other authors, if you'd like.

So the actions regarding Viconia that I listed above were meant to highlight not the obvious join/not-join, but the reasons behind each, that could derive from a personal understanding of what the same god wants, and flesh out that particular paladin character more. And while any five followers of a Law God may state that the law as received is perfectly obvious and simple, it's more than likely each of them pulls upon a different mix of past and emotion to come to their decisions--even when it's the same decision. That's the kind of roleplaying that brings a paladin to life, I think.

It's an unfortunate aspect of the internet that we can't really transmit inflection or tone when writing, or at least it's something that exposes my limitations in the use of English. Emoticons can help, but sadly the laptop that I'm using to connect to the internet seems to have problems with them, so it's difficult to use. Had we been having a conversation were we could actually speak to each other I doubt this 'conversation' would have taken the route it did.

Given you interest in the period, did you ever read the source of much of Malory's Arthurian tale, the Mabinogion (sp?)?

I'd also be interested to hear your views on the Davinci Code, and other distortions of the Templar legacy, I have a felling you'd be as scathing in your dismissal as myself, or have I misread things again?

Anyway, we're getting, or at least I'm getting way to far OT again, as You've no doubt noticed I have a bad habit of flying off at tangents, not good on a forum like this, I do try to control my urges, honestly.

I must confess also to finding it difficult at times to distinguish the Dominican Inquest pre Torqemada to what came after, in that I think I'm a victim of cultural bias, in this country it's drummed in to us from an early age that the Inquisition is bad, full stop. It can be difficult to throw off those teachings.

Anyway that's me done with this debate (cries of relief all round), it'd be interesting to participate in a campaign were we were both of us were playing Paladins Fable, which one would be the Templar and which the Hospitaller?

galraen wrote:Except of course as a Paladin or a Monk should you be even trying to 'rescue' Imoen, she broke the law after all, and as the saying goes,'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!'. Also remember that ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law. As far as a Lawful character is concerned surely she only got her just deserts, and they shouldn't be even contemplating breaking the law to help a felon escape from their sentence?

That's focusing entirely on the lawful aspect of the alignment, though. It isn't a very good-aligned thing to abandon a lifelong friend because she broke a corrupt law that can easily be bribed away.

I think, also, that in the Baldur's Gate game especially, you can't go to any absolute extremes as a paladin. If you were truly doing your duty as a champion of all that is "good" and eradicating all evil, then not only would you have to kill Imoen, but you would have to kill yourself. I think a great example of a paladin who goes to complete extremes is Kore, from the webcomic "Goblins". He kills a young dwarven child simply for being brought up by an orc. "Any evil, even potential evil, must be eradicated".

I think a really good example of a paladin is Keldorn. He joins the group, even though he knows that your character is a bhaalspawn. He doesn't seem to hold any hidden agenda, he simply realizes that a temporary pact with a potential evil also has the possibility to search a much greater good.

galraen wrote:Given you interest in the period, did you ever read the source of much of Malory's Arthurian tale, the Mabinogion (sp?)?

I"ve read a translation of the Mabinogion in a Penguin books edition. I suspect you mean the so-called Three Romances, that Charlotte Guest, the first translator of the Mabinogion, included in her publication. It's caused some problems since, since those Romances actually have nothing to do with the Mabinogion itself, and postdate it by at least 300 years--almost certainly much longer, since the main saga, the Four Branches, have plenty of elements that point to a preserved oral tradition typically changing nothing for a very long time as it is passed along. The Romances, on the other hand, are almost certainly 13th century works, and may have been written in response to the lengthy romances of Chretien de Troyes.

There are a few traces in Malory of Welsh influence, but not much. Gawain and his warlike family are the most obvious: his ability to fight with greater than human strength as the sun rises, then human strength once more as it wanes, seems to be a survival of tribal chieftains or demi-gods linked to the sun. (And contrary to what the New Age would like to believe, not all Celts were moon-worshippers. The Welsh were solar types.) Geoffrey of Monmouth makes much of Gawain in his very fanciful Historia Regum Britanniae, which was meant to be a history of the era. By the 13th century, Gawain is an entirely different person in the same skin, a model of chivalry. The old Welsh mythic heroes were more violent, passionate, and flat out dangerous figures. They would have sniffed their armpits and laughed uproariously at this dandified latter-day figure.

