AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - What is the diffrence between a Knight and a Paladin?

I was playing along.. I got into an argument about the difference, of a Paladin and a Knight, I know I could just Google this information, which I have. I wanted to get some information from people who actually play these characters. and within the world of Amia.

Also, my other question. How do you think a solider in this kind of world would be like? what kind of armor do you think he/she would wear? a few say... Plate mail was to expensive to give an army.. so chain was mostly given to soldiers... For RP reasons.. what kind of armor do you think a city like Cordor would offer their troops? and what kind of weapon? a long sword and a crossbow? or simply what ever is in the armory at the time?

Thanks.

Wolfman31488@ wrote:

I was playing along.. I got into an argument about the difference, of a Paladin and a Knight, I know I could just Google this information, which I have. I wanted to get some information from people who actually play these characters. and within the world of Amia.

This is my personal opinion, mind.

The primary difference between a Knight and a Paladin is divine, purely. A Paladin is a Holy Warrior of his God, who follows a strict code of duty, honour, and the rest.
Inversely, a Knight is a Warrior of his God, or his Cause, or a core belief - and also believes greatly in duty, honour, chivalry and the rest.

Quote:

Also, my other question. How do you think a solider in this kind of world would be like? what kind of armor do you think he/she would wear? a few say... Plate mail was to expensive to give an army.. so chain was mostly given to soldiers... For RP reasons.. what kind of armor do you think a city like Cordor would offer their troops? and what kind of weapon? a long sword and a crossbow? or simply what ever is in the armory at the time?

Thanks.

Depends on the city and the general wealth of the area.

Cordor, for example, is a merchant's hub that has some amount of reinforcement from the planar city of Union, as well as enough adventurer issues to find putting funds into their troops and protection worthwhile.

As such, they wear the best, for the most part. Full Plate Armor, Tower Shields, Longswords and Crossbows, etcetera. Scouts have proper, professionally made Longbows, and the higher ranked personnel of course have access to even more potent gear. The standard Cordorian Foot Soldier is trained in the utilization of a Halberd, a Longsword w/ Tower Shield, and a Heavy Crossbow - typically carrying any two of the three on them at all times.

On the inverse, towns such as Wharftown are going to have less to work with. Leather, Padded, and Studded are going to be the mainstream - with individuals who have either proved their worth, or are willing to pay out of their own pocket, wearing more advanced equipment. Weapons are likely more simple, rudimentary, or even multi purpose. Spears, Halberds, and Light Crossbows are likely quite common, as well as Longswords as a good, all round, reliable weapon with a good life span.

Hopefully those answer your questions.

Yes, military equipment depends greatly on where you are. If you are interested in the outfits of specific milita or guards in Faerûn, I'm sure you can find them easily. (Waterdeep Guard and Watch, for example, are probably very detailed.)

IMO, a knight can be anything. It means swearing fealty to a lord and being knighted. I suppose it is also an honorary kings can bestow upon accomplished people/adventurers (see Knights of Myth Drannor) or a title you could assume for yourself.

All paladins are knights, but not all knights are paladins.

IronAngel wrote:

IMO, a knight can be anything. It means swearing fealty to a lord and being knighted. I suppose it is also an honorary kings can bestow upon accomplished people/adventurers (see Knights of Myth Drannor) or a title you could assume for yourself.

All paladins are knights, but not all knights are paladins.

::nod nod::

Knights don't need a god. They only need a lord of some sort, a knighting by government or just title themselves to look cool.

Paladins on the other hand, always holy under their god. Always a Knight. Thee knight, I would argue.

Knights are soldiers from nobility in a feudal system. Paladins are usually from noble families as well, but religious warriors rather than a part of a feudal system.

MHO -

Knights are sworn to a code of loyalty and fealty to a political system of ruler ship. As such a knight could (in DND terms) be of any alighnment on the good/evil spectrum, but should always be lawful. The knight's alignment does not have to be exactly the same as the state's. I would think the one step rule for the good/evil spectrum could apply.

Paladins are sworn to a relgion. Their code is of divine instoiration, and as such their alightment will be strictly that of the chosen deity.

So where a Knight is sworn to uphold the laws of the state, the Paladin is sent from a higher authority - Divinity.

As a lot of people have already pointed towards I also belive the difference between a knight and a paladin lies in their relation to religion.

A paladin is the upholder of all things just and fair. He strives to do so with a religious fevor and is in many ways a divine champion sworn to the service of goodly deity to guide him along the path of upholding his religious creed.

Knights on the other hand is, as I see it, a secular title simply refering to the fact a certain person is connected to a paticular ruler. A knight does as such not have a code of honour that is universal though they certainly may have it. A person residing over a castle in the name of a lords name often bear the title of knight to signify his connection to that paticular lord.

And as Iron pointed out there have been many shapes and even sizes of knights all across the realm. They vary greatly as opposed to paladins are easier to describe universally because they are bound by religious code of conduct.

IronAngel wrote:

All paladins are knights, but not all knights are paladins.

This is interesting. I never thought of my Paladin of Yondalla as a "knight". I always thought of "knight" as implying nobility, and though he has a noble soul, he's really a rustic provincial when it all comes down to it. A god fearing, do right, order keeping, bestowing righteous goodness wherever he goes rustic provincial perhaps, but one nonetheless. Or maybe I'm simply thinking of knights as riding horses and the image of my Hin on a horse is rejected in the minds eye.

maglorine wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

All paladins are knights, but not all knights are paladins.

This is interesting. I never thought of my Paladin of Yondalla as a "knight". I always thought of "knight" as implying nobility, and though he has a noble soul, he's really a rustic provincial when it all comes down to it. A god fearing, do right, order keeping, bestowing righteous goodness wherever he goes rustic provincial perhaps, but one nonetheless. Or maybe I'm simply thinking of knights as riding horses and the image of my Hin on a horse is rejected in the minds eye.

a paladin gets a warhorse for free because of them being a knight.

one should not underestimate how much is required of a paladin...the code of chivalry is but a small part of it, but if a paladin breakes the code of chivalry..they should pretty much fall

Umm...make it alot simple then that. Paladin is a class and knight is a RP'ed position

Knight : A defender, champion, or zealous upholder of a cause or principle.

I'd say that a paladin is a Knight, with a strict code of honor and rules to behave by, and infused with spells from their Deity of choice to help enforce and abide by this code.

A Knight can be anyone or anything really, not always someone chivalrous. Knights have been vastly romanticized in movies over the years. Most "knights" were born of some sort of noble bloodline, had very little (if any) grasp of millitary tactics or leadership, used their army like fodder to keep themselves safe, and abused the pesants in their fiefs.

In fact that cowardice spread so far that in England the Knights had an unspoken rule, never have another knight killed in combat. Instead they captured him and ransomed him back to his family for the one thing they really only cared about. Money. And when wars came, and the king called for knights, it was not uncommon for knights to buy themselves out of having to serve with a large amount of cash.

The Knightly ideals that I see so many RP by on Amia, were the minority and exist mostly in movies. But that's what RP is all about, isn't it? Taking something you want or desire, and playing it out.

Only thing that bothers me about Knights, is when someone complain that some other char isn't a real knight, for this and that, when in fact most common knights were cowardly pampered rich brats, that knew less about battlefield tactics than your average 13 year old do today. (Thank gaming for that?)

Gravemaskin wrote:

Knight : A defender, champion, or zealous upholder of a cause or principle.

I'd say that a paladin is a Knight, with a strict code of honor and rules to behave by, and infused with spells from their Deity of choice to help enforce and abide by this code.

A Knight can be anyone or anything really, not always someone chivalrous. Knights have been vastly romanticized in movies over the years. Most "knights" were born of some sort of noble bloodline, had very little (if any) grasp of millitary tactics or leadership, used their army like fodder to keep themselves safe, and abused the pesants in their fiefs.

In fact that cowardice spread so far that in England the Knights had an unspoken rule, never have another knight killed in combat. Instead they captured him and ransomed him back to his family for the one thing they really only cared about. Money. And when wars came, and the king called for knights, it was not uncommon for knights to buy themselves out of having to serve with a large amount of cash.

The Knightly ideals that I see so many RP by on Amia, were the minority and exist mostly in movies. But that's what RP is all about, isn't it? Taking something you want or desire, and playing it out.

Only thing that bothers me about Knights, is when someone complain that some other char isn't a real knight, for this and that, when in fact most common knights were cowardly pampered rich brats, that knew less about battlefield tactics than your average 13 year old do today. (Thank gaming for that?)

though the code of chivalry in fiction is a entirely different matter, and knights in fearun are described as knights who follow the code of chivalry (the good knights that is)

Scimiter wrote:

Umm...make it alot simple then that. Paladin is a class and knight is a RP'ed position

You don't think paladin is an RPed position, huh?

Sadly, I think a lot of folks don't either.

I think Iron summed it up quite well with "All paladins are knights, but not all knights are paladins".

Well, what I believe the simple truth of the matter is that on amia the term knight has almost no meaning what so ever, hence it is rather difficult to establish what it should be here. This is not meant to be a fingerwaving, but more a statement of my personal observation and conclusion.

In the mideval ages disrespecting a knight would have meant punishment most likely ending in death. Knights were nobles by blood, and the extreme minority who were raised to such a station through a lord like through the almost completly falsely portrait Balian of Ibelin in the movie Kingdom of Heaven were a real exception.

