Martyr-Like Paladin/Saint

[Cryticus]

I must say I don't think that people villife paladins to bash religion, yeah I think there are some examples of bashing religion, but not in case of paladins here I think it is done mostly because a person that do what is right for the right reasons, and is selfless, is an upiling , hell when you look on some of the classic examples of paladins in rpg they ussualy seem like compete Mary sues, so people decided to make them more appealing by giving them flaws, only that people like dark and brood brown and gray settings so it's easy to make them zelotic, hatefull, and corrupted, only that when you give them thouse flaws, then you don't really have paladin you just have a normal warrior who likes to pretend that he is saint, and this is my problem with paladins, they should be overall symbols of goof behavior their flaws should be that they are to faithfull that they can't see that other people are not like this, or they should have some conflicting views, of what is wrong or right while still trying to be this good guy ( here I would like to mention that I am talking about NPCs, if you want to play as corrupeted paladin than its's okay)

[Farbautisonn]

Being fanatical about anything can breed fanaticism.

Strictly adhereing to a code can lead to that too.

any sice every one of has has some personal philospohy, adhering to it can be abused.

Ofcourse. Which was the point I was making.

 

 

I say they are.

Thats grand. I just hope you never get tested and that you one day find the codex so you can share the facit with the rest of the world.

 

And your examples are silly. Exceptions prove the rule and moralities and ethics are absolute within a given context.

The examples are not silly. Ask most people who have been deployed. Ask any military academy or at any military barracks. There is a reason why the military has rulebooks for "Code of Conduct" and also have classes in Ethics and especially applied ethics. They arent exceptions either. As for "Ethics are absolute within a given context", thats a sentence that in its very nature is subjective and as such not absolute because context can and will vary in any number of ways.

 

Also, I've yet to see a superior in the miltiary having the authority to order someone to marry. There is a destinction between following sensible orders and being a utter moron.

People under orders do the strangest things. Waterboarding for instance. Killing off a village, burning down the ancesteral homes, deploy WMD's etc. The american definition of code becomming an officer differs significantly from those of a European or a middle eastern code. So... define "sensible orders".

[gglorious]

I don't mind the idea of playing a good character. I would actually like to have a Paladin party member in the game. I really actually support the Paladin class as not being tied to a particular alignment or chivalry so much as devotion to a cause. Paladins are different than warriors because their devotion and allegiance to their cause gives them power. And I favor the idea of evil paladins and neutral paladins, and if a Paladin party member is used, I would like for them to deviate from the original trope in some significant way.(they're a sneaky divine agent, unnecessary harshness, outright evil characteristics, an unusual holy cause, etc) I also want the class to be part of their personality, more than just their build.

 

I don't mind having good options, even very good options and very religious options. I also wouldn't mind the story and dialogue taking religion(and/or even irreligion) seriously. They're serious parts of the world, and so it'd be great to see these beliefs come out.(even though I really don't want a single church to have utter dominance, but rather I would like any dominant church to have sects and heretics, and I would like opposing religious positions and ones that have gameplay relevance)

[Felithvian]

I don't mind having good options, even very good options and very religious options. I also wouldn't mind the story and dialogue taking religion(and/or even irreligion) seriously. They're serious parts of the world, and so it'd be great to see these beliefs come out.(even though I really don't want a single church to have utter dominance, but rather I would like any dominant church to have sects and heretics, and I would like opposing religious positions and ones that have gameplay relevance)

 

Morrowind. The amount of sects & official religious groups is outstanding. The internal religious debate offered a unique setting, which enhanced the Dunmer island.

 

Unlike the Baldur's Gate series, where every religion felt like a heretical sect. The Helmish religion idolizes a statue wearing a full suit of armor. How pathetic is that?

[Monte Carlo]

The Helmish religion idolizes a statue wearing a full suit of armor. How pathetic is that?

 

No more strange than the dogmatic mumbo-jumbo espoused by most organised religions in the real world, as far as I'm concerned.

[BasaltineBadger]

Unlike the Baldur's Gate series, where every religion felt like a heretical sect. The Helmish religion idolizes a statue wearing a full suit of armor. How pathetic is that?

 

Helmish religion unlike some other religions worship a guy who has repeatedly been proven to be real not evil and answer prayers. There are much better than other video game religion that usually consist of people who just worship some random creature and then are surprised when it doesn't do anything or turn out to be evil and/or actually not god.

 

And Paladins fits pretty well in fantasy most setting. It's difficult to always fight for good in real world but not in the one where meeting physical personifications of evil it's not.

 

I'm also for different paladins. IIRC in some DnD variant/edition/supplement every alignment had their Paladins so you could meet LE paladins who want to spread tyranny, or Neutral paladins who believe in balance.

[Calmar]

Pretty much. But instead of a strict Inquisitor who's limited by laws created by men, I prefer to be more like a "Christ-Like" figure who enters the Temple to clean and purify it from moneychangers and animal-sellers.

 

A paladin's anger is targeted to sinful behavior and true injustice.

 

Unlike the Baldur's Gate series, where every religion felt like a heretical sect. The Helmish religion idolizes a statue wearing a full suit of armor. How pathetic is that?

 

You tryin' to sneak Christianity into a fantasy setting??

 

The nature of how good deities are portrayed is not what matters. There are many goddesses and gods in our world that are depicted in statues, or armour-clad statues. That makes them no less entities of good and order.

 

The question is: Are paladins priests who fight, or knights who are devout? I prefer the latter, but the majority of the posters in this thread seems to tend to the former.

[TrashMan]

And Moralities/ethics arent absolute.

 

I say they are.

 

That makes your opinion absolute, not those.

 

Well, good luck proving they AREN'T absolute.

[TrashMan]

Templars don't equal paladins. And the ones in DA aren't paladins. Paladins are "lawful good". Templars follow the laws of their own or an order's code, regardless of moral alignment(though they might think they do good). A templar will be an ass to anyone not following that code/law regardless of alignment.

 

I said paladin-like.

 

Without an aligment system you can't have a pure D&D paladin copy.

 

And no, a templar will not be "an ass".

[Felithvian]

You tryin' to sneak Christianity into a fantasy setting??

 

Never.

 

But I kinda liked the dumbed down version of Christianity in Dragon Age. Perhaps we could have a monotheistic religion?

 

I'm kinda tired of "Godlike" figues, statue worshippers & other bizarre beliefs.

 

The question is: Are paladins priests who fight, or knights who are devout?

 

I don't understand. Isn't that the same thing?

[TrashMan]

The paladin archetype as it stands expects perfection from a character, you have to be good in all cases, and that's impossible imo, perfection is not something attainable. It's not "bashing religion" to suggest that the religious are capable of sin, the bible suggests exactly the same thing. I would once again disagree this idea you've been attempting to push that morality is absolute, but judging by the fact that you haven't brought up any reasonable examples to the contrary and I have, I doubt I would gain any traction in that pursuit.

 

Perfection is unatainalbe, but striving for perfection is a never-ending goal.

The idea isn't that paladins are infallible.

But character assasination and deliberate villifaction - when the writer cleary wants you to hate character X because he's part of a religious order - that is what I hate. That is not an attempt at greyness. It is quite simply "I hate this faction/religion and I will portray them in the most negative light possible."

 

 

Also, people having differnt moral beliefs does not prove morals are not absolute.

After all, if I belive that the earth is flat and you don't, that doenst make both of right. There is one reality, weather we recognize it or not.

 

Altough talking about morality in extreme cases is ... iffy. Since it often means doing "immoral" things to do the moral thing.

Is a logical action a moral one? One would say no. And yet a moral action might end up doing far more harm than good. But how can that make it moral to being with? One could write an entire book on this issue, since it's a rather huge topic.

 

So let's not discuss it. It is poitnless, especially in the context of the game - we allready know there is no aligment system.

[Calmar]

You tryin' to sneak Christianity into a fantasy setting??

 

Never.

 

But I kinda liked the dumbed down version of Christianity in Dragon Age. Perhaps we could have a monotheistic religion?

 

I'm kinda tired of "Godlike" figues, statue worshippers & other bizarre beliefs.

 

The question is: Are paladins priests who fight, or knights who are devout?

 

I don't understand. Isn't that the same thing?

 

PE and other fantasy settings are modeled after medieval or early Renaissance Europe and make use of various concepts thereof. Hence, it makes sense to assume that the underlying world pictures of both worlds (real and fantasy) should be similar as well. To the people of the real world Middle Ages, society was divided into three groups: laboratores (those who work; peasants, merchants, etc.), oratores (those who pray; priests, monks, etc.) and bellatores (those who fight; noblemen and, later, knights).

 

Back in the early Middle Ages, there was no no state monopoly on legitimate violence. And at the time chivalry appeared, there was still a clear distinction between warriors and clergy. There are a few theories on the exact origin of knighthood (a scheme of the Church to turn self-serving warriors into god-fearing defenders of the church, or a way for the lower echelons of society to rise by achieving a kind of nobility of their own), but in any case the warrior elite were first and foremost men of the temporal sphere. Accordingly, role models and paragons of chivalry, like Artus' Knights of the Round Table, or Charlemagne' Paladins, are chiefly warriors (with few exceptions, such as Sir Galahad). Of course they were pious, but who wasn't and who could dare afford not appear to be?

 

tl;dr: I say: When the concept of knight/paladin/whatchacallit appeared, there was no the slightest bit priestly about it. They originally were warriors who were devout.

 

Later on, things become more blurred with the appearance of the crusader orders. These knights claimed to serve a religious case and are sometimes referred to as warrior monks. These are priestly warriors, but they are a) by time and ideal very far off the original archetypes of knight- or paladinhood and b) these orders (esp. the famous ones like Templars or Teutonic Knights) became powerful, self-serving political entities and were thus even father removed from chivalric ideals.

 

tl;dr: Priests who fight are wrong on many levels and, to me, shouldn't serve as role-models for paladin-class characters.

Better devote your heroic powers to an unattainable lady than to close-minded zeal.

[Felithvian]

Later on, things become more blurred with the appearance of the crusader orders. These knights claimed to serve a religious case and are sometimes referred to as warrior monks. These are priestly warriors, but they are a) by time and ideal very far off the original archetypes of knight- or paladinhood and b) these orders (esp. the famous ones like Templars or Teutonic Knights) became powerful, self-serving political entities and were thus even father removed from chivalric ideals.

 

While this is quite often an association grounded in fact, one will not see this very often in this genre (The Witcher Series perhaps?).

 

Those who are more favoured than others in the use of divine magic, are clearly in a higher position of communion with their God/Gods, hence giving them a unique kind judgement (ala Holy Spirit). A common devoted warrior is limited by flesh, evil forces & terrestrial laws. His purpose in a fight is unclear, for he has not yet determined his position. Will he adopt the Path of his God/Gods, or will he resume his wrongdoings as a political entity governed by a religious terrestrial institution.

 

Think of it as Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Qui Gon is a priest-like Jedi who follows the true source of the force (The infamous Midi-chlorians), leading him to defy the Council's views several times, while Obi Wan is the common devouted warrior who's under the tutelage of a corrupt sect known as the Jedi Order.

 

tl;dr: Priests who fight are wrong on many levels and, to me, shouldn't serve as role-models for paladin-class characters.

Better devote your heroic powers to an unattainable lady than to close-minded zeal.

 

A Priest is a servant of a God while the Paladin is a servant of the world. Chivalric ideals vs Faith. A Paladin who fights without the blessing of his God/Gods is as wrong as a Priest who thinks he's blessed.

[Monte Carlo]

^ You sir, really are quite mad. You have created your own reality using Star Wars, Christianity and some bizarre gaming paradigm that fell out of your ears.

 

Not that I mind, I think you should stick around TBH. It's delightful. But, nonetheless, your tendency to state random opinion as some sort of iron fact should be noted.

[Jojobobo]

I think that whole archetype is a little divorced from reality. I would rather paladin's in the game not be restrained by moral absolutism and instead by society, were they are expected to be good and chivalrous because of their knightly oath, but their is nothing actually forcing them to fit that stereotype. So you could be a corrupt paladin who secretly worships heretical gods, or takes under-the-table brides from the local riff-raff or a good guy if you wanted. I guess what I'm saying is I don't want being a paladin to limit your opportunity to roleplay as it so often does. Because you can have a billion different takes on fighter and monk, but a paladin is always going to be a paladin.

Reminds me of Jaime Lannister, so I like this idea. Sort of like there is an expectation of how knights (or Paladins) should behave, but how closely they cleave to this expectation and how well they keep the fact that they are not living up entirely to their oaths hidden from their peers or the public remains to be seen. In this regard, the majority Paladins would have to start out with good intentions to begin with to take such oaths but over time it allows for cynicism and flexibility as to how they interpret their oaths to creep in - instead of them being morally inflexible saints like they are in a lot of IE games. Also some could become Paladins so that people assume they're chivalrous, when really they're anything but and they're now in better situation than most to manipulate others. They would be your "evil" Paladins.

 

I'd also like to see a conflict between class and some backgrounds - in this case say a Paladin takes an oath to be celibate but comes from a society that's freely polygamous, when they return to that society later in the game they'll receive a negative reaction from others who believe they've turned their back on their past.

[Calmar]

I think a good example for a paladin would be Sir Bowen from Dragonoheart. What sets him apart from the thugs serving evil king Einon is his belief in the good and noble ideal of the Old Code. It's a low-fantasy world, so there are no flashy superpowers, but the Code gives him strength and focus, while doesn't turn him into a stiff jerk towards his companions.

[Osvir]

Martyr-Like Saint/Paladin? Oh boy....

 

*shudders* if he only knew

 

Griffith is the Leader of the Band of the Hawk and he meets Guts through some random events. They become really close as friends, bro's fundamentally. Griffith was raised as a poor boy, and has always dreamt about becoming a King, hence why he tactfully raises a mercenary band of ruffians and clowns, that he manages to mysteriously sway with his good looks, his good manners and his natural leadership. People look to him and just feel awe-struck because Griffith has a dream, he has a vision of a true and wonderful world in these dark times (similar Era to that of P:E I think?), that's what people see in him.... oh if anyone of them only knew!!

 

 

 

*shudders*

Edited November 12, 2012 by Osvir

[Space_hamster]

Please say one. genuine. thing. about. my. character. you. think. is. good.

[jezz555]

The paladin archetype as it stands expects perfection from a character, you have to be good in all cases, and that's impossible imo, perfection is not something attainable. It's not "bashing religion" to suggest that the religious are capable of sin, the bible suggests exactly the same thing. I would once again disagree this idea you've been attempting to push that morality is absolute, but judging by the fact that you haven't brought up any reasonable examples to the contrary and I have, I doubt I would gain any traction in that pursuit.

 

Perfection is unatainalbe, but striving for perfection is a never-ending goal.

The idea isn't that paladins are infallible.

But character assasination and deliberate villifaction - when the writer cleary wants you to hate character X because he's part of a religious order - that is what I hate. That is not an attempt at greyness. It is quite simply "I hate this faction/religion and I will portray them in the most negative light possible."

 

 

Also, people having differnt moral beliefs does not prove morals are not absolute.

After all, if I belive that the earth is flat and you don't, that doenst make both of right. There is one reality, weather we recognize it or not.

 

Altough talking about morality in extreme cases is ... iffy. Since it often means doing "immoral" things to do the moral thing.

Is a logical action a moral one? One would say no. And yet a moral action might end up doing far more harm than good. But how can that make it moral to being with? One could write an entire book on this issue, since it's a rather huge topic.

 

So let's not discuss it. It is poitnless, especially in the context of the game - we allready know there is no aligment system.

 

You realize you've just compared science and philosophy...yeah I guess this really is pointless.

[AGX-17]

=

I was aiming for Szass Tam or Sememom. Morrigan is a bit too hamfisted and obvious. .

 

But Morrigan is kind of the opposite, she wants you to not sacrifice yourself. She's not fooling you into a meaningless sacrifice, she's fooling or tempting (depending on what kind of character you're playing,) you into breaking your vows as a Warden, which is just a practical means to an end for her, not the end in itself. That's assuming you're not already too selfish to go for that whole self-sacrifice thing.

Edited November 12, 2012 by AGX-17

[Ninjamestari]

I'm fine with having the ability to play a strictly religious paladin..

 

But only If there's also the ability to play a diabolical demon summoning dark mage seeking immortality through evil magic.