# Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)



## shilsen

I was doing a writeup for a paladin character concept I had, and was curious how other DMs would react to it. So here are a few paragraphs about Sir Cedric. Simple question - would you allow this paladin in your campaign? For a more complex question - is there anything in the PHB paladin class which prohibits Sir Cedric (I personally think not)? Anyway, here goes:

Cedric opened one eye and looked at the ceiling, and then the other, as he tried to work out where he was. Somebody muttered softly next to him and he felt a warm patch of bare flesh touch him. Memory came flooding back and he grinned as he turned, to find the two girls on his left still asleep. For a few moments he looked at the two naked bodies and thought pleasurably about the activities of the last night. Feeling a familiar stirring, he shook his head and muttered, "Down boy!" to himself, before carefully rising from the bed so as not to awake the others. After rising to his feet, he looked around to make sure where all his belongings were, idly scratching his rear at the same time. Then he slowly lowered himself to his knees by the side of the bed, closed his eyes and began to pray.

Some minutes later, a now fully-clad Cedric walked down the stairs to find Madam Catherine talking to a pair of the girls. Seeing him, Madam waved the girls away. Both of them made mock scowls in Cedric's direction, one sticking out her tongue playfully, before walking away. Madam smiled and said, "They're still a little miffed that you did not choose them last night. Did you ... sleep ... well?"

"They'll get over it," replied Cedric, with a chuckle. "Killing a dragon is one thing, but I am not yet bold enough to tackle four of your girls at once, Catherine. And yes, I did - as you put it - sleep very well."

"Why, sir knight," said she archly, eyes twinkling, "Aren't paladins supposed to be fearless?"

"If we were, Catherine," he riposted, with a mock-serious look, "Would I not have dared to court you yourself, rather than your girls? But such valor flows not in my bosom, that I might dare lay siege to a tower of beauty such as thou." The waggling of his eyebrows ended the speech in laughs from both parties.

"Anyway," said Cedric more seriously, producing a small bag from within his tunic and placing it on the table with a clinking of coins within, "Here is my payment for the week."

"Come now, Cedric - how many times do I have to say you don't have to pay? You heal and cure the girls, protect us while you are here - like with that ruffian last night, and we all love your company."

"I know. But I want to. And now, I am off. I'll be leaving this evening, so I may not see you again."

"Very well," said Catherine. "When do we see you again?"

"Probably in a week's time. I'll come by as soon as I'm back in town. Goodbye."

"We'll be expecting you then. Take care." As he walked to the door, Catherine picked up the bag and weighed it speculatively. Not that she needed to count. Knowing Cedric, it was exactly the same amount as before. 

...

The young man, resplendent in his armor, stepped into the tavern and looked around with a distasteful look on his face. Making his way to the bar, he attracted the attention of the barkeep and said, "I was informed that Sir Cedric of Marne was present here." Taking another look around, he continued, "I assume the information was incorrect."

The barkeep paused to spit on the ground by his feet and then responded with a grunt, "Nah! Cedric's back there," indicating a table against the far wall.

With a skeptical glance, the young knight turned away and walked across the room, to find himself looking at a small table with a single occupant. The man at the table looked like just any other patron, worn clothing hanging around his frame, stubble on his gaunt cheeks and uncombed hair hanging down past his shoulders. A number of empty flagons stood on the table in front of him, and as he raised one to his mouth, his cloak shifted and revealed a polished holy symbol hanging upon his chest. Lowering the flagon, he dropped it on the table and wiped his mouth with the back of his hand, before raising a hand and beckoning a passing barmaid for more drink. Then he belched loudly and reached down to scratch his groin.

The watching young man's mouth had already fallen open in horror, but this was the last straw. He walked up to the table and asked in a trembling voice, "Sir Cedric?!"

The man at the table looked up irritatedly and said, "Yeah! Who the **** wants to know?"

Enraged, the young man slammed his fist down on the table. "Sir Cedric! I am Magnus, knight of the Holy Order of the Brilliant Blade. I was sent here on an crucial mission, to find and enlist the aid of Sir Cedric, hero of the Order. And I find ... this!" His voice quivered in anger and disgust.

A hand closed around his arm and he almost yelped at the strength of it. Try as he might, he could not pull away, but was instead drawn closer till he was nose to nose with the other person. A person, he now noticed, whose eyes were completely cold and alert, and now burning with intensity.

"Sit!" said Cedric, inexorably pushing the younger man into a seat.

Once the befuddled Magnus was seated, Cedric leaned towards him and said quietly, "Yes - I am Sir Cedric of the Holy Order. Is there a problem?"

For a few moments, Magnus could not even form an answer, but finally he simply waved a hand in the general direction of Cedric and the rest of the tavern and said lamely, "It's - it's just that I didn't expect this. First I get sent to a brothel - a brothel! - where I'm told you are staying. And then they send me from there to this place. You're a ... a paladin, aren't you?"

Cedric doesn't answer for a moment, simply picking up the flagon and taking a big swig of alcohol. While swilling it around in his mouth for a moment, he turns and fixes Magnus with an unblinking eye. Then he swallows, grimacing slightly at the taste, and speaks. "Yes! I am a paladin. You obviously have a little idea what that means, but just in case, let me clarify it for you. I am a holy warrior, the chosen of my god, in a way not even a cleric is. I travel the world, striking down evil, protecting the innocent, aiding the weak, bringing hope where there is none. I am the kind of hero that they write songs about."

For a moment, his mouth quirks in a sneer of self-deprecation, and then he continues. "Which - to put things very simply - means that I am a dead man walking. Some day, however good and pious and wonderful I may be, some day I will encounter an evil that is stronger, better organized or simply luckier than me. Whether tomorrow or years from now, whether it comes beneath a mighty dragon's claws or at the tip of a stupid goblin's spear, I will die violently, and in all likelihood, screaming in agony. There are many things paladins get to do that others do not. And one of them is that I get to die young. I know only one paladin who died of old age. Bodel the Shining, worshipper of Pelor. Oh, he was an inspiration to paladins everywhere! As long as you knew only of his deeds and never met him, sitting upright on a bed in a corner of a Peloran temple, gruel dribbling down his chin as an acolyte fed him. You see, Bodel once met a demon terrorizing a town and he unhesitatingly attacked. It didn't go as planned. The demon was much more powerful, and both clever and cruel. It ripped Bodel's arms and legs off, intentionally using its flaming body to cauterize the wounds so he would not bleed to death. Bodel spent the rest of his life, sixty years of it, sitting in that temple as an unmoving lump of flesh. Maybe I'll be luckier than him and run into something that will kill me on the spot. But I will run into it some day.

And you know what's the best thing about that? Everything that I do until that day is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. I can fight, and fight, and fight - until I don't have breath enough in my body to lift a finger, and all the good I do will end after I die. If it even lasts that long. I can cut down a warlord, reveal a murderous conspiracy, defend a town from a band of marauders. And a thousand warlords and conspiracies and marauders will rise in their place. I am a single soldier in a war that I cannot win. All I have is a sword and my faith. And arrayed against me is not just the great evil powers of the cosmos, but more dangerous and pervasive, the little flecks of evil caused by apathy and self-interest that lies in the hearts of all humanity. 

Yes, I fight the good fight. And I fight it not because I can win or because I hope to do some lasting good, but simply because it should be fought. I'm too stupid to quit. But I'm smart enough to know that the choice I make has doomed me to a lifetime - in all probability a very short lifetime - of beating my head against a rock wall. So pardon me if once in a while I need a drink, or a good meal, or the sensation of a warm pair of thighs wrapped around me. I think you might agree that I've earned it. And if you don't, well then you can just go **** yourself. And do so in the knowledge that this two-bit drunk, swearing, womanizing bastard is willing to die to protect your miserable life. Have a nice day!"

Cedric smiles at Magnus' glazed expression and says, "But before you do that - how about telling me why the Order needs me? As at least some of my friends at Madam Catherine's should have told you, I live to serve."

*Edit:* In case you're interested in reading more about Cedric and don't want to wade through all of the thread, I've added some more fiction on pages 5 (here and here), 6, 7, 13, 14,  17, 18, 25 and 27. Enjoy!


----------



## Sylevus

Absolutely not, with one caveat.   Read the first page description of a paladin.   The context is not merely doing good deeds, you also have to uphold a certain code of conduct.    Your character description violates that on several levels.  I.e. healing a prostitute would not violate it, but sleeping with her after would.    The caveat is rule 0.   If the DM likes it and buys into it, then you are gold.    But I would not bring this concept to a table and surprise a DM with it either.   The powers and abilities a paladin has are in exchange for his upholding his code and living the proper example.    Your character violates on several levels, most importantly in how he conducts himself in conversing with others.
    Now, that said... if I were your DM and you came to me with this concept..  I would encourage you to build the character as a warrior/cleric, and failed member of the order.   You get to behave as you do, provide services, yet not expect the powers of a paladin... which you would lose in short order anyhow for that behavior.   You can still do the noble thing anyhow, griping, complaining and bitching all the way, you just don't get the divine protection provided to those who do live the example....


----------



## Sejs

Sylevus - I respectfully disagree.

I don't see the problem with his brothel patronage.  He's respectful, pays, and goes above and beyond to help them out in ways other people wouldn't, just because of who or what they are.  Sure, he's horny now and then, but he never stops being a good guy thru and thru.

As for how he speaks to people; Magnus in this case - just because he's a paladin doesn't mean he has to like everyone.  Heck, I would probably have a similar reaction.  Look at how Magnus first approches the situation: sneering at the man, and then asking for his help.  Ugh, you disgust me.. please help us.

Personally, I think Sir Cedric would be just fine as a paladin in any game I ran.


----------



## Turanil

I voted yes because it can make a flavorfull paladin. However, I would personnaly (as a DM) do things like that: this is probably a CG paladin (Paladin of Freedom variant from Unearthed Arcana) who belongs to a knight order in which most of the time paladins are LG. 

Another thing to consider. Paladins are religious characters, they may even be mystics. Their compensation for suffering is not pleasure of the flesh every now and then, but the mystic/religious exaltation in which they live. You should take a look at good books, documents on the web, etc., about what was the most paladin-like order to have ever existed: the Order of the Temple, aka the Knight Templars. Their code included chastity. They reveled in the glory of combating for a greater cause, and for belonging to an illustrious order of religious chivalry (+ dying young = go to Heavens sooner). It seems to have been enough for them. I think anyone with strong religious feelings, or with a mystical inclination can understand this concept. Oherwise, only sex and food are going to pay you for your efforts.


----------



## Angel Tarragon

I would not allow this in any of my games. It is a subject that is too mature for the people that I run my games for.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I didn't vote as I couldn't be bothered to read 2-3 screens worth of fiction. Any possibility the character's morality could be stated a little more succinctly?


----------



## DungeonmasterCal

Frukathka said:
			
		

> I would not allow this in any of my games. It is a subject that is too mature for the people that I run my games for.




I would never allow a paladin to do this, and certainly not in any game where my 11 year old was playing.


----------



## Kirin'Tor

I agree with Frukathka - while I see no real violation of the basic Paladin's code of the PHB (though some orders of knightlyhood may forbid some or all of those things, and soem Paladins may choose to abstain), I know that several of the players in my game couldn't handle even that tiny description of a brothel without turning the game into a 'try to make the DM describe me getting laid' fest.


----------



## ThoughtfulOwl

I would readily allow him (barring of course special circumstances like setting-specific costraints or having a 12 years old player at the table).

First, I find nothing in the code of conduct that conflicts with the description above; now, should he get drunk and harm innocents in a bar brawl, the party would be over...   
Second, I have no qualms about placing mature themes in my games, although I tone down the most explicit details with a convenient fade to black.

If anything, it is a well-thought character concept that infuses new life in a class traditionally overdone with stereotypes. Good job!


----------



## jmucchiello

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I didn't vote as I couldn't be bothered to read 2-3 screens worth of fiction. Any possibility the character's morality could be stated a little more succinctly?



"I am born to die a futile death fighting against evil that will never be defeated. Thus, I can kick back with a brew and a babe now and then."

The fiction is well written, though.

Oh, and this is probably the most interesting paladin archetype I've seen in a long while. Good stuff.


----------



## Tinner

*A qualified yes.*

I'd allow this PC, but only so long as he belongs to a faith that doesn't preach against any of these behaviors.
None of his actions are "evil" or "unlawful". They aren't appropriate for what we think of as a "normal medieval paladin" but with the proper background on his faith, I'd allow it.
FYI the bit about the brothel - there's another interesting take on how an LG paladin could participate in such activities in the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Might be worth a look if you're playing that kind of PC.


----------



## Imret

I would, certainly. Other DM's might not, but for my own style, absolutely. There's nothing in his behaviour listed above that violates the code as written. If I may...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilities if she ever willingly commits an act of evil. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc.), help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents.




So, under the assumption he's lawful good and his only sins are whoring, drinking, swearing, and cynicism. That's fine by me, and as written, it's fine by the code.

Realistically, even in the clean-scrubbed version of the middle ages most D&D games are set in, a woman of peasant background working in a brothel is probably doing better than she would be married to Tomas the miller. So, provided the brothel works less like a slave ring and more as a business where a woman can make a better wage, if she's willing, there's nothing evil about solicitation in and of itself. While chaste is typically applied as a requirement for paladins, it's not in the RAW; after all, the gods of good want humans to be happy. That's why they're good. I've always felt it was more on the context of "a serving paladin should not wed or produce heirs to distract himself from his duty", and that as a church restriction rather than an article of faith. So long as brothels are legal in the majority of civilized nations and not specifically opposed by the church, and he keeps paying (especially since the madam tries to insist he not pay).

Drinking. Nothing evil about it either, presuming his church doesn't believe that all alcohol is dangerous. As long as he's not getting falling-down, puking in the gutter, soiling himself drunk on a regular basis, no major transgression is occuring; and let me say I don't think "Had one too many ales" should ever cost a class their abilities, regardless of how many roleplaying restrictions they tried to balance mechanical advantages with.

Swearing? That's so minor it barely worth consideration, so long as he's not swearing oaths by the fiends of hell.

Now cynicism...repeat after me..."Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Stupid". He's very, very aware of how the life of a paladin ends; in screaming agony at the hands, claws, or other offensive appendages of some horrible spawn of evil, and he's not very happy about it. That seems fair; nobody wants to die screaming in agony. Your average paladin is played in such a way, IMXP, that he has no idea what's coming for him. He never considers doing something else with his life, he's committed to this path and firmly believes his faith will win the day. Now Cedric here, he's firmly committed to his duty as a paladin in spite of the inevitable outcome of this duty. He -knows-, inherently, that he's screwed, and his best chance is a decent afterlife. I'd say, if anything this is more noble. He's committed to fighting, and dying, for the cause...for no better reason than it *SHOULD* be fought for.

So, simple question - yes, I'd allow him in my campaign. Complex question - without house rules dictating greater restrictions on the paladin, there's nothing in the paladin class as written that forbids this particular concept.


----------



## Doug McCrae

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> "I am born to die a futile death fighting against evil that will never be defeated. Thus, I can kick back with a brew and a babe now and then."



Cheers. Well, nothing wrong with knocking back a few ales in moderation. But one night stands or promiscuity seem non-lawful, if not downright chaotic, to me. Drinking to excess and partying hard would also be chaotic IMO. 

Why don't you make him a Unearthed Arcana Paladin of Freedom or a fighter/ranger aiming for the Complete Divine Holy Liberator PrC? Both are basically chaotic good paladins.


----------



## bodhi

*Maybe Cedric and Gaulstaff are long lost brothers*

See this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=112179

I would say that your question is actually two (or maybe two and a half): 1)  Does this character concept violate the RAW? 1a) Does this character violate the flavor or spirit of the paladin class? 2) Would you, as a DM, allow this character in _your personal_ campaign?

For me, the answers are:
1) No, not strictly. The paladin's code (as laid out in the current SRD, at any rate) is not strictly defined. See 2.

1a) Not to me, but this character certainly isn't a pure, pristine warrior, ala Galahad. While certainly a powerful archetype for the paladin, IMHO it's not the only possible model.

2) I would allow this character in a campaign I might run, with a few caveats. Factors would include the tone and setting of the campaign (maybe there aren't any paladins at all in this campaign), and the other players (age, temperament, and sensitivities). Also, as always, this would require some discussion with the player beforehand. I wouldn't allow a player to just show up with this character any more than I'd allow "Can I play my half-drow thief/magic-user from the other game I play in?".

To go back to my point in 1) above, a DM is certainly free to strictly codify a paladin's code,  which would make Sir Cedric inappropriate for the campaign. This puts it back into 2), I think.


----------



## Buttercup

It would depend on the campaign, and also on the Paladin's order.  Certainly I think it's a mistake to assume that real world morality necessarily applies to a fantasy game.  Perhaps this paladin serves a god(dess) who has a fertility aspect.  Perhaps the deity is charmed by the human foibles of his chosen servant.

Honestly, I have more of a problem with his belief that his life's work is futile than with his drinking and wenching.

My players are all adults, though.  If I had minors at my table, I'd ask the player to come up with something else.


----------



## Arbiter of Wyrms

I would probably allow this character, and he might hold on to his paladinhood for a while, actually.  The caveat, though, for me, is that he has to have a clear code of conduct defined, and he has to follow it.  

This character is clearly not following the code that the authors of PHB (any addition) had in mind, nor does it refer to the Charlemaigne we usually think of.

And that's fine.  But.  The code I'm envisioning wouldn't allow this PC to be blithely judgmental about petty things, particularly towards someone who needs his help, nor, it sounds like, should he be surprised that not everyone approves of his lifestyle.



			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> As for how he speaks to people; Magnus in this case - just because he's a paladin doesn't mean he has to like everyone.  Heck, I would probably have a similar reaction.  Look at how Magnus first approches the situation: sneering at the man, and then asking for his help.  Ugh, you disgust me.. please help us.




He doesn't have to like them, perhaps, but he does have to listen to their complaints and pleas, and he has to live by what he has said: "I live to serve."


----------



## Buttercup

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But one night stands or promiscuity seem non-lawful, if not downright chaotic, to me.




Depends on the cultural mores, IMO.  What if prostitution is sanctioned and licensed by the government?  What if prostitutes are considered as some sort of priestess?


----------



## Zappo

I don't know. It depends on the player, campaign and context. I think such a paladin is feasible, but that the "lawful" part of his alignment is shaky. Not so much because of the drinking and womanizing, but because of his belief that his actions are ultimately worthless. I think that paladins should have a strong belief that what they do is important, even if only because their god says so. Fate, destiny, and all that.


----------



## Darkness

Very neat character.  I would allow it. Like others before me, I'd suggest making him a paladin of freedom (CG instead of LG), though.

Paladin of Freedom Code of Conduct: A paladin of freedom must be of CG alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.

BTW, Paladins of Freedom are mechanically identical to Paladins of Honor (i.e., PHB paladins) except for one class skill and some spells on their spell list, but they get an Aura of Resolve (works against compulsions instead of fear) instead of an Aura of Courage.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Buttercup said:
			
		

> What if prostitution is sanctioned and licensed by the government?



Still chaotic, I'd say.



			
				Buttercup said:
			
		

> What if prostitutes are considered as some sort of priestess?



Then that would be different. Especially for a religious warrior such as a paladin.


----------



## Treebore

Going to prostitutes is not illegal everywhere. There are states/cities in the US where it is legal. There are whole nations around the world where it is legal. Drinking alcohol is not illegal, drinking to excess and brawling or committing other crimes as a result of your drunken state are illegal.

So what laws do Paladins in a given campaign follow? What exactly are those laws? This is why a well written Paladin code is needed for any given campaign.

I would gladly allow such a paladin in my game, assuming my kids aren't playing in it. Even then, I would if you agreed not to swear or get explicit about the sexual activities. Plus the code of your Paladin/Church would have to allow your behaviour.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

No. For several reasons.

First, I don't buy the idea that these "little sins" that are rapidly becoming not only socially accepted but even passe are insignificant. Nor do I buy the idea that these are victimless crimes. Write the story a little differently where instead of clean-scrubbed sluts who do it for fun (like the porn sites would have you believe), the prostitutes are abused, exploited, and trapped in a cycle of dependency if not actually enslaved. Then, when you write about Sir Cedric leaving the room and the guard checking the lock on the door so that the girl won't try to escape or the madame taking the money that they need to buy that cure disease (Sir Cedric doesn't need to worry about that, of course, but they do) so that they have to choose between curing themselves and feeding their children, and I'm betting a lot of the "yes" votes switch to no. 

"But Sir Cedric only frequents the happy brothels pictured in porn flicks and his prostitutes are straight out of Pretty Woman." He has money to pay for the ones who are always pretty (and young) and never diseased and whose life is made fairly good by that money. (Or what they see of it). And what of the young knight Magnus or his squire Erik? Observing that it is acceptable for the great Sir Cedric, will they, who lack his money and discernment, stick to the Hollywood brothels or will they buy what they can afford and take the cheap and sleazy turn into the Thailand style sex slavery. A paladin is supposed to set an example. He is responsible, not only for the direct, but for some of the predictable indirect consequences of his actions.

In some ways, his drinking is even worse. If Sir Cedric is really into the hedonistic aspect of drinking, there's no question about it: sooner or later, he's going to get falling down drunk and puke his guts out in the alley, and sooner or later, he's going to get into a drunken brawl. 

The second reason which is equally important is that Sir Cedric has the wrong attitude.

He obviously thinks that he's better than everyone else and that the sacrifices he makes put him above the rules for ordinary people. "I think you might agree that I've earned it. And if you don't, well then you can just go **** yourself," is the speech of a fighter (or even a blackguard) and not a paladin. The whole concept of a paladin is that they exemplify the virtues--not that they get a free pass for their vices because they fight to protect people.

Furthermore, Sir Cedric, as depicted here, has the wrong perspective on his role. His attitude might be summed up with "if it feels good, do it because, if I'm lucky, I'm going to die tomorrow." If he's a character in Aliens, he's Hudson. He's given up on fighting the little evil because it's pointless, starting with the little evils inside of him. If he's entitled to get falling down drunk, sleep around, patronize prostitutes, and angrily cuss out the squire sent to find him, then one might also presume that, regardless of the moral status of his sluttiness and drinking, he also believes himself entitled to take out his anger on the little people. After all, we just watched him do it. 

Third, if we start with the virtue count, this Sir Cedric, as depicted doesn't have enough.
Classical virtues: Justice (maybe--though his sense of entitlement mitigates against this), temperence (definitely not), courage (to some degree--we can presume physical courage, but his attitude towards life seems to spring from the opposite).
Christian virtues: Faith (maybe--but he doesn't seem to have confidence in ultimate victory), Hope (not a bit of it), Love (he's got the formula down--giving his body to be burned, so to speak, but he seems to think he's entitled to treat other people any d$%* way he feels like), Humility (definitely not--he thinks his sacrifices make him better than everyone else and entitle him to operate as if he were above their petty restrictions).
Sir Cedric can only function as a paragon of virtue if you're willing to pare the virtues down to risking your life for others on the field of battle... and being good at it. But if that's the criterion for being a paladin, then the are very few warrior types that wouldn't make the cut.

All told, an interesting character. But not a paladin of any kind.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem

Basalisk said it better than I ever could. I agree with him wholeheartedly.


----------



## Darkness

Let's watch our language a little, everyone. Even small things count, you know. (E.g., words like "sluts" aren't a good start if you want to keep grannie happy.)
It would be a waste if I saw well-thought-out posts that I had to delete because they violate EN World rules. So let's not go there. Thanks.

If anyone has comments or questions, e-mail me.




			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Write the story a little differently where instead of clean-scrubbed ... who do it for fun ... the prostitutes are abused, exploited, and trapped in a cycle of dependency if not actually enslaved.



 Right, how prostitution works is a campaign question and thus, up to the DM. If the local prostitutes are enslaved and abused, Cedric couldn't, in good conscience, act as in his fiction. This might or might not be the case, though.







			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> In some ways, his drinking is even worse.



 Right, it depends on how much he drinks, how often and how much he can take.
Reminds me... Are there drinking rules in D&D? If they're based on Fortitude saves, drinking a paladin under the table would be almost impossible, what with his good Fortitude save, likely high Con and divine grace Cha bonus to saves. 


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Third, if we start with the virtue count, this Sir Cedric, as depicted doesn't have enough.



 Agreed, but the paladin code of conduct, by the RAW, is quite specfic in its requirements (beyond the necessity to stay LG) and that's all he has to live up to.


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Sir Cedric can only function as a paragon of virtue if you're willing to pare the virtues down to risking your life for others on the field of battle... and being good at it. But if that's the criterion for being a paladin, then the are very few warrior types that wouldn't make the cut.



 Warrior types or LG warrior types?


----------



## CrusaderX

The character could make for an interesting Fighter/Cleric.

He makes for a poor Paladin though.

And while I love to play non-stereotypical and somewhat roguish Paladins in personality, they shouldn't be overly roguish in deeds, IMO.  Paladins are all about being paragons of virtue, and this guy ain't it.


----------



## Wild Gazebo

I enjoyed this.  I feel people should be a bit more willing to adopt the mindset of an individual who has never had any legislated rights, has lived during a time when slavery, prostitution, public execution, mass starvation, and plagues were common place.  

The only problem I had with the charcter was his dismissal of his motive.  If this was just a flipant statement to an individual he doesn't care about, that is one thing, but if he truely is a defeatest I feel it falls short of a paladin's devotion.  

It would have been better if he had a child slave to carry he effects and run errands.

Yep, I voted yes.


----------



## DonaldRumsfeldsTofu

I would allow it in an instant, merely because with the possible exception of the monk, the Paladin seems to be the only character class that railroads the player into playing not only a very specific personality archetype, but what is essentially the same basic character over and over. I have never in my life seen a unique Paladin before reading this post, thus I am very impressed.



> Nor do I buy the idea that these are victimless crimes. Write the story a little differently where instead of clean-scrubbed sluts who do it for fun (like the porn sites would have you believe), the prostitutes are abused, exploited, and trapped in a cycle of dependency if not actually enslaved. Then, when you write about Sir Cedric leaving the room and the guard checking the lock on the door so that the girl won't try to escape or the madame taking the money that they need to buy that cure disease (Sir Cedric doesn't need to worry about that, of course, but they do) so that they have to choose between curing themselves and feeding their children, and I'm betting a lot of the "yes" votes switch to no.




Assumably if he ever visited a house of prostitution like that, he not only would make not make his patronage there, but would do his best to dismantle it, same as if he visited a store where the workers were "abused, exploited, and trapped in a cycle of dependency if not actually enslaved" *coughWal-Martcough* or anywhere where the workers are "abused, exploited , and trapped in a cycle of dependency, if not actually enslaved", not because their trade involves sexual intercourse, but because they're being abused, exploited, and trapped in a circle of dependency if not actually enslaved. (Which is often a very common byproduct of the wage system that really has nothing to do with the trade you're in. But I'm starting to boarder on getting into politics) But that's not what the piece of fiction said. It said it was a nice brothel with happy prostitutes and a happy madam. Therefore, he committed no violation of his good alignment.


----------



## shilsen

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> "I am born to die a futile death fighting against evil that will never be defeated. Thus, I can kick back with a brew and a babe now and then."
> 
> The fiction is well written, though.




Thanks. I thought it was very pedestrian, actually  



> Oh, and this is probably the most interesting paladin archetype I've seen in a long while. Good stuff.




Thanks again. 

On the whole, I was just trying to do two things here - put together (a) a cynical paladin, and (b) a paladin who pushes the boundaries of the PHB paladin without actually breaking them in any way. I thought Sir Cedric fits that billing. Obviously, many here will disagree. But, on the whole, I have to say I'm impressed with how many "yes" answers I got for the poll.

I'm not going to respond to everybody posting here, but I figured I should address the question of the cynical/defeatist paladin. I agree that the paladin should be an inspiring figure. Personally speaking, I figure someone who fights the good fight even though he fully expects to eventually lose, simply because it is the right thing to do, is a really inspiring figure. Maybe that's just me.

Oh yes - one more thing which starting this thread just re-emphasized for me: starting a paladin thread here is like throwing chum off a fishing boat in shark-infested waters


----------



## Ryltar

I would definitely allow it, because it finally is a paladin archetype with a twist, one that does not just play out the same stereotypes over and over again. A caveat would go with that, however: His attitude as described in the flavor text seems a little *too* flippant and 'unholier-than-thou' . It seems to me all he wants to do in that little talk is tell the other paladin how superior his own interpretation of being a holy warrior is in comparison. But if you 'nerfed' that attitude a little bit, I'd be fine with him.


----------



## Wild Gazebo

I re-read your fiction blurb.  And I have to agree with you, the defeatest attitude works.  I was at fist worried that he doesn't beleive in his cause but I don't think that is the case.  Good work.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

On the cynicism, think of Angel at the end of that series.  Angel never had any hope of a lasting victory over the powers behind Wolfram & Hart, but even without hope he still fought the good fight because it was the right thing to do.  And, at the end of the last episode, the implication is that they all go down fighting.  Angel tells his comrades this, not to discourage them, but to give them the honest truth and the opportunity to back out - keeping them on board through ingorance would have been the worse crime.

What is a paladin to do in such a world?  In Midnight, there is no true chance of lasting victory, but only the hope of holding back the Shadow for another day.  Would not a paladin in such a world have this kind of an outlook?  Would it not be heroic to keep fighting for good nonetheless? 

I also like Wild Gazebo's point - game worlds aren't our modern world.  This paladin would be great in a game world that has some of the primitive, brutish, and nasty aspects of the Dark Ages or Medieval era, where "Neutral" for a soldier means "Just pillaging, no raping."  He wouldn't fit in a cleaner and more pleasant setting with modern ethics.  Either type can be fun to play in.


----------



## fusangite

Somehow, I'm not allowed to vote in this poll. I wonder if it's a problem with my browser or that community supporters get to disqualify annoying people's responses to their polls.  

Anyway, of course I wouldn't allow this paladin in _my_ campaign; my campaigns tend to be medieval rather than early modern in character so I go for a kind of intolerant violent prudishness when it comes to behavioural codes. That stated, most of the arguments against having this sort of paladin are absolutely ridiculous.

To me, people who do good things despite fully comprehending their futility, who fight the good fight as skeptics rather than zealots are the most heroic characters. Think of the Norse gods who know how it's all going to end. Think of Aragorn leading that army to what he thought to be certain defeat. That's what heroism is all about for me.

Also, the idea that being virtuous entails adopting the morality of a 19th century American Protestant is just hogwash. There is nothing inherently unlawful or ungood about patronizing prostitutes and drinking alcohol; goodness and evilness only attach to those actions from social context. For goodness sake, God commands Christians to drink alcohol -- in remembrance of Him!

Finally, the idea that one's internal thoughts can violate a paladin's code presupposes the kind of intention-based morality that Christ introduced in the Sermon on the Mount. Most codes are not about one's internal state; they are about one's actions. I would never write a paladin's code that tried to regulate the character's internal thoughts anyway because character thoughts fall in an uncomfortable liminal region between player and character.

The real problem with the paladin depicted here is that he doesn't fit with the cultural archetype upon which the class is based. shilsen, while you have convinced me that one can have a non-celibate paladin, the one you have depicted here is still beyond the pale. He does not resonate with chivalric characters, even those in the _Faerie Queen_.

Finally, can I just say "ick"? Why this lavish description of a sexually charged situation in a D&D game?


----------



## Andre

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> The character could make for an interesting Fighter/Cleric.
> 
> He makes for a poor Paladin though.




This was my first reaction and I'm not sure any of the posts have changed it. 

The character reads like someone from Whedon's Buffy or Angel series, where the heroes were heroic, but flawed. They made bad choices, they did things for the wrong reasons, they were never paragons of virtue, but they fought the good fight. To me, this makes for a very interesting, realistic character, but not a very good paladin. All just IMO, of course. If it works for your GM, go for it.


----------



## Doctor Shaft

I wouldn't allow it personally, without talking to the player and informing him that he will be facing some serious in-game difficulties as the campaign progresses. I'd tell him not to be surprised if his deity decides to pull a quick-one on him at some point or two.  Like a moment where his powers simply fade momentarily, or if while he prays after having his glorious love-fest with two women, that he doesn't really get the same feeling as he used to from it.  

I think Basillisk put it best.  Your character is basically out-of-control in terms of his sex drive (two ladies at once?) and frequents taverns. While I certainly enjoy hero types that break the mold, this particularly one is really shattering that mold to pieces.  

Is it a "cool" character? I suppose it is.  While I can't admire his flippant desires to frequent a brothel, he is a flawed character with a reluctant heroic attitude. A lot of people suggested using the chaotic good paladin variants, and in this case I would do the same. We could argue to pieces whether the government law supports prostitution, et al, but for a paladin, I think the lawful part really pertains more towards what his deity's laws are, not the town's.  If the town supports prostitution, but his deity does not, then his government doesn't mean squat in that instance.

So, Sir Cedric, in order to be a LG paladin, at least if it were my campaign, would have to try extra hard to find a LG deity that actually supported his actions. Otherwise, a paladin's main source of power comes directly from his deity. He represents that deity's cause. A paladin can sure have flaws, but if they are so glaring and lacking in discipline, one has to question if any deity in its right mind would be okay with Sir Cedric.  There has to be a quality to him that has redeeming value - i.e. at some point that character is going to have to face his behaviors and become conscious of them and attempt to overcome them.  Sir Cedric doesn't seem redemptive at all in that fiction blurb, though.  Essentially, he came downstairs from his fantastic squeaky-clean brothel and said "Catch ya later dude. See ya next week. I think in a couple days I'll work my way up to four girls at once.  Awesome." 

So, in summary, I guess I would let the character in, barring maturity issues and such.  But the player would have to be prepared to suffer the consequences for such defeatist attitude and loose discipline.  I'd let him use his powers off and on, occasionally sapping away his smite powers and courage auras when a serious occasion arises. Not to 'punish' the player, but to represent the fact that Cedric is hardly the example of "Paladin."  

Otherwise, like Basillisk said.  A lot of warriors could qualify for paladins.


----------



## Turanil

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Elder Basilisk said it better than I ever could. I agree with him wholeheartedly.



I must second this. All of this assumption that the paladin going to the brothel is okay, is because the depicted brothel is a clean place where the women do a job like any other. But as said Elder Basilisk the truth is that prostitution has never been a choice / activity that was good for the women who performed it (with maybe the sole exception of courtesans who make it for extremely high prices, and even there not sure its the best of activity...). In a realistic setting, brothels are bad places where girls are almost enslaved. When I read about priestesses = sacred prostitutes, let me tell this: there is one country on this planet where there is so-called sacred prostitutes. It's in India, and the girls are clearly slaves living a terrible life. (I did read an article about this 20 years ago in a magazine; things may have changed now, plus it was probably not widespread and not necessary legal)




> I would gladly allow such a paladin in my game, assuming my kids aren't playing in it.



Several persons have posted something along this line (i.e.: okay but not if kids are there). Hey, no offense intended, but I always find a little dubious when people say "Oh! no sex described in our DnD game" (which is perfectly normal and understandable but) while our descriptions of gaming murder, slaying, maiming, burning people (firebals), etc. doesn't need to be called into question. Just my two cents remark of course.


----------



## fusangite

Turanil said:
			
		

> But as said Elder Basilisk the truth is that prostitution has never been a choice / activity that was good for the women who performed it




In the pre-modern world, very few people's jobs were a matter of choice. Have the peasants in your campaign freely decided to be peasants? Probably not. For them, it's probably till the land or starve. Should the paladin not purchase their barley because they are oppressed? How about metal, any idea what working conditions were like for pre-modern miners? Most miners were convict labourers or other types of slaves with abysmal life expectancy and a quality of life that made the poor life expectancy as positive upside of the job. Should the paladin not purchase metal weapons and armour? The idea that the paladin should not purchase things tainted by conscript labour and oppression would effectively transform him into a hermit clad in skins in many fantasy worlds. 

Second, in what universe is this vast generalization about prostitutes true? Most women who became prostitutes in the past chose to do so because, given their personal tolerances, talents and tastes, prostitution was the best available option. Certainly there were female prisoners sold into slavery but there were a lot of other ways women got into the job. For a woman escaping an arranged marriage, the idea of having carnal relations with someone she found unattractive and potentially despicable was probably one she was already very used to. For other women, the rewards of urban over country life, a higher income, fewer hours of work and greater personal freedom might have prostitution seem tolerable in comparison to back-breaking marginal hoe agriculture in the mountains of Greece. Certainly it is true that the majority of women in arranged marriages and daily agricultural toil found that type of suffering and disrespect preferable to the types associated with prostitution but this experience was not universal.

Perhaps you might do well to look at the wide variety of experiences and motives for modern sex trade workers. Not all are there to pay for drugs. Many are but many credibly articulate reasons why, to this day, women choose to work in this field.

Third, there are, of course, the honoured prostitutes. In the Roman world, in some cults, working as a temple prostitute was something that brought respect, power and ecclesiastical rank, and in some cases, carnal pleasure. Then we have the esteemed order of the Geisha in Japan; really, just the simple invocation of the term "geisha" should shut this debate down.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

I would allow him IMC, but with the caveat that he would lose his powers for such behavior (perhaps to be replaced by a demon in order to lead him further into debauchery) and would be hunted by the Church if it were cognizant of his actions.


----------



## Doctor Shaft

Yes, but if we're to beg the question of whether the paladin will till the land or not based on maintaining a local towns economy... then does the paladin even belong there in the first place?

Many mythological stories place the chosen hero either in places where good still resides... or a place where the hero can redeem said town.  One has to ask if a dispicable mining/brothel town would ever be blessed with heralded heroes from their deities.  And if they are so blessed... what's the paladin still doing there?  

Also, once again, paladin's follow their deity's laws... not their government's.  While it is certainly appropriate to roleplay a paladin who struggles with deity and human law, and "lesser of two evils," it is not the paladin's fault if his good actions actually harm his town.  He follows the law of the deity... not the town.  If towns are destroyed because of "correct" or "good" actions... take it up with the deity, not the paladin.  And even in that case, a "paladin" would still find virtue in such a thing happening. His deity's way or the highway, so to speak.

We can debate the virtues and cons of prostitution endlessly, but it still all comes down to the standards and demeanor of the deity, and not the human beings and their culture.  If the paladin serves a deity that would see no valor or virtue in drinking and prostitution, or would never take up such acts him or herself... then it's expected that the paladin follow the same, unless of course stipulated otherwise.  

I feel Sir Cedric makes an interesting character, but if he were to maintain his LG paladin status, and not adopt some kind of chaotic paladin class, that his character still pushes the envelope a little too much. Too little deity following quality, IMO.


----------



## Dyne

One of the big things about the Paladin class is its alignment requirement and its Code of Conduct requirement. The Paladin class has such restrictions on it because, otherwise, it would be a much more powerful class. The game designers decided to give the class wonderful powers but strict restrictions to balance it out.

In other words, before I even got through the post, I decided on a resounding NO. To do otherwise would make the class too easy, in my opinion. Also, neither would I even allow such a scene in any of my games, but that's just me.

If anyone wants to allow such a "Paladin" in their games, then it's fine if they want to play that way. But, it cheapens the class, in my opinion.


----------



## Tom Cashel

shilsen said:
			
		

> Feeling a familiar stirring, he shook his head and muttered, "Down boy!" to himself, before carefully rising from the bed so as not to awake the others.




I can understand giving it a nickname, but making it your _familiar_? Sheesh.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> "...I am a dead man walking. Some day, however good and pious and wonderful I may be, some day I will encounter an evil that is stronger, better organized or simply luckier than me. Whether tomorrow or years from now, whether it comes beneath a mighty dragon's claws or at the tip of a stupid goblin's spear, I will die violently, and in all likelihood, screaming in agony. Maybe I'll be luck[y]...and run into something that will kill me on the spot. But I will run into it some day."




My goodness, what a whiner this guy is.

Seems like a convoluted way to get the abilities without acting the part. Toeing the line for kewl powers has always been the lynchpin of the paladin class, because acting lawful good all the time is _not easy_.

But I've got no problem with the sex and alcohol; it's the cynicism bordering on nihilism that makes him a fallen paladin in my book.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> On the cynicism, think of Angel at the end of that series.  Angel never had any hope of a lasting victory over the powers behind Wolfram & Hart, but even without hope he still fought the good fight because it was the right thing to do.  And, at the end of the last episode, the implication is that they all go down fighting.  Angel tells his comrades this, not to discourage them, but to give them the honest truth and the opportunity to back out - keeping them on board through ingorance would have been the worse crime.
> 
> What is a paladin to do in such a world?  In Midnight, there is no true chance of lasting victory, but only the hope of holding back the Shadow for another day.  Would not a paladin in such a world have this kind of an outlook?  Would it not be heroic to keep fighting for good nonetheless?




I think the flippant answer is: Midnight doesn't have paladins. The not-so-flippant answer is that there's a reason Midnight has no paladins. In fact, it's an open question whether we could justify recognizable standards of good in a world that is not believed to be ordered so that good is ascendant. Natural Law theory only yields a recognizable good if the essential tendencies of the world are good. Divine command theory only produces a recognizable version of good if the god doing the commanding is good. Utilitarianism famously produces some rather odd conclusions about what is good if given the proper assumptions. Stoicism maintained that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Aristotle thought that virtue, combined with luck and good circumstances could yield happiness. If vice led to happiness, the logic of both the stoics and Aristotle would actually counsel it as the wise or "right" course. Similarly, Pragmatism doesn't support a recognizable morality if recognizable morality doesn't work.

So, why do we think it's heroic? Fusangite writes, "To me, people who do good things despite fully comprehending their futility, who fight the good fight as skeptics rather than zealots are the most heroic characters. Think of the Norse gods who know how it's all going to end. Think of Aragorn leading that army to what he thought to be certain defeat. That's what heroism is all about for me." I know that something in me resonates with Puddleglum, when, in the Silver Chair, he says that, even if there's no Narnia, he'll be a narnian anyway because the dream is better than the green witch's "reality." I think it's generally because, observing from a distance, we have hope that the right side will eventually win. The Christian martyrs (and Christianity still provides the background for a lot of our cultural tendencies) died, believing that God would be victorious in the end and that he would reward them for their faithfulness. IIRC, the norse expected a new world to be made after Ragnarok, even though they neither they nor their gods would live to see it. Aragorn led his army to the Morannon in the hope that, even though he was likely to die, he could buy Frodo an opportunity to reach Mount Doom and that Frodo would then be able to destroy the ring. In other words, none of these struggles are ever truly hopeless.

In a Midnight campaign that was played as truly hopeless, I suspect that it would take our outside perspective to give the sacrifices and efforts of the heroes (or anti-heroes as the case may be) meaning and justification. From inside such a world, I suspect that philosophy would counsel accomodation and cooperation with Irzador and despair would counsel either Saruman style evil, Denethor style suicide, or Cypher style (to bring the Matrix into this) treachery.



> I also like Wild Gazebo's point - game worlds aren't our modern world.  This paladin would be great in a game world that has some of the primitive, brutish, and nasty aspects of the Dark Ages or Medieval era, where "Neutral" for a soldier means "Just pillaging, no raping."  He wouldn't fit in a cleaner and more pleasant setting with modern ethics.  Either type can be fun to play in.




I was going to respond to Wild Gazebo's post but I got distracted, so I'll make the points here. First, it's incorrect to assume that modern ethics is possible because we no longer live in a brutal world. The blood of the people of Darfur, the excavated interrogation rooms of Iraq, the purges, the death camps of Germany, the gulags in Siberia, the re-education camps in Cambodia, the suicide bombers in the middle east, machete wielding gangsters in El-Salvadore, child slavery and prostitution rings, etc. are just as much reality as our nice sanitized office buildings, sterile operating rooms, and children wearing helmets so they can walk down the street safely. To the extent that ethical theories are true, they are as applicable to the anarchy of Somalia, the atrocities in Sudan, and the political prisons of China as they are to insulated and sheltered American suburbanites.

Second, it's incorrect to assume that, because paladins are set in a brutal medieval world, they must have no problem with vice. The paladin does not embody the actuality of such a society with its filth and its dirt. On the contrary, even on the most relativistic interpretation of a paladin, he embodies the society's ideals. The paladin is the Good Man. He doesn't make the little compromises that "everyone" makes. Fusangite writes that his campaign is medieval and that he _therefore_ tends towards violent prudishness in paladin codes. The medieval paladin is less likely to approve of Sir Cedric's behavior than one a paladin operating by distinctively modern ethics.

Finally, a response to some of Fusangite's post is in order: 







			
				Fusangite said:
			
		

> Also, the idea that being virtuous entails adopting the morality of a 19th century American Protestant is just hogwash. There is nothing inherently unlawful or ungood about patronizing prostitutes and drinking alcohol; goodness and evilness only attach to those actions from social context. For goodness sake, God commands Christians to drink alcohol -- in remembrance of Him!




The idea that drunkenness and debauchery is not virtuous is hardly limited to 19th century American Protestants. As far back as the ancient greeks (and before), people had reservations about alcohol. Alcohol was forbidden in Sparta, Plato devotes a sizable portion of his _Laws_ to a discussion of moderation and drinking parties (actually, he is justifying them, but in a context that would exclude the hedonism of Sir Cedric), and the various myths about the Bachhante illustrate that the Greeks were well aware that alcohol could have negative effects and were cautious about the way it could make one lose control. Temperence (moderation) was one of the primary virtues of the ancient world. A man who, like Sir Cedric, does not evince any concern for moderation in his drinking, but rather considers it the perogative of his lofty status would not have been able to bear the mantle of virtue. Later, Dante had some rather unpleasant visions of both fornicators and drunkards. Shakespeare knew that his portrayal of Falstaff, however amusing, was widely identified with a popular (deceased) Lollard knight, _and that it was seen as an insult to his memory_. This is true to such an extent that he prefaced one of his playes (Henry IV, pt II IIRC) with a disavowal of that connection. Furthermore, he portrayed Henry the V as gaining virtue when he put the debaucheries of his youth with Sir Falstaff behind him. Pretending that concern over drunkenness and debauchery can be dismissed with 19th century American Protestantism is what is hogwash.

The problem isn't that Sir Cedric drinks; it's in his approach to drink. Sir Cedric appears to be more Falstaff than Beowulf in his approach to it.



> Finally, the idea that one's internal thoughts can violate a paladin's code presupposes the kind of intention-based morality that Christ introduced in the Sermon on the Mount. Most codes are not about one's internal state; they are about one's actions. I would never write a paladin's code that tried to regulate the character's internal thoughts anyway because character thoughts fall in an uncomfortable liminal region between player and character.




But, as you point out later, the cultural archetype on which the Paladin is based is at least somewhat influenced by Christ's teachings.

Even if that weren't the case, intentions affect actions. The paladin who drinks to forget his despair is going to drink quite different from the paladin who drinks in honor of the victorious dead. It is possible to do the latter in moderation. In the former case, the case of Sir Cedric as I read it, moderation would defeat the entire point of the exercise. A paladin need not be an ascetic, but he can't live as a hedonist. It's his presumed actions, not just his perspective that disqualifies him from paladinhood. (Not that we actually see him getting drunk in the story, but his perspective sounds like that of the despairing hedonist ("Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die") and the story is _supposed_ to introduce us to Sir Cedric so I presume it is not misleading).



> The real problem with the paladin depicted here is that he doesn't fit with the cultural archetype upon which the class is based. shilsen, while you have convinced me that one can have a non-celibate paladin, the one you have depicted here is still beyond the pale. He does not resonate with chivalric characters, even those in the Faerie Queen.




And why is it that he doesn't resonate with chivalric characters if it is not for his lack of dedication to personal virtue, intentional debauchery, and despair? It sounds like you're embracing what you just called hogwash.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> If vice led to happiness, the logic of both the stoics and Aristotle would actually counsel it as the wise or "right" course.




I dispute this.


----------



## ivocaliban

This one's a toughie. On one hand this would-be paladin's vices make him more human. It reminds me of what might happen if your average man on the street was tapped on the shoulder by (a) god and told "you're working for me now." On the other hand, I'd be curious about the player's motivations. What is the reason for wanting to play this character as a paladin? If it has to do with stats and numbers (and I know my players well enough to know when that's the case) then I'd say he's right out. Go with a Cleric and find an appropriate deity. In the end, I voted undecided because I find it hard to judge a character (even a paladin) by a handful of events. I need more from both the character and the player before I'd allow this character as a paladin, however.

EDIT: To be honest, the fiction seems like the sort of thing that happens in roleplaying chatrooms where D&D rules do not generally apply.


----------



## fusangite

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> So, why do we think it's heroic? Fusangite writes, "To me, people who do good things despite fully comprehending their futility, who fight the good fight as skeptics rather than zealots are the most heroic characters. Think of the Norse gods who know how it's all going to end. Think of Aragorn leading that army to what he thought to be certain defeat. That's what heroism is all about for me." I know that something in me resonates with Puddleglum, when, in the Silver Chair, he says that, even if there's no Narnia, he'll be a narnian anyway because the dream is better than the green witch's "reality." I think it's generally because, observing from a distance, we have hope that the right side will eventually win. IIRC, the norse expected a new world to be made after Ragnarok, even though they neither they nor their gods would live to see it. Aragorn led his army to the Morannon in the hope that, even though he was likely to die, he could buy Frodo an opportunity to reach Mount Doom and that Frodo would then be able to destroy the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian martyrs (and Christianity still provides the background for a lot of our cultural tendencies) died, believing that God would be victorious in the end and that he would reward them for their faithfulness... In other words, none of these struggles are ever truly hopeless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?
> 
> The point is that certain values are worth dying for, even when hope fails. I agree that hope is a Christian virtue. But one can look at various points in Christian narratives where people's hope fails them but they continue because they cannot do anything other than act rightly; they might regain this hope but hope does fail from time to time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, it's incorrect to assume that modern ethics is possible because we no longer live in a brutal world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The reason modern ethics is possible is because we live in a modern world. The reason I'm not interested in playing modern characters thinking modern thought with modern values is because it's boring not because it's impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fusangite writes that his campaign is medieval and that he _therefore_ tends towards violent prudishness in paladin codes. The medieval paladin is less likely to approve of Sir Cedric's behavior than one a paladin operating by distinctively modern ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And it is on _this_ basis that I wouldn't allow shilsen's paladin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far back as the ancient greeks (and before), people had reservations about alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I think you're missing what my argument was. What I was saying was that drinking alcohol was not the problem. The paladin's behaviour was the problem. One can play a grim alcoholic hero with not a shred of hedonism.
> 
> Congratulations on making a nice list of examples of problems with drunkenness in the past. Again, I think you're working with internal state rather than action somewhat inappropriately. The problem was people _acting drunk_ -- with some notable exceptions, the problem was comprehended through behaviour not through either the internal state of the individual or the physical properties of alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why is it that he doesn't resonate with chivalric characters if it is not for his lack of dedication to personal virtue, intentional debauchery, and despair? It sounds like you're embracing what you just called hogwash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I called the arguments that were being made hogwash because they were making an argument that sexual continence, sobriety and hope were good/lawful values in a way that transcended culture. My point is that shilsen's paladin doesn't work because the paladin archetype is fixed to a narrow range of cultures, all Christian, all European. So, I was agreeing with your conclusions while disagreeing with your argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I dispute this.




Care to elaborate? I was under the distinct impression that both the stoics and Aristotle had Eudamonistic theories of ethics and, consequently, what is the right thing to do is what leads to Eudamonia (which is very loosely translated as happiness). If that's right, isn't there the potential for the discovery for traditional vices to become virtue if it is discovered that we've been wrong all along and it's traditional vices that lead to eudamonia?


----------



## Hawken

> But one night stands or promiscuity seem non-lawful, if not downright chaotic, to me. Drinking to excess and partying hard would also be chaotic IMO.



What? Where'd you come up with this? How are one night stands and/or promiscuity considered non-lawful? How are drinking to excess and partying chaotic? Of course neither description of alignments allow or disallow for this kind of behavior. One night stands may not have been as commonplace in medieval times as they are today, but promiscuity was everywhere. 

In Feudal Japan, for instance, wives were for making babies, but it was the prostitutes that those with the coin went to for fun. And anyone that knows anything about samurai know how lawful they were! They also drank to excess. I'm not saying that all samurai did that, but it was a common enough occurance. Look at any medieval culture and you'll find that lawful societies, and the leaders and the people that embodied those lawful societies not only did those things but either didn't bother hiding it or even encouraged it. 

As for partying hard, that was the only way they did it! After Arthur, Lancelot and the others drove the invaders out of Briton, do you think they just "called it a night" and went to bed. Not likely at all! They were probably celebrating for a week or two straight, if not longer! Heh! If I just cleared my country of invaders, you can bet there'd be a celebration until the sun came up and then some! Would that make me any less lawful, honorable, noble, trustworthy, reliable or moral, not a bit! Heck, Arthur even had a promiscuous one night stand with his sister and was still Lawful Good and a paladin. He and the knights of the round table drank as much as they wanted and kept it going as long as they wanted! That didn't make them chaotic. They definitely didn't lose their sense of honor or justice just because they drank and wenched (except maybe Arthur and Lancelot who were busy with Guinevere). 

If those things are chaotic acts in your game, that's fine for your game, and maybe fine or not so fine for your players. I could see you wanting to discourage that kind of behavior if your game has some young, impressionable players, but to just throw out a blanket statement like that without considering historical cultural or societal mores in comparison to modern cultures and mores is narrow minded. Life was a lot different back then and what we might consider shocking would be a commonplace occurance then and vice versa. If you want to judge something as lawful or chaotic in the context of D&D, look at it with the viewpoint of that era and culture, not with your own attitudes and beliefs that were developed in a different time and place.


----------



## Baron Opal

shilsen said:
			
		

> "And you know what's the best thing about that? Everything that I do until that day is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. I can fight, and fight, and fight - until I don't have breath enough in my body to lift a finger, and all the good I do will end after I die. If it even lasts that long."




No. He has succumed to despair. He has lost the fire that inspires hope in others and the interest in following a moral life, however a "moral life" is defined in this campaign. His bedraggled appearance implies a loss of self-respect as well. He is a poor example to his fellow man.

It is difficult to have a lot of variation in paladins as they _are_ a narrowly defined stereotype, rather than the role of a fighter or cleric. For me, it doesn't matter how they "blow off steam" as long as they obey their god's or society's mores.

Baron Opal

_PS: Also, I don't feel that a paladin *must* follow a god. They can be mystical or simply have a superior moral compass. But even so, it is their role to defend and inspire. One that succums to despair, who can not see the value in their efforts, has fallen._


----------



## Brennin Magalus

In _Nicomachean Ethics_, Aristotle wrote:

"...[H]appiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue" (Book I  ch. 13)

In _Lives of the Philosophers VII_, Diogenes Laertius wrote:

"[The Stoics] say that only the morally beautiful is good..."

Also, most vices are completely at odds with the Stoic concept of _apatheia_ (sloth would be an exception, I think)


----------



## Doctor Shaft

Just because "Arthur" did it doesn't make it any more lawful. I think the statement that "wild drinking and one-night stands are chaotic" is a firm argument.

Samurai are "generally" lawful. Arthur and his men, though virtuous when they wanted to be, would also occasionally break down and party hard. Just because grandpa did it doesn't make it right, or lawful for that matter in game.

Certainly, a paladin may be subject to his cultures behavioral quirks.  If partying hard at the end of a war of invaders is common place, then certainly we can say it wouldn't be entirely detestable that the D&D paladin parties hard with the rest.

However, a paladin really is a "shining example" of a religious soldier. They are the kind that go beyond the call of morality and ethics than even people like Lancelot do.  I argue this because a paladin is given the powers directly from their patron deity... they represent that deity's cause!  That is very significant. Forget the character for a minute and think of the deity.  What deity in its right mind, if it were both lawful and good and held itself to extremely high standards would choose to allow relaxed or completely desperate characters to represent them?  Or, if they decided to use him anyway, like many stories and myths also portray, what penalties or difficulties would impose on a character like Cedric? Would you say  a deity, like say for instance the FR god Helm would tolerate a fellow watchman  constantly relaxiing his self-control and 'puts the watch on' something else like carnal pleasure?  Would he never pay no mind to Sir Cedric and simply continue to give him the powers to heal and protect?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

In which case I'm reversing what you see as the emphasis of their contentions--that the fixed point for them is what constituted virtue and they argued that virtue led to happiness rather than starting from the contention that happiness is good and working from there to discover what virtue is. (Or, in the case of Aristotle, he seems to be _defining_ happiness as virtue in your citation).

Am I understanding this correctly?



			
				Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> In _Nicomachean Ethics_, Aristotle wrote:
> 
> "...[H]appiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue" (Book I  ch. 13)
> 
> In _Lives of the Philosophers VII_, Diogenes Laertius wrote:
> 
> "[The Stoics] say that only the morally beautiful is good..."
> 
> Also, most vices are completely at odds with the Stoic concept of _apatheia_ (sloth would be an exception, I think)


----------



## shilsen

fusangite said:
			
		

> Somehow, I'm not allowed to vote in this poll. I wonder if it's a problem with my browser or that community supporters get to disqualify annoying people's responses to their polls.




Ah, fusangite - of all the threads in all the forums on ENWorld, you had to stroll into mine  Yes, I'm kidding. And no, I didn't disqualify you (or anyone else) from the poll in any way.



> Anyway, of course I wouldn't allow this paladin in _my_ campaign; my campaigns tend to be medieval rather than early modern in character so I go for a kind of intolerant violent prudishness when it comes to behavioural codes. That stated, most of the arguments against having this sort of paladin are absolutely ridiculous.




I was pretty sure this wouldn't fly in your campaign, from what you've mentioned in other threads. 



> To me, people who do good things despite fully comprehending their futility, who fight the good fight as skeptics rather than zealots are the most heroic characters. Think of the Norse gods who know how it's all going to end. Think of Aragorn leading that army to what he thought to be certain defeat. That's what heroism is all about for me.




Story of my life 



> Also, the idea that being virtuous entails adopting the morality of a 19th century American Protestant is just hogwash. There is nothing inherently unlawful or ungood about patronizing prostitutes and drinking alcohol; goodness and evilness only attach to those actions from social context. For goodness sake, God commands Christians to drink alcohol -- in remembrance of Him!




I agree (well, obviously, since I started the thread). I've always found the argument that having a drink or visiting a prostitute is chaotic or wrong in some way - especially in D&D terms - quite inane.



> Finally, the idea that one's internal thoughts can violate a paladin's code presupposes the kind of intention-based morality that Christ introduced in the Sermon on the Mount. Most codes are not about one's internal state; they are about one's actions. I would never write a paladin's code that tried to regulate the character's internal thoughts anyway because character thoughts fall in an uncomfortable liminal region between player and character.




Yup. In-game, that's why the code isn't about what the paladin believes, but what he does.



> The real problem with the paladin depicted here is that he doesn't fit with the cultural archetype upon which the class is based. shilsen, while you have convinced me that one can have a non-celibate paladin, the one you have depicted here is still beyond the pale. He does not resonate with chivalric characters, even those in the _Faerie Queen_.




No argument there. Obviously I'm not shooting for the cultural archetype here. And Spenser would probably revolve in his grave if this guy walked into the _Faerie Queene_ 



> Finally, can I just say "ick"? Why this lavish description of a sexually charged situation in a D&D game?




Aw, come on - that's a lavish description? You're too easy  As for having the situation in a D&D game, let me just quote:



			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> Several persons have posted something along this line (i.e.: okay but not if kids are there). Hey, no offense intended, but I always find a little dubious when people say "Oh! no sex described in our DnD game" (which is perfectly normal and understandable but) while our descriptions of gaming murder, slaying, maiming, burning people (firebals), etc. doesn't need to be called into question. Just my two cents remark of course.




To take it a step further - [Gets on soapbox]The day somebody can explain to me rationally what's "icky" or "wrong" or "inappropriate" about anything sexual, I'll be really interested. It's a completely natural and normal activity, and nobody would be posting on these boards if it wasn't for the fact that his/her parents decided to get jiggy with it at some point in the past. And if people were a little more open about the subject around their kids, they'd grow up with a whole lot less psychological hangups than the average human being does.[/Gets off soapbox]


----------



## shilsen

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> No. He has succumed to despair.




I didn't see any part of the paladin code which said that you have to be optimistic about your chances. Though admittedly the Cha bonus to saves could predispose one that way 



> He has lost the fire that inspires hope in others and the interest in following a moral life, however a "moral life" is defined in this campaign.




I did think about adding a bit with Sir Cedric on the battlefield making a brilliant speech to rally the troops against overwhelming odds, but figured that would make the choice a little too easy (or easier).



> His bedraggled appearance implies a loss of self-respect as well.




How come? Maybe it just shows that he only has respect for the self, and understands that your character is what makes you a human being, not whether you look pretty or wear shiny armor.


----------



## Orius

Not yes, but HELL YES.  Wenching, hard-drinking, foul-mouthed Cedric's got more flavor than the typical, boring, stick-up-the-ass do gooder paladin (like that dufus Bodel).

I admit though I have my doubts as to whether frequently consorting with prosititutes would allow him to keep his status as a paladin.   If prosititution is illegal, he's breaking the law, which a paladin is sworn to uphold, and curing them of VD and beating off the pimps might not be enough to enable him to keep his status as a paladin.  But like I said, it depends on what the law says.


----------



## Doctor Shaft

I'm still going to beg this one question.

Everyone has their different opinions on the attitude of Cedric and whether that qualifies as qualities of virtuous warrior or paladin.

But absolutely no one has commented once on the idea of whether a deity would ever support someone like Cedric.  Or if said deity did, whether that made sense.  Imagine if you were a deity. And you wanted to choose a champion for your cause. All your subjects are flawed. But as you're looking down from the sky or whatever, you come across Cedric. He's brave, he's touch, he fights to his death for the good cause. But... he also frequents the brothel on a whim and he likes to rough people up a bit sometimes when he's angry. And he shows no signs of changing his ways. Would you keep giving this guy your powers?


----------



## maddman75

Not only would I allow him, I'd make him a centerpiece of the campaign.

IMC, there are many types of paladins - those obsessed with Courtly Love, glory at tournament, valor at arms, care for the helpless, and so on.  Though they all worship the same god, the different factions often disagree strongly with each other over what the most important 'good' is.  So among those that feel that Valor on the Battlefield and Smiting Evil is the most important good, Cedric would be fine.

Even among them, he would be a black sheep, constantly getting grief from his peers and superiors.  But so long his nihilism didn't consume him into giving up the fight, and his debauchery didn't get anyone hurt, he wouldn't have a problem from his debauchery.

And IIRC, prostitution wasn't illegal *anywhere* in Europe until the Industrial age.  Brothels were seen as a required evil, to give men an outlet for their passions.

Hell, next time I play I may try to run something like Cedric for my own character.  Dang, but he sounds like fun.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

A lot of recent posts on the subject seem to be of the opinion that all that is required to be a paladin is what side he fights for. Is that really what you think? As long as he is smiting the right people and doing a good job of it, he's a paladin? If so, what, other than that he has kewl powerz instead of kewl feats, differentiates him from an equally (questionably) lawful good fighter?

Even more have indicated, more or less, that people who care about virtue are boring. Is that really your experience: that eveyrone who cares about virtue and strives to do the right thing is a boring clone of each other? I have to say that that has not been my experience. The cynical, jaded, abusive, alcoholic, "flawed hero" is everywhere these days and they can get pretty hard to tell apart. (The rap sheets of various thugs look pretty similar too). On the other hand, Galahad, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Aslan, Maia (from George Donaldson's Lilith), Paksenarrion, Peter Parker/Spiderman, etc. don't seem to blend together.


----------



## Jdvn1

Wouldn't allow this because it seems contrary to the D&D image of a paladin.  Depending on the story, though, I might allow it.  Also, if my player really really wanted to play it, I'd allow it as maybe the CG or NG paladin variation.

In D&D, law-chaos is supposed to be black and white.  They're energies, even.  This description wanders too far into the grey area of law-chaos.


----------



## ivocaliban

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> A lot of recent posts on the subject seem to be of the opinion that all that is required to be a paladin is what side he fights for. Is that really what you think? As long as he is smiting the right people and doing a good job of it, he's a paladin? If so, what, other than that he has kewl powerz instead of kewl feats, differentiates him from an equally (questionably) lawful good fighter?
> 
> Even more have indicated, more or less, that people who care about virtue are boring. Is that really your experience: that eveyrone who cares about virtue and strives to do the right thing is a boring clone of each other? I have to say that that has not been my experience. The cynical, jaded, abusive, alcoholic, "flawed hero" is everywhere these days and they can get pretty hard to tell apart. (The rap sheets of various thugs look pretty similar too). On the other hand, Galahad, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Aslan, Maia (from George Donaldson's Lilith), Paksenarrion, Peter Parker/Spiderman, etc. don't seem to blend together.




I think there would be far fewer paladins if DMs went strictly by the book, so I have to agree with you there. Following a paladins code to the letter is a difficult thing. Just as _bushido_ is difficult to live up to without surrendering a great deal of yourself in the process. That, however, is the essence of servitude, and that's essentially what paladins are...servants. Servants to Lawful Good deities with fairly strict ideas about how a paladin should behave...otherwise there would be no code. 

I think the big problem here is how people view paladins. Some DMs can interpret the essence of a paladin so strictly that they would be nearly unplayable...while others see them as little more than honest cops fighting the good fight. I just consider myself lucky none of my players ever choose paladin PCs.


----------



## LostSoul

I would welcome him home.


----------



## Sir Elton

This will depend on his religious code, personality traits, and passions. OF a D&D Paladin, they are the only class of characters I demand on a higher standard and enforce a bit of cross pollination.

 I do this because I make my Paladins the same way. I take out my copy of Pendragon 4th Edition, open to Traits and Passions, and define my paladin according to that system. Then, I decide what sort of role he'd play in the party. If the party needs a Christian Knight type, then that is what I'll play. A romantic knight, a Chivalrous Knight, or even a paladin on Knight Errantry is something I would explore.

 Fortunately, not many people want to go that way. They either simply do not understand the paladin, or they are disconnected with the mythos that surrounds the paladin. OF all the classes in D&D, the paladin is the one that is perhaps . . . "outdated."

 Edit: About the sex, isn't it really strange that our culture worships sex yet is totally embarrassed to talk about it?  I have recently found the truth about this little activity, and it's a glorious truth.  It's too bad that no body deals with it.

 "Cover the body because it's flawed."  "Cover the body because it's evil."  "Cover the body because it's sacred."  Sex is thought of as evil in our culture.  And while burning people, killing, maiming, and hurting is evil too, we accept it in roleplaying because that is part of the territory.  We don't accept in gaming because sex has no place in our own little territory.  However, what is so unusual is that this is a reflection of our culture.

 If you do a game about the Greek Myths, then you have to talk about sex in your games because they were a feature of the Greek Myths.  Hercules bedded many women in his time, yeah he spread his seed around.  Yet he is the greco-Roman hero we all identify with.

 When you venture in the Medieval Romance, sex also plays a part.  Playing the part of the Romantic Knight allows you to be romantic with the ladies and to woo them.  Even then, sex is treated as noble; as it was the goal of the Romantic Knight to bed his love and to experience physical conjugation as a comsummation of the highest virtue.

 However, our culture had pushed sex off of it's pedestal and turned it into a dirty thing. People in our culture flirt with sex, worship sex, and serve themselves to sex but are embarrassed to talk about sex.   The truth is, sex was made possible to serve *us*.  Sex's purpose is to allow us to not only propagate, but to serve as the glue that cements two lovers together and to enoble us and make us better men and women.  But alas, this is not to be.


----------



## Darkness

Doctor Shaft said:
			
		

> Imagine if you were a deity. And you wanted to choose a champion for your cause. All your subjects are flawed. But as you're looking down from the sky or whatever, you come across Cedric. He's brave, he's touch, he fights to his death for the good cause. But... he also frequents the brothel on a whim and he likes to rough people up a bit sometimes when he's angry. And he shows no signs of changing his ways. Would you keep giving this guy your powers?



 This question is a little complex. Some things to keep in mind when trying to answer it:

First of all, requiring a paladin to have a patron deity is a house rule. The RAW in the PHB do not require it. (PHB, p.43)
FR (and GH too IIRC) does require it, though, so it's not an uncommon rule.

Second... Even if a paladin has a patron deity, this deity does not necessarily have to be LG too. A common rule (e.g., in FR) is a maximum of 1 step removed. Somehow, I don't think we'd be having this discussion if we all were thinking of Cedric following a NG deity. 
Examples of non-LG FR deities who have paladins: Azuth (LN), Chauntea (NG), Helm (LN), Kelemvor (LN), Lathander (NG), Sune (CG, an exception). Less prominent deities can have paladins too of course (e.g., Red Knight might have some).

Third... Wenching does not, in itself, violate the paladin code of conduct. (Unless you house-rule it, of course.)
Situations in which the articles of the code could be violated:
"Respect legitimate authority." (If prostitution is illegal, which is unlikely but whatever, or a wartime commander forbids it, etc.)
"Act with honor." (If the paladin is in a kind of marriage that forbids this.)
"Help those in need." (If the prostitutes are virtual slaves or similar.)
"Punish those who harm or threaten innocents." (Ditto.)
Drinking doesn't violate it either but you should be careful.

Fourth, a character's alignment depends on all of their (somewhat recent) actions, not just a few select ones. As long as the paladin stays LG, he's fine. (Assuming he doesn't violate the CoC, obviously. See above.)

Right, so much for the rules part.


So... What kind of deity am I? A deity of justice? Of good itself? The sun? Strategy? Retribution? Family? Hugs and puppies?
Paladin deities vary quite a bit in their outlook so it kinda depends...


----------



## Storyteller01

Nothing wrong with what I've read. I don't see a problem, so long as his church doesn't actively hunt down those vices he partakes (even a reverand has been known to knock back a few, even if the bible says not to.).

He would also need to represent the spirit if not the letter of the law. If said brothels are legal, or the laws on them are lax, then I don't see a problem. Drinking in moderation is okay, but drug use would not be, given the risk of addiction (unless your culture uses said drugs in their ceremonies. Even then, ONLY use them while in at given times or prayers).

Not all paladins have to be the rightous, spit polish the armor types. If you were a paladin for, say, Ilmater of FR, would you be walking around in armor proclaiming your god, or helping the weak and dying for the hopeless cause?

Question for everyone: Can anyone give an example of an interesting hero (real or storywise) who didn't have a qwerk? Operative word here is interesting, and they don't have to be lawful.


Logan had his rage, Sherlocke Holmes had a cocaine addiction, most of the folks who wrote the constitution were slave holders, etc.

Closest thing I know of is a sailor in one of Nathaniel Hathorne's stories. He was so good they killed him. Matter of fact, most of Nate's stories were about showing how no one is without flaws.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

If you accept a somewhat wider interpretation of the paladin archtype, I would suggest Roland of Gilead (the Dark Tower series) is a paladin.  He's a servant of The Light and of Order, a man of honor and tradition, and the last hope for his world.  And he sleeps with prostitutes, lies to people (when necessary to deceive a spy), drinks, and understands that his cause is nearly hopeless.  Sexual mores are simply not an issue for him.  In Roland's society, going to a prostitute or having relatively meaningless relations with a tavern wench _are not dishonorable actions_.

If you feel that a more expansive definition cheapens the concept, then neither Roland nor Cedric will be a paladin to you.


----------



## Storyteller01

On the flipside of the Japanese culture arguement:

While Geisha'a were allowed to practice, general prostitution was frowned upon. Kabuki thearter was banned for a time because it promoted such behavior (prostitutes tended to hangaround, and...well... actors rarley get rich in their trade   )


----------



## enrious

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Logan had his rage, Sherlocke Holmes had a cocaine addiction, most of the folks who wrote the constitution were slave holders, etc.




They ain't paladins, tho.


----------



## FireLance

Mature themes and discussions on the morality and legality of prostitution aside, I think the key issue raised is: what is the essence of being a paladin, and what are simply trappings?

The following is just my initial gut feel of what a paladin should essentially be (list is subject to refinement):
1. A paladin devotes his life to the fight against evil.
2. A paladin is willing to sacrifice himself to defend others.
3. A paladin does no harm to innocents.
4. A paladin inspires others to acts of good.

In my view, paladins can have vices, as long as they do not impair his ability to fight evil and do not harm innocents (directly - let's leave convoluted chains of cause and effect out of this, please). Perhaps the sample paladin could be more of an inspiring example, but maybe he does inspire others, in his way. I'd be interested to see how such a character would develop.


----------



## bodhi

Doctor Shaft said:
			
		

> But absolutely no one has commented once on the idea of whether a deity would ever support someone like Cedric.  Or if said deity did, whether that made sense.




This kinda came up in the thread Mallus started. IMHO, one take on the character concept is that this is a character chosen by a deity. Mallus was interested in exploring the idea of paladinhood being bestowed by grace, rather than by "deserving" it.  Maybe Cedric has no idea why he's chosen. Maybe he he just wanted to be a potato farmer like his father, and his father's father. Maybe he's just a wee bit resentful, and that's why he drinks.

As for why he was chosen, I think that's for the DM to decide, whether in collaboration or in secret. Maybe Cedric has blood ties to Someone Important. Maybe Cedric is the seventh son of a seventh son. Maybe he was born when the stars were aligned. Maybe the deity knows something that mere mortals do not.

On the other hand, maybe Cedric's deity is a lawful good type who also happens to be a carouser who enjoys a good brawl. Granted, Kord, Hercules and Thor are all CG, but it could happen.


----------



## Virel

For the current campaign I DM, I would not allow that Paladin. My group has eight players, 1/2 are male and 1/2 are female. Two are 13 year old males and another is an 11 year old female. Game content is limited to PG at most. Likewise, while a good concept, it is not in keeping with what is defined as LG Paladin arch-type IMC. The cynical view of his all his action as pointless, shows a lack of faith IMO and would make the character unacceptable as paladin IMC. In a group of adults the other stuff we could work out etc and have an interesting character.


----------



## Storyteller01

enrious said:
			
		

> They ain't paladins, tho.




Agreed, but when has any hero lived a perfect life. How can anyone live that way? Even Superman (the Uberpaladin of all paladins, regardless of whether he's chosen by a god or not) has had to lie, cheat, and steal on occasion. And he can't be killed (DC has tried three times already!!)!


----------



## Ogre Mage

I would allow it, but whether he would retain his paladin powers for long is questionable.  If the paladin draws his powers from a god, that makes it easier.  The paladin's code may be universal, but religions interpret it differently.  In the FR, for instance, a paladin of Sune could engage in such activities, so long as the paladin treated the prostitutes with kindness and respect.  But a paladin of Tyr or Torm would be in trouble.  With their tight views of morality, such behavior would be considered an affront.  Perhaps one or two failings would be overlooked if the paladin atoned ... but continuous failings would result in the loss of powers and excommunication if discovered by the church.  I have a hard time believing a paladin who devoutly followed such gods would not feel guilt over his acts.  

If the paladin is godless, that is a hard question.  This is why I prefer paladins, druids and esp. clerics to worship gods.  In this particular example, the paladin in question, with a total lack of concern for propriety and pessimistic attitude (not very becoming for a paladin) is on a slippery slope.  Such defeatism is the stuff of which blackguards are made.


----------



## bodhi

*Have Gun, Will Travel*



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> A lot of recent posts on the subject seem to be of the opinion that all that is required to be a paladin is what side he fights for. Is that really what you think? As long as he is smiting the right people and doing a good job of it, he's a paladin? If so, what, other than that he has kewl powerz instead of kewl feats, differentiates him from an equally (questionably) lawful good fighter?



I think that's really the core question here. What makes a paladin a paladin? IMHO, that depends on the campaign. Certainly, the "default" paladin is Superman. He fights for Truth, Justice, and the Lawful Good Way. His honor shines as bright as his armor, and his word is as true as his steel. It's a popular and powerful image. I just think that Batman (Miller's Dark Knight, as well as Adam West's "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!") can be a paladin, too.


----------



## bodhi

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Even Superman (the Uberpaladin of all paladins, regardless of whether he's chosen by a god or not) has had to lie, cheat, and steal on occasion. And he can't be killed (DC has tried three times already!!)




Sure he can. He just can't _stay_ killed.


----------



## ptolemy18

Turanil said:
			
		

> This is probably a CG paladin (Paladin of Freedom variant from Unearthed Arcana) who belongs to a knight order in which most of the time paladins are LG.




I agree, he sounds like a CG paladin.

If he were a LG paladin, I'd probably forbid this kind of sleazy behavior, but only because I prefer the idea of paladins as the Medieval "chaste and perfect knight"... so that even if they WERE drunk and womanizing they'd have to be penitent on some level. 

One a similar note, has anyone checked out the "Ghaffir" class in Green Ronin's EGYPTIAN ADVENTURES: HAMUNAPTRA? It's a paladin variant that can be Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good; and instead of the normal paladin spells, their spell list includes the domain spells of their patron diety, like a cleric. It's a very cool "holy warrior" which could be adapted into many different D&D religions, and doesn't have much in common with the Medieval Paladin... (though still, it's not much like the paladin in this story.)

Jason


----------



## WayneLigon

Depending on the GM's world (ie, what is the status or nature of the brothel - If it's someplace like Lady Sally's from _Lady Slings The Booze_, then sure. If it's like the Slippery Lily in _Thieve's World_, no ) and what Code their order is suppossed to follow. Probably sure, I see no problem.


----------



## Fingol

There seems to be something in there about the mindframe of Sir Cedric:
One moment he calls himself the chosen of his god and in the next he reveals that he thinks his cause is a futile one. I might be projecting a bit here but it sounds to me he doesn't belief he is making a difference at all. Which if he is the chosen one of his god doesn't that mean that he feels that his god isn't making a difference?

Calling himself stupid is like calling his deity stupid for chosing him. If I was his god I'd drop him fast and find myself someone a bit more effective. Someone who can make a difference, if only through fighting faster and getting more done in a day. Maybe a paladin that didn't drink and whored so much?

There are also undertones of: "I am making the ultimate sacrifice every day so I deserve some loving anyway I can get it." Where is he getting the money from to go drinking and whoring? From hoards from evil defeated who got it from the same people he is now exploiting with the same wealth/ power. If all the girls in the brothel had to do was once a week service a handsome healthy smart paladin their lives would not be so bad. But I am picking that if they need to be cured of disease regularly that the rest of the 20 plus clients that they serve every day of every week while too drugged or drunk to notice are not as handsome smart or healthy as our 'hero'. I could go on raving but I'll stop here.

He'd not be a paladin in my game. No LG god would choose him.


----------



## Storyteller01

Fingol said:
			
		

> There seems to be something in there about the mindframe of Sir Cedric:
> One moment he calls himself the chosen of his god and in the next he reveals that he thinks his cause is a futile one. I might be projecting a bit here but it sounds to me he doesn't belief he is making a difference at all. Which if he is the chosen one of his god doesn't that mean that he feels that his god isn't making a difference?




This does make an interesting story device though:

Suppose he has no choice? He was picked for some reason that neither he nor the priests can fathom and given special abilities to fulfill the will of that god. He has no choice in the matter, and his very nature ensures that he's still lawful. There are more than a few LG gods who can be this heavy handed.

The 'Orion' shortstories that Dragon mag used to print make an excellent example of this, even if it was a good hero/evil god senario.


----------



## Yair

*No*

Forgive me if I'm reiterating things already mentioned, I didn't read the whole thread.

I wouldn't allow him for one principal reason:
I think the background takes a light-hearted approach to a prostitute's hardships. I think it violates "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" [from the definition of Good] in all but the most extraordinary circumstances, and is unlawful to boot. While sometimes it would be possible, generally IMCs prostitutes are too derelict and oppressed that hiring them would be respectful of their dignity. It would fall under "oppressing others" as an Evil act.
Note he can sleep with them, if both of them want to, and can give them money as charity. But he better be careful he is not exploiting their hardship, as that would be oppression.

His lack of faith in the worth of his actions makes them hollow and meaningless. While not a violation of the Code of Conduct nor Evil, I fail to see how a religious character can lead a rightous life with no faith in its worth. I will expect the character to either find out why he's so adamant in upholding the Code and avoiding Evil or lose his conviction and fail to hold them when tested. That actually should make for some great roleplaying, tempting me to allow the character... but making clear hiring the services of a prostitution is an Evil act IMC.

I would allow the character as a cleric of a LG paladin-like deity. Clerics don't have to be perfect, paladins do. Tough.


----------



## Fingol

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> This does make an interesting story device though:
> 
> Suppose he has no choice? He was picked for some reason that neither he nor the priests can fathom and given special abilities to fulfill the will of that god. He has no choice in the matter, and his very nature ensures that he's still lawful. There are more than a few LG gods who can be this heavy handed.
> 
> The 'Orion' shortstories that Dragon mag used to print make an excellent example of this, even if it was a good hero/evil god senario.




Maybe it would, I still think that none of my LG deities would choose him to be their chosen one. I'd be interested to hear of any suggestions of why any LG god would choose him though. Most of them when picking one from a series of candidates won't immediately go: "Hey this guy would not be noticed in a brothel; I might be able to use him in a covert operation sometime in the future when there is a need for a righteous paladin to appear like a drunken argumentative self-righteous self-defeatist sleaze ball."


----------



## Li Shenron

Just wanted to chime in quickly and say these...   

Your character concept is overall fine itself, I'd have nothing wrong with it.

As a DM I have often encouraged players of Paladin characters to think of a code of conduct themselves, according to the patron deity/deities for example (or whatever the Paladin has a "higher referent"), without feeling restricted to the PHB code of conduct, which I regard as one example.
I even nowadays allow Paladins of different alignments, in the sense that the concept is extended to that of a "(un)holy warrior", but that is another story.

However your description seems to me quite bland and undescriptive... this because IMHO the idea of a Paladin is that of a _dedicated_ character, and who has a supernatural or mystical spark (being a "chosen" for instance). This supernatural dedication is kind of what makes a Paladin different from any LG warrior.
Anyway your description just says that he goes around the world, fights evil, protect innocent... does he have to be a Paladin to do so? If you don't add anything special, it's "just another warrior class" which you may take of course if you prefer its combat features more than the fighter's bonus feats, but it would not feel different.

So a Paladin has an aim that goes beyond mortal bounds. It could be as simple as the "triumph of good in the universe". He follows that path relentlessly, sacrifices his own life for it, doesn't waste time in what distracts from the path. The code of conduct helps him doing just that, and furthermore the code defines the means he is supposed to use or otherwise shun to pursue his path.
An evil Paladin should have his code too, which would still tell him what he is supposed to do and what he should never do, if he wants to pursue the "triumph of evil" or whatever. Also note that a Paladin believes in that code as a cosmic truth, otherwise he wouldn't be a Paladin (or wouldn't be "chosen").
I'd let a player invent her own code of conduct, but it seem to me that your description focuses only in what is NOT in his code, what is not either a duty or something to avoid...   If sexual intercourse is not forbidden by his code, why focus on that? He would probably not be interested usually, since it doesn't help him in his path either. OTOH, it could make for an interesting Paladin if he's actually losing focus on his Paladinhood as he spends time in mundane activities instead of being in action.

I would never forbid you to play such a character   but it doesn't seem memorable to me. And not even very original, at least in my own experience the most common way to play a Paladin is the old cliche' of ultra-moralist who detect-evil-kill-evil all the time, but the first variant to be conceived by players always seems to involve brothels for a reason...


----------



## Darkness

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> ... the most common way to play a Paladin is the old cliche' of ultra-moralist who detect-evil-kill-evil all the time, but the first variant to be conceived by players always seems to involve brothels for a reason...



I think that's the _second_ variant.

The first usually involves spiked black plate armor, a lot of attitude and kewlness, as well as a 180° shift in alignment.


----------



## Baron Opal

shilsen said:
			
		

> I didn't see any part of the paladin code which said that you have to be optimistic about your chances. Though admittedly the Cha bonus to saves could predispose one that way
> 
> How come? Maybe it just shows that he only has respect for the self, and understands that your character is what makes you a human being, not whether you look pretty or wear shiny armor.




Perhaps, but having a half-dozen empty tankards in front of him makes me think otherwise. And it is not that he isn't optimistic, it's that he feels that his efforts are futile. It seems that he finds no value in his cause and no value to the suffering that he spares the innocent. It is a job to him, little more.

When I first read the opening post, I was reminded of the hotel scene in the movie _Vampires_. The vampire hunters are sitting around the hotel suite kickin' back with booze and whores. One mentions to his chick something like "It's a tough life we lead, because we _know_ there is a God. And we get the bonus of cleaning up His mess." They were all fighting for the cause of Good, but they had no holiness about them.

You can be rough-and-tumble, bitter, dirty, and afraid and still be a paladin. Because you _know_ what is right and you will do what ever you can to promote it. As was mentioned before, Aragorn and Gandalf had the character of a paladin. Cedric doesn't seem to have that spark.

Again, I don't find his activities to be objectionable given what little we know of the setting. Cedric seems to me to be a perfect candidate for a fallen paladin, however, and it would be interesting to see what it would take for him to shake off his dispair.


----------



## Treebore

Charlamagne's Paladins, whom D&D paladins are the most directly influenced by, make this Paladin look like a saint compared to what they did in their day to day lives, not to mention Charlemagne himself.

Again, a well defined religious code of behaviour is needed to decide what is or is not acceptable for this paladins behaviour. Christian standards are just not an automatic default for moral behavior. Christians have raped, pillaged, murdered, and tortured in the name of God, making such behaviour acceptable and holy because high church officials said it was.

Plus the statement that prostitution is always a situation of slavery is false. They often are, but there are also a number of places of prostitution that they can walk out and never sell themselves again. The world is NOT black or white and neither are places of prostitution.

IT all comes back to the laws of a given church, or government, if the church laws require paladins to defend those governmental laws. Of course church laws can require that a paladin be at odds with the laws of a given government.

So if your the DM step back from your personal default beliefs and see if a good argument can be made that certain behaviours would not be sinful under different deities, churches, and governmental laws.

Or don't, if you are unable to set aside your personal bias'. Just be honest enough to say so to the player instead of just blindly enforcing your personal ethics and saying it is the "proper" interpretation of the paladins code.


----------



## LurkerFreak

Maybe Cedrics god has just seen that he is willing and has the potential. Maybe the deity has also foreseen a situation that will temper his new weapon into a smite evil slightly-holier-than-thou (but a lot holier than before) Cedric. Low-level slob to high-level hero.


----------



## Wild Gazebo

Quote:
I was going to respond to Wild Gazebo's post but I got distracted, so I'll make the points here. First, it's incorrect to assume that modern ethics is possible because we no longer live in a brutal world. 

My comment wasn't based on modernity it was based on situation...yeah, and I guess the absence of modernity.  Though, I never...would ever suggest that we don't live in a brutal world, and it was not my intention to use that as an argument.

Your arguments of ethical contingencies start from the presupposition of a (modern)cultural bias--as if you or I have a choice.  The idea that a culture forms differently or is in a more primordial stage lends to the prospect that our idea of ethics deals more with a higher-less grounded ethos (think progressively more abstract such as sun and moon gods).  Meaning, sex and violence aren't wrong(as they started, animalistic)--they are a part of survival and everyday life.  In fact they become almost meaningless--not the responce to personal attachment or care of family or will to live--it is just that the predominance of these actions are simply what you know of as normal existence.  You seem well read, think of a kind of post-structuralist view of society based on the abjection of self determining the bondaries that society creates.  These social bondaries would get more difficult and indominable the further in history you progress.  Meaning, the further back you travel the more likely they will be as difficult (of course, this is not all encompassing).

Quote:
The blood of the people of Darfur, the excavated interrogation rooms of Iraq, the purges, the death camps of Germany, the gulags in Siberia, the re-education camps in Cambodia, the suicide bombers in the middle east, machete wielding gangsters in El-Salvadore, child slavery and prostitution rings, etc. are just as much reality as our nice sanitized office buildings, sterile operating rooms, and children wearing helmets so they can walk down the street safely. To the extent that ethical theories are true, they are as applicable to the anarchy of Somalia, the atrocities in Sudan, and the political prisons of China as they are to insulated and sheltered American suburbanites.

Watching it on tv is different than walking through it.  What would be the poor woman from Sudan's version of a paladin?(silly question, please don't answer)  My responce had really nothing to do with atrocities but with the idea that one would know no different.  It is difficult to define death, slavery, and sex as evil in of themselves.  How people deal with, provoke, incure, and understand these events may well be arguably evil.  But I personally don't beleive in 'good' or 'evil' in a non-literary sense--so I'm really the wrong person to debate this with.

Quote:
Second, it's incorrect to assume that, because paladins are set in a brutal medieval world, they must have no problem with vice. The paladin does not embody the actuality of such a society with its filth and its dirt. On the contrary, even on the most relativistic interpretation of a paladin, he embodies the society's ideals. The paladin is the Good Man. He doesn't make the little compromises that "everyone" makes. Fusangite writes that his campaign is medieval and that he therefore tends towards violent prudishness in paladin codes. The medieval paladin is less likely to approve of Sir Cedric's behavior than one a paladin operating by distinctively modern ethics.

The idea of vice would most likely be different as well as ideals.  Beating small children into submission, selling slaves, burning witches, interrogating (torturing)suspicious individuals, having two of your thirteen siblings survive childhood, believing that a caste system is defined by a god, public executions, public brothels, ......ect(all everyday realities-not once or twice removed situations)  would most likely colour your perspective of right, order, and justice.  It seems to me that most 'freedom fighters' have been oppressed by a system before they act to oust it.  Not to many nobles died for the cause of livable wages--and I'd have to say most paladins I imagine are or were nobles.  Ok, I'm getting off topic...and giving you fuel for your argument.  

Your idea of the paladin being above the rabble appeals to me, just more in the sense of devotion, piety, and the will to stand his/her ground in the face of insurmountable odds--for an honorable cause, and the tennets that a paladin should follow would hold them to that...not incure penalties for social trespasses.


----------



## hong

See, if you banned paladins, you'd be able to play all sorts of cool white-hat character concepts -- like the one that Shilsen posted that started this thread -- without getting bogged down in stupid arguments over whether it's class X or class Y.


Hong "and rangers got teh shaft, BTW" Ooi


----------



## Tonguez

So its sorted that legal, 'decent' Prostitution isn't bad (I'd probably call it Neutral at worst) also  alcohol and swearing aren't bad as long as their is a sense of moderation and 'one knows his limits' which leaves us with the Nihilism

and I point us all to Koheleth (& the Biblical Book of Ecclesiastes) some of the most cynical and nihilistic theology around and yet it forms part of the Biblical Wisdom literature. Take a look at some of the quotes



> Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it, and behold, all was emptiness and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun. (2:11)






> As he came from his mother's womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil, which he may carry away in his hand (5:15)



. 

Sir Cedrics musing fit in with Koheleth's and so Yes I'd accept him as a somewhat unorthodox Paladin jaded by the seemingly endless battle with evil and prone to melancholy and cynicism but a Paladin nonetheless. One whose faith is such that despite his apprehensions he will willingly go where his god leads him - even to the very pit of hell to die if that is required...


----------



## Romnipotent

A simple example from the BoEF is that if the relationship is understood to be a one night thing, then its not wrong. Chaotic relationships are the random stuff... this was an understanding little bit of fun. Content wise I'd let it in any of my games but I dont generally have anyone under 15, and those between 15 and 20 often have a different view on sex anyway.

I cant see at any point where he breaks the code, maybe substance abuse... but hey, even the pope dables in giving wine out to anyone. ("Dont bring religion into this!" "Its a debate on paladins..." etc)

Fortunately the man we clal Cedric has never assaulted anyone, seems like a happy mellow or isolative drunk. Every hero has a foible, even your precious Cthulhu. Now just re read the Code of Conduct, just to be sure, seems like Cedric is the A class hero I would like my Paladins to be. I mean he's gruff but follows the code, he respects the authority of the house of Burlesque (mistress), he doesn't lie about his actions or conspire to keep them hidden, and helps those in need. HE HELPS THOSE IN NEED!


----------



## shilsen

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I would never forbid you to play such a character   but it doesn't seem memorable to me. And not even very original, at least in my own experience the most common way to play a Paladin is the old cliche' of ultra-moralist who detect-evil-kill-evil all the time, but the first variant to be conceived by players always seems to involve brothels for a reason...




Guilty as charged, but intentionally so. I just threw together that piece of text in 5 minutes, and there are a lot of other possible subjects that I could have put in there, but I took the easy route and put in the kind of material that gets a rise (pun unintended) out of people  



			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> I think that's the second variant.
> 
> The first usually involves spiked black plate armor, a lot of attitude and kewlness, as well as a 180° shift in alignment.




Come to think of it, I did once play a paladin with black plate armor, who also functioned as an executioner on the side  But he definitely would not have raised alignment questions like old Cedric does.


----------



## Seeker95

I would not allow this in my current campaign.
I have two kids under 16 in my campaign, the youngest is a 12 year old girl.  The approach you take with your character does not fit with my group.

However, this denial is based on my group, and not upon my concept of the paladin.  What you have described would work in some campaigns, and I see nothing wrong with it as far as paladins go.  Not my cup of tea, but then again, I don't have to drink it.


----------



## Romnipotent

shilsen said:
			
		

> But he definitely would not have raised alignment questions like old Cedric does.



For me no alignment issues were raised... he adheres to the law and respects those that enforce it, be it local, business, or country. He does no evil and looks like he would defend good. All in all he's more LG than some and in fact most other paladins I know, and has more humanity and romanticism than any other I've seen.


----------



## shilsen

Romnipotent said:
			
		

> For me no alignment issues were raised... he adheres to the law and respects those that enforce it, be it local, business, or country. He does no evil and looks like he would defend good. All in all he's more LG than some and in fact most other paladins I know, and has more humanity and romanticism than any other I've seen.



 I should have clarified that I meant "raised alignment questions with other DMs". I agree with you and think Cedric fits the PHB paladin as written. Unsurprisingly, some DMs would disagree.


----------



## Buttercup

Tonguez said:
			
		

> even to the very pit of hell to die if that is required...




So I'm not the only one who keeps hearing _The Impossible Dream_ in the background of this thread?

_To fight without question or pause,_
_to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause..._


----------



## Doctor Shaft

A lot of these arguments are still focusing on the idea that Cedric could be a paladin if only he follows a few simple "acts" or "codes of actions." It's not really conduct because it the codes we're giving out here really have nothing to do with how he "conducts" himself at all. It just asks him to commit certain acts, and obstain from one or two specific others.  

1.) Don't beat people up
2.) Fight evil to the death, wherever your God tells you it is.
3.) Champion the faith to the end
4.) Help people in need.  

There's a few others, but they're all along the same vein.  Basically, all Cedric has to do to become a paladin... is do a few good things. Otherwise, everything else from sleeping with women every week, having good drinks, and generally his attitude have nothing to do with anything. 

The reason why I have trouble with this as a LG paladin is because this code is so easy to follow, that the party rogue could qualify.  With flying colors.  When you say that his mindset has nothing to do with it, that it's just what he does at the end of the day that counts, then I guess the halfling thief is also a paladin, or qualified for such.  He doens't have to stop stealing, mind you. Maybe he's Robin Hood and he steals for what he deems a good cause. But as long as he's also willing to champion the faith, fight evil wherever, and help the needy, he's a paladin.  

Someone mentioned something about cultures, and how culture would directly influence what kind of "paladin" would come out of it. And the silly question involved what a woman from the Sudan would classify as a paladin. While I guess it's a good point that each culture would have a different take on what makes a champion of their faith, I think you'll still find that Sudan woman likely claiming that a representative of her deity would still have more 'spiritual dedication' to the cause than Cedric had. Maybe he would still behave differently and have certain vices.  But he'd probably have a lot more conviction than Cedric.

And that's the bottom line as to why I would let Cedric in my campaign, but periodically 'penalize' him at certain points.  Cedric is a man of actions... but actions mean nothing.  It doesn't matter if you give to charity all your life. That doesn't make you a good person.  Or if you give gifts to your family every holiday, or on a birthday. To use one of those cheap phrases, "It's the thought that counts."  Cedric is a pessimist.  He does it, but he's no different from party fighter, party rogue, and party bard. They're all stuck in a war, they believe in championing the good, but ultimately they thinks it absolutley stinks. He's got the wrong attitude about the whole thing.  He's willing to die -- but his reasons for dying are hardly virtuous at all. Sounds to me like he's willing to die _only_ because he knows there is a good afterlife waiting for him on the other side. In a sense, about the only thing Cedric has that I guess goes beyond the mentality of the rogue and fighter is the knowledge that he technically isn't risking too much of himself in the process. Though he may die... his deity will be waiting to pick him up on the other side.  

If Cedric is a LG paladin... then my drinking, brothel-owner, thieving rogue is too.    Hey, we believe in the same causes.


----------



## Lyriel Aelorothi

My vote was no...this character concept does not meet the requirements of paladinhood in my campaign.  With that said, it might be perfectly fine in yours.  Get with your DM and see what happens.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Treebore said:
			
		

> Charlamagne's Paladins, whom D&D paladins are the most directly influenced by, make this Paladin look like a saint compared to what they did in their day to day lives, not to mention Charlemagne himself.




No.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Darkness said:
			
		

> Second... Even if a paladin has a patron deity, this deity does not necessarily have to be LG too. A common rule (e.g., in FR) is a maximum of 1 step removed. Somehow, I don't think we'd be having this discussion if we all were thinking of Cedric following a NG deity.




Not correct. The only good deity IMC is NG and as I posted previously, this character would not remain a paladin in my world.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

fusangite said:
			
		

> There is nothing inherently unlawful or ungood about patronizing prostitutes and drinking alcohol; goodness and evilness only attach to those actions from social context.




According to your worldview, perhaps, but some of us (myself included) espouse the concept of objective morality.



> For goodness sake, God commands Christians to drink alcohol -- in remembrance of Him!




There is a difference between drinking wine during the Eucharist and being a drunkard (by the way, there is at least one religion that erroneously claims Jesus was really referring to grape juice, but they use _water_, not grape juice, during their services).


----------



## drnuncheon

This is about the only kind of paladin that would survive in Freeport, so for me...sure.

Now on to respond to other posters:



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Write the story a little differently where instead of clean-scrubbed sluts who do it for fun (like the porn sites would have you believe), the prostitutes are abused, exploited, and trapped in a cycle of dependency if not actually enslaved. Then, when you write about Sir Cedric leaving the room and the guard checking the lock on the door so that the girl won't try to escape or the madame taking the money that they need to buy that cure disease (Sir Cedric doesn't need to worry about that, of course, but they do) so that they have to choose between curing themselves and feeding their children, and I'm betting a lot of the "yes" votes switch to no.




Sure.  And write the story of a paladin visiting a mine where the miners are hard-working, well-fed, honest folk and you'll have a very different story than the story of a paladin who visits a mine where the miners are abject slaves living in fear and misery.  That doesn't mean that visiting a mine, buying products produced from a mine, or even _owning_ a mine is against the paladin's code.



> Imagine if you were a deity. And you wanted to choose a champion for your cause. All your subjects are flawed. But as you're looking down from the sky or whatever, you come across Cedric. He's brave, he's touch, he fights to his death for the good cause. But... he also frequents the brothel on a whim and he likes to rough people up a bit sometimes when he's angry. And he shows no signs of changing his ways. Would you keep giving this guy your powers?




If I were a warlike deity whose primary focus was on defeating evil, why not?

As an aside, I find it rather amusing that so many people in the "what does a 2nd level commoner give a 12th level paladin" thread are replying "herself", but when a paladin pays for it, it's bad...

J


----------



## Storyteller01

Fingol said:
			
		

> Maybe it would, I still think that none of my LG deities would choose him to be their chosen one. I'd be interested to hear of any suggestions of why any LG god would choose him though. Most of them when picking one from a series of candidates won't immediately go: "Hey this guy would not be noticed in a brothel; I might be able to use him in a covert operation sometime in the future when there is a need for a righteous paladin to appear like a drunken argumentative self-righteous self-defeatist sleaze ball."




The best reason I can think of;

Player characters are not ordinary people. This person possesses the right mix of skills, abilities, and spirit to get the job done.

The short version: he's the only one who can handle the job.


Spawn is also a good example of this. When I stopped reading the comic (finances are a killer now), there was a war between heaven and hell. Each were looking for soldiers. Both sides were looking to recruit Simmons. In life, he was a dedicated soldier/assassin who killed on command as well as a loyal husband. Hell happened to get to him first, and they had to cheat to do it (fight for me, and I'll give you back your wife. Why make a bargain if he's a damned soul?). He continued his fight because he had no real choice in the matter, given that no matter how he fought (for or against Hell) he only aided their cause in the end. Even after his fall, heaven continued to alternately attempt bringing him to their side or kill him. He was simply to valuable an asset to let the enemy have.

Granted, Spawn in the least likely canidate for the LG alignment, but what he he have been like if he fought the same war, with the same ramifications, on the side of Heaven?

Then again, Cedric may be at the brink of swapping paladin levels for the Blackguard.


----------



## CrusaderX

Treebore said:
			
		

> Christian standards are just not an automatic default for moral behavior.




Sure they are, as long as those standards are actually defined.  For example, in Catholicism's official Catechism of the Church.



> Christians have raped, pillaged, murdered, and tortured in the name of God, making such behaviour acceptable and holy because high church officials said it was.




Ummm...no.  Such actions were never defined as being good and holy according to official dogma.


----------



## Arani Korden

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> (by the way, there is at least one religion that erroneously claims Jesus was really referring to grape juice, but they use _water_, not grape juice, during their services).




I will just bite my tongue and say that many EN Worlders are members of said religion, and that that sentence would have been just fine without the word "erroneously".


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Quote:
> I was going to respond to Wild Gazebo's post but I got distracted, so I'll make the points here. First, it's incorrect to assume that modern ethics is possible because we no longer live in a brutal world.
> 
> My comment wasn't based on modernity it was based on situation...yeah, and I guess the absence of modernity.  Though, I never...would ever suggest that we don't live in a brutal world, and it was not my intention to use that as an argument.



I think I got him on this track by saying that this paladin would fit well in games that are Dark Ages/Medieval in their brutality and coarseness, after you had made the point that we aren't using modern ethics.  I haven't formally studied moral philosophy, but I've learned some informally about history and political theory.  I feel a little outgunned here, but here goes.

"We" (industrialized nations, generally, though there are others) have tried to set the bar somewhat higher than it used to be.  Campaigns that show the Dark Ages for what it was can give you some small hope that we've progressed in the past 1000 years (and especially the past 100), which I honestly believe to be true.  Like you said, we have turned the idea of human rights into law; we have also placed limits on the use of power, and introduced the idea that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.  Horror still happens, but now it is recognized as such - what Crusader nation would have ever prosecuted soldiers for mistreating Saracens?  Even 100 years ago in the US, could any black man have sued police for mistreatment and won a civil judgment?  So, yes, we have a ways to go, but to say there has been no progress is unfairly pessimistic.

Pogroms went totally unremarked in 1000 AD; no remorse, no international condemnation, no memorials, no promise of "never again."  Sanctuary only for those who had resources.  It was accepted as "business as usual."   There are parts of the world that are still medieval in outlook as I would characterize it.  Saudi Arabia has an absolute monarchy and men have a great deal of power over their wives.  Sudan has a tribal social structure and the Janjaweed marauders.   So "our modern world" also includes areas that are, for a number of reasons, still our medieval world.



			
				Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> Fusangite writes that his campaign is medieval and that he therefore tends towards violent prudishness in paladin codes. The medieval paladin is less likely to approve of Sir Cedric's behavior than one a paladin operating by distinctively modern ethics.
> 
> The idea of vice would most likely be different as well as ideals.  Beating small children into submission, selling slaves, burning witches, interrogating (torturing)suspicious individuals, having two of your thirteen siblings survive childhood, believing that a caste system is defined by a god, public executions, public brothels, ......ect(all everyday realities-not once or twice removed situations)  would most likely colour your perspective of right, order, and justice.



Good points.  Also, being free to beat your wife with a rod no thicker than your thumb, and forced conversions.  If we've made any progress, it's shown by the fact that we think the above are wrong and now act to ensure that they happen less often.  I'm not sure that Fusangite is right, because I don't know how much hypocrisy was ingrained into those orders.  That is, "chastity" may have meant "Don't sleep with well-bred free-born European Christian women," but had little or nothing to say about tavern girls, peasant women hoping for a nice gift, a Byzantine woman looking to keep her home safe during the sack of Constantinople, or the Arab Christian woman who serves in your castle in Acre.  Again, I really don't know what the code meant for them.


----------



## Piratecat

Arani Korden said:
			
		

> I will just bite my tongue and say that many EN Worlders are members of said religion, and that that sentence would have been just fine without the word "erroneously".




Exactly. Editorializing one's religious beliefs is inappropriate here. Don't go off on a religious tangent, anyone. That includes getting into touchy disagreements about _any_ real world religions.

Thanks to those people working to keep the discussion within appropriate boundaries.


----------



## John Morrow

Treebore said:
			
		

> Again, a well defined religious code of behaviour is needed to decide what is or is not acceptable for this paladins behaviour. Christian standards are just not an automatic default for moral behavior. Christians have raped, pillaged, murdered, and tortured in the name of God, making such behaviour acceptable and holy because high church officials said it was.




Just because someone claims that they are murdering children in the name of God does not make such behavior acceptable and holy.  In fact, I think a lot of people confuse how cultures behave with what a culture finds good or acceptable.  They are rarely the same thing.  Just because a behavior is common in a culture does not mean that that behavior is either good or admired by that culture.  In fact, you can find plenty of Greeks, Romans, and others who sound just like 19th Century Protestants when complaining out the excesses of their own culture.

While it is true, for example, that prostitution was historically legal and accepted in Japan, does that really mean that it was considered good or admirable?  Did any Samurai want his daughters to become a prostitute?  Would he marry one?  And what do Japanese women think of their husbands going to other women just for fun?  Could that be part of the reason why the marriage rate is so low in modern Japan, now that women have some say over their fate thanks to a post-War constitution pushed on Japan by the United States that grants them equal rights.  Spend some time in Tokyo.  Admire the posters telling men not to grope women in the subways.  Widely done?  Yes.  Good?  No. 

And while it is true that many Christians raped, pillaged, murdered, and tortured in the name of God, it's also important to note that these practices were condemned by plenty of other Christians, both historically and today.  It's important to note that the Inquisition had limits and followed procedures.  And just because these people claimed that what they were doing was God's work does not mean that everyone believed it, then or now, nor does it mean that they were actually doing God's work.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> Plus the statement that prostitution is always a situation of slavery is false. They often are, but there are also a number of places of prostitution that they can walk out and never sell themselves again. The world is NOT black or white and neither are places of prostitution.




No, the world isn't black and white but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any place where prostitution is better than a dull medium gray, where people are indifferent to it, or where people actually admire it.

Would you want your sister to choose prostitution as a profession?  (Please remember that it is quite legal in Nevada, so objections on the grounds that it is illegal are not valid.)  Would you want your daughter to choose prostitution as a profession?  Would you want your mother to turn to prostitution to earn some extra money for the family? 

For the men...

Would be indifferent to marrying a woman who was a prostitute or ex-prostitute?  Would you want your wife to be a practicing prostitute to earn a little extra money for the family?  

Remember, all of those prostitutes would be someone's daughter and could be someone's sister or mother.  All of those prostitutes would be real women who have a life, dreams, and a future.  And while it might make you feel better to think of prostitutes as willing women who enjoy their work, women who will suffer no social penalties for their work, and women who serve nothing but clients who treat them well, the real world just doesn't fit that ideal.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> Or don't, if you are unable to set aside your personal bias'. Just be honest enough to say so to the player instead of just blindly enforcing your personal ethics and saying it is the "proper" interpretation of the paladins code.




A bias often at work here is a Hollywood bias...

If GMs provided settings that were realistic rather than what has been described as "Hollywood" earlier in this thread, I think that the reasoning behind conventional morality would be a lot more clear than people are claiming it is.  It's easy to support recreational prostitution when you never ask the prostitute her name, never worry about how she got into the profession, never worry about whether she really enjoys it or not, never worry about what she does with the rest of her life, and never worry about what's going to happen to her when (and if) she reaches the age of 50 and can't find clients anymore.


----------



## NilesB

Dyne said:
			
		

> One of the big things about the Paladin class is its alignment requirement and its Code of Conduct requirement. The Paladin class has such restrictions on it because, otherwise, it would be a much more powerful class. The game designers decided to give the class wonderful powers but strict restrictions to balance it out.



No, the designers limited the Paladin for flavor reasons.  Even without its restrictions its no more powerfull than any other PC class. (except the monk, but thats an arguement for another thread.)


----------



## NilesB

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> According to your worldview, perhaps, but some of us (myself included) espouse the concept of objective morality.



Explain to me how contacting dysentry is objectively virtuous, I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## John Morrow

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that Fusangite is right, because I don't know how much hypocrisy was ingrained into those orders.  That is, "chastity" may have meant "Don't sleep with well-bred free-born European Christian women," but had little or nothing to say about tavern girls, peasant women hoping for a nice gift, a Byzantine woman looking to keep her home safe during the sack of Constantinople, or the Arab Christian woman who serves in your castle in Acre.  Again, I really don't know what the code meant for them.




I suppose that someone should point out that part of the reason why the Crusaders went on a rampage in Constantinople was that they thought they had a blanket Indulgence from the Church for all of their sins for going on the Crusade.  I should also don't think that any of them would argue that many of the things that they did was following any sort of code of good, chivalrous, or Christian behavior.  And it's pretty clear from the fact that they never bothered to achieve their stated objective that their behavior had little to do with being good Christians or doing the will of God.

[Edited to "throttle back" as per moderator's request -- please let me know if it needs more "throttling"]


----------



## taliesin15

Wow: what a stunning thread. Good setup/premise...

Since my campaign is primarily Norse in flavor, none of this so-called sinful behavior really violates moral codes...in fact, it seems like heavy drinking, cursing and wenching are moral norms in a Viking culture, that being Lawful Good would have more to do with honor and doing good and fighting evil

and it seems to me like his conduct in the brothel is entirely honorable and good...I understand that the biggest problem many Scandanavians had when the first Christian prosletyzers started showing up was the notion of a Virgin Mary--"what she's 21 years old, and still a virgin? What did she have very bad breath? Is she horridly ugly? Why was she so old and still a virgin?" 

a Finn told me of traditions where everyone in the house would sleep huddled together under giant furs near the fire, so that children were taught that, ahem, "adult relations" were normal

one other thing, this Cedric guy reminds me of The Dark Knight version of Batman, or maybe one of the gruff cops on NYPD Blue, Sipowitz, before he got hit with a nine


----------



## Piratecat

John, time to throttle back. As I just said up-thread, this is not the place to discuss real world religion. Please return the thread to a discussion of fantasy-based religion and moralities, or closed it goes.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

NilesB said:
			
		

> Explain to me how contacting dysentry is objectively virtuous, I'm genuinely curious.




I fail to see how dysentery has anything to do with the concept of objective morality.


----------



## taliesin15

One slight note on the Crusades: those Cadfael books illustrate I think quite a bit of the more human side (as opposed to the highly idealized one satired so well in Monty Python And The Holy Grail) of being a knight errant--I believe Cadfael had a commonlaw wife of sorts who was Arab, and in one of the later books meets his son...


----------



## John Morrow

Piratecat said:
			
		

> John, time to throttle back.




Sorry.  Tried to throttle it back (I removed a move vivid version).  I'll remove it from my post.  Please remove from yours so the text goes away.

[Edit: Please also note that my example was in no way intended as an attack on any religion -- it was to point out that certain Crusaders were not really following the spirit of what they were doing and were abusing their authority.]


----------



## Piratecat

John Morrow said:
			
		

> Sorry.  Tried to throttle it back (I removed a move vivid version).  I'll remove it from my post.  Please remove from yours so the text goes away.




Done, and thank you. It's good to remember that the only way these sorts of threads can remain open for cool conversation is when people are _really_ careful about what they post. This is the sort of topic that gets people worked up, so sometimes that's easier said than done. Thinking through responses before clicking "submit reply" is always appreciated.


----------



## NilesB

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I fail to see how dysentery has anything to do with the concept of objective morality.



It's been an inevitable consequense of abstaining from alcahol for most of history.


----------



## maddman75

I was thinking about Cedric's nihilism, that he doesn't have the hope needed for the character of a paladin.  So maybe the following addendum to the opening flavor text.



Magnus looks at Cedric, trying to understand where he was coming from.  "I still don't understand why you fight for the Order, why you remain a paladin if you don't believe that good will ultimately triumph."

Cedric thinks for a moment, then glances out the inn door, where several children were happily playing in the street.  "For them.  I've seen too much, bled too much, and lost too much to believe that there's anything better in my future than death in a pool of blood.  I can beat it back with all I have, but its bigger than I'll ever be."

He takes a long draw from his flagon.  "But they need to believe.  If they're going to go on with their lives, they need great tales, great heros, and a few less horrors that will murder them in their sleep.  I do it because someone needs to."


----------



## Americano

I would allow this character in my campaign, mostly because I would allow nearly anything my players wanted if they provided me with this much (well written) background information.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

NilesB said:
			
		

> It's been an inevitable consequense of abstaining from alcahol for most of history.




Sorry, but that strikes me as completely bogus. Also, I do not understand how one could misconstrue my post as an endorsement of teetotalism.


----------



## John Morrow

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Thinking through responses before clicking "submit reply" is always appreciated.




Well, I did.  I just didn't sanitize it enough, which is why moderators are useful.


----------



## Knight-of-Roses

Not as a Paladin, no.  I find Cedric too cynical, lacking faith and, well, too much of a jerk to be an effective paladin.  

"Oh, and you are all going to die horribly and your wives and children will still be raped and eaten, but if you fight beside me, we can buy them an extra couple of hours."  That sort of attitude just does not strike as being very effective force for good.

Not that I am opposed to cynical characters.  I just do not think it suits the Paladin class.


----------



## Darkness

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Not correct. The only good deity IMC is NG and as I posted previously, this character would not remain a paladin in my world.



I meant in general. That there are exceptions goes without saying.


----------



## Treebore

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Sure they are, as long as those standards are actually defined.  For example, in Catholicism's official Catechism of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...no.  Such actions were never defined as being good and holy according to official dogma.





Obviously you have never read the magazine Biblical Archeological Review.


----------



## Treebore

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> No.




Really? Shall we start comparing historical, peer reviewed, documentation and see who comes up with the most factual evidence?


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Treebore said:
			
		

> Really? Shall we start comparing historical, peer reviewed, documentation and see who comes up with the most factual evidence?




This makes me laugh. A reference to "Charlemagne's Paladins" can only be a reference to literature. It is a misnomer to refer to the Frankish knights of Charlemagne's day as "Charlemagne's Paladins."


----------



## Piratecat

You know, I think we're done here.

Klunk.


----------



## Piratecat

Okay, upon impassioned request we're going to give this thread one more chance. I'm going to make this perfectly clear:

*Do not discuss real world religions. That includes the history of Christianity.*

If you do, expect to be suspended. One warning should be enough, and this is the third. Refer to the "Rules" thread at the top of every forum for the specific rules at EN World.  I'm hoping that this thread can provide some additional "untraditional" ways of playing paladins, but  we're not going to tolerate any hijacking. If you'd like to discuss this with me, feel free to drop me an email.

(On that note, if anyone ever needs to reach a moderator by email all addresses are listed in a sticky thread in the Meta forum. Alternatively, reporting a post is a great way to get our attention.)


----------



## Romnipotent

Yeah, stop breaking the laws guys, or Cedric will have to teach you how to follow them. Fortunately Good and Evil are a faint idea of perspective social adherence. Open minded societies treat sex as a recreation, and as such a commodity and business. Others see it as a utilitarian basis of social continuation. A lot of people are taking the latter stance and saying Cedrics being a bad boy. Which in a less than open sexual socities would certainly apply. I have sections of my game where this action would be unacceptable.

The Main thing I can fault at all (and I have been supporting cedric the whole way) is that a strict church code may be in place. Not just a regional application of standards but a doctrine understood and in dogma of the deity. Cedric may just be his deities favorite. We as DM's can decide this, his fate, and work on that.

There is one other idea, the CG Paladin. Whether as the PAladin of Freedom (Unearthed Arcana), or something else from Dragon #310 (? maybe 301-311, something in that range).

Let the unorthodox images bred by creative minds fuel the game. Carbon copied parties and angsty orphans are getting to me, perhaps.


----------



## Torm

I have no problem with this Paladin, provided:

A. His behavior is not in direct violation of the mandates of his deity (NOT _necessarily_ his _church_ - they ain't the boss of him, ultimately, and they aren't the ones weighing his worthiness to Paladinhood.)

and

B. He would be required to be certain that he partakes of his "extra-curricular" activities in such a way as to insure that his duty is not in danger of being compromised.

In the end, a paladin's attitude towards his duty is far less important than whether or not he gets it done, so I don't really have a problem with his fatalism. Although I _would_ be relatively surprised to see such an individual _called_ in the first place, I guess it would depend on what that deity needed at the time. Who can say? Maybe this Paladin was called to alarm a deity's Paladin Order that is suffering from a slightly slipping morality into straightening up and flying right. Or maybe he will eventually discover he isn't empowered as a Paladin by the deity he _thinks_ he is, at all......

So speaks Torm, The True, The Loyal Fury, God of Paladins.


----------



## Stone Angel

I agree that a Paladin is a little edgy, but you can see a parrallel in mordern Christianity. Not to spark a bad subject. Just the fact that a lot of place are more contemporary worship ie electric guitars and churches in malls and such. Some people have a problem with it some people don't. Not everything is black and white.


The Seraph of Earth and Stone


----------



## Tahlvin

I would not allow this character in my campaign as a paladin.  Perhaps as a lawful good cavalier or fighter/cleric, but not as a paladin.  The paladin code of conduct requires respect of other beings, and I don't feel this characters use of women of ill repute is respectful to them as human (or demi-human) beings.


----------



## Romnipotent

Ill repute? They may very well be reputable! In fact Im sure Cedric wouldn't settle for anything less, I mean he's not knocking up some girl. As long as the girls aren't being abused, underpaid, drugged, dominated (spell), and the like into this work then chances are they know the business. This is there job and to slur there fine work is less respectful in a society that has legalised companionship (to spit on their trade is worse than to use it).


----------



## Jack of Shadows

Adding my 2 cents,

I have no problem with the brothel activities providing that such institutions are permitted by society (He is lawful).

My objection is that the character is built on fatalism rather than faith. Now I don't know where the character is going. If the player intended for a fallen Paladin then I would allow the character to start. Actually, thinking about it I might allow it anyway and build a story of truelly finding his faith. Nuts! How do I change my vote?

N.B. When I say faith I'm not refering to belief in a diety but rather faith in himself and his ideals.

Jack


----------



## fusangite

I've been desperately trying to figure out how to continue the dialogue within the limits the moderator has placed. I finally thought of a way. Let me ask this question of shilsen:

Why is the paladin class here being used instead of one of the numerous other holy warrior classes available in D20 material that might be a better fit for this particular lifestyle?


----------



## Romnipotent

fusangite said:
			
		

> I've been desperately trying to figure out how to continue the dialogue within the limits the moderator has placed. I finally thought of a way. Let me ask this question of shilsen:
> 
> Why is the paladin class here being used instead of one of the numerous other holy warrior classes available in D20 material that might be a better fit for this particular lifestyle?



could be a PHB restricted thing... needs faith, and divine abilities and full BAB but not a hunter like ranger deal. Gruff man with great Hutzpah


----------



## fusangite

And now to the matter of terminological clarity:

This paladin is most emphatically not a nihilist. Nihilists believe in nothing. This paladin believes in something; he just doesn't believe that he resides in an intrinsically moral universe. Existentialism is a philosophy created specifically to address this problem. While, for most of history, people have tended to believe that at some deep level, the universe shared their morality, with the advent of modern science, non-theistic individuals have had to construct belief systems in which they are moral and the universe is amoral. One might accuse the paladin of being an existentialist in that he does not believe that his moral agenda is shared by the universe in which he is situated but he is by no means a nihilist.

Secondly, premodern people usually believed that fate and free will were powerful real forces. The nature vs. nurture debates of the recent past are simply the latest iteration of the fate vs. free will debates that causes astrologers to fall in and out of favour over the past 2000 years. Often people believed strongly both that many things were fated to take place and yet, at the same time, believed strongly in the Christian idea of free will. Some cultures leaned more heavily in the direction of fate over free will than others; the pre-Christian and early Christian Norse certainly believed very strongly in the power of fate compared to their belief in free will. And yet these cultures produced some of the greatest narratives of heroism in history. So I just don't buy that belief in the power of fate makes you a bad hero. 

I would argue that the paladin archetype is one that is premise on belief in a moral universe and the power of free will and that because of cultural referrents specific to the class, the paladin's demeanour and beliefs may be problematic but this is only because the class refers to specific cultural archetypes. A lawful good, code-bound class with different or no real world cultural referrents could absolutely think this way without causing any difficulties.


----------



## shilsen

My little stinky paladin thread - it's ALIVE!!!



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> Okay, upon impassioned request we're going to give this thread one more chance. I'm going to make this perfectly clear:
> 
> *Do not discuss real world religions. That includes the history of Christianity.*
> 
> If you do, expect to be suspended. One warning should be enough, and this is the third. Refer to the "Rules" thread at the top of every forum for the specific rules at EN World.  I'm hoping that this thread can provide some additional "untraditional" ways of playing paladins, but  we're not going to tolerate any hijacking. If you'd like to discuss this with me, feel free to drop me an email.
> 
> (On that note, if anyone ever needs to reach a moderator by email all addresses are listed in a sticky thread in the Meta forum. Alternatively, reporting a post is a great way to get our attention.)




Funnily enough - even though I started this, I'm not one of the people who asked to reopen the thread. For what it's worth, Piratecat, if there's any other hijacking, please shut it down.


----------



## Tonguez

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> Adding my 2 cents,
> 
> I have no problem with the brothel activities providing that such institutions are permitted by society (He is lawful).
> 
> My objection is that the character is built on fatalism rather than faith. Now I don't know where the character is going. If the player intended for a fallen Paladin then I would allow the character to start. Actually, thinking about it I might allow it anyway and build a story of truelly finding his faith. Nuts! How do I change my vote?
> 
> N.B. When I say faith I'm not refering to belief in a diety but rather faith in himself and his ideals.
> 
> Jack




I once had a Paladin-like character (not DnD and no Paladin in the system) who was going through a crisis of faith. He truely beleived himself to be a soldier in the Army of Heaven and had earnest faith in the ArchAngel that lead said Army (and at one early point was spoken to by the ArchAngel). However due to changes elsewhere a Schism in the Church occurs the Emporer is appointed head of the 'True Church' and the ArchPrelate of the Church is stripped of her status. The Grand Inquisitor (an Order whose Patron is the aforementioned ArchAngel) then rebels calling on the faithful to join him and my chracter does so. Unfortunately he supported the losing side! and eventually the Grand Inquisitor is arested for Heresy! 

Anyway throughout this process he begins to question his faith and whether everything he was taught to beleive by the Church was true and indeed whether the gods really care about mortals. He prays to the ArchAngel but his Patron remains silent, after the Grand Inquistor is arrested he becomes cynical and fatalistic (a part from feeling persecuted lest the Imperial Guard is hunting him as an Inquistor).

Anyway the point being that Fatalism as part of a backstory should not be 'Anti-Paladin', he may not be a shining example of unswerving submission, who questions the futility of it all and waxes melancholy about the endless battle with evil and that eventually it will kill him - but even a crisis of faith shows that faith is strong. He is walking the fine line between faith and the fall but then that is the very ground that a Paladin is called to walk


----------



## shilsen

Torm said:
			
		

> I have no problem with this Paladin, provided...
> 
> So speaks Torm, The True, The Loyal Fury, God of Paladins.




Aha! The big guy's on Cedric's side. So "nyaaah!" to you nay-sayers 



			
				Romnipotent said:
			
		

> Ill repute? They may very well be reputable! In fact Im sure Cedric wouldn't settle for anything less, I mean he's not knocking up some girl. As long as the girls aren't being abused, underpaid, drugged, dominated (spell), and the like into this work then chances are they know the business. This is there job and to slur there fine work is less respectful in a society that has legalised companionship (to spit on their trade is worse than to use it).




Yup! I thought about adding a little bit about Cedric having an arrangement with the madam, whereby she uses the money he provides as a "retirement fund" to allow the prostitutes to quit the job and move on. But again, that would remove some of the tougher questions, so I didn't. 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question of shilsen:
> 
> Why is the paladin class here being used instead of one of the numerous other holy warrior classes available in D20 material that might be a better fit for this particular lifestyle?




Simple. Because I think the character concept fits within the boundaries of the PHB paladin class, which I think is generally viewed in far too limited a manner. I am explicitly not aiming to meet the paladin archetype, but simply dealing with the PHB paladin as written. To quote your previous post, "A lawful good, code-bound class with different or no real world cultural referrents could absolutely think this way without causing any difficulties." I think it's fine and dandy to play the PHB paladin without the cultural referrents it usually brings to mind. Cedric is my tabula rasa PHB paladin


----------



## Brother MacLaren

fusangite said:
			
		

> While, for most of history, people have tended to believe that at some deep level, the universe shared their morality, with the advent of modern science, non-theistic individuals have had to construct belief systems in which they are moral and the universe is amoral.



Is the D&D universe amoral?  Is a universe in which the evil gods are powerful, numerous, and theoretically quite capable of "winning" amoral?  I would say so.  In most worlds there seem to be a lot more undead, demons, and devils than their good counterparts.  The game has equally powerful deities, spells, gods, creatures, classes, and items for both Good and Evil.  Good survives only because Evil things attack each other just as often (e.g. Blood War).  Although Good has its unique champions such as Paladins, Evil has Blackguards and Assassins who are _just as powerful_. 

I also think a character only slightly less cynical than Cedric (or with different phrasing) might recognize that the final victory over the forces of darkness - the final severing of the Lower Planes from the Prime, the extermination of the last undead and the ability to create such, the redemption of the last Blackguard - will not happen in his lifetime, nor the next hundred generations.  And that it is merely his job to do what he can, hoping that he can make some slight difference.  The difference of any one man will almost certainly be so slight as to be unnoticeable from a mortal point of view, but 1000 years later Cedric's destruction of the Talisman of Ultimate Evil may prove to be important at a crucial moment.


----------



## fusangite

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Is the D&D universe amoral?




Wow! That's a subject for another thread. Now that you throw the question back at me, I cannot immediately answer. It's a great question, though. One that will plague me for the rest of the day. The closest comparison I can think of is the universe the Manicheans believed in. But was it intrinsically moral? Again, I would answer "yes" and "no."

I like the case you make below for it being amoral:



> Is a universe in which the evil gods are powerful, numerous, and theoretically quite capable of "winning" amoral?  I would say so.  In most worlds there seem to be a lot more undead, demons, and devils than their good counterparts.  The game has equally powerful deities, spells, gods, creatures, classes, and items for both Good and Evil.  Good survives only because Evil things attack each other just as often (e.g. Blood War).  Although Good has its unique champions such as Paladins, Evil has Blackguards and Assassins who are just as powerful.




So, what do people think? Is this question worth starting a thread over?


----------



## Joker[ZW]

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why is the paladin class here being used instead of one of the numerous other holy warrior classes available in D20 material that might be a better fit for this particular lifestyle?




I think its may be, because in Cedric's case the char creation process went "class ->char concept" instead of "char concept -> fitting class". 
So the decision may have been made for Cedric to be a Paladin before it was decided what his character traits should be.
As this is a RPG char it is not really important how low the chances are that a Paladin, who has a character like he has, exists. As long as the chance is above 0 Cedric is fair game.
And you know what they say about chances of 1:1 000 000


----------



## The_Universe

Sejs said:
			
		

> Sylevus - I respectfully disagree.
> 
> I don't see the problem with his brothel patronage.  He's respectful, pays, and goes above and beyond to help them out in ways other people wouldn't, just because of who or what they are.  Sure, he's horny now and then, but he never stops being a good guy thru and thru.
> 
> As for how he speaks to people; Magnus in this case - just because he's a paladin doesn't mean he has to like everyone.  Heck, I would probably have a similar reaction.  Look at how Magnus first approches the situation: sneering at the man, and then asking for his help.  Ugh, you disgust me.. please help us.
> 
> Personally, I think Sir Cedric would be just fine as a paladin in any game I ran.



 Nope. No chance. Not as a Paladin, anyway - could be a great character, but just not a Paladin.  Doesn't fit the "code" in the RAW, and certainly wouldn't fit the code for most of the Paladins in my game.


----------



## Darkness

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Doesn't fit the "code" in the RAW



 Cedric?

Please quote which article of the paladin CoC you think he violates. RAW.

Assuming his alignment stays LG, obviously.


----------



## Mallus

St. Cedric of the Cathouses....St. Cedric of the Little Flowers.... I love it. 

I wonder why some D&D players get all wound up over the Paladin class? Sure, its a more rigid archetype than say, mage. But aren't _all_ D&D class supposed to represent archtypes? A Paladin has to not only to _act_ right, but _think_ right, yet its fine to play mages like they're field-artillery pieces instead of scholars and wise-men. In fact, most mage threads around here are about making mages into _better_ field artillery pieces, not Gandalf the White, or Sparrorhawk... 

Cedric is a great character concept. He's simple, you can sum him up in one sentence "A kindly, fatalistic, whore-mongering Paladin". The mechanics are fine (and irrelevant). He's got plenty of built-in conflict (cue the pimps, heavily-armed confessors, succubai, and his paladiniacal rival, Sir Hubert, Bane of Hussies and Trouncer of Temptresses...).

Speaking as a DM, what's not to love? 

And shilsen, any chance you know of a game in Philly that could accomodate both Sir Cedric and my own Sir Gaulstaff? That could be amusing.


----------



## Torm

I've seen a lot of discussion in this thread about how you can't have a Paladin who frequents brothels. It has me thinking:
I doubt many would argue that a Paladin who was in sworn service to a king or other authority, rather than a deity, was not really a Paladin - it specifies that such is possible in the PHB: "a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Doesn't say anything about service to a deity, specifically - although admittedly that is a popular choice of authority for Paladin characters.

That said, in a society where brothels are legal, it seems to me that you could even have a Paladin in _service_ to a brothel! A warrior who respects the madame, helps her insure that operations are done honorably (in good faith), protects the women and, in some cases, clients who may be attacked during patronage, investigates and punishes those responsible for harming either outside of his presence, and possibly extends that to the families of either from time to time, at the madame's bidding.

Such a Paladin would, at the very least, be expected to be around carnal matters, and it could be argued that partaking of those things would improve his knowledge of situations he might have to investigate, and his bond with those he is in service to.

I could see such a Paladin being described as empowered by his very service, or, if a deity is desired, either Myself (it is _still_ a Duty) or possibly Sune or Her analog in a campaign.

I do believe, though, that I would find something else to bestow on this Paladin instead of a companion animal - one would want to keep the phrases "Holy Mount" and "Special Mount" as far from the gaming table as possible.


----------



## Tonguez

Lol Torm just created the Tantric Paladin PrC:O


----------



## The Sigil

I have one very simple "acid test" for whether or not a given character concept can be a paladin that has saved me much grief...

"Do you (the player) feel the need to justify the character's actions?"

Everything about this character - from the write-up to the fact that it was submitted for a vote to the fact that you're challenging the paladin class by saying "there's nothing in the PHB that says I _can't_ do it this way (a classic rules-lawyer technique to follow the letter but not the spirit of the rules) - says, "yes, I need to justify the character's actions."

And of course the answer to the acid test is: "if you feel the need to justify the way the character is acting, he is *absolutely not* paladin material."

A fascinating character?  Yes.  
A beautiful example of smart role-playing?  Absolutely.  
A great thought-provoking look at the life of a paladin?  Darn straight.
A fallen paladin, disillusioned with his lot?  Sure.
A faithful paladin with all the perks that accompany that?  As Sir Cedric would say, "**** no."

However, it should also be noted that I find Sir Cedric "morally wanting" as a paladin on more fronts than just the "acid test."  Does a paladin IMC have to be a perfect paragon of holiness?  *No.*  Drinking and swearing as Sir Cedric does could probably get by - provided the paladin recognizes and acknowledges these as weaknesses/faults in his character.  

Part of being a paladin is not "being" a paragon of lawful-good-ness so much as "attempting to be a paragon of lawful-good-ness" - one of the principle themes throughout literature is the "flawed hero" and that's okay... but as someone trying to be a paragon of virtue, a paladin can have flaws (he's human), but he shouldn't revel in them (he's supposed to represent virtue, not vice).  *Sir Cedric revels in his moral flaws*.  Sir Cedric does not acknowlege his vices as faults that ought to be corrected (heck, he could go to the grave swearing and that's cool, provided he's not proud of it and keeps getting upset with himself for slipping), and that's a problem for me.  It's not that he isn't a paragon of lawful-good; such a standard is impossible to bear.  My problem is that he's no longer even "trying to be a paragon of lawful-good-ness" - and as such he falls short of meeting the paladin's code* (see end of my post).  

I don't see a paladin, as a dedicated foe of evil, as someone who will not only accept, but revel in evil in his own nature; rather, I see him as someone who is disappointed by his own imperfection and while he knows he's not perfect, and may not revile himself because he knows he is flawed, he certainly doesn't *embrace* his own evil nature.  In fact, in classic fantasy literature, *it is usually the moment when the paladin ceases to struggle overcome his flaws and embraces them instead that he falls from paladinhood.* 

For instance, Sir Lancelot was one example of an archetypal paladin, even to the point of the "lay on hands" ability - and in the Arthurian legneds, so long as he struggled with his weakness (his appetite for Guinevere), he kept his paladinhood and honor; but when he finally gave in to his weakness, he fell from grace.  Note that it's not the "affair" per se with Guinevere that caused the fall - he, along with many of the other knights, was somewhat promiscuous if I recall the legends correctly; in fact, if memory serves, Galahad was his son by an illicit relationship - but in Lancelot's "giving up the struggle with self," he lost his honor.

Sir Cedric, by the fiction piece, appears to have given up the struggle with self to overcome inner weakness and appetites he acknowledges are wrong.  Over and above the "acid test" that tells me he's not paladin material.

(I know, I know, "prostitution, etc. is/isn't evil because of moral absolutism/relativism" but the original piece had the tone that prostitution was not seen as "good" and while Cedric acknowledges this, he doesn't care... that's another rant entirely - my point is, in the fiction piece, Cedric seems to acknowledge he has moral flaws from his own point of view but embraces them instead of rejecting them, and that doesn't "jive" with my thoughts on paladinhood.)

Would I allow the character in my game?  Yes (perhaps minus the sexual elements depending on the other players, as others have suggested).
Is the character a paladin in my game?  No.  

Slightly OT - The thread title is misleading... it suggests the character IS a paladin without room for debate - when it should be asking "is the character a paladin."  You've "led" your audience to the conclusion you obviously want - to vote that he is a paladin - by your framing of the question, so the Yes/No data is flawed. 

*WITH REGARD TO "DOES THIS VIOLATE RULES-AS-WRITTEN PALADIN'S CODE?"

Remember the little bit about "acting honorably" in the paladin's code?  Yes, it's honorable to "fight the good fight" - but that consists of fighting it on all fronts.  You can't choose only to "fight the good fight" without (i.e., physical combat with undead, demons, devils, etc.) and surrender the "good fight" within (embrace your vices) as Cedric has and claim you're fighting the good fight... he's not honoring his beliefs by not trying to live them.  He's not honoring his "calling" as a paladin (in fact, he seems to despise it a bit).  He's not honoring himself by trying to rise above his weaknesses.

I know, "in his campaign brothels MIGHT be..." - but re-read the fiction piece.  It's implied that brothels are not an honorable place and Cedric knows it.  It's implied that swearing and drinking are not honorable pastimes and Cedric knows it.  If he's not acting honorably, ESPECIALLY if he knows it and tacitly acknowledges, and even MORE ESPECIALLY if he embraces the practices and shows no desire to change, then by definition he's not living up to one of the points of the paladin code!

--The Sigil


----------



## beeber

i voted "undecided" back when this was a four-page thread.  now up to 8 pages, i'd change my vote to "yes."  two reasons:

1.  if he doesn't violate RAW, then it's fine.  most paladins are way too stereotypical sticks-in-the-mud, and Mallus's reference to wizards as field artillery pieces as opposed to scholars reinforced this view.  it's all variations on a theme.

2.  this is a FANTASY game.  anything is possible.  i like *some* realism in my fantasy.  if i wanted a truly realistic game, then i wouldn't be playing d&d.  

p.s. i wonder how different the poll results would be if we could remove the "i wouldn't allow it because of my younger players" results.  i mean, that's kind of obvious.  who would run a game with such mature themes and young, impressionable kids?


----------



## enrious

If this character is a termed a "paladin", then the word paladin has lost any value as a meaningful descriptor.


----------



## fusangite

Sigil,

That was one brilliant post! You're right. What I should have paid more attention to is the reaction of the other person in the story. He, not the paladin, functions are the indicator of the moral standards of the society in which the paladin in situated. 

Your statement about the need to struggle against feelings and behaviours one knows to be wrong is also helpful. The paladin, as written, does seem to suspect that he is not living up the the highest-possible standard. 

Thanks for that great write-up. I'm so glad the thread stayed open so I could read it.


----------



## Sylevus

If we analyze per the PHB description of a paladin.... with selected excerpts.

"Few have the purity and devotion..."

Cedric is lacking in both...  A rough edged paladin still needs a purity of purpose, and some sort of devotion.   

.. "those few are rewarded"..

Hence recommending fighter/cleric to maintain the concept..

"Even a mundane mission ...is an opportunity..to demonstrate bravery"

Brave and consigned are not the same thing.   He is consigned, but not very brave.

"Becoming a paladin is answering a call..."

Some have ventured that Cedric is forced to act, that is not the same as answering a call.   As a cleric/fighter he can still answer the compulsion to act, and perform all the tasks listed in the character description.

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

The issue of prostitution has to be handled per the class description, because we are asked in general if the character is acceptable.   Rule zero always applies, but as a general look at paladins indulging in prostitutes without any guilt about doing so is not quite right.   Considering the manners and temperament of most who would, the number of conflicts caused by him protecting the girls would almost outway the benefit of having him.  Especially if it affected overall business.   The average madame cares about the health of her girls, but the profits more so.   Turnover is a given in that industry.

That being said, I think his endorsing the business contributes to the delinquency and harm of the staff, and his failure to act in any circumstance where someone is threatened/harmed would be grounds for losing his powers.

Legalized prostitution can be lawful, but is rarely good.   A high class establishment would have temple priests of some pro-sex deity to care for the girls, they would not cater long to a surly paladin...  Therefore he has to be acting from the lower class establishments..bringing in all the above conflicts.


"Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

In this case moral code is not adequately defined.   Without a specific deity or pantheon brought into play we can not tell if he SHOULD be morally outraged by the conduct.   Given the controlling nature of the sex industry/slavery implications, associating with a house of ill repute does not examplify purity or devotion.   Its been mentioned that his bleak outlook shows little faith...  

All in all I can not see anything that justifies him being a paladin.

The character concept is acceptable, but hopefully has room for growth. Perhaps over time he can redeem his lack of faith.   "No one, no matter how diligent can become a paladin through practice.  The nature is either within one or not".   You are effectively creating a fallen paladin out the gate.   Questing for/finding a cause for redemption would be a pretty epic goal for this character.   A sharp player can tease his adventuring group with glimmers of who Cedric could be.   

Eventually, after finding a cause and potentially risking self-sacrifice you could acchieve paladinhood and as a DM I would gladly exchange previous classes for paladin levels with the caveat that should he fall into old practices, the old character sheet comes back out.   

Overall players fail as paladins because they give in to the baser instincts.   Geez, my paladin has to go along or I have to kill the party.   Heck no!  LEAD!!!  Inspire!  Be a hero!  Guilt them in to doing the right thing!  Don't obsess over killing the enemies of your faith too much, that is your calling after all.   

But for all the people clamoring about how a devout paladin is boring because its so stereotypical... can't we say the same for all the chaotic neutral badass attitudes today?  Sorry, I am in the game to have a good time, not get away with things I know better than to do in real life.   (Same players HATE it when you apply realistic reactions to said behaviors in game...)


----------



## shilsen

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I have one very simple "acid test" for whether or not a given character concept can be a paladin that has saved me much grief...
> 
> "Do you (the player) feel the need to justify the character's actions?"
> 
> Everything about this character - from the write-up to the fact that it was submitted for a vote to the fact that you're challenging the paladin class by saying "there's nothing in the PHB that says I _can't_ do it this way (a classic rules-lawyer technique to follow the letter but not the spirit of the rules) - says, "yes, I need to justify the character's actions."
> 
> And of course the answer to the acid test is: "if you feel the need to justify the way the character is acting, he is *absolutely not* paladin material."




Actually I'm primarily a DM, so I've mainly been thinking about the character from a DM perspective, and a player wouldn't have to justify it any more than any other paladin concept in my game. And I don't think the actions need justification. But I know many DMs/players have assumptions about the paladin which runs far beyond the PHB paladin as written, so I thought it would be an interesting experiment to see how the ENWorld community views it. And how they justify not allowing it 



> However, it should also be noted that I find Sir Cedric "morally wanting" as a paladin on more fronts than just the "acid test."  Does a paladin IMC have to be a perfect paragon of holiness?  *No.*  Drinking and swearing as Sir Cedric does could probably get by - provided the paladin recognizes and acknowledges these as weaknesses/faults in his character.
> 
> ...
> 
> (I know, I know, "prostitution, etc. is/isn't evil because of moral absolutism/relativism" but the original piece had the tone that prostitution was not seen as "good" and while Cedric acknowledges this, he doesn't care... that's another rant entirely - my point is, in the fiction piece, Cedric seems to acknowledge he has moral flaws from his own point of view but embraces them instead of rejecting them, and that doesn't "jive" with my thoughts on paladinhood.)
> 
> ...
> 
> I know, "in his campaign brothels MIGHT be..." - but re-read the fiction piece.  It's implied that brothels are not an honorable place and Cedric knows it.  It's implied that swearing and drinking are not honorable pastimes and Cedric knows it.  If he's not acting honorably, ESPECIALLY if he knows it and tacitly acknowledges, and even MORE ESPECIALLY if he embraces the practices and shows no desire to change, then by definition he's not living up to one of the points of the paladin code!




This is another of the places where I intentionally left out a little clarification. I visualized Cedric as aware that there is nothing intrinsically dishonorable about frequenting brothels, swearing or drinking, and being more than a little amused at Magnus' unthinking acceptance of the conventional attitudes. The last part of the diatribe would have involved a paragraph or so showing what Cedric was thinking, which would have involved amusement at Magnus' probable response as well as at the fact that his actions might be seen as inimical to the code even though he knows with complete certainty that they are not. 

Perhaps I should write a version with all the 'answers' in there, sometime.



> Slightly OT - The thread title is misleading... it suggests the character IS a paladin without room for debate - when it should be asking "is the character a paladin."  You've "led" your audience to the conclusion you obviously want - to vote that he is a paladin - by your framing of the question, so the Yes/No data is flawed.




Hey, I'm the DM - I already decided he works as a paladin


----------



## Mallus

The Sigil said:
			
		

> A fascinating character?  Yes.



It certainly is...  


> A beautiful example of smart role-playing?  Absolutely.



Indeed...  


> A great thought-provoking look at the life of a paladin?  Darn straight.



Here, here!


> A fallen paladin, disillusioned with his lot?  Sure.



Wait a minute, I thought this was a thought-provoking look at the life of a paladin?


> A faithful paladin with all the perks that accompany that?  As Sir Cedric would say, "**** no."



What perks are you talking about? You don't mean the paladin power set, do you? The sole 'perk' I can see for this character is the RPiing situations that shilsen described on page 1. 

Why is the abstract notion of 'paladin' somehow more important than actually having a 'facinating, smart, and thought-provoking' one in play? 

I just don't get that... Its like you're standing on principle, but for the life of me, I can't identify what that principle is... what are you supposed to _do_ with the game, if not create fascinating characters full of dramatic potential??


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> And shilsen, any chance you know of a game in Philly that could accomodate both Sir Cedric and my own Sir Gaulstaff? That could be amusing.




Alas, I wouldn't count on it. I'm just joining a group in Philly city, where I won't be DMing, and I can't see Cedric working there. And my other group plays across the border in NJ, and though that could accomodate Cedric and Gaulstaff, that's because I'm DMing.


----------



## Torm

It occurs to me that, aside from the reactions of one rather young, and possibly naive, member of his order, we have no idea what the rest of the order looks like - possibly the ranking officials of the order are incredibly corrupt, and maybe our pal Cedric is aware of that fact. "He's a drunken pervert - and _he's_ the good guy!" Perhaps he hasn't lