In a fantasy setting the concept of chivalry and knighthood is almost always a great role in it. The paladin class with it's lawful good restriction and overall knightly theme is a large part of that. I would love to hear of those characters that are affected by the theme in some manner and how the players represent it, where you get your inspirations and what discoveries you ran into when playing such a character, or even what actions of other characters you found to be very interesting on this topic. This is not to be meant as how you -should- play characters, but how -do- you play the characters and perhaps give ideas to one another.

With Robert I seek out more the historic examples than those of hollywood movies or other modern work.

The word of honor and honesty is something that strikes me as one of the core values and that I have Robert bound to. For instance Baron Balian of Ibelin and Saladin (historically, not in the movie Kingdom of Heaven) are great examples for this concept for me. When he was captured at the battle of Hattin, he promised Saladin he would no longer fight the muslims and was released from captivity because of it. When he went back to Jerusalem to pick up his wife and child, the patriarch and the people of Jerusalem begged him to stay and defend the city against the oncoming muslim army. So instead of breaking his word, he went to Saladin and asked permission to stay and defend the city and to be relieved of his vow. Saladin granted this. That for me speaks of a concept of chivalry from both of them.

I'll divulge some OOC knowledge about Crow, as long as it it known to be OOC...even Crow doesn't realize why he does some things that he does.

Crow's mother died giving birth to him, when he was six, his father left him in Waterdeep alone. Crow had to do what he had to do to survive.
It never really registered in his mind, but he was treated badly by just about every male he ever encountered, except one, his friend Jacob who died in the shipwreck voyage to Amia. This is why Crow has poor dealings with males, he sees almost all of them to be a threat in some way or another, as that is all he's ever known from them. He has much difficulty being generally nice to males, but he does try very hard with those he knows better.

Crow was told by his father that it was his fault his mother died, and of course, the boy believed it. He has had an unusual chivalrous respect for women/females his whole life. Not a day goes by that he does not think of his mother and what she might have been like, looked like, sounded like, smelled like. He almost goes out of his way to help women when he can. It takes an extreme amount of willpower for him to consciously bring harm to a woman, evil or not...tears go a long way for a poor sucker like him. He has the utmost respect for women.
Due to the intense love he's feeling for one now, he is consciously making his interactions with women short and cool.

He's had exactly three women hit on him (or show more than the usual interest) besides the one he loves. This has pretty much blown his mind, the first time (Miranda), he knew she didn't really love him and he let her go after a week or two. The second (Erelkacha) was someone he was in awe of and it was very difficult to turn her down because Crow was in a very low point in his life. The third (Nightfall), was just young and naive and probably more infatuated than having true feelings; he saw this and let her know he had his heart set on someone. He is completely unused to having women come on to him and doesn't really know how to react other than thinking about his love.

Crow works hard to please the one he loves, and would literally do anything she asked of him...he has already, and is losing friends because of it.
In his efforts to help the fair maidens of the isle, he is sometimes seen as a 'player', or accused of hitting on women. Unfortunately for him, this couldn't be further from the truth, his eyes literally only see one woman, all others barely register to him. So yeah, he goes out of his way to help women, and his feelings are truly innocent and without ulterior motives. He gets frustrated when the one he loves refuses his help, but he also knows her nature and deals accordingly.

So, his chivalrous nature is all self induced due to events that took place in his short life, not because of a code of honor he is expected to adhere to. He is the true meaning of chivalry, it is in him and a part of him, not something learned.

_________________

I love the fuckfest of historical modernism that is Amian culture.

Sam has no concept of chivalry, but she has been constantly influenced by the historical radicalism that so many Amian paladins choose to implement in their characters. Where she comes from, and in my mind, the world of Faerun is not the older world of earth. I don't want to play a historical setting, I want to play a modern one. One that teaches me about my own life in a fantastical way. Not one that has issues (chivalry) that are (in my mind) outdated, inapplicable and skewed. Yes, people can still be "chivalrous" today, but the concept of "chivalry" as it existed in kingdoms long, long ago is just not the same anymore. See: Enchanted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vr8wU4aUsM&feature=related

I revel in the drama that is created from the conflict of character and background conceptions, but I would find no joy from chivalry myself. It only becomes interesting when there is debate to be had from it with a modern mind in the midst.

I adore any paladin/knight/noble that adheres to the core principle of chivalry and nobility: to keep the privileged safely in power, and keep the peasents down by any means necesary. There are sadly very few of those.

