#paladiary

[thelightfluxtastic]

Paladiary Day 22: Order of the Stick

Yes, I'm still going this, dang it.

As mentioned before, by paladin identity was influenced (even awakened, one could say) by playing a paladin in a D&D game. So it's influenced by D&D-specific lore (though not limited to it alone). And before I ever played a game myself, my knowledge of D&D was basically learned through reading the Order of the Stick webcomic.

OOTS is an excellent webcomic. It plays with fantasy tropes and expectations of a standard D&D setting. And like any very good satire, it ends up questioning and deconstructing and reconstructing the very fundamental ideas of the world. I find it legitimately tragic that some of the best writing I've ever read will be dismissed out of hand by someone because it happens to be a stick figure webcomic. It has foreshadowing and call backs spanning hundreds of pages and literal years. It has a deep-hitting deconstruction of assigned villainy and 'always chaotic evil' races. And of course, it has paladins.

There are multiple paladin characters in OOTS. And given the satirical nature of the comic, each of them is tackling a different aspect of what a paladin is and what that means.

There's Miko Miyazaki. She's meant as an example of a certain stereotype of paladin players in D&D. She's lawful to the point of self-brutality. She imposes her will, often violently, on others and refuses to see any flexibility or shades of grey. She's holier-than-thou and refuses to accept that she might make mistakes or ever be in the wrong. One of the best moments with her character is when another Lawful Good character calls her out for using the Law as a weapon to use against others, and not caring about the actual worth and dignity of other sentient beings. Miko is a warning, a what-not-to be.

There's O-Chul. O-Chiul is, perhaps, the idealistic example. He's not the paladin I relate to most, but he's the one I look up to. He is wise and humble. He acts carefully, willing to wait for the right moment, but never being ruled by sheer pragmatism, and always looking for the time to act. In many ways everything Miko isn't, O-chul is the one that teaches a monster to care for it's heart and mind, and attend to it's own moral compass. His prominent character trait is persistence (one saving throw at a time).

There's Hinjo. Hinjo is a character study in balance. He is the heir to the city's ruler (who was, himself, not a paladin). And as the events of the story progress, finds himself regularly questioning his role and oaths as a paladin, and his duties as a civic leader. He often does have to take the pragmatic view of things, choose the big picture of his populace over more personal drives (like vengeance) and more high-minded ideals. He acts in accordance with honor and duty but what is honorable or what his duty is changes with the circumstances. Also he has a cool wolf.

There's Lien. She (alongside Hinjo) is perhaps the paladin in OOTS I find most personally relatable. She's not an extremist like Miko or a wise elder like O-Chul or a monarch like Hinjo. Her family are fishermen. But when her city was in need and lives were in danger, she picked up a spear and stood her ground. She's brave and resourceful and has a sense of humor.

And that's not even getting into the non-paladin characters that end up presenting important questions on the nature of lawfulness and goodness and right. I could probably pull pages and pages of quotes from OOTS that exemplify my thoughts and ideals and philosophies in this sense.

[thelightfluxtastic]

Paladiary Day 24: Lawfulness and ACAB

So, I've called myself "Lawful Good" in the past, and to be honest, still consider myself so. Necessary disclaimer: the alignment system from D&D is inherently a storytelling and roleplay device. It cannot and never will actually encapsulate the complex and multi-layered beliefs, principles, and morals of real people. But archetropal identity is, by definition, already aligning itself with narrative and storytelling conventions that exaggerate reality. So it's not more contradictory to call myself Lawful Good than it is to call myself a paladin in the first place.

While any class in roleplaying systems like D&D can be any alignment, Paladins are often Lawful good. And in several media, they are presented, metaphorically or literally, as cops. This isn't a one-off trend, it is (while obviously not absolute) as much a stereotype of the class as seducing the dragon is for bards. This is especially true in certain systems (like older editions of D&D) where paladins policed the behavior of other players, because there were mechanical consequences to their own traits based on their party's behavior. It's something I've been increasingly reflecting on as my politics grow and shift to include police and prison abolition, and restorative justice. Does me not believing in the legal enforcement system of my lived-in society make me less lawful?

Some people resolve this discrepancy by defining "Lawful" not as defined by the legal system of society, but by having it mean a strict personal moral code. I think this doesn't work from two different directions. First of all, it fails to work for lawful evil: the classic lawful evil example is a tyrant or evil empire, who is explicitly using or even creating laws to inflict harm. Second, if we define lawfulness as "personal moral code" then literally everyone is lawful, because everyone by definition has moral beliefs. Robin Hood is a classic chaotic good example, because he is subverting and rebelling against his social system- I don't think anyone would say he doesn't have a personal moral code.

So is that it, I can't call myself lawful if I don't agree with current social structures? Perhaps. Indeed, there are some systems which would put me in a "Neutral Good" box by default. But I still think it is more accurate and fitting to call myself lawful, and here is why:

When I call myself Lawful, I mean it as a core personality trait. There is a video I have reblogged recently (I won't link it because tumblr is weird with links; it's in my border collie tag). In it, a person is walking two dogs, a husky and a border collie. The person drops both leashes. The husky wanders off. The border collie pauses, picks up the leash, returns it to its owner, then ducks out of its collar and runs off...to go and fetch the husky and bring it back. If I looked for a hundred years, I might never find a better example of what I mean when I say I have "border colie brain". It's a three-hit punch: the border collie's immediate correction/submission to authority, it's clear demonstration that it could run free at any time if it wanted, and it only choosing to do so in order to correct the other dog. The border collie is not, as expected of a leashed dog, actually bound or limited. It is willingly engaging in a social contract.

Even outside of the context of rules and laws, I naturally tend to think lawfully. As a child I was incredibly obedient, and could be panicked for days at the thought of breaking a rule. Some of this was certainly anxiety or neurodivergent rigidity, and I have been able to (with time and care) reduce the aspects that were distressing, unhealthy, or painful. But as a general trait, that aspect of my personality or worldview persists. There have been times where I've misunderstood something in a podcast or other media, just because I've had the default assumption that characters are being honest or abiding by some rule. It's not that I don't know people can lie, cheat, etc. It's just that...sometimes I will literally not think in those terms unless prompted to by cues. And this feels so inherent to who I am as a person and how I approach the world, that it doesn't make sense to me to call myself anything but lawful. Like the metaphorical clock or an automaton, I have an internal lawfulness regardless of my external circumstances.

I'm reminded of a color tutorial I saw once by the artist Gigidigi (of Cucumber quest). She pointed out that, depending on scenery and lighting, depicting the "actual" colors of a character's hair or clothes may not work. One example was a scene where a blue-haired character was in a red room. The "actual" color used to depict the hair was a shade of gray, which nevertheless looked blue to the viewer in that scene. That's how I consider my lawfulness. I "am", intrinsically, a certain degree of lawful, just like the color value of a particular hue may define it as "gray". But my lawfulness can look different in different societal and legal contexts, just like that grey can be used to depict blue.

[thelightfluxtastic]

PalaDiary Day 21: Pararchetrope: Sir Carrot

I swear I'm still doing this challenge! Today, another Pararchetrope, AKA a character who I relate to strongly in a synpath-like way, due to them fitting the same Archetype. And one old such character for me is Sir Carrot from the webcomic Cucumber Quest. (Sorry Discworld fans. Everything I've ever heart about Disc!Carrot sounds very paladin-y and I'm very sure he will be my favorite once I read the Watch books).

CucumberQuest is mostly a comedic comic, making fun of a lot of elements of magical adventure stories. Even as the story grows more serious, Carrot is often a lighter, comedic character. He's a knight who loves (and is loved by) the beautiful Trapped Princess. A perfect opportunity to be a hero knight in shining armor- except he's a coward. Sir Carrot's introduction is him fleeing from an elderly gummy bear with no teeth, and that remains pretty typical of him. He's a lovable coward, well meaning but often ineffectual, especially comparted to the young but brave and action-oriented Almond.

However, the comic grows more and more serious as it goes on. And for Carrot, this reaches it's peak in Chapter 3. The heroes nearly die multiple times. Almond (who, I must stress, is like 9 years old, give or take) is trying to fight way above her weight class in more ways than one, and in a moment of tension sees Sir Carrot (the adult knight) hiding. It's a brief but stark moment of emotional pain, the cowardice becoming a burden, the realization that Carrot is so utter a failure that he can't and isn't protecting even a young girl- and might have watched her die. The villain is able to use this against him, pointing out that being so in the way makes him practically on the side of the villains rather than a hero.

And in that emotional (and physical, he gets pushed off a cliff) nadir, Carrot is given a letter by his beloved Princess. In it, she reminisces about how, as a child, he was never the bravest or the best, but always did the right thing. Empowered, Carrot returns to the battle with better resolve, bravery, and even armor that reflects his love symbolically (a heart evoking her strawberry food theme on his chest). He is the one to take down the boss (herself an interesting foil of the devotion of love) and proceeds to reconcile with Almond.

I remember cheering when I got to this scene, and I love looking back on it know, because it's a Paladin Awakening. Carrot was always a knight by profession. But this moment is when he finds his Capital-C conviction. The thing he believes in so much, and so purely, that it empowers him. He loved Princess Parfait before- genuinely and mutually- but now that relationship has expanded it's influence. It has become that Devotion that is not just a bond between two people, but becomes the driving force in taking action, helping others, changing the world. Which, yes, it does. Carrot becomes a far more competent figure past this point.

It's such a good example. If someone asked me what is a paladin, or what makes a paladin different from a knight or warrior or cleric, I would point to this scene. It's about believing in something or someone so profoundly that it changes you, and you, in turn, can change things for the better because of it.

[thelightfluxtastic]

Paladiary Day 15: Pararchetrope: Despereaux

It's been a while since I've done one of these, since school and work got very busy. But the quest isn't over so long as one can always get back on the horse. As before, today is another pararchetrope: a character I strongly relate to because of fitting the same arctheype. Today's is the mouse Despereaux from Kate DiCamillo's The Tale of Despereaux.

I think one of the powerful things about Despereaux is that his character is, himself, trying to embody an archetype. He lives in a fantasy world with real knights and princesses and kings. But he gets his idea of knighthood and love and honor not from the knights around him (which are more realistic, typical guards and soldiers) but from stories. In fact, stories and narratives are a central theme in the book. One of the characters says "Stories are light" and Despereaux comforts himself in the darkness by saying to himself "Once upon a time". In other words, in-universe, Despereaux himself has a knight archetrope. He isn't directly a knight/paladin like Gawain, he is someone who (like myself) discovered the archetype through fictional stories and wants to embody it and make it real in his own world. It adds a layer of direct connectivity and relatability. The story also has quite a lot to say about what that romantic-knight archetype means. And also, in general about the nature of love and light and virtue and pain. It's been a while, so my memory and references are scant, but I will try to share what quotes I can: "Say it, reader. Say the word 'quest' out loud. It is an extraordinary word, isn't it? So small and yet so full of wonder, so full of hope."

"Forgiveness, reader, is, I think, something very much like hope and love - a powerful, wonderful thing. And a ridiculous thing, too."

"Pea was aware suddenly of how fragile her heart was, how much darkness was inside it, fighting, always, with the light. She did not like the rat. She would never like the rat, but she knew what she must do to save her own heart." "Do you know what it means to be emphatic? I will tell you: It means that when you are being forcibly taken to a dungeon, when you have a large knife at your back, when you are trying to be brave, you are able, still, to think for a moment of the person who is holding the knife."

"I honor you" "Every action, reader, no matter how small, has a consequence" "You, friend, are on a quest." "I don't know what that is," said Despereaux. "You don't have to know. You just have to feel compelled to do the thing, the impossible, important task at hand."

In general, the story posits characters who are not perfect or ideal or free from bitterness or hatred. But characters who commit, wholly and truly, to believing in an ideal greater than themselves and attempting to act as conduits for that light.

[thelightfluxtastic]

PalaDiary Day 11: Relationship to Faun Traits

Since I'm doing two essays today, might as well make them thematically related.

My faun identity is recently embraced (after a year+ questioning). And frankly, it doesn't intersect as much with my paladin identity. It interacts somewhat with my dog identity (sheep! herding! field hearthome!). And it's way more connected to my gender and sexuality than my other identities. But those are topics for another day, if I ever do a faun challenge. (Which I want to, but probably later after the identity has had space to breathe and settle and be explored).

Paladin-ness and Faunness aren't contradictory. I can imagine myself as a faun-knight in shining armor. But as a mythical figure, a faun/satyr carries it's own archetypal traits, and the circles don't overlap much. The closest I can think of is a nature connection. Fauns are field and forest spirits, tried to nymphs, wilderness, shepherding, etc. And a Paladin can be dedicated to nature. There are myths of nature-tied knights, and even a Paladin oath to nature in D&D. But that's not inherent to the wider archetype of the Paladin, just one possible way it can manifest. (Much as both Reepicheep and Despereaux are mice and paladins/knights, but mousehood is not inherently a paladin feature). So yeah, all of my identities overlap, but some more than others. I'm both a faun and a paladin but the two cover mostly different spheres of my life.

[thelightfluxtastic]

Paladiary Day 17: Magnificent Bastards

I am a huge fan of the Magnificent bastard trope. My personal first introduction to such a character was General Tarquin from Order of the Stick. Other characters that scratch that itch for me include Nicodemus from the Dresden Files, Havelock Vetinari from Discworld, and David Xanatos from Gargoyles. In a recent discussion with my partner, I realized that part of why this trope might appeal to me is that, in some ways, it can be considered an opposite, foil, or inverse to the Paladin Archetype.

Now, admittedly, this could be a stretch. It's possible I just like the trope for it's own merits and am over-eager to associate everything that is important to me, personally as a thing for Paladins as an archetype generally. And there are certainly other more direct Anti-paladins, such as dark or fallen knights, etc.

But I really do think there's something to this. The magnificent Bastard is a somewhat subjective trope, and any villain might get the label if they sufficiently get and hold the audience's attention. But that's part of the point- MB's are charismatic. What comes across as charismatic to a person is, in itself, subjective of course. But the point is the villain is usually charming and has a presence. To bring back D&D terms, charisma is also the relevant stat for a Paladin- a paladin may have strength or wits, but what's fundamental to the archetype is conviction. Which brings me to my second point- most magnificent bastards are principles. They have internal rules or goals. They have lines they won't cross, whether moral or practical. As my very first MB, Tarquin, once said "there must be some order". So, while MB's are not necessarily Lawful in a D&D sense, they have the same rigidity and association with structure that I associate with Paladins.

So that's what it comes down to for me. As a self-identified Paladin, a Magnificent Bastard villain strikes me as a worthy opponent, a shadow-archetype, someone with the same force of character and commitment to order, but with opposing goals. And that leads to some degree of recognition and satisfaction, even in opposition.

[thelightfluxtastic]

Paladiary Day 16: Pararchetrope: Harry Wilson

Yes I'm still doing this challenge! Slowly. Spoilers for Leverage and all of Leverage: Redemption in this post. So my partners and I recently watched through all of Leverage, and then Leverage: Redemption. I took an immediate liking to the new character, Harry Wilson, a lawyer who turns to crime to atone for great harm he's legally enabled. I loved his eagerness and his puppy-dog attitude and general enthusiasm. Art the finale, there's a point of tension: Harry has a crisis of faith, and joins the season's bad guys. And I felt absolutely certain it was a ploy, and a double-agent scheme. I could point to a lot of reasons for this. That just before his crisis, Harry and Sophie have a conversation about how he's changed and making difficult but right choices. How the entire show is called Redemption and that concept is specifically often tied to Harry. How the entire shows ethos, even as regular Leverage, has been a power fantasy for the marginalized and disempowered, and it would go against the point for Harry to turn. But in insisting to my more dubious partners, I found myself saying the phrase "I know my Paladins". And in that moment, I realized I had been seeing and interpreting Harry as a Paladin. Now, the Leverage team as a whole is by definition Chaotic Good, and that includes new-criminal Harry, though of the team he is the one most suited to 'twist the law' rather than 'outright break the law'. But the reason he resonated with me as a paladin was his fatal flaw: righteousness/judgement. Harry is new to being a criminal, so one would expect that, when he messes up, it would be by being unfamiliar with this world. That he wouldn't know how to gift or steal effectively. And while he is very much a newbie and that's present in the show, that's usually not his biggest problem. When a job goes south with Harry, it's emotional. He has a new moral compass and he nigh-compulsively has to share it with others. He endangers multiple cons by not being able to keep himself from criticizing or scolding marks. It's not gloating- he's not lording his victory or superiority over them. Rather, he sees their callousness or negligence (and recognizes it in his past self) and can't help but say to their faces how evil they are, spoiling his old-buddy inside-man persona. That flaw, of having to plant one's feet and go "No, this is wrong and I can't pretend it isn't" even when it would actively help one's long term goals, feels like a very Paladinesque problem to me.

[thelightfluxtastic]

PalaDiary Day 12: Moral system: Loyal Dog

So, 2 or 3 years ago, I was introduced to the single-player LARP Brave Sparrow by Avery Adler. It punched me square in the therian feels and I highly recommend it (it's free!). Inspired by this game, but not connecting to an avian experience, I wrote my own, canine variant of the game: Loyal Dog

The interested can downloaded it here, for free: https://vyt.itch.io/loyal-dog

The game document has active, play-aspects that I won't talk about here. But this game, like the one that inspired it, are about self-transformation. Which means, in the course of writing Loyal Dog, I basically had to come up with a personal ethos. That's what I want to describe here. One might notice it takes a lot of the concepts I started with with the 5 Pillars, and combines some of them under larger umbrellas, as well as adding a dog filter to the whole deal. The core of this system is Loyalty. All subsections are just types of Loyalty and ways of approaching it.

Duty Duty is responsibility for. It concerns how the individual handles their privilege and power. It is about service and support. It is about fighting, literally or metaphorically, for a better world. It is about using one’s strengths, gifts, and abilities for the benefit of others. It is protecting the vulnerable, assisting those in need, making one’s home a safe place. Examples of Duty can be teaching someone, voting, volunteering, standing up to a bully, making a space more accessible. Duty fundamentally acknowledges that people do have power over others, and asks that that responsibility be taken seriously and handled graciously. Compared to the older 5-pillar system, Duty encompasses Sharing the Light and Fighting Monsters (Following the Quest is not it's own thing in this system but gets subsumed as actions taken). Friendship Friendship is the loyalty between peers and companions. It is the relationship building between friends and family, and reflects how one treats their equals in power and privilege. examples of friendship can be sharing a meal, giving a compliment, writing to a pen pal, or joining a team sport. Friendship is how one chooses one's pack, and maintains supportive relationships with them. Compared to the five pillars, this is most heavily rooted in Sharing the Light. Trust Trust is the inverse and complement to Duty. Where Duty is responsibility for, Trust is responsibility to. Just as everyone has aspects and roles in their lives where they hold power or privilege, everyone has spaces in their lives where others hold power, or the individual is the novice. Ways to show trust include keeping promises, accepting criticism graciously, and asking for help from those more skilled or experienced. Trust is not blind following, but is a matter of humility, respect, and acknowledging that no one achieves alone and everyone must put their trust in others to some extent. From the five pillars, this is most rooted in Respecting the liege. To give a canine example: A herding dog has Duty to it's sheep, Friendship to it's fellow herding dogs, and Trust in it's human shepherd. In human society, depending on context and situation, the same person will fit into all of these roles with different people in different circumstances. In my counseling career, I have a duty of care to my clients (they are autonomous and free individuals, but I have a responsibility to them as a professional they have sought out for help), friendship with my fellow students and interns, and trust in my professors and supervisors.

Compared to the 5-pillar system, Loyalty is much more hierarchy-conscious. The three types are subdivided into whether the individual is the one in power, among peers, or the one learning and depending on others. The hierarchy doesn't have to be absolute (e.g. A classmate may be a peer to me, but I would treat them as the expert on their specialties and life experiences, and be the expert in mine). But I think it speaks to how much I have an internalized idea of order, respect and social valence. I think often of power relationships, not with the goal of being the one at the top of the pile, but with a consciousness of interdependence and a feeling of responsibility and respect toward anyone I interact with.