A Debate On The Origins of Paladins

Basically, I'm doing this because, well I'm tired of seeing what I'd call a rather limited perspective on the subject, and wanted to get it out, discuss with some random people, and see if I could get people around to my view on the subject.

Now, everyone, everywhere I've seen thinks Paladins are descended, concept wise from the Knights Hospitaller, the Teutonic Knights, and the Knights Templar.

And I would say emphatically that this is wrong, and that all three of these groups would make exceedingly poor paladins, and in fact, as the writer of the AD&D PHB claimed, are better sources for Clerics than Paladins.

Let's look at the Poor Knights of Jesus Christ, popularly called the Templars, shall we? They took an oath, and breaking it did indeed mean expulsion from the order, but that had more in common with losing the rights of being a Knight Templar, like the secrets of the Temple Mount, which specifically they swore to protect, not really anything like magic power, or loss of martial skill.

Not to mention at the time they engaged in the most sinful of practices! Usury! Oh the horror! Charging people interest for using their temple-banks?! What fiends!

Now, why do I say this? Because Templars to Paladins just doesn't add up.

Let's look at what defines a paladin.

1. A strict moral code that causes the loss of his magical powers if he violates it.

2. An association with "knights in shining armor".

3. An inherent sense of good and evil.

4. The laying of hands to heal the diseased and injured.

5. Powers themed around purity and righteousness.

6. A sort of suite of "Halo" powers, radiating their goodness.

Now, of course someone will say "Well, what about them being the champions of their god?" and stuff like that, and, well in answer to that, I have only one word.

Galahad. The true grand-daddy of the Paladin isn't Jacques de Molay, but Galahad. Not Archbishop Turpin, but Roland.

The thing I find people often forget about paladins, in favor of calling them "redundant" to the cleric, or saying they're martial champions to a god (which if they are, and clerics aren't, then why have Clerics consistently gotten armor proficiency and plenty of decent weapons in every edition the two appeared in together?) is that they forget, above all, a paladin is a knight.

Now, what's this got to do with god? Well, in the middle ages, it was believed that the hierarchy of knights extended all the way up into heaven, and that kings were endowed by God with the Divine Right to rule. In a way, the Archangel Michael was held to be God's "knight" to big G's "king of heaven and earth".

So the important point separating a cleric like Bishop Turpin from a paladin like Roland is that Turpin is a man of the cloth who calls upon God to perform miracles, ala Moses. Roland is a knight whose virtue is so great he is blessed by god.

So, bringing it back around to Galahad. Because Galahad's virtue and purity were so great, god gave him all kinds of cool presents, he had tons of weird and interesting powers. He could touch and see the Holy Grail without being struck blind or mute. His sword arm was strengthened, like his father, Lancelot's had been, but since Lancelot had fathered Galahad, and thus known sinfulness, unlike his virginal son, Galahad's power was greater, and he eclipsed his father, "The Greatest Knight in the World".

Additionally, Galahad was so noble and virtuous he ascended bodily into heaven after he found the Grail, healed the lands of the Fisher King with it, by healing the king, and was often described both in literature and art as having a sort of "halo" of goodness around him. An "aura" if you will.

Now, Galahad and other knights, empowered by Purity like him, (arguably his French inspiration, Roland, his father Lancelot du Lac, and his Welsh inspiration, Tristram of Lyonesse, along with the other Knights Palantine of Charlemagne) and just the general concept of the Knight in Shining Armor inspired by the Knights of the Round Table, Ivanhoe and the like obviously have the shiny armor to meet point 1. You could even point out Saint George, the Dragon-Slayer, but, well, despite having died long before the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Saint George has a popular following in England... as the patron saint not of priests, but of knights.

Further, Galahad proves point 2; like his father, he would have lost god's blessing, and much of his might had he not maintained a strict code of knightly chivalry and romantic chastity, if anything, especially looking at the poems about him, Galahad's code is harsher than that of plenty of D&D paladins.

The whole notion of "Detect Evil" of course, rose from the idea that a being of incredible virtue would be able to feel sickened by the presence of his opposite.

And then we come to the fourth point; the Laying On of Hands. Now, you'll say, isn't that just like the Catholic practice of the same name? Hmm, maybe, but not really. In fact, it has more in common with the even more ancient practice of the Royal Touch. It was held in medieval Europe, that being blessed as monarch by God, the King's own touch could cure diseases; the most well known of these we call "Scrofula" but at the time was "The King's Disease" so, to prove their legitimacy, the king would touch or stroke the sores and injuries of the disease, and they would be cured. Yet more of an individual proving their being blessed by God, rather than directly serving him, as a man of the cloth, a saint, or a prophet would.

In short, Q.E.D. Paladins have more in common with their root-namesake, King Arthur and the Holy Grail, than they do with Moses, The Knights Templar, and... well, the Holy Grail.

Either way, let me know what you think, and be sure to treat your fellows with a chivalrous air. Be polite, be courteous, be magnanimous. I pray to Mod that it'll be kept polite.