_________________
"Edwin do this, Edwin do that. Somebody get this jerk a banana!" - Edwin, BG II

Valygar 'Stonesnake' Stark -Human Ranger
Garret Smith - Archer and peddler of deity-statuettes
Dáin Saltbeard - Dwarven sailor and fencer. No, I'm not joking.

Zammikyra's idea of chivalry and knighthood is a blend between traditional European concepts and historical Indo-Asian philosophies. Her concept is heavily centered around Duty, which in her mind works much like the Hindu idea of Dharma. You do what you do because you have been entrusted to do it. Failure comes as neglecting to do what you were able to do, but did not. This also plays into the Buddhist notion of Right Action. For every instance, there is one or more correct actions to take. It is her responsibility as a knight to be able to reason this action. In addition, she must be morally upstanding in all things she does.

Ultimately, it is do what you must when you must, do what you can when and where you can. She would not fault herself for not helping an old lady across the street if she was running to slay a demon that was wreaking havoc on an orphanage. Though in retrospect, she may reflect upon a way should could have done both. In her mind, Right Action allows for all good to be done, and it is her limitation as a mortal being not to be able to reason those paths 100% of the time.

Ardok has a concept of chivalry as well, but it is a lot more clear cut and a lot less forgiving. One moment of silent observation can be worth half a day of needless talking and chit chat. When I sit back and think about it, probably a lot of his beliefs match up with ancient Arabic and Islamic concepts. "All glory to the Lord, only the mistakes are mine." "The of ink a scholar is worth 1000 times the blood of a martyr." "He is not strong and powerful who throweth people down; but he is strong who witholdeth himself from anger". Self-restraint and equal reciprocation are probably the two most important concepts of chivalry to him.

Thus, in battle, he does not kill people unless he has witnessed them kill. He does not strike a woman unless he must in self-defense(he does not believe women are lesser, only that they are generally weaker, physically). He does not slaughter another man's creature(summon), unless he must in self defense or it cannot be avoided(he believes beasts are unwitting participants when involved in unjust acts.). Oddly enough, he believes mercy is the gift of the weak to the weaker. He does not restrain himself because he believe people somehow deserve it, he does it because there are varying degrees of unjust action. As soon as you cross the line from one to another, he will carry out the appropriate action if it is at all within his ability. Mercy would be giving people a break when their wrongdoing requires a particular penalty.

_________________

(Some of the details revealed in this are OOC knowledge but likely implicit in some of her manner and behaviour)

Illyana Sarov is a blend of the Tormtaran dogma that she was raised by, alongside the rather apt (IMHO) Paladin's Code provided to any Paladin character on creation.

She was born a peasant girl to labourers and tends to accept the reality (or percieved reality) that while she is a Holy servant of Torm, she is not going to become noble in the bloodline sense (although it could be argued as her Aasimar bloodline has a greater influence in the idealogy of humility, and yet a nobility of it's own sort which transcends mortal nobility in some ways).

In general, she'll follow Torm's Dogma. Failing that, she'll look to the Paladin's code to help guide her decisions. She acknowledges she doesn't have the knowledge and experience to command pretty much anything, but she applies her trade as a Stonemason as well as works as best she can to help where she is able.

Because by and large that is not what the Forgotten Realms setting does.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Have to agree with Tormak.

As an example: Illyana will not side with nobility or peasantry. She'll follow her commands but if she feels that her commander is truly violating the Dogma of Torm (and the Triad) , she will make her position known and while clearly as possible, she isn't at all eloquent.

.. A simpler guideline which helps me:

"(HEr) blade defends the Helpless, (Her) Might upholds the Weak, (Her) word speaks only Truth.. "

Yes, cheesy lines from a movie but IMHO they also damn well ring true for a Paladin.

As a DM I'll admit I have a fondness for pointing out that chivalry or even "heroic behavior" is one of those concepts that is often completely and utterly impractical but guarantees a certain immortality for the person who exhibits the virtue. Not immortality in the physical sense, of course, but talked about forever for the odd (but presumably noble) choices you made.

Take Phearnun's retelling of Balian and Saladin, for example. The actions of those two men led to the senseless deaths of thousands of people, particularly with Balian's constant death marches, and yet the story that's remembered is their chivalry towards one another.

Chivalry is great for posterity, but beyond that...

I started to write a long reply here, but I will rather not post it because it would show me an elitist........

