Anyone following me for archetrope stuff after my othercon panel, you're going to want the tags below

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.

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.

Paladiary Day 23: Paratropes- Right Hand Man/Lancer

Now, I previously covered a few paratropes in my Day 8 essay. These are essentially tropes and archetypes that, like paratypes, can result in strong feelings due to overlap, resemblance or relationship to the existing archetype.

The Lancer is, broadly speaking, the closest narrative foil to the protagonist. They often have either opposing or complimentary powers, strategies, personalities, etc. Commonly they are rivals or second-in-commands or both, but the dynamic can cover a lot of different relationships. The points of the lancer that stick most with me are the idea of being powerful, but not in charge, being the champion or follower to another figure.

I really, really cannot overstate how much this trope/dynamic feels core to my very being. It is in every possible aspect of my life, in alterhuman, professional, personal and even intimate spheres.

From my youth and well into the present day, my favorite characters in media tended to be the Lancers. Gokudera Hayato from Katekyo Hitman Reborn comes to mind as an example. Drumknott from the Discworld books. Own Burnett from Gargoyles. Tygra from Thundercats. Lucien the librarian from Sandman. Sometimes they weren't lancers specifically, but were "powerful character who is not the protagonist" was a common thread. In school I was the teacher's pet, the "gifted kid" with a frankly unquestioning loyalty to teachers and authority figures. I enjoyed martial arts and got a genuine internal satisfaction from the honorifics and respect structures.

As an adult working as a research assistant (between undergrad and grad school), I remember having the realization that I really liked being a research assistant, but never wanted to be a PI. It felt viscerally satisfying to be the one counted on (and seen as competent enough) to be lab manager or run studies or be the one teaching newbies, while still not being the one designing the big picture or calling the shots. I discussed with my therapist the cultural pressure to always be advancing higher in one's career while genuinely being happiest in the position of a secretary or assistant.

The idea of being a right hand man or part of a paired set of rivals/friends/nemeses also manifests in my romantic and sexual attraction, though this isn't the place to explore that in detail.

I feel like I'm rambling for paragraphs and still not getting across how fundamental this trope is to me. When Overly Sarcastic Productions released their trope talk on The Right Hand Man, I literally happy stimmed for several seconds.

Frankly, this trope might be more fundamentally part of my personality and psyche than being a Paladin. If I'm honest with myself, I would still gain some amount of validation and alignment by being the Black Knight to a Dark Lady, or a minion to a supervillain, as a champion/White Knight. Paladin still covers a lot of other ground- my religious background, my personal and professional calling, my spirituality and ethics, my aesthetics. But the idea of being a Champion (to another person) is just one facet of being a paladin that is disproportionately or particularly significant to me. "Lancer/Right Hand Man", being broader tropes, can cover a lot of different character types and dynamics.

I guess the way I would put it in short is, I am fundamentally (at the level of personality, soul, nature) a Right Hand Man, and I choose to be a Paladin as a way of manifesting that, as well as incorporating other facets of my life.

Yooo, I was reading some of your paladiary posts and saw that one of your pararchetropes is Gawain! He's one of my favorite characters ever, so let me tell you awesome taste right there. By the way, in classic literature, have you found some more examples of paladins outside of knight errant literature? :)

Gawain my beloved!

If you've been reading through the paladiary tag, you've probably seen my other parachetrope posts. There are a few I have yet to write about (e.g. the Discworld books, The Brothers Lionheart), but none at the moment that come from classic literature. I love classic literature, but haven't read anything under that umbrella in...quite a few years. There might very well be characters I'd consider paladins if I, say, reread Dracula or Lord of the Flies or Brave New World, but at this moment, nothing comes to mind from what I remember.

Possibly Alexei from The Brothers Karamazov? The boy has a whole sainthood thing going on that is at least Cleric-like.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paladiary Day 19: Health/Wellness and Evil

This post draws heavy inspiration from @wearepaladin and their post about how wellness/illness may be a better metaphor for Good/Evil than the more common Light/Darkness.