On amia everyone can claim to be a knight even those who do not request to be given permission to play a noble, and those who play them are not treated as knights by others. There are very few exceptions on the server from this, one being Avadon. Why can everyone claim to be a knight and treat one with utmost disrespect? Because there are no real ic consequences for it. A false knight would have been punished, meaning a person not being raised in knighthood by a regognized power. A commoner or ranger disrespecting one to his face is something you could not really imagine in history.

What brought respect to knights in the old days was that the knights were on top of the feudal system. They were the ones in power, on amia again that is not the case. You walk through a few transitions and the knight of the triad is no longer regognized as a someone better as the commoner or simple guard.

Which only leaves that on amia, knights are certain individuals bound by some form of code and who are in service of a group, land or lord/lady. So yes, I agree with Grave, knights can be anyone or anything really and it is silly to complain about others claiming to be one when the term is rather meaningless to the point it is a almost left as a synonym for a warrior or fighter.

to build abit on what phearum have said i would like to point out that honor is everything.

this hold truth both in rl medieval times (up until atleast 1900) and your honor is worth more than your life, in many cases death was a common outcome of someone defending thier honor, and people where very carefull not to insult other peoples honor.

to lose ones honor as a noble or knight in real life..ment you are worth nothing in the eyes of others, and most likely in the eyes of yourself, there are countless acccounts of knights of both muslim and christian faith who commited suicide after losing thier honor in battle, being ashamed to the point where they would rather die than face the shame, and keep in mind that some of those knights actually belived they would go to hell for commiting suicide.

later as the ages passed on duels of honor became almost common place, there are accounts of legal duels between man theater owner who was insulted by a newspaper collumnist in england in the 1890's and the collumist was killed in the duel, and while duels where illigal in england the theater owner still managed to get out of a court show largley because the judge felt the man had no choise in this matter of honor.

without honor you are NOTHING...perhaps this is something people should consider when they rp on this server..as 20th and 21st century moral standards in no way can be compared to faerun where honor too means something....

Well, if honor was the most important thing to every knight is debatable. Many of the challenges were conducted between two dishonorable men in the rank of knighthood who had an argument which they decided to bash eachothers heads in for. The saxon knights were a lot more 'barbaric' than the english for instance.

An example for a historically accurate portrail of a knight in my opinion is Brian de Bois-Guilbert in the novel Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott. He represents the most combat skilled knight in christendom who has broken almost every vow except the one to always give his best in battle. Rape, pillaging and murder is not beyond him.

Phearnun wrote:

He represents the most combat skilled knight in christendom who has broken almost every vow except the one to always give his best in battle. Rape, pillaging and murder is not beyond him.

And I'm sure that the Devil is quite happy about his accomplishments.

Last edited by Pony on Sun, Feb 07 2010, 16:35 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Well, he is not portraited just one sided, but yes, he clearly was not a pure soul. Which does not change that he clearly is a regognized knight of those times.

Phearnun wrote:

Well, if honor was the most important thing to every knight is debatable. Many of the challenges were conducted between two dishonorable men in the rank of knighthood who had an argument which they decided to bash eachothers heads in for. The saxon knights were a lot more 'barbaric' than the english for instance.

An example for a historically accurate portrail of a knight in my opinion is Brian de Bois-Guilbert in the novel Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott. He represents the most combat skilled knight in christendom who has broken almost every vow except the one to always give his best in battle. Rape, pillaging and murder is not beyond him.

nevertheless..if one was challenged upon thier honor they would defend it, not matter how much honor they had left..that is the case in the vast majorities

That I completly agree with.

Yet, if he would have been a paladin, he would have been fallen.

There's the difference.

He was a Knight. But Knights aren't necessarily granted the divine. And as such, breaking their oaths or not staying in line with the God which they claim themselves to serve, doesn't have the same impact on them.

Indeed. I would place a paladin more on the lines of a glorified version of a knight-templar, disregarding much of their christian code like celibacy. Meaning, I would say a paladin is a more or less chivalric warrior priest who actually gets blessings.

Though while paladins have some meaning on amia, knights dont really as I said above. Though I have to admit that is more another matter than the one this topic is really about.

I find the amount of detailed information offered here quite astonishing, considering the lack of sources.

There are several groups called Knights of something in the Realms. There are Prestige Classes called "knight." Not nearly all of Faerûn is feudal, yet there are most certainly knights in those parts. You can't resort to real-world comparisons so readily.

Again, I will say that the term knight has next to no real meaning due to the variety of it in FR.