Post. I demand it!

_________________
Amia Minecraft Server Ip: vps1602.directvps.nl
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Other.Detail&id=856

I say go ahead and post. There's a difference between thinking like an elitist and acting like an elitist. I think like an elitist but struggle not to act like one. Admitting this with honesty makes it more palatable to have your elitist views heard.

Well, I tend to play alien type characters (Underdarkers, other non-normal races) as you all know. I find that from an Underdarker's perspective, most of the surface knights, are as alien to my characters as you can get. About the only thing they have in common, personality wise, is that they're usually fanatical in their beliefs.

The Knights of the Underdarkers, are really just religious fanatical diehards. Take the Selvetarm Judicators or the Fanatics of the Overflowing Pit. Both share some characteristics of the surface Knight, but are as far from it at the same time.

Or the Baravaran Cloakshadow, Knights. Where sneaky is seen as a Good thing, because it keeps gnomes alive and many of his followers are Good alignment.

The concepts of Knighthood, amongst the non-human races, are just as varied as it gets.

So I suppose it all just depends what culture/race we're coming from when we talk of Knights and the like.

_________________
Illithira Frostmaiden (Snow Elf) Guardian of the Frostfell
Elithiel Issatheerin (Shadow Elf) She who Lurks
Isolia Oussea'lylth (Sun Elf) Apprentice Wizardess

Yep. That's merely one concept of "chivalry" present in our own world. Chivalry is principally a moral or social code by which some people seek to regulate themselves and others. Now while it may not be called "chivalry" in every culture, there are very few cultures that don't have something analogous.

What you state there as chivalry would fit something for a Siamorhpan, but it is hardly a rule. For instance a Tormite might see that as the opposite of chivalry. Laws, tradition, and nobility are to be respected, but not at the expense of keeping others oppressed or allowing inept individuals to stay in power merely because they happened to pop out of the right set of lady parts.

_________________

I think you're confusing chivalry and some marginal religious codes, Tormak, DI and Grymia. Why do you say that's not how the Realms work? Do you have something specific in mind? (Of course that's true in the sense that not all Faerûn works identically, because it's a diverse continent.) I figure there's plenty of feudal lands in Faerûn where just such behaviour described by QPR would be expected from the noble and their knightly servants.

I think it's relevant to make the distinction between nobility, chivalry and knighthood on one hand and the marginal group of paladins on the other, though. Paladins don't represent mainstream chivalry, the norms of society or the interests of the high and mighty, in most lands. They're more like wild cards who challenge the status quo by acting contrary to norms yet in a respectable and noble way that is hard to condemn without coming off as a hypocrite.

_________________

Well, actually I believe the role of the privileged class seeing that the laws are upheld to guarantee their rule is a concept very native to the Forgotten Realms. Calimshan with it's Sultans, Mulhorand with it's noble-priest cast, commoners and slaves, Neverwinter, Baldur's Gate, Cormyr with it's more "classical" nobility, Thay with it's mage cast and Waterdeep with it's lords. The regional and societal difference just class different individuals as the upper cast with different concepts on how to become a part or are born in them. Outside of the more human dominated lands this still remains true for many cases, Mithral Hall and Menzoberranzan for example. QPR's example could very well ring true in the FR, especially on a none national level.

------

And yea, I would be very much interested in your post Lutra.

------

The post of Yoss brings me to a concept that was center of many tales of romantic medieval chivalry. The story of the men who stay true to their code even if it is not beneficial at the time and the story of those who give two vows that later come into conflict, and their personal struggle in this. For instance, if Yaston would promise Cordor never to raise his blade against it and then a war would break out between Kohlingen and Cordor. For me the great weaknesses of such a code is something that makes it so interesting for me.

I much prefer mild xenophobia, racial elitism, and cultural isolationism. It's why I play elves.

Edit: On second though, I suppose I'll elaborate on the topic a bit more...