While I often evoke light imagery in my Paladinhood, and it's certainly common, that has as much to do with cultural aesthetics and common tropes than true nature. I am light aligned, especially since I associate my faun identity with spring and dawn, but that doesn't make light good. There are ways darkness and it's associated concepts can be good, positive, healing or enriching. (Beautiful nights, rich dark earth, etc) and ways light can be evil or harmful (blinding, burning light etc). The use of light and dark as a parallel to good and evil also implies evil must exist, cannot be fought, or even is created out of goodness (as light casts shadows). And while there is certainly merit in noticing when well-intentioned actions do accidental or unnoticed harm, I do think there isn't necessarily an innate "balance" between good and evil that must be upheld.

Speaking in the same vein, my honored fellow paladin points instead to the metaphor of a disease. That evil, like an illness, can damage, harm and corrupt. It can be slowed, fought, eradicated. When vaccines and medical treatment eradicated smallpox, it was not a misbalance of a cosmic scale, but an act of good.

Thinking of good/evil in terms of health and wellness also, I think, helps catch those moments where good intensions can go sour. For example, medicines can be ineffective in too low doses and harmful in too high ones. This does not mean that every person needs a neutral "balance" between medicine and poison, or medicine and antidote, but that there is a correct amount (different for every person and circumstance) that promotes the best wellness. Similarly, good cannot be defined by quantity but by care and deliberation (there is a point at which kindness becomes overbearing and obsequious, where concern becomes controlling, etc.)

The health/illness metaphor takes on an extra element for me as someone with a disability and chronic pain. it may seem dark to follow through the metaphor to the implication that a person could be chronically or perpetually evil in a way that cannot be 'cured'. But I think the metaphor works on moral grounds. I cannot cure my cerebral palsy, but by listening to my body signals and putting in the effort toward regular physical therapy, I can be as well as I can. And neglecting the work because I assume I'm "better" or don't need it means my disability will slowly weaken my strength, mobility and quality of life. Likewise, I will always make mistakes, hurt other people, and not be a perfect angelic person. But in being conscious and deliberate in my moral education and actions, I can constantly learn and do better. And the minute I assume I've learned everything there is to know and am "a good person" with no problematic traits, is when those flaws and blindspots can lead me to cause harm to others.

Whether seeing it as Light/Darkness or Health/Illness, both models of good and evil agree that evil can never truly be destroyed. But the former says it is because the two are inseparable, like sides of a coin or paired equations. The other says the work is worth doing in itself, even if it won't or can't be completed. My disability cannot be cured but it can be managed, handled, faced. And it is always worth doing so, just as it is always worth fighting evil, reducing harm and spreading good and wellness, even if it can't be universal.

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.

Paladiary Day 18: Stereotypes vs. Archetypes

Oh wow I'm writing one day of this diary per several weeks

As I've been writing these essays, a question arose for me: what is the relationship between an archetype and a stereotype? After all, I found myself often using phrases such as "a stererotypical knight" or "a stereotypical paladin". And the idea of an archetype is based around a broader trope or common traits. Do sterotypes beget archetypes? Are they a subset?

I think a stereotype is, whether negative or positive, about narrowing to traits. One could look toward cultural, racial, gender stereotypes for examples. But even outside of axes of power/privilege: what comes to mind for a stereotypical teacher, a stereotypical philosopher, a stereotypical mother? Well, usually, it comes down to assigning clear signs or small, detailed traits (they wear glasses, they're old, they're feminine). And what traits are stereotypical for what group will differ wildly across historical context.

What about an archetype? Well, I think there, the question is not narrowing but broadening. An archetype, to me, is the broader umbrella, an abstraction. An Arthurian knight, a modern-day street medic, and an anime magical girl don't have a lot in common, but one can distill something from their trend/overlap.