Incidentally, I've recently read selected passages from a newer edition of the Mabinogion, by Sioned Davies. It really does seem more true to the spirit of the original, with a more oral character, and I'd recommend it highly.

I'd also be interested to hear your views on the Davinci Code, and other distortions of the Templar legacy, I have a felling you'd be as scathing in your dismissal as myself, or have I misread things again?

No, you're not wrong. The book's garbage. It alters facts, leaves out others, and creates nonsense to make its premise. When you have to lie endlessly to build an argument, you end up without an argument. You end up with a pack of lies.

I must confess also to finding it difficult at times to distinguish the Dominican Inquest pre Torqemada to what came after, in that I think I'm a victim of cultural bias, in this country it's drummed in to us from an early age that the Inquisition is bad, full stop. It can be difficult to throw off those teachings.

I think the problem for the Inquisition's reputation in later years was twofold: first, it was a Roman Catholic organization in a Christian world that was increasingly Protestant. There were many Protestant groups that were just as zealously anti-heretical, but they didn't receive a lot of coverage, and they tended to be smaller in scale. The other issue for the Inquisition was that it frequently acted as a deterrent on secular cultures turned rabid, engaging in a feeding frenzy. Secular historians don't like to look back on cultural histories and note such failings (though they happen to this day).

I'm by no means suggesting that the Inquisition was a bunch of good guys. But at least until the 16th century they were some of the better ones among a generally nasty bunch, who made it their lifework to correct heresy. This was, after all, the goal of European culture. It still is, if you read some of the EU's personal responses to Turkish pleas for entry.

There are several good books that explode the myth of the Inquisition's ubiquity and horrors, without taking a Roman Catholic apologist position. I don't have the time right now, but I'll be glad to check out in what we've got here and pass along a few titles, and quote some good passages.

Anyway that's me done with this debate (cries of relief all round), it'd be interesting to participate in a campaign were we were both of us were playing Paladins Fable, which one would be the Templar and which the Hospitaller?

If I were transposed into such a setting and required to be (rather than play) a paladin, and given the choice between the two you offer--definitely a Templar.

I can't remember if it was Charlotte Guest's translation or not, it was an awfully long time ago (early seventies) that I readit, but I still have memories of reading about a band of Welsh characters lead by someone who memory tells me (maybe very inaccurately) was named something very similar to Arthur.

The old Welsh mythic heroes were more violent, passionate, and flat out dangerous figures. They would have sniffed their armpits and laughed uproariously at this dandified latter-day figure.

That sums up my impressions of the characters I recall from my long ago reading of the Mabinogian.

Was the tale of Pwl'sdealings with Arawn in the Mabinogian, or is memory merging two different sources, I am defintitley getting somewhat blurred memory wise these days. That may well have been in Taliesin's tales, it was about the same time of my life that I read that too, so I suspect I am blurring the edges between the two.

I'll certainly keep an eye out when I visit the library for the Sioned Davies' translation. whilst I'm at it I think it's about time I re-read Taliesin again too.

given the choice between the two you offer--definitely a Templar.

I had a suspicion that would be the case, I guess we'll have to find someoneelse for the Knight of St John role. You are definitley a lot more widely read on European middle ages than I am, I must confess to being somewhat parochial, except for one topic, and that's the Templars. I don't know why I should be more drawn to them, and it's something that goes back several decades, but their history fascinated me, especially their fall and the machinations of Philip the Fair, now there was one seriously evil dud in my opnion.

One final question, what are your views on the Freemasons, P2 et al being the heirs of the Templars (and the Lmbardy Banks etc.)? Call me a juvenile romantic, but I must confess to being at least a partial believer.

galraen wrote:I can't remember if it was Charlotte Guest's translation or not, it was an awfully long time ago (early seventies) that I readit, but I still have memories of reading about a band of Welsh characters lead by someone who memory tells me (maybe very inaccurately) was named something very similar to Arthur. That sums up my impressions of the characters I recall from my long ago reading of the Mabinogian.