While codes of chivalry, the nobility status, and all of the traits and such that go along with them are great storytelling devices for a character because they offer handy rewards and interesting drawbacks when roleplaying such, I find that it's equally rewarding to play a "hero" type character who is perceived as a bastard by much of the populous. Someone who, if they found you dying in a ditch on Tuesday would smirk and keep walking, but if they did on Wednesday, they would offer healing and food. To me, it's a dynamic that is far more interesting than playing the chivalrous knight that all the maidens swoon at and people turn to for aid. I am thrilled when characters ask my elf for help and he's completely indifferent to the situation (unless the person asking for help was an elf, then there's a chivalrous and honorable side to him) and just as likely to help the person as he is to criticize them.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

You've already said it yourself, Iron. I'm not saying it couldn't work like that as much as I am saying it doesn't have to. Phearnun's definition of it is very narrow, which does not fit the lay of the land in our own world, let alone a fictional one where there are likely more possibilities. Case in point: Bushido. Bushido is the samurai's version of chivalry, and samurai themselves are quite analogous to knights without bringing any concept of religion into the picture.

Chivalry is just a single example of a code of law followed by a warrior class within a society. I find it a bit naive to believe that there would be only one working concept of it.

_________________

Samurai is combined with a knight? Do you realize the differences between the two philosophy? The honor is the only thing which is a common word there but "honor" has different meaning in Asia than in Europe or in the Western civilization.

People are watching too much anime bs.

A bushido would simply looking for an honorable fight and would not go and help to save and innocent, because in his opinion it is not his moral responsibility to save the innocent, but the responsibility of the other which is killing the innocent.

I did not say the things were combined, Lutra, I said that they were similar. And yes I realize the differences in philosophy, that was my whole point. Just because it doesn't match up with yours or a traditional European ideal of "honor", it doesn't mean it's not a form of chivalry or knighthood. Which again, was the purpose of the reference.

I could equally say people have been reading too much Geoffrey of Monmouth, if they cannot realize that the European concept of chivalry is a subset, rather than anything special to one continent's social structure.

As well, I believe you've been watching too much anime bs when it comes to your idea of Bushido, in the historical sense.



In addition, one of the virtues of Bushido is benevolence, which by the very definition means an inclination to do good. Now we can debate the meaning of "good" across cultures, but I'd be hard pressed to think that in any intelligent group that includes watching an innocent come to harm for an unjust reason, or worse, out of apathy. Not that the moral of charitableness is something mutual to concepts of knighthood, mind you, merely that they have a code of morals in the first place.

_________________

I understand what you mean and I understand that there are common parts of a bushido and a chivalric knight but the two thing are completely different. Compassion between the Western and the Eastern world has also a different meaning.

What I mean is the Asian way of thinking: "If it is not you who have done that, then it is not your responsibility."

They are VERY intelligent and they have a rich cultural heritage, but they think differently and I'm referring to their ancient and medieval society before the Western influence not the modern days.

A Chivalric Knight is a Western figure and it is an ideal because there was no example only the ideals of the Christian legends. A bushido was a real figure and one can compare the two because they were around in the same time, but their standards cannot be compared at all.

More inspirations of characters and less discussion on asian/western difference.

Regarding the other posts. Most of you seem to mix up the origins of the word "nobility" or "aristocracy" with "oligarchy".

Platonic and Aristotelian meaning

The original Aristotelian meaning of the nobility is that the best people of the society have to lead the society. Why? Because they have wealth to by weapons and hire soldiers and thanks to their wealth they have no reason to be corrupted. (As a sidenote, during the trial of Duke Montgomery, the last part of the sentence was in Yossarin's rhetoric who was the barrister of the Duke on that time) Nobles were also more educated than the common folks.

The bad part of the so called noble rule is when they lose the support of the society and thus they turn into an oligarchy. They are the privileged ones are forcing their rule on the "demos".

This point of view was followed by Cicero during the crisis of the Roman republic.

We can also put the question of the ruler here. The king(basileios) is the good ruler who is ruling and doing his best for the benefit of his people, the "tyrannis" (tyrant) is the opposite of that, he has to force his rule on his people.

Can we separate the two things on Amia? yes we can...a paladin noble will always be different than a dark wizard ruler

The medieval way

Part 1: Feudalism

If we are talking about feudalism, we have to separate the active feudalism from the passive feudalism

Passive feudalism: During the fall of the Western Roman empire, the people who wanted to work in agriculture rented a part of a "Latifundium". They were called "colonus" From the end of the IV. century AD the owners of the Latifundiums started to press their powers on the colonus families and they lost a part of their freedom. After 476 AD the newly formed German kingdoms did not necessarily took the Latifundiums from the Roman nobility, rather used them as an example. On the Eastern part of the empire, emperor Justinianus was able to upkeep the power of the emperor and thus he was able to stop the nobility and protected the colonus families by creating the "Corpus Juris Civilis" and the other "Di Gestas".

Active feudalism: After the fall of the Western Roman empire the newly formed kingdoms were slightly disorganized, so the king(senior) decided to give certain territories to a vasal who was potent enough to protect his own lands. So by the grace of the king he had become the only land owner of a certain region. The people of the region started to look for safety from the raiding bandits and they found the mentioned land owner. The land owner gave them lands to work on in return they have to give "regales" (gifts) for the kindness of the noble. The noble was indeed kind to give them lands and the people needed to depend on something.
This was the first chivalric virtue knight/noble/ruler: compassion and the protection of their people. For example my family earned nobility and the XIII. century for guarding the borders during the Mongol invasion, my mother's family earned nobility for guarding the borders during the Ottoman occupation at the XVI. century.

How can we compare this to Amia?: Well...there was/is only one city which was formed into a city from an outpust by refugees, it was Kohlingen. But I'm fairly sure that the subjects of Lord wiltun are there for the same reason and that reason is the protection of their lord. (Yossarin or any other DM please correct me if my assumption is wrong)

Faerun?: Cormyr, Damara, Implitur

Part 2: The Christian tradition

The dogma of the Catholic church demanded the same thing. First the legends of the Saints(Saint George and the dragon, or the archangels and Lucifer) gave the idea.
From 1095 AD the idea of the crusader knight seem to appear as well. The goal of the crusader was not really lead by chivalry but rather by zeal and many of them were of course lead greed to get the riches of the East(just to give the negative aspect).
After the foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states, a few knight and monk decided to create religious knightly Orders to protect the pilgrims from the so called "infidels". The Templar Order, the Hospitaller, the Order of Saint Lazarus, the Teutons, the Order of the Holy Tomb had their own duties, judging by their names, however, they had something in common. They had to upkeep knightly/chivalric codes which later became the new ideal of knighthood the "Athleta Christie".
These orders were really popular till the end of the third crusade. The Teutons decided to move to central Europe, first they raided Hungary, then poland and later the Russian and the Prussian states. At the of the XVII. century their grandmaster took the protestant faith and founded the kingdom of Prussia.
The hospiallers slowly pulled back to Ciprus, rhodos and to Malta in the end. The templars had a lot of mistery around them about their wealth and they were indeed able to upkeep their political influence throughout Europe thanks to their monetary status. It also caused the death of the Order in 1307 and later the execution of the grandmaster and the preceptor.

The Amian example: A Triadic templar paladin is making engaging a banite or removing their temple from the lands to protect the innocent and to fullfill the divine oaths that they have taken. They are a more idealistic character in DnD and thus they are definitely not guided by greed and hatred toward the direction of their enemies and thanks to the FR cosmology they have a more direct connection with their gods.

Part 3: Trubadours, Minesangers

Since we are talking about character inspirations, we have to mention the more romantic version chivalric knight. Trubadours and Minesangers were poets and knights in the same time who were singing and telling poems to the beloved princess under her window and they had to disappear and the first sign of dawn.
During the XII. century the woman as an ideal appeared in the knight's life. It is also because of the respect of Holy Mary by the Catholic faith.
Trubadours were their names in France and the Southern parts of Europe, the Holy Roman Empire called them Minesangers.

The first one was Walther von der Vogelweide, who served in the court of Frederick II. in Naples, 1198.

Amian version? Too bad that you cannot combine paladin class with bard, but with a little fantasy you can make it with a bard/CoT or it is rather up to your imagination.

Part 4: The Renessaince

During the Renessaince the society of Europe had been changed. Thanks to the gunpowder, the knighthood were no longer a dominant power on the battlefields. That was the fall of knightly and chivalric cultures.

The rulers of the state rather wanted to push back the feudal nobles and establish absolutism in their states.

We have to mention Macchiavelli, Thomas More and Erasmus here.

All of them were teachers of the European rulers of their age and each of them pointed out on different things.

Thomas More's Utopia(it means: nowhere) reformed Plato's State and pointed out on the ruler's responsibility for the welfare of his subjects.

Erasmus was teaching the Christian lifestlye of a ruler.

Machiavelli was rather an odd figure in the trio. He ignored the moral and said that a Prince has different moral then his people because of his responsibility and social position. However, a Prince has to show "virtues" while he is ruling because it is his only chance to grant the grace of "Fortuna".
I won't mention the fox and the lion metaphore here.

Since all of them raised historical examples, combining the three books will give ya the perfect chivalric ruler!

A far better question is where are all of these chivalrous, noble knights hiding >:D most of the ones I see are either diehards, cryhards or cunning as a thief. Hahaha

_________________
Blep!

Of course not, as I have pointed out, a paladin is always a fictional character with principles and codes which does not fit to the reality, this is why it is hard to rp that class. I just gave examples of the origins of the mentioned terms.

This is because of this funny little notion that all Paladins have to be Knights. (it's not a notion I perscribe to incidentally). A lot of people have this paradigm in their heads that Paladins have to in some for or another be Knights. I will admit, I can see where the Paradigm comes from but still, it isn't entirely the case.

Illyana's choice to serve the Triadic Knights was to repay the City of Kohlingen/Church of Ilmater for the kindness they would have shown her family when her parents were too old to continue working. Beyond that, she'd be just as happy continuing to serve Torm and the Triad in her own way as a Paladin solely, and more fully working as a Stonemason aside from that.

This is awesome. If I were to ever play a paladin, it would be the exact opposite of the shiny knight on a shiny horse.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

In the classical meaning of the word, yes, a paladin means templar knight or something between a priest and a standard knight. Actually there is enough sourcebook about paladins so you have plenty of books to chose from.

As I've said many times before, FR's term of paladin is better thought of as "paradigm". You're trying to become the spitting image and servant of your deity's ways and dogma in a lawful and good manner, whatever that may be. While the original paladins from Song of Roland were meant to be symbols of Christian bravery in battle, that's pretty much where the similarities end. So I'd have to agree with Grymia that a paladin needn't be a knight. Though the stereotypical paladin is often represented as one.




Be a Kshatriya Rajput! Similar moral precepts, no clunky armor and no smelly horses.

_________________

Rogue Paladins ftw! The sneak attacks actually represent the character's patron god granting them extra divine powerz.

_________________

Divine powers that only work in an unfair situation where the enemy can't properly fight back?

No.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

*runs off giggling*

_________________

Paladins and knights.. pff overrated!

REAL cool holy dudes are all divine champions. They can channel divine wrath after all

I mean come on.. a class built around MARTIAL prowess without norms or mortal morality or orders imposed on them, generals of divine armies.. Compared to these guys, everyone else look like a fluffy bunny! (And not the Monthy python kind)

Paladins are mostly just temple guards and lawbringers anyway.. Having a divine army at your disposal is made of win. Then you can make people call you 'general' and rant about what happened at Malachor V.

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer

You mean Gnomish Paladins?

_________________
Illithira Frostmaiden (Snow Elf) Guardian of the Frostfell
Elithiel Issatheerin (Shadow Elf) She who Lurks
Isolia Oussea'lylth (Sun Elf) Apprentice Wizardess

There actully is a gnomish paladin diety, Gaerdal Ironhand. Who is not a supporter of trickery(One of the few in the gnomish pantheon)

_________________
Guye Valentino The Demented Doctor
Hurrok Soldier for the Steel Boar company
Eheto Silent drow

You're assuming that "chivalry" has to be defined by historical examples. Chivalry has changed in the world today and it can be changed in the world of Faerun, depending on how the playerbase and the world interact with one another. There is no rule that it has to be the historical, olden-time version or that paladins must be based off of these medieval men.

...because, as we all know, there are female paladins in Faerun. And there weren't female, medieval knights. (Unless they pretended to be men.)

Chivalry: Not killing a woman and burying her body in the Nevada desert after having brutal, violent sex with her.

...by God, Estara's absolutely right.

*Weeps for Humanity*

_________________

And they say chivalry is dead...

_________________
"A somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did." - Anonymous

Duh, I'm going to bury her in Alaska, 'cause I'm chivalrous and courteous and so that I can thaw he-.... I'll stop there.

I'm not assuming that, I was just answering the OP who asked for historical examples. Nobody is enforcing anything here.

You are wrong about female knights. There were female knights, however, not necessarily acted as one but they were dubbed as knights. In France and the Holy Roman Empire it was not allowed due to the Sali law, but there were other countries which allowed such.

Psh. I'm not wrong, I was just being a mixture of silly and right. You were assuming in the perfect "chivalric ruler" that you use the three historical examples, and my point is you don't have to be historic to be chivalrous or a ruler. You can be a modern chivalrous ruler and be just as perfect!


...and more fun!

Fun is relative and an abstract term.

Those who seek historical examples should indeed read those books.......and no you don't have to be historic, but you could learn something by reading them.

So, would Chivalry be killing her first?

_________________

No, that would be a little thing called necrophilia.

On topic, I think a neater approach than to take historical examples as something to fully translate to FR is to see how a concept of chivalry would have arisen from FR's own history.

A good example I think of how this is already a part of our unique FR chivalry is the Tormite code and dogma. Your duties are to Torm, your earthly masters, family, and all goodly beings. This is similar to the traditional duties of chivalry; duties to God, Christians, and women. The two originate out of some of the same premises(a religiously-influenced code to be followed), but branch out and encompass ideals of their own. The main one being that the Tormite one is a lot broader. My guess is from the ToT and Tormites seeking to redeem themselves to everyone for the persecution of other faiths that happened during that time. It was molded by its history and the culture it developed in just as much as the other sort of chivalry was.

_________________

Ok, everyone has their ideas on chivalry, back on topic please?

_________________

1. The medieval system, principles, and customs of knighthood.
2.
a. The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
b. A manifestation of any of these qualities.
3. A group of knights or gallant gentlemen.

I think those key-words would define most of the behaviors one should display if they want to be concidered a knight in shining armor.

Now if you want to go into each individual term, just try to set your mind into the definitions given. You don't -have- to study upon historical examples. Create your own ideal version with these aspect incorporated. Maybe the word honor is something that easily interchangable. It's the code of honor that'll mostly define what kind of knight/paladin you are. Incorporate dogma and use the loose terms such as bravery, courtesy, honor and gallantry.

Here's my little run and how I came to make Kent Thompson:
I follow the example of how I FEEL a Paladin of Tyr should act in any situation; surely enough I have taken some examples from books from where I thought the character might be very right in their judgement of another, or from a movie where a bad guy has been judged wrongly in such an idiotic way where the case was completely heading in the wrong direction. Playing with a Paladin to Tyr and following up in becoming a knight for him I went with a few different ways and thoughts of how they COME to be a knight in the first place, which is generally how the knights in the medieval ages went but in a way the same length that they go in through D&D. Blatantly, I watched other players on Amia go through their Paladins and see how they cope in situations, what other real-life people thought of them in OOC or just casually reading through the internet on them. Here's how I think a Paladin of Tyr is raised:

1. Noble family, bearing some noble intent about them.
2. Taking in young and knowledgeable of surroundings.
3. Learn to read, speak, and act fluently through life.
4. Learn the ways of the sword and tongue to better one's self and others.
5. Take on challenges set upon yourself and given by others, thinking of how the outcome is and better one's self.
6. Follow the Paladin's Code to the core and keep following further than that! Religion is final and so forth you hold it to let others learn.

Surely enough, with so much rigorous training in life and knowing how rough the roads are for himself and the safety of others, he is one to play nice whilst (rarely enough) go against the other with violence. Being able to control his temper was something to keep in mind when he was running up in the long, hard years of being a squire and turning slowly to a knight since the last thing you want to be doing is putting more wrong in a place like breaking a peasant's nose in whilst suddenly going, "Show me where they are or I break your legs." Proper evil act that somehow the character itself will believe is perfectly capable. Obviously, if the person they speak with is in league with evil he might as well go right ahead and nut him one in across the face with a bit divine propellant from his diety.

I take the people I envision to be a "Paladin sort" or manner of act that might seem on good terms, to make my guys. In the series from "The Sword of Truth" I used Richard in that as a keen example, sure he might (in my mind) have been a complete, and utter, asshole towards most members of the series and might act a bit too roughly or head-on towards those he knows or doesn't know, even the ones he cares for, but surely enough he has proper soul to care for his people in their times of need and look most after the ones dearest to him. Simply enough, I use initiative. I guess another character I look up to for all that 'law enforcement' business would be the City Guard Captain in Terry Pratchett's "Thud!" or other series where it involves the one-eyed captain; got a family, raised a kid who he reads a book to every night with funny "Moo!" sounds to it, and keeps everyone in line.

I basically run off noble intent, intelligence, the right know-how and the ability to defend others.

_________________

^ Posts like this is what I am looking for. More!

When Phearnun had just begun to play Robert and many others were following his lead, I decided to enroll my own paladin. I had the impression Phearnun was re-inventing the medieval aspect of roleplay. Though, as previously stated, it is not a necessity to study historical examples to create your roleplay, I tend to believe there's more depth in it if you do. Perhaps it's due to the feeling of realism, you try to do something in the mindset of the medieval time, it gives you a vast lead which is often missing in roleplay. The lack of a thread that binds every aspect of your roleplay together.

I must say that I never had a personal encounter with Robert but I'm basing myself on my impression of him, partly gained by following his forum activity and the situation in game. Robert seemed trying to get every piece of knighthood right, not per say historically but his attempts at perfecting his roleplay to complete it. And that's why I decided to play a character with two major aspects. Personally my aasimar paladin was a challenge. I had a very limited knowledge of both aspects, one side the aasimar which I'm still sure of must be one of the least well played races of Amia and on the other side the paladin, which is a class I never played but for which I hold deep fondness.

You could call me slightly conservative but I do not like races torn out of their original reference. The Aasimar is very tricky to play, perhaps because there aren't many examples to teach you how to correctly touch it. I actually didn't know a single aasimar character, except for Gagis. I'd think that itself is a signal, for I'd not be surprised if there are actually a lot of them out there.

With the paladin I wanted to do it as I see fit. I had seen many paladins but I always missed something in them. Why do people play their paladins as zealous divine idiots? Without being judgmental I've seen two knights, possibly paladin, in a dispute with likely a brainless aggressive character. One of the knights was killed, plain dead that means, while the other faced the wrongdoer. (They were all low level) The knight was telling the offender that what he did was wrong, evil even. He tried to convince him not to do it again whilst the other stood kicking the dead knight, treating him like the dust he lay in. Eventually the knight fled the seen, leaving his brother defeated.
It's an exceptional example, yet, I've seen it return quite a lot. I associate paladins with knights. I realize it should be in the other sense, a knight may be paladin but a paladin is not necessarily a knight. But nevertheless a paladin should be knightly. Normally paladins are raised in their divine order, paladins who discover their faith on the road should be drawn to the values because of the divinity and the dogma of their deity.

Other well established knight/paladin factions in the past, the Triadic Knights, Defenders etc seemed caught up in the old role of good vs evil on Amia. A sort of black/white mannerism which I disliked. I wanted my paladin to find out himself what is good and what is not himself, without following the established paladins and their interpretation of the deity's dogma. I chose Tyr to do it with because of the judging aspect. I wanted him to keep to his lawful part more than following the "good" road. I decided to take the Knights of the Holy Judgment as reference for my paladin. There's a conflict between his aasimar nature, which longs for good and his class which requires him to act like a Knight of the Holy Judgment.

I took my paladin to Caraigh and met a bunch of Knights of Kelemvor, Triadic Knights and many others, as well as Robert's entourage and I wasn't surprised that many characters of the original knight factions, such as the latter, didn't correspond to my idea of a knight and how he should behave. Most of them were, mind fully plated, hiding behind a two feet high wall because of Seaamros haunting the neighboring areas. It's not the visual images that make me say this, but the roleplay that came along with it.

I decided that my paladin would not wait in the town much longer, so I started patrolling the areas for Seaamros, I had not a single clue who he was. I met an odd looking fellow not far away, evil alignment, no doubt. He wore an armour ornamented with skulls. In other words, no doubt who he was. But he didn't commit anything foul at that moment and my paladin needed facts to judge whether or not this individual was the offender. They greeted each other and walked away. He reported the encounter duly to the knights, still gathered behind the fence, gave them an exact description of who he encountered. They did nothing at all. After repeating my question many times, they identified him as Seaamros.

My paladin left Caraigh and encountered Seaamros in Wiltun. He now knew who that fellow was and had no option but to adress him. Without being judgmental, my paladin of Tyr told Seaamros to surrender himself to him so he could be trialed. He'd do anything to offer him a fair trial, he'd do anything to ensure justice, no matter in whose favour. An interesting bit of roleplay. After the third plea to surrender himself, which he of course refused, my paladin had no choice but to challenge Seaamros. Knights were still sitting behind a fence because of Seaamros, whilst my paladin threw his gauntlet before Seaamros' feet. He didn't have any other option, a paladin can not walk away, whether or not he knew his faith beforehand.

If he won, he'd bring Seaamros to trial. Seaamros would cut off my paladin's head, he threated. Soit, the fight didn't took long. My paladin was level eight.

That's what I want to see when I hear of knights and paladins; a code which is everything. The Code of Chivalry is a good code for paladins to follow, besides the dogma of their deity.

_________________