I talked about this with my partner last night, and he ended up comparing it to the water cycle. People tell stories. These stories, over time, coalesce into broader themes and archetypes (clouds) which then can condense into discrete, individual examples (rain). People's reactions and responses then in turn change the archetype (evaporation, new cloud). Take, for example, the archetype of the hero. People told storiesa across history (e.g. Heracles, Gilgamesh, Maui). These stories were different from one another. Nevertheless, people began to grasp a broader concept of "Hero" that acted as an umbrella to all these concepts. Over time, this concept changed and grew more complicated, branching off into subtypes (superhero, mythical hero, antihero) and what were considered heroic traits (strength vs. guile) changed across cultures and contexts. What is currently a "stereotypical hero" is very specific to this time, place, and media milieu. The broader archetype remains.

Another way to look at it is cladistic. I see it as similar to the "family resemblance" that defines a category such as games, languages etc. It's impossible to come up with a clear-cut definition of "language" that includes and excludes everything it should, but people have a good internal sense of a language by experience. So, for example, a "stereotypical dog" might be a Labrador or a golden retriever or a german shepherd. But an "archetypcal dog" would point to the broader sense of "dogness" that encompassed all breeds, and would therefore probably be more rooted in high-abstraction concepts like loyalty and domesticism than fur color or ear shape.

So a stereotypical paladin is probably an armored holy knight, heavily influenced by the impact of D&D. But the Archetype of Paladin is a family portrait that I am fitting into.

PalaDiary Day 4: Moral Code, 5 Pillars

So back in 2018 when I was first starting to be more deliberate about my paladin identity, I tried to codify as specific personal moral code. I used a metaphorical knightly motif to fit the archetype. I tried to introspect on what values and principles I wanted to cover, and was able to conceptualize it as five core pillars. Then, at the end of the day, I would look back on my actions that day in light of the pillars- which ones did I uphold? Which ones did I neglect? Which ones did I act against? What did I need to change moving forward? While I've changed my approach over time, this system still matters to me as my first pass at a paladin oath. It's described in detail below. 1. Nurturing the Light (Joy, Comfort, Satisfaction) Nurturing the light means anything that produces good things. The light rejuvenates and replenishes. Joy is one way light manifests. But seeking comfort when hurt, taking care of one’s body and mind, or working hard on a personal project are some of the ways to nurture light, even if they aren’t inherently pleasant or fun. This pillar is about how one can't fill from an empty cup, and asks the Paladin to take care of themselves and keep themselves safe and capable. Examples: Reading a good book, eating a favorite food, doing regular therapy (physical or mental), getting a hug from a loved one, achieving a difficult project. Symbol: A helmet or armor- that which keeps the knight safe and protected.

2. Sharing the Light (Community, Support, Giving) Sharing the light means bringing joy, comfort, and satisfaction to others, spreading it beyond. This can sometimes be one-sided or energy-requiring, such as giving gifts or providing emotional support. But sharing energy can often be recursive, and produce just as much joy in the sharer, such as when sharing a joyous event with others. This step is crucial to relationship maintenance of all kinds. Examples: Complimenting someone, listening to a friend in need, sharing a meal with someone, 'I saw this and thought of you'. Symbol: A shield. The thing that the knight presents outwardly to others and can be identified by, the thing that can strengthen or protect others.

3. Fighting monsters (Action, Defense, Change) One of the quotes in my book of Arthurian myths is “Nevertheless, he would not let himself be slain tamely”. If Nurturing the Light is about adding good, Fighting Monsters is about removing evil. This can be direct, as when calling someone out or defending someone against bullying. But slow, gradual action- such as political activism- is also necessary so that the monsters are weakened in the long term, or never emerge at all. Examples: Standing up to a bully, protesting, voting, educating someone who is ignorant or harmful, defending yourself from bad-faith attacks. Symbol: The sword, by which a knight actively defeats threats.

