IIRC Lancelot was tricked by Elaine into doing the nasty.
Is failing his save versus 'the nasty' enough to make a paladin fall?
Here we are in DM territory again.
With some DMs a paladin can't play poker for matches, because 'bluffing' is a euphemism for 'lying' so if a paladin bluffs in poker then he falls.
Lancelot must have avoided those bad DMs.
Again, different versions mushing together in my head, but, IIRC, he did it with Elaine thinking he was doing it with Guinevere.
Oooh la la!
|
At the time of the original writings about Lancelot, 'chastity' meant 'not being unfaithful to your spouse'. You could have as much sex as you wanted with your spouse and you would still be chaste unless you had sex with someone else. This is why Lancelot fell: Guinevere was married to someone else, his best friend Arthur.
'Celibacy' means no sex at all. To be a paragon of (middle-ages 'Christian') virtue knights had to be chaste, not celibate.
Agreed, though I think more "sex outside of marriage" rather than just being unfaithful to your spouse. Thus Elaine counts.
An unmarried knight running around sleeping with unmarried noble daughters wouldn't be considered chaste.Though it was generally considered okay if you married afterward, as long as it was a decent match.
To be guilty of being 'unchaste' you have to choose to have sex with someone who is not your spouse. If Lancelot had believed he was bedding his wife (remember that he married this Elaine) then he wouldn't have fallen.
But he believed he was bedding Guinevere; that was the deception. Pure Courtly Love of Guinevere was okay, but bedding her is not chaste. It's also betrayal and treason.
He was choosing to bed Guinevere (even though it was really Elaine), so he fell because of his own choice.
How about some Pathfinder rules (and general rules about Paladins)? Paladins cannot or do not lie. Lancelot would regularly wear other knights tabards and use their shields, lying about his identity, to get into fights with other knights.Lancelot followed Chivalric Christianity and in his case the knights he tricked were the bigger sinners, as they were guilty of cowardice.
It makes a compelling case that battlefield deception (also called basic tactics by some) is something a paladin is allowed to do.
** the preceding statement is only meant to be overly snarky to the type of GM who insists that paladins can't bluff in poker or use basic ruses such as feints in a fight, not to anyone else :D.
Sorry, but there is no such religion as "Chivalaric Christianity." He would be required to follow the rules set down by God, not some guy that wanted to be able to do things that God didn't like. Yes battlefield deception is a tactic allowed to Paladins, but that isn't what Lancelot was doing. He would ride around the countryside picking fights with other knights, for no other reason that he wanted to beat the crap out of them.
Their "cowardice," I don't see getting into a fight you can't win as cowardice, is between them and their own morals.
Their seems to be a misunderstanding about Paladins and lying. It isn't that they don't lie, it's that they can't, as in are unable to, lie. In a roleplaying setting their is no way to force a player to always tell the truth, so they added the rules about lying causing a fall.
Bluffing isn't lying, because you are not saying that you have a full house, when you only have ten high.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The conflict between Chivalry, which was a rather Germanic warrior tradition with the rough edges filed off, and Christianity was always a problem. A truly good Christian was a humble, self effacing pacifist who lived a life of poverty, chastity and service to the community. Not too common outside of a monastery. Chivalry required violence, a class system, courtly love, honor and all the rest of it. It's why the "perfect knight" was basically a mythological being. By the name of Galahad :) Lancelot came close, but only his bastard son Galahad made the grade in the end.
As for cowardice; yes they were. The honor was in battle, not whether or not you could win. A knight has to test himself against other knights; the ruse of wearing the guise of another knight facilitated that. Thinking they were against a lesser knight they were not "unmanned" before the battle and would give their best. So, he was really doing them a favor; helping them live up to their chivalric vows and not disgrace themselves. And he got to kick their @sses. Bonus! :D
*edit* Oh, Paladin until he fell. Cavalier afterwards btw. My 2cp.
Percival was pretty paladinny, too, even if his name became Britishiznoid slang for "penis."
The conflict between Chivalry, which was a rather Germanic warrior tradition with the rough edges filed off, and Christianity was always a problem. A truly good Christian was a humble, self effacing pacifist who lived a life of poverty, chastity and service to the community. Not too common outside of a monastery. Chivalry required violence, a class system, courtly love, honor and all the rest of it. It's why the "perfect knight" was basically a mythological being. By the name of Galahad :) Lancelot came close, but only his bastard son Galahad made the grade in the end.
As for cowardice; yes they were. The honor was in battle, not whether or not you could win. A knight has to test himself against other knights; the ruse of wearing the guise of another knight facilitated that. Thinking they were against a lesser knight they were not "unmanned" before the battle and would give their best. So, he was really doing them a favor; helping them live up to their chivalric vows and not disgrace themselves. And he got to kick their @sses. Bonus! :D
*edit* Oh, Paladin until he fell. Cavalier afterwards btw. My 2cp.
Poverty, chastity and service weren't to common in a monastery either.
I think my own reading of the classic Lancelot legend is that it was Lancelot's love of Guinevere that was Lancelot's true failing.
No, it was his acting on it and having an affair with her.
But even a fallen paladin can be restored to paladinhood if they repent. Lancelot probably "fell" several times but was absolved several times. Only the continued affair was his permanent downfall, and that of Arthur and the kingdom of Logres in the end.
Barbarian (?) -> Paladin -> Ex-Paladin / Cavalier.
