Tuesday, 27 January 2026

Law, Chaos the Paladin PC and the Katechon

Regular readers will know that in the part of my brain labelled 'conceptual development' there is a box containing a lot of thoughts about an all-paladins campaign. This, I stress, would not be limited to campaigns in which all the PCs are paladins-proper in the stereotypical AD&D sense (though it could be that). It is a campaign in which the PCs are men and women for whom their honour is more important than their lives, and can therefore be of whatever class, background or type the DM and players desire. They are in other words best thought of as anti-rogues (if the Rogue is the basic OSR archetype):

Whether or not they gain power, fame and glory is immaterial to them; whether they accrue wealth is a matter beneath contempt. What matters to them is virtue: pursuing truthfulness, justice, protection of the weak. And in that pursuit they ask not the number or size of their enemies, the distance they must travel, or the hardships they must endure. They ask only what is right.
It is important to get away from too much pseudo-Christianity here: I would like the concept to be applicable in all kinds of settings and backgrounds. It is, however, hard to get away from the idea that it should be conneted to religious institutions of whatever kind - because I do think to make this kind of campaign work it is probably necessary for there to be some kind of institutional structure as such, and of which the PCs are members. This because they are precisely not rogues - they do not just gad about in the interests of wealth and fame. They are trying to protect something, and in a somewhat formalised way.

And in this respect there are some Christianised concepts which are helpful. One of them is the curious idea of the katechon (κατέχον), or 'he who restrains', mentioned in Paul's Second Letter to the Thessalonians, and often nowadays discussed in the context of the thought of Carl Schmitt. Schmitt, in The Nomos of the Earth, used this concept to describe the historical orientation of the medieval Christian empire. The katechon, as Paul describes it, is some power or person - his language is opaque because it seems he assumed the Thessalonians would already have known what he was talking about - who restrains the coming of the Antichrist and thus maintains the current historical epoch. Some day the katechon will disappear and the Antichrist, or 'lawlessness' will arrive. And this, for Schmitt, gave the Christian empire its orientation towards the idea of Rome as the katechon itself. Rome persists because it holds up the present eon. And as long as it does so, the Antichrist is at bay.

Stripped of its political theology and its explicit Christian furnishings, this is a great concept underpinning an everything-is-paladins campaign (and it of course informs, as you will have noticed, a huge amount of fantasy writings - everything from Tolkien's Gondor to GRRM's 'Wall' can be thought of as deriving by a long chain of Chinese whispers from the idea of the katechon) and presents us with a basic phenomenology (yes, I went there) of the anti-rogue campaign. In this phenomenology, we see:

A - The current epoch
B - The Antichrist
C - The katechon

And each is placed in relation to the others. B threatens to bring to an end A, but C intervenes. All you need to do, as the DM of your own campaign, is to decide what is A, what is B, and what is C.

Hence, A could be Hobbiton, B could be Sauron, and C could be the Dunedain. 

Or, A could be the Empire, B could be Chaos, and C could be Sigmar and his forces. 

Or, A could be the last city, B could be the su-monster hordes, and C could be the knights-protectors of the sacred dragon shield.

Or, A could be the university, B could be the demonic knowledge-devourers of old Cathay, and C could be the scholar-warriors of memasjkhajhjahas.

Or, A could be the utopia of Xanadu, B could be the crusading knights with their new religion, and C could be the shamanesses of the blue parrot.

And so on. The point here is that the threat which B poses ought to be epochal in nature and not just nasty or dangerous. It is not merely an evil power which raids, steals, or kills, but something which lurks just beyond the city wall or border, or just around the corner, or behind the reflection in the mirror, or whatever, and will Bring Everything To An End when it triumphs. And the PCs are likewise connected to a C which is not just 'the goodies' but some institution or set of institutions which are tied to the fate of the epoch as such. 

I think this would be fun to run and play and is deserving of further thought and systematisation.  

10 comments:

  1. One of the more fun corollaries of viewing Rome as the katechon is the medieval belief that, because the antichrist had not yet appeared, by logical necessity the Roman Empire could not actually have fallen; it had merely migrated via translatio imperiii to Byzantium, Aachen, Avignon or Moscow. This could be an interesting basis for a paladin campaign, which takes place in the moment of flux after the load-bearing hegemon has just collapsed. It is the job of the PCs to emerge from the ruins and identify which of various fledgling barbarian successors has inherited the cornerstone of reality, and must be protected at all cost. Or perhaps they are the last survivors carrying the torch of apocalypse-averting civilisation, and can actively choose where to bestow it next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice - yes, I really like that idea. Makes it much more fluid and interesting.

      Delete
  2. -- It is a campaign in which the PCs are men and women for whom their honour is more important than their lives

    The notion of female honour made me laugh (thanks for that), but then being an antiquarian I remembered bygone rumours, hard scraped in granite, that honour in (several few) women took the form of chastity and purity. This sweet little fiction of sexual denial and repudiation has been proven in recent times by the Hollywood caste to be a ... ruse.

    Carl Schmitt has had some very interesting other things to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's ok to like women, Kent.

      Delete
    2. For me Honour is a male quality, largely because it is antiquated not surviving into the mid 20th century. Integrity and honesty for all and chastity for women exclusively, these little virtues are admirable and all we have left. You can't have Honour in a fractured society because honour is outward facing and universal. Honour demands esteem from all of those who matter. Integrity and and honesty and chastity are inward spiritual struggles. Public shame and public honour go hand in hand but we are living in shameless decades when the most brazen crooks are the most powerful leaders of the most powerful nations. Honour has been bullied out of existence, but when it existed it was a male characteristic.

      "It's ok to like women, Kent."

      Certainly I do, I am not a madman. The sarcastic idiom is best employed when mentioning the Hollywood caste.

      I would need convincing to accept the notion of a female Paladin, though it is more believable than a female Fighter in AD&D. There is no point in discriminating between male physical types, with understanding, if females are faeried in as brutal hand to hand killers. I do buy a Joan of Arc as a Paladin so IMO it would be an high officer class for a lady.

      Delete
    3. "Its okay to be Chud"

      Delete
    4. Why do you put up with this pseud? All he does is lord over us peasants with his amazing mental abilities of... sneering condescension or misogyny. Even assuming he ISNT a troll, at some point there must be a limit to ones patience with somebody who is so obviously here just to preen at the expense of others.

      Kent, at best, is the worlds most pedantic dinner guest, at worst actively hostile enough to others that they dont feel welcome to come sit at the table.

      (This is coming from someone with much more patience for poor behavior than most, but there's a line between someone seeking companionship and failing from quirks of personality and those seeking objects of derision because of failings of character; the latter is best banned and shunned)

      Delete
    5. I have my reasons for putting up with him - while acknowledging and sympathising with your comment.

      Delete
  3. This concept seems similar to the introduction and background of B2:The Keep on the Borderlands although your idea focuses on fighting the encroaching forces of Chaos out of duty and honour, while in B2 it is acknowledged that treasure is a bigger motivation. Although it doesn’t always fit in with today’s ideas of shades of grey morality, I actually quite like the idea of at least some clear cut good guys and bad guys. The B/X notion of Law vs Chaos, with Law generally being the good guys and Chaos generally being evil is something I’ve used a lot in my blog. And yes, although individual members of the forces of chaos and law may have their own personal motivations, the forces of Law are trying to preserve the world order and civilization, while the forces of Chaos want to at least overthrow the current order and at worst completely destroy the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I refer you to these old posts:

      https://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2022/08/chaos-and-history.html

      https://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2023/02/on-good-and-evil-law-and-chaos-limits.html

      Delete