4. Following the Quest (Perseverance, Diligence, Effort) I wanted something to represent diligence and commitment. All of the pillars above don't mean much if one doesn't actually follow through. Following the Quest is about consistency and hard work. It means dedicating oneself to a cause (big or small) and sticking with it. It means following through, doing the best one can, and maintaining structure and personal order. Examples: Keeping promises, being punctual, not procrastinating, keeping up regular effort toward one's goals. Symbol: The horse, which carries the knight along quests and gets them to their destination. 5. Respect the Liege (Respect, Loyalty, Honor) While there is a lot to be said about questioning authority and obedience, I feel the Paladin archetype cannot be complete without acknowledging fealty and devotion. Respecting the Liege is about proper deference and social place. It means treating others courteously and as masters of their own experience. It means never taking control of another or acting without their consent- I am not their liege. It also means recognizing that one never truly achieves alone- whether on the small scale of bosses at work, the middle scale of the public works of society and achievements of predecessors, or the universal scale of being a creation of the gods (in my personal faith). This does not mean obeying corrupt authorities that cause harm to others or the world, as that would be a Monster to Fight. Examples: Using correct names, pronouns and titles, protecting the environment, learning community history, thanking someone who taught or helped you. Symbol: The ring. Whether kissing the ring of the king, or the ring given my the maiden as a token of her love, the ring is the object that represents loyalty to another.

How these relate to one another

These five pillars weave together. Nurturing and Sharing the light are most obviously related. Both make good in the world, either focused on the self or on others. Fighting Monsters is the necessary counterbalance. Providing joy to someone does not do much to remove the causes of their pain and fear. Removing a source of trouble does not, in itself, produce positivity. Neither is sufficient alone. But it is easier to have and appreciate light when there aren’t monsters plaguing one, and it is easier to fight and defeat monsters if one has the support and energy of the light. The work together like sword and shield. Following the Quest is what provides backbone to the other pillars and makes them achievable rather than distant, imagined ideals. Together, Nurturing the Light and Following the Quest cover goals and achievements- the quest in the diligence required, the light in the feeling of satisfaction and pride upon completion. On its own, Following the Quest is amoral- it is about means, not ends. It is the pillars of Sharing the Light and Respecting the Liege that add the moral valence of respect and courtesy to others, and place value on things beyond the self.

PalaDiary Day 14- Pararchetrope: Gawain

As before, a Pararchetrope is a character that can evoke ysnpath or -hearted like feelings due to filling a similar acrhetype to one's archetropal identity.

The myths and stories about arthurian knights are a big source of inspiration for the paladin archetype as it exists today. And among all the knights of the round table, Gawain is the one that I connect most to. He's also the one I consider a personal role model. Now, the arthurian mythos is not consistent and has no official canon. Everything I describe here is based on where I learned about Gawain- King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table by Roger Lancelyn Greene. You may have read other stories with different details and characterizations. None are the "true" or "right" version. But obviously, my thoughts are based on the version familiar to me. Relatability In the stories I read, Gawain was the greatest of Arthur's knights before Lancelot. And then Lancelot was the greatest until he was surpassed by Galahad. Really, Vyt, your role model is the 3rd-best knight? Yes. You might see jokes from time to time that Lancelot was basically someone's Mary Sue OC Do Not Steal addition to the arthurian mythos. And there is something to that, Lancelot as The Best And Coolest so dramatically surpassing all other knights. And even ignoring that, there's the whole Guinevere love-triangle thing and the drama resulting from it. Then there's Galahad, whose whole deal is being the Pure One of Pureness. In my book, Galahad doesn't appear in any other quests or stories. He shows up when it's time for the grail quest, and he ascends and disappears/dies once it's done. Both Lancelot and Galahad have unattainable superiority as character traits. Coming in as the best knight "besides the prophesized magic ones" is pretty dang good, and basically makes Gawain the best knight that's still a feasible role model for a human being to strive for. Making Mistakes and Human Choices Related to the above, a lot of the stories that center on Gawain have him make mistakes and learn from them. Or have human wants and needs and have that be accepted. Take Gawain and the Green knight. Gawain is honest up to a point, but lies about receiving the girdle in order to save his own life. And then, he flinches at the first swing of the axe, but faces it bravely afterwards. The Green knight pretty much outright states that these are understandable reactions even in a noble knight. And both, I think, are important lessons to keep in mind, especially given the obsessive and self-sacrificial tendency in paladin types. It's good to be reminded that rules and order don't come above one's own life or safety. That one can be afraid and move forward anyway. And that one can make a mistake or back down, and then still commit and steel their resolve. That you don't have to be fearless and perfect the first time, you just have to find your strength and follow through. Respect for others I really like the verion of Gawain and the lady Ragnelle I'm familiar with. Gawain, after helping Arthur on a quest, is set to marry a cartoonishly hideous woman. The night before their wedding, she appears as a beautiful maiden to him, and says he can make a choice: she can be beautiful during the day, or at night, but not both. In the first case, other knights would see her as pretty and not mock Gawain, but he would have to share his bed nightly with her in her gruesome form. In the reverse, he could have pleasant nights, but would be embrarassed publicaly. Gawain refuses to choose for her, saying she will be the one most affected by the decision (seeing her own husband and others react to her and mock her or be disgusted) and therefore she should choose whichever she wants. This, of course, by fairy tale logic, breaks the curse and she gets to be pretty all the time. Yes, the trope of beauty-as-goodness is still enforced, but I think the story gets some points for focusing on how it's the reactions of others that are a problem. And I like Gawain in this story because he grants bodily autonomy to Lady Ragnell in this story, giving her the choice. It's atypical for expectations I have for the time period. And from a paladin virtue perspective, it reminds me that being a paladin

doesn't mean holding power over or choosing for others, but respecting them as masters of their own experiences.

PalaDiary Day 13: Vices- Pride

I personally hope, through paladinhood, to be a force for good in the world. But the archetype has it's drawbacks, and certain flaws that I believe Paladin-type people are particularly susceptible to. One of these is pride.

The trouble of being a holy warrior is becoming holier-than-thou. The trouble with being a knight on a steed is sometimes one has to get off their high horse. I fully believe in acknowledging privilege and using it to uplift others. But responsibility can over-manifest as domination or control. Going from "I can help, so I should" to "Only I can fix this". Dedicating oneself to a cause is well and good, but how does one decide what cause is virtuous, what action is righteous? If I'm seeing myself as the people's champion, when to I start seeing others as NPCs, or helpless, lesser, un-empowered beings? When does it become condescension? There is a rigidity to paladinhood as a personality, and one way that rigidity can manifest is "my way or the highway" or "everyone is doing it wrong" (whatever "it" might be). There's a reason the stereotypical annoying D&D paladin is the player who is unwilling to bend or cooperate with their fellow party members. For me, it's possibly a lingering effect of gifted kid bullshit, which, for all the harmful and traumatic effects it had, did leave an imprint in my ego. I sometimes catch myself thinking "But I *am* smarter/more diligent/better organized/more committed than people around me". I have to monitor for that and swat it when I see it, lest it sneak into my actions.

Devotion is a paladin virtue, but it's flipside is proud stubbornness. Captain America's "stand tall and tell the world to move" is a very Paladin-esque approach. But it's noble only if you've found the 'right' place to stand, and speaks to a frankly dangerous level of self-importance. Paladins are often already Knights Templar, and one must be careful not to fall into being the Tautological Templar. (Going from "I am a good person so I should do x, y, z" to "Whatever I do must be good because I am the one doing it").

Archetypes- all archetypes- are exaggerations. They are platonic ideals, caricatures and silhouettes, stretched larger than life. No human being can ever fully meet an archetype, nor should they. In the complexity of real life, the stretched aspects of an archetype become dangerous flaws. I will never have the absolutism of a mythical paladin and that's probably for the best. Because as-is, I already have to spend time and energy monitoring myself and my reactions to those around me so that I don't declare myself The Good Person at the cost of pride and harm to others.