He also probably had a Mythic Rank or two on him.
|
|
Percival was pretty paladinny, too, even if his name became Britishiznoid slang for "penis."
Never heard it used that way round my end of Britain.
Still, just about any word can be used to mean 'penis' it the right context. Isn't that right, me old fella?
Paddy: When I went to see that prozzy in Amsterdam, she made me wash my old man in the sink!
Max: ....You took your dad?
|
Lancelot was not even in the earliest Welsh tales, he did not come into the picture until hundreds of years later.
So really you could make him just about anything.
Due to this, Bernard Cornwell's historical series didn't even have Lancelot originally, until he finally gave in to pressure from his publisher (or his kids, I forget :) ) and put him in the story, but he made Lancelot a conniving, scheming guy who was good at fighting, but didn't like to risk his life, and hired bards to sing his praises everywhere he went. He did that a kind of a tribute to the original stories: as in this guy is NOT what the stories say.
Jack Whyte's historical series also did not include him for the same reason, until the end.
So that is an option, you could interpret it as "no one is really that good" and give him some of the gladiatorial feats and high charisma so that he is about impressing others.
Percival was pretty paladinny, too, even if his name became Britishiznoid slang for "penis."Never heard it used that way round my end of Britain.
Still, just about any word can be used to mean 'penis' it the right context. Isn't that right, me old fella?
Paddy: When I went to see that prozzy in Amsterdam, she made me wash my old man in the sink!
Max: ....You took your dad?
You have never heard of " pointing Percy at the porcelain"?.... Maybe it's more of an Australian saying.
How about "damaging the Doulton"
"Driving the porcelain bus"
Poverty, chastity and service weren't to common in a monastery either.The conflict between Chivalry, which was a rather Germanic warrior tradition with the rough edges filed off, and Christianity was always a problem. A truly good Christian was a humble, self effacing pacifist who lived a life of poverty, chastity and service to the community. Not too common outside of a monastery. Chivalry required violence, a class system, courtly love, honor and all the rest of it. It's why the "perfect knight" was basically a mythological being. By the name of Galahad :) Lancelot came close, but only his bastard son Galahad made the grade in the end.
As for cowardice; yes they were. The honor was in battle, not whether or not you could win. A knight has to test himself against other knights; the ruse of wearing the guise of another knight facilitated that. Thinking they were against a lesser knight they were not "unmanned" before the battle and would give their best. So, he was really doing them a favor; helping them live up to their chivalric vows and not disgrace themselves. And he got to kick their @sses. Bonus! :D
*edit* Oh, Paladin until he fell. Cavalier afterwards btw. My 2cp.
More so than outside the monastery walls. Well, except for the poverty. Plenty of that to go around...
Just found this via the magic of google, and have been working on this as well. I know the thread is long dead, so I apologize. I have been reading extensively on the Arthurian subject matter recently, and I have to agree that Barbarian is the most likely. Lancelot's rages where the subject of much legend (similar to Roland), and his blows where such that the enemy crossed themselves when he marched upon the field. But he was also a king (or under-king, or some such), and best of all, Scottish! Lancelot, it turns out, is likely the French-ified version of Anguselus. In addition to being royal, though, he may have been saintly as well, descended from Joseph of Arimathea. So there is reason (if one were so inclined) to add a divine element to his rage. Maybe a dip in cleric, maybe some link to the celestial in some way.
I don't think he was a single-classed cavalier, because he doesn't have a notable mount, and he frequently disguised his banner and identity in order to get into more fights. He's not a paladin, as he is, by canon, imperfect, his son Galahad fulfilling the promise of the Round Table.
I think he's just a mid-level fighter with a sickening stats point buy and a couple of mythic ranks. That would certainly explain the number of "feats" he displays, including pounding armored and mounted knights literally into the ground, lots of cleaving, and a dangerous Lunge that allows him to take out mounted opponents and ogres with casual ease.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Screw Lancelot. Kay was the best.
Lancelot and Galahad were acknowledged to be the inspiration for the original paladin class.
And Ogier the Dane, from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. Which was also the source for the regenerating troll, and a heap of other stuff. Gygax loved that book even more than I do.
And Ogier ("Holger") ties in nicely with Doodle's reference of the Peers of Charlemagne. It's also worth noting that Gygax was also big into de Camp & Pratt's Harold Shea stories, one of which, The Castle of Iron, takes place in the world of the Orlando Furioso and features a number of the Peers.
The obvious answer is Cavalier, but there are good arguments for several others.I would say he is a Paladin not cavalier.
but... but... he has lance in his name.
but... but... he has lance in his name.
So does Lance Armstrong, who got busted for doping (so not a paladin), but he rode ALL THE TIME (cavalier)!
but... but... he has lance in his name.So does Lance Armstrong, who got busted for doping (so not a paladin), but he rode ALL THE TIME (cavalier)!
oh god i need to cavalier where my mount is a bike.
|
In AD&D, 1st and 2nd Edition he was listed as a Paladin who would fall from grace. One could argue he is a Cavalier or Crusader, or even a Fighter played gallantly.
His son, Sir Galahad, who achieved the Holy Grail, is without question a Paladin.
I miss Pendragon!
I recall that he was the adopted son of The Lady in the Lake, and that his armor (crafted by her as a boon) is composed of the same metal as Excalibur. So, mithril or adamantine full-plate could be part of his gear.