To offer a few examples:

- Eldritch Knight
- Thayan Knight * (close combat elite soldiers of Thay)
- Purple Dragon Knight (which are close to the historic variant, chivalric)*
- Knight of the Chalice** (Demonhunter, still chivalric)
- Platinum Knight *** (Divine Based)
- Knight of the Iron Glacier **** (Divine Based)
- Knight of the Weave *****
- Vengeance Knight ******

To find a common trait alone in these prestige classes is quite hard, and I hardly listed all. The variety is so great that there can not be a general definition of the term knight in the forgotten realms. It has nothing to do with social station, alignment, honor, chivalry, divine based or martial based.

So the term knight in the forgotten realms cannot be compared to what it is historically, even if individual prestige classes could be, like the Purple Dragon Knights for instance.

Though I believe you compared it to a real life knight as well when you stated that a Paladin is a Knight, but a Knight is not a Paladin. As it doesn't seem to focus on the Forgotten Realms but more on what we perceive to be a knight historically?

* Complete Warrior
** Defenders of the Faith
*** Draconomicon
**** Frostburn
***** Champions of Valor
****** Champions of Ruin
² Wiki

Well, I wasn't referring to you specifically. But yes, I agree with most of what you've said.

It seems that there is a tendency to connect the term knight to either some kind of a martial champion or a social status. Exceptions may exist, but we ought to keep in mind that prestige classes aren't necessarily known by their rules book name In Character. Never in the various Cormyr novels and game books I've read have I seen an officer of the Purple Dragons actually referred to as a "Purple Dragon Knight," for example. Valas Hune is simply called a scout in WotSQ, though he is obviously Ranger/Rogue and possibly a Shadowdancer. Not once is Quenthel Baenre called a Cleric/Divine Disciple. I'd say the same applies to many prestige classes, in such cases where there's no Realms organization they're part of.

Then there are of course adventuring bands and mercenary groups who call themselves knights. Some of them are legitimate, like the Knights of Myth Drannor who (to my understanding) where knighted due to the services they performed to the kingdom of Cormyr. But most of the time, I wouldn't take it as serious evidence that the common people consider members of such groups knights. It's like band names in real world: Strapping Young Lad is a band of old, ugly men, and nobody thinks members of The Black Mages are ancient Persian Zoroastrians.

I think what I said applies to the Realms without need for real world references: paladins certainly seem to fall under the category of "knight" in anyone's view on Faerûn, even if the category is very diverse and some knights have nothing to do with paladins. I can't imagine a paladin that wouldn't meet some criteria of a knight, though, given that they virtually always swear fealty to both god and church, are part of an elite military organization and often exemplify the "knight in shining armor" stereotype.

But anyway. It's an IC term with many uses, some of them perhaps more legitimate than others. I wouldn't say it has no meaning, but that it's meaning isn't set in stone by a single authority.

With Amia (and most other nwn servers) putting 21. century morals and values into a medieval setting, things like nobility, knighthood, feudalisme etc has very little meaning. With no bloated kings and nobles to exclude lower soscial groups from power, exploiting the weaker and place themselves above the law, its very difficult to imagine social status mean anything on Amia. Much owed to the fact that it would be seen as unfair on an OOC level.

Titles that give priveligies implies that others are exploited or viewed as second class citizens. This just can't happen in Amia's current 'climate'.

I Knight can be chaotic should chiverly, code or what not demand it, a paladin can't. Paladin's are always lawful, even if it makes them seem to be evil.

Complete Warrior has a Knight class based around the classic code of Chivalry. It's not a Divine class.

Paladin is.

That sums up my thoughts neatly.

I want to thank everyone for your insight on the ideas of knights and paladins. It truly does give clarity on how a knight should be played.
Also, I feel as far as the dabate goes. We kind of have to narrow down. What country's Knights are we talking about? Diffrent countries had diffrent ideas and ways of doing things. I always thought a "Knight" was a lands "Sheriff" upholding what ever laws the Lord of the land may have at the time.
and can be "tax collectors" as well. What ever the Lord/King wants the "Noble warrior" to be.

Maybe there is a way, as players we can bring reason to "knight" inside the game. In the game I have come across many decent "role played paladins" going off of what information you guys so kindly have given to me.

I mean, In Amia. Everyone has a weapon which isnt so in the actual medieval age. Where a sword was to expensive for any commoner to afford. Or even a set of plate mail...
a Knight was a symbol of a Lords "power" or "fortune" which is the same thing I suppose.. The greater the land the more "decorative" The knights armor would be.
Maybe there is some way, as players "obviously not all" We can try to establish some sort of a more "social status" As far as "commoners to nobles" within the game.
*just ideas please don't blast me*

Thank you

Quote:

Maybe there is some way, as players "obviously not all" We can try to establish some sort of a more "social status" As far as "commoners to nobles" within the game.

Cordor, heh.

A pally can fall.

hendrack wrote:

A pally can fall.

So can a knight if you push him hard enough :lol:

What is the diffrence between a Knight and a Paladin?

Who is online