Examples of Paladins in literature, real world legend, movies etc.


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ansha wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

Don't care what mythology, modern media, anime, or anyone else says. Don't care who else has questionable motives, or engages in questionable means. Don't care if the standard is too rigorous.

Don't let them bring you down. Hold yourself higher.

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." --William F. Buckley, Jr., Mission Statement of National Review

Yeah, the problematic thing about that quote is that it applies to anyone who's stubborn and sure of themselves. Not all of them are paladins. Some of them are monsters.

The difference of course is that the paladins are right. If they aren't, they stop being paladins.


You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions, or its office holders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--this is loyalty to unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy, was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it.
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court


RDM42 wrote:

You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions, or its office holders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--this is loyalty to unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy, was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it.

- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Twain was clearly not a believer in, "By the Grace of God, King of [insert nation]" ;)

And his claim of a country's "eternal" status is ... interesting, if specious on the face of it. I think he must have been speaking about a Platonic ideal of "country" (which I believe some smart cookie mentioned above.)

In fantasy role-playing, though, often an NPC or PC is Queen, literally, "By the Grace of God"/the gods.

Insofar as Buckley is concerned, one could just as easily say, "A liberal is someone who stands athwart history, yelling 'Go,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."


You're all kind of missing the point of my post. I was responding to StrangePackage's statement:

Quote:
When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

That sounds remarkably similar to the statement Buckley made in The National Review:

Quote:
A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

From what I gathered from StrangePackage's post, he was saying that paladins are partisans of their ideals. But the way he phrased it reminded me very much of another partisan of ideals, whom I quoted.

We tend to contrast D&D fantasy with the real-life modern world, but we do so with out-of-character knowledge when we talk about things like an NPC or PC being queen literally by '"the grace of God"/the gods'. Would our characters be any more aware of the supernatural than human beings here on Earth often are? We might say, 'Yeah, but the supernatural is make-believe,' but we reveal our own rationalistic, empiricist modern Western worldview when we say such things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions, or its office holders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--this is loyalty to unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy, was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it.

- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Twain was clearly not a believer in, "By the Grace of God, King of [insert nation]" ;)

And his claim of a country's "eternal" status is ... interesting, if specious on the face of it. I think he must have been speaking about a Platonic ideal of "country" (which I believe some smart cookie mentioned above.)

In fantasy role-playing, though, often an NPC or PC is Queen, literally, "By the Grace of God"/the gods.

Insofar as Buckley is concerned, one could just as easily say, "A liberal is someone who stands athwart history, yelling 'Go,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

Its another way of poking at the same general point as the captain america quote; the palading is lawful good; but don't presume that that lawful implies blind obedience to liege and lord in opposiion to the higher law of good and right - a proper paladin will, if the country is being perfectly legally being led into evil be willing to join the chaotic good in telling the state to 'pound sand' on that point. Blind obedience to the laws of mortal man is not a paladin class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ansha wrote:
You're all kind of missing the point of my post.

Not at all. I just had a point of my own to make.

Quote:
From what I gathered from StrangePackage's post, he was saying that paladins are partisans of their ideals. But the way he phrased it reminded me very much of another partisan of ideals, whom I quoted.

Paladins are not mere partisans of ideals, though. Part of the trope is that paladins are partisans of objectively superior ideals—that everything is not relative, but that they've embraced Truth and Right more fully than others, and are an example to them.

Quote:
Would our characters be any more aware of the supernatural than human beings here on Earth often are?

[Arches brow, a la Spock.]

If they're receiving spells from said deities? I'd say yes.

Quote:
We might say, 'Yeah, but the supernatural is make-believe,' but we reveal our own rationalistic, empiricist modern Western worldview when we say such things.

I wasn't aware that everyone who spoke here did so from that particular weltanschauung. As a practicing Roman Catholic, I reject it, if not utterly, than certainly as deserving of predominance.

Quote:
Its another way of poking at the same general point as the captain america quote; the paladin is lawful good; but don't presume that that lawful implies blind obedience to liege and lord in opposition to the higher law of good and right - a proper paladin will, if the country is being perfectly legally being led into evil be willing to join the chaotic good in telling the state to 'pound sand' on that point. Blind obedience to the laws of mortal man is not a paladin class feature.

Agreed, entirely.

I just find Buckley a bit of a pompous ass. ;)


Jaelithe wrote:


Not at all. I just had a point of my own to make.

And in the process, you ignored the one I made, hence why I believed you had missed it. ;P

Quote:
Paladins are not mere partisans of ideals, though. Part of the trope is that paladins are partisans of objectively superior ideals—that everything is not relative, but that they've embraced Truth and Right more fully than others, and are an example to them.

That assumes OOC knowledge again. From an objective point of view, there is undoubtedly some party here on earth who have an objectively superior set of beliefs and ideals. But objectively knowing what those are requires knowledge and a lack of error in our thinking that no one on earth possesses. When we set up a paladin's code as holding to "objectively superior ideals," what we are saying is that we, the DM, gamers and designers, believe those ideals to be objectively superior (which is in itself a subjective judgment that may or may not correspond to the objective truth).

If we want real-life parallels, paladins as partisans of ideals still makes sense, because we cannot be strictly objective in our value judgments.

Quote:
If they're receiving spells from said deities? I'd say yes.

That assumes that real life works in exact parallel to D&D mechanics, which is not what I said. If we believe miracles happen (and I do), then supernatural things still happen and we can't reduce our worldview to the modern rationalist, materialistic, empiricist Western worldview, which is what many do when they presuppose that someone isn't Queen so-and-so by the grace of God.

Quote:
I wasn't aware that everyone who spoke here did so from that particular weltanschauung. As a practicing Roman Catholic, I reject it, if not utterly, than certainly as deserving of predominance.

We agree on that point then. But 1) our characters may not be objectively able to say that Queen X is literally queen by the grace of God--it largely depends on how we want to play the game and 2) who is to say that, in real life, Queen Elizabeth II isn't Queen of the United Kingdom by the grace of God, literally? In fact, from a Christian worldview, nothing happens except by God's allowance--including Queen Elizabeth's birth to her parents and her holding the throne.

Quote:
I just find Buckley a bit of a pompous ass. ;)

That's funny, considering that he was Roman Catholic too. Have you ever met him? He was widely regarded as a very friendly man.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, if everything happens by the grace of God, then an awful lot of bad things happen by the grace of God. Not only, for example, was the tyrant king by the grace of God, but the rebellion that overthrew him also did so by the grace of God. In which case, grace of God doesn't really mean anything. It says nothing about whether something is good or bad or whether you should oppose it or not.

Taking that viewpoint "kingship by the grace of God" is largely irrelevant.

In reality, an awful lot of horrible people claimed to be ruling by the grace of God, along with some good ones. And there weren't regular miraculous signs or overthrows of those claiming to do so.

In the standard PF fantasy world, access to the Gods is far more direct and obvious. It's not a matter of sometimes there are miracles, which could be coincidence or just faked or could be actual miracles, but actual priests get actual powers from their gods. They can commune with them at high levels and summon their servants. Paladins get miraculous powers and lose them if they do evil or veer to far from law. Within the gameworld, there is object truth. The paladin is good.

On the meta level, what's "Lawful" and what's "good" are subjective, determined by the GM (and/or the players and/or the game/setting designer). Within the gam world it's not subjective.


thejeff wrote:
Well, if everything happens by the grace of God, then an awful lot of bad things happen by the grace of God. Not only, for example, was the tyrant king by the grace of God, but the rebellion that overthrew him also did so by the grace of God. In which case, grace of God doesn't really mean anything. It says nothing about whether something is good or bad or whether you should oppose it or not.

The expression "by the grace of God" is pretty much exclusively used of good things. Think of it as the positive aspects of a doctrine of divine providence (e.g., God hasn't allowed the Queen to die of natural causes or at the hands of a rebellion yet).

Quote:
Taking that viewpoint "kingship by the grace of God" is largely irrelevant. In reality, an awful lot of horrible people claimed to be ruling by the grace of God, along with some good ones. And there weren't regular miraculous signs or overthrows of those claiming to do so.

It depends on what you mean by "irrelevant." Is it relevant whether there should be a change in government? No. Is it relevant to whether the ruler was a good ruler or a bad ruler? No. Is it relevant to whether there are real-life parallels to D&D cosmology? Yes.

Quote:
On the meta level, what's "Lawful" and what's "good" are subjective, determined by the GM (and/or the players and/or the game/setting designer). Within the gam world it's not subjective.

Exactly my point. Within the context of the game world, they are what the GM, designers and players say they are. Similarly, but separately, the GM, designers and players say just how much OOC knowledge is known to the character--for example, what sort of afterlife there is, or if there is a Nine Hells or a Seven Heavens. Just like in real life, Christ either is the only-begotten Son of God or he is not--and this is a separate issue from whether any person believes it to be so.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are so many people desperate to "help" this thread instead of starting their own?


Ansha wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well, if everything happens by the grace of God, then an awful lot of bad things happen by the grace of God. Not only, for example, was the tyrant king by the grace of God, but the rebellion that overthrew him also did so by the grace of God. In which case, grace of God doesn't really mean anything. It says nothing about whether something is good or bad or whether you should oppose it or not.
The expression "by the grace of God" is pretty much exclusively used of good things. Think of it as the positive aspects of a doctrine of divine providence (e.g., God hasn't allowed the Queen to die of natural causes or at the hands of a rebellion yet).

Or of things the speaker considers to be good things. If a particular Queen is a horrible tyrant, she and her supporters would still say she rules (and hasn't been killed at the hands of the rebellion) "by the grace of God".

And kingship by divine right went farther than that. Rebelling against the sovereign was rebelling against the will of God, regardless of the nature or acts of the soveriegn in question. "By the Grace of God" in a monarch's titles reflected that.

Which is quite different from most D&D cosmology. There being multiple deities changes things drastically, if nothing else. As does the more modern outlook on morality, justice and things like rulership that most players and designers bring to the game. Even religious players don't usually bring a medieval take on religion to their games.


Jaelithe wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

Never read much of the comics, but I've grown fond of the Marvel movies Captain America, and would probably model him if I had to play a paladin.

Personally, I find that the essence of the paladin is more about honour and ethics than about religious devotion.

So I stand diametrically from Umbriere: I'd keep the LG + code thing and toss the whole "pray to a god" thing. Make the paladin's association to a church as mechanically loose and fluff-related as the monk.

Perhaps you mean "devotion to the good" vis-à-vis dedication to the gods?

(good stuff)

good post

nevertheless, I still thing a paladin should follow the ideal of what's good, which can include religious ideals without necessarily follow a religious credo of being affiliated with a specific church/religious organization.

[edit] which doesn't dismiss anything you said

Scarab Sages

Sqwonk wrote:

I was trying to explain a paladin to a non-pathfinder gamer by using examples. I came up with Superman, Charlemagne, Paksenarrion and Joan of Arc. I am sure there are others. Your help is appreciated.

Thanks

Not surprisingly, Disney movies are a pretty good source of Paladins. There's the ubiquitous Prince Charming from some of the earlier movies, as well as Phoebus from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (who comes with a nice "Oh no, I'm being forced to choose between Law and Good!" moment), perhaps their Hercules (ignoring my personal disapproval of that particular movie for now), as well as many other heroes who strongly display the Paladin mentality (including the "Lawful Stupid" "Grab my hand! I'll save your life, treacherous villain!" bit) even if their "class features" don't follow. As I've said previously in another thread, Buzz Lightyear's role in the first Toy Story movie is of particular note, since it does a good job suggesting how a Paladin can be made to function as a villain ("Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.).

Dare I suggest Rorschach from Watchmen? Watchmen is a paean to moral ambiguity in which a Paladin is intended to fit poorly, but insofar as there could be a Paladin in such a setting, his Manichean worldview, uncompromising values, and "the innocent are sacred, no mercy for Evil" fall within the spectrum.

Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall, and Smedley Butler all make pretty good cases for being historical Paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, if we're looking for proper examples to toss out as role models, no. Rorschach totally has the dedication and clarity of purpose sure, but there's that whole bit in there where you also have to rise above the evils you're confronting and generally serve as an inspiration to others, and that's where he really deviates from the concept.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Googleshng wrote:
Well, if we're looking for proper examples to toss out as role models, no. Rorschach totally has the dedication and clarity of purpose sure, but there's that whole bit in there where you also have to rise above the evils you're confronting and generally serve as an inspiration to others, and that's where he really deviates from the concept.

Rhorshach is the cautionary tale about he who battles monsters needs to watch that they don't become monsters themselves.

Scarab Sages

He's pretty low-Charisma by Paladin standards, I'll grant that - at least the people at The New Frontiersman thought he was inspiring (until they actually got to see what went on inside his head).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No love for Ned Stark. Honor, honesty, piety, fidelity- and uncompromising in all of the above.

A good example of how a Paladin lives- and dies.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Actually as far as Watchman goes, the only one who really would be a candidate for Paladin status, would be the Second Night Owl. He's the only one of the Minutemen who seems to really believe in the traditional super hero values, honor, justice, protecting the innocent and all that. A Batman with the personality of Clark Kent, instead of Bruce Wayne. The others range from abstract goals, (Ozymandias, Dr. Manhattan), repressed rage, (Rhorshack), sadistic glee at the license the costume brings, (The Comedian), and thrill seeking adventurism, (just about everyone else)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

There's always so much discussion about if X should be a paladin or not because one time he did a bad thing. But I think we often overlook the fact that constant introspection and self-doubt are what separate the paladins we love and root for from the self-righteous jerks. People used the examples of Lancelot and David above. Part of what makes them great is that they did fall. They're standards were so high that even they couldn't live up to them. But they also Atoned.

In my mind, a real paladin is going to worry more about holding himself (or herself) to the ideal of perfection than judging others (or the classic seeing his own faults in others). And most paladins should have their own atonement rituals built in, things they do regularly to make up for their perceived flaws. I see players argue that they didn't do anything wrong while playing a paladin and that seems to me backwards; a paladin should see error where there is none, not make excuses. If he comes within 10' of violating his code, he ought to be atoning... just in case. So whether it's seeking atonement or seeking Atonement (the actual spell), in my mind, a good paladin always has that doubt at the back of his mind.

Likewise, I can see most paladins falling at some point in their career. Hell, I can almost see that as a pre-req for achieving true enlightenment. How can you truly appreciate that which you've never lost? But it shouldn't be a one-way ticket to ex-paladinhood. What greater quest than to make amends? Lancelot's greatest moment wasn't as a shining knight, it was as a crazy hermit who dies to save his friend. I've never played a paladin before, but that strikes me as fun - playing an ex-paladin working to recover his grace. (Although, mechanically, an ex-paladin is pretty much a fighter w/o feats.)


StrangePackage wrote:

No love for Ned Stark. Honor, honesty, piety, fidelity- and uncompromising in all of the above.

A good example of how a Paladin lives- and dies.

Did he not come home with an illegitimate son? That's certainly not an ideal example of how a paladin lives—though it's unquestionably better than having abandoned said child ... and standing up to do the right thing, even though it's difficult, in the wake of having transgressed, is certainly evidence of atonement.

But it's definitely not "uncompromising fidelity."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

No love for Ned Stark. Honor, honesty, piety, fidelity- and uncompromising in all of the above.

A good example of how a Paladin lives- and dies.

Did he not come home with an illegitimate son? That's certainly not an ideal example of how a paladin lives—though it's unquestionably better than having abandoned said child ... and standing up to do the right thing, even though it's difficult, in the wake of having transgressed, is certainly evidence of atonement.

But it's definitely not "uncompromising fidelity."

A paladin is made not by the mistakes they avoid, but how they take responsibility for their mistakes afterwards.

I think Liam Neeson's character from Kingdom of Heaven is a great example of a paladin.


Odraude wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

No love for Ned Stark. Honor, honesty, piety, fidelity- and uncompromising in all of the above.

A good example of how a Paladin lives- and dies.

Did he not come home with an illegitimate son? That's certainly not an ideal example of how a paladin lives—though it's unquestionably better than having abandoned said child ... and standing up to do the right thing, even though it's difficult, in the wake of having transgressed, is certainly evidence of atonement.

But it's definitely not "uncompromising fidelity."

A paladin is made not by the mistakes they avoid, but how they take responsibility for their mistakes afterwards.

Which is probably why I said "and standing up to do the right thing, even though it's difficult, in the wake of having transgressed, is certainly evidence of atonement."

Quote:
I think Liam Neeson's character from Kingdom of Heaven is a great example of a paladin.

Hmm. A great knight, yes. But I get the impression he'd absolutely buy into, as a necessary evil, Baldwin's plan to assassinate Guy (precisely because the guy [no pun intended] is a scumbag) and marry Balian to Sibylla, because it'd safeguard the kingdom. A bit too pragmatic to be a paladin, IMO.

Liberty's Edge

Jaelithe wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

No love for Ned Stark. Honor, honesty, piety, fidelity- and uncompromising in all of the above.

A good example of how a Paladin lives- and dies.

Did he not come home with an illegitimate son? That's certainly not an ideal example of how a paladin lives—though it's unquestionably better than having abandoned said child ... and standing up to do the right thing, even though it's difficult, in the wake of having transgressed, is certainly evidence of atonement.

But it's definitely not "uncompromising fidelity."

He came home with a bastard, true.

spoiler:
But there's every indication from the books that it wasn't HIS bastard.

Liam Neeson's character from Kingdom of Heaven is a good example, but Orlando Bloom's Balean is a GREAT example of a Paladin. I can't believe I forgot that.

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong; that is your oath"

" A King may move a man, a father may claim a son. That man can also move himself. And only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played, or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone. Even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say "but I was told by others to do thus" or that "virtue was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice. Remember that."

Great words for a Paladin to live by.


I've read all the books and never caught that, StrangePackage. It's sheerest speculation, IMO, but ... if true, then it's only his disingenuousness and dissembling on the matter that calls his paladin-hood into question ... and that's a relatively minor transgression in the greater scheme of things. I'd tend to agree with your take on Ned if your theory is correct.

Balian, however, was fornicating with an adulteress for quite some time, which is in that context and that period unquestionably a mortal sin. While I acknowledge that other faiths do not consider premarital sex either evil or chaotic, Catholicism certainly does; it immediately disqualifies him as a paladin. He also murdered his brother in anger and fled afterwards, so ... no. Absolutely not a paladin. A good man too subject to his passions to retain such status.

Liberty's Edge

Jaelithe wrote:
I've read all the books and never caught that, StrangePackage. It's sheerest speculation, IMO, but ... if true, then it's only his disingenuousness and dissembling on the matter that calls his paladin-hood into question ... and that's a relatively minor transgression in the greater scheme of things. I'd tend to agree with your take on Ned if your theory is correct.

Game of Thrones:
There are a few references to Robert, who was with Ned at the time, having never met the child's mother, him finding his sister (who was kidnapped and either raped or seduced by Rhaegar Targaryen) on a 'bed of blood', and that he made her some promise there, and then there's his insistence that the Targaryen children aren't responsible for their parents sins...

It's not a huge leap that John Snow is his sister's child with Rhaegar Targaryen, and that said sister died in childbirth. It's not proven by any means, but it explains a whole lot. The question you need to ask is...would a man like Eddard Stark cheat on his wife? I've always felt the answer was no, and the rest sorta follows from there. But even if you think he would...it's still a solid theory.

And if this is true...he lied to save the child's life. Either Robert or someone else would've killed him. Which seems like a valid reason for a Paladin to do such a thing.


In short ... it is.

Grand Lodge

While we're on Game of Thrones, I have seen Ned Stark mentioned more than once, but never has anybody mentioned Samwell Tarly. Sure, he dumped his physical stats but he was still a member of the Night's Watch - even if not by choice. He remained dedicated to his Oath even when it was difficult, and only wavered when doing so meant abandoning what was morally acceptable. (Talk about Law vs Good!)

In many respects, being as unimpressive as he was makes Samwell an even better Paladin because he stood up to those who would easily destroy him.

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Examples of Paladins in literature, real world legend, movies etc. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion