Actually it refers to the Roman temple on Palatine Hill, an important location later in Vatican power. In medieval Germanic (Frank, Holy Roman Empire) culture later on Palatinate became a title held by certain kings. Especially in the Frederick lines. Again it all goes back to Charlamange's court and his twelve fuedal lords that assisted in subduing the Saxons. The Paladins were later romanticized, and the word is also used to describe Arthur's Knights of the Round Table. They were given chivalrous deeds and reputations from works of fiction and ballads and such.

Paladin isn't mentioned much in Elder Scrolls, but in Daggerfall "paladin" was the highest rank in a knightly order.

Already plenty of good answers, but my definition would be that Paladins are knights associated with a religion or belong to a religious order whereas knights serve a secular liege lord. And in fantasy, Paladins use divine magic. Both usually are good characters that live by codes of honor.

As a side note to all reading the thread, and I'm sure you know this, (but just in case someone young is reading this) there really was no such thing as a secular ruler in any medieval society. All rulers, especially in Fuedal and monarchal Europe derived their power from God. (or so they said)

Another good answer. I think in fantasy games like this, the difference is subtle, but I believe related to the types of enemies they are sworn to defeat. A knight would likely fight bandits and hostile animals. A Paladin would to be most hostile to Undead and Necromancers - who he may believe are dealing in dark magic.

Both would live by a code of honor. A Paladin even more so. I Knight might bend or break some rules if it's for a great good. A Paladin would likely not, and if he or she did they would vow some kind of penance.

So a Paladin would be a stricter roleplay than a Knight.

In my opinion. But opinions on game characters vary.

A Paladin tends to be more of a holy knight, while a knight is simply a warrior in service to his king. So Paladins tend to use more holy magic such as restoration, while knights don't use magic.

In fantasy lore Paladins are usually Holy Knight that also have access to healing and anti-evil/undead abilities.

Yeah, I would say that if they had heavy armor and sword and board, the Rightous of Stendarr would be the classic Paladins.

I'd make the definition like this.

A warrior is a fighter who fights for his own cause.

A knight is a fighter who fights for the cause of his king, queen, lords or other such people of higher status.

A paladin is a fighter who fights for the cause of his god or gods.

Great history lessons. Yeah charlamaigns knights were called the paladins, hitler referred to his SS as paladins. But in DND where the game class was born a paladin was just a knight with some clerical abilities and was more focused at fighting undead because alot of his skills did damage to them. Banish undead, turn undead, smite evil, and a few others. In alot of fantasy novels like others said the name paladin was used to show rank, like High Paladin or Knight Paladin. Everquest had a really cool paladin class that was the warrior/cleric mix but really excelled at cleansing undead.

Incorrect. The belief of the populace was that a lord's power derived from God, the truth was entirely different. Feudal lords derived their power from military strength. Basically, it was a form of social control as the peasant tended to be stupid and "I'm king because God said so." tended to convince them. It's all explained in Machiavelli's The Prince, which became a ruler's how to guide that most, if not all, lords used.

Themoreyouknowstar

How is what you said any different? All rulers up until the Magna Carta, which limited the English Monarch's power, claimed to rule by divine right. Fuedal lords, swore fealty to the king, and thusly were given the rights to land in exchange for miitary service and taxation. Thats all broken down by St. Augustine, when he established the Fuedal system as a model as how Heaven was made God > Angels > Lesser Angels > Human Souls. Sure God didnt actually speak to the rulers and ordane them with the right to rule, but the Pope sure did (and he was considered more or less one step down from Jesus Christ, "what you hold true on Earth, I will hold true in Heaven")

Plus The Prince, while a great work indeed (an excellent read for anyone interested in politics, historical or modern), it wasnt written until the early 1500's, so I doubt Charlamange or St. Augustine read it. Edit: Seeing as how St.A died in the 400's and Charlemange in the 800s...