The Romances have Arthur in them, so I suspect it was that section. Or it could have been two of the separate six tales she added, Culhwch and Olwen, or The Dream of Rhonabwy. Both are brief glances at an older stage of the Arthurian tradition that has long since vanished.

Was the tale of Pwl'sdealings with Arawn in the Mabinogian, or is memory merging two different sources, I am defintitley getting somewhat blurred memory wise these days. That may well have been in Taliesin's tales, it was about the same time of my life that I read that too, so I suspect I am blurring the edges between the two.

That's from the Four Branches, the genuine Mabinogion, and the oldest section of Guest's translation. The branch in question is called Pwyll, Prince of Dyfed. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

I must confess to being somewhat parochial, except for one topic, and that's the Templars. I don't know why I should be more drawn to them, and it's something that goes back several decades, but their history fascinated me, especially their fall and the machinations of Philip the Fair, now there was one seriously evil dud in my opnion.

Oh, most rulers lived, then as now, using standards of power and only touching occasionally on morality. But most dressed up and concealed their doings a lot better than Philip. At least he knocked a hole in the Roman Catholic stranglehold over Western Europe, just as John Lackland was to do in England.

One final question, what are your views on the Freemasons, P2 et al being the heirs of the Templars (and the Lmbardy Banks etc.)? Call me a juvenile romantic, but I must confess to being at least a partial believer.

Each to their own, but I'm not with you on this. There was nothing (as far as history has been able to find) mystical about the Templars, for either good or evil; and the Freemasons are an archetypal late-Renaissance religious fraternity, much later in time, and without any Christian trappings. They were deistic, if anything, at least until the 19th century, when they underwent a revolution and moved from the far left side of the political spectrum to the far right. Few people realize that Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin were all freemasons--as were Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.

The link (if it existed outside my own mind) from Templars to Freemasonry to me was the the rumoured use of existing guilds back in the day to launder money (Gold & Silver smiths) and communication (Free Masons). I'm aware that the connection is extremely tenuous, but I can't envision the Templars simply disappearing, and most of their fabled wealth wasn't recovered, not by Philip anyway as far as I'm aware. Maybe the wealth was fables, or maybe so much of it was out on loan that there wasn't any left in the kity so to speak?

Anyway, enough of OT fantasy. I knew about Washington and Tom, but was unaware of Haydn and Beethoven, although the formers membership does ecplain a few things that had puzzled me in the past. Thanks for the info Fable, and once again apologies for any confusion I caused.

How could a Paladin worship a god who views evil as being just as accepatable as good?

Helm is the God of guardians. There are paladins of Helm.

Also, we are concentrating on the Lawful aspect of Paladins rather than the Good aspects. A Lawful Good paladin is not going to accept a law which is morally wrong. A Lawful Good paladin is also wise enough to see the greater good in some of the actions he must undertake. A wise paladin will also rather sway someone from the path of evil to the path of good. And siding with the Shadow Thieves is better than siding with a vampire.

I like discussions like this - being interested in history as well as religion/philosophy and gaming - as students, we spent hours on such subjects.

if we look at potential fictional roles for a 'paladin', then all law and order should come into it, not just running around with swords. I think the debate often centres around characters such as John McClean (die hard) and harry Callaghan (dirty harry) -both of those characters display strong conviction that evil-doing shall not go unpunished and yet are resistent to lawful authority. these characters are very strong believers in the need of law to restrain evil, but their interpretation is one of 'needs must'.

even in closed societies such as monks and other religious orders, some individuals find that the Rule must sometimes be flexible - GK Chesterton's Father or the monks Cadfael and William of Baskerville in "the Name of the Rose" - all strong believers in goodness and law, yet both prepared to defy authority when they consider it necessary and to temper justice with mercy. they are also prepared to fight if need be.

pehaps the answer to what a paladin should be in found in the book of the prophet Micah - "what is required?" to which the answer from on high was "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God".

what that God expects depends on the deity.

Two comic book characters who can be viewed as paladins are The Punisher and Captain America.

The Punisher destroys and punishes the corrupt who seem to be untouchable by the Law. He does bad things but only targets criminals.

Captain America on the other hand is the shield-bearer for the law. He sends his adversaries to prison. He will not resort to the tactics used by the Punisher.

Captain America's villains are recurring. The Punisher's are never seen again :mischief: Why? because he removes them from society... permanently. Who has the better strategy? Both are Lawful Good but have very different codes of ethics.

Well, I'm not very well aware of punisher's character, as I've never seen any of his comics, but in his movie appearances the Punisher is everything but a paladin. That man does not stand for law, he's just having a personal vendetta on the mob. They killed his familly, so he got pissed off and started killing them in turn. He doesn't work with the police, or the court or whatever authourities, he is incorporating the roles of the judge and the executor. That's not lawful in any aspect. (Besides, if I remeber correctly, he was viewed as an outlaw in the Spiderman animated series).

Dirty Harry and The Punisher, Paladins??!! The mind boggles at that concept! 'The law don't suit us, well the heck with the law, I'll kill them any way' is hardly a suiltable responce for an icon of Law, Justice and Goodness.

...and a Paladin murdering an evil thief in the street is not Lawful either. A paladin destroying the slaver's compound is not lawful either, he/she should take the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The Punisher is doing exactly what most Paladins do: take the law into their own hands and remedy the situation. They nip it in the bud.

Agree with his methods or not the Punisher DOES fight on the side of good. And he has a lot of support from most police personnel because they know he is eliminating the scum that other heroes are too high-strung to bother themselves with.

Back on topic... this was intended to show the black & white and shades of grey that Lawful Good can be. A Lawful character would not slaughter the slavers. They would contact the law and work with them if need be. But he can also do the things needed to bring law and order back into society.

Lawful Good and True Neutral are the hardest alignments to play.

"Lawful" does not mean obeying laws. Stupid, I know, but in D&D it always leans more to abiding by a certain personal code, whereas "chaotic" characters would be more inclined to decide one way on Tuesday and the other way on Wednesday.

In PnP D&D, it is specifically stated that a paladin should take matters into his own hands if the laws of the land he is in are unjust. He must try and set things straight to the best of his ability. Spoilers ahead: Removing a guild of slavers when the authorities do nothing: Yes! Fighting the corrupt and arbitrary cowled wizards for their disproportionate judgement on Imoen: Yes! Being forced to kill evil Sahuagin by an evil Sahuagin king: best follow along... but make him pay for his evil deeds as soon as you can. Aligning with thieves to destroy vampires and get one step closer to fighting a very, very evil wizard: No problem.

All these things should make the paladin concerned: he is forced into positions that do start to cross over into questionable territory. But he is still human, not divine, and his intent matters. He must strive to make the world a better and more just place with the situation at his disposal. It is this drive that makes the paladin what he is. It is exactly these hard situations that test a paladin's mettle, but this does not mean he should fall as soon as the first shade of grey in his decision making would come to pass.

Rav wrote:"Lawful" does not mean obeying laws.

For what little it's worth, historically knights didn't hold themselves above the local laws (which were all that applied into the early stages of the nationalist era), but then, they seldom challenged these laws except when they felt their liege lords were unfair to them, personally. They typically stayed at home and saw to the maintenance of their own lands, palled around with their rulers, acted as mercenaries for hire, or hung around in the MidEast. They never went on legit quests into other kingdoms, unless you count pilgrimages, and Pope Innocent III's offer of complete forgiveness of sins to all knights who destroyed the kingdom (actually, a count-dom) of Toulouse, known as the Albigensian Crusade.

However, those vested with the most moral authority--typically members of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, who actually fought in the MidEast and went through the vigil and rituals attendant on this--could be expected to serve when asked as arbitrators in major and minor conflicts. For example, Valdemar IV, king of Denmark in the latter part of the 14th century, repeatedly filled this role. He developed a very wide reputation for making judgments that, contrary to many others, actually stuck. And even when they didn't, if Valdemar said a party to a contract voided it and acted unchivalric, that comment usually had at least some consequences. More about this can be read in Fletcher Pratt's pioneering historical work, The Third King.

So the issue of "law" was probably superfluous to a knight's typical set of actions, historically speaking, but the issue of fairness, of judging well, on the other hand, was a qualitative one dependent on the individual knight and plenty of random factors, that could affect how they were viewed by a large number of their peers.