Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!mccolm
From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Paladins
Message-ID: <5191@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 17:36:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5191
Posted: Fri May  3 17:36:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 07:29:57 EDT
References: <544@udenva.UUCP> <380@ttidcc.UUCP> <684@umn-cs.UUCP> <5189@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 52
Summary: 

> >Why do all paladins have to have Christain 'morals' concider the Islamic
> >Paladin, or any other religious group you care to think of.
>
>The powers of Paladins are those appropriate to lawful good, squeeky clean
>religions, such as the idealized version of Christianity one reads about in
>Arthurian legend and epics like "Orlando Furioso" and "Tirant Lo Blanc".

Funny you should mention King Arthur.  The requirement that Knights of the
Round Table help ladies in distress held only for Sir Gawaine, because he let
a woman die unjustly, and was geased by the Queen to help women in need
forever after.  But this gives a good idea of how to deal with Paladins
who goof up:  put yet more (and appropriate) requirements on them.
Anyway, while Sir Gawaine was required to do so, for the rest of the knights,
it was just a nice thing to do, and they were under no real compunction unless
lives and livelihoods were threatened.

>I think that people who say, "Well, any religion can have a paladin." have
>a point, but they blow it by allowing their paladin to have the same powers
>as the AD&D standard while living up to lower obligations.

I submit that any religion can have a paladin, and that the obligations of
paladins of other religions are not lesser than those of Christianity, just
different.  And should be different.  The powers should be different, as well.
What matters is UNSWERVING DEVOTION (in thought and in action, in commission
and omission, to speak and to be silent, to slay and to hold, 'til my God
leave me, or Death take me, or the World end) TO THE PATRON.  Blow this, and
it's all over.  A good case in point is Paladins of the truly nasty Gods.
They'll have radically different powers (carry disease, protect/good,
frighten animals, cause fear, etc.) and obligations toward causing suffering,
death, destruction, sickness, and so on.  And instead of releasing EVERYONE
who begs for mercy, they have to ritually torture and slay EVERYONE who
yields to them.

>...Christian
>ideals are Lawful Good, if you will.  The practices of Christians rarely
>live up to those ideals, and frequently don't even come close.

This is also part of the Patron's religion.  Christianity emphasizes forgive-
ness, sometimes after penance.  Other religions don't.  So don't think that
your paladin will be forgiven (eventually or ever) for transgressions, unless
the patron is predisposed to forgiveness, atonement, penance, etc.  The
backlash of screwing up will be appropriate to the seriousness of the
transgression, and the religion the paladin follows.  This brings up another
requirement.  The player and referee MUST decide in advance EXACTLY what the
religion is all about, so the atonements (if any) will fit the religion.
That way, the player won't be nearly as upset when it happens.  It will also
make the punishment LESS severe when it comes, because the referee will find
something short of defrocking as a reasonable alternative.
--
					 -Eric
					 ...!ucla-cs!mccolm
Shade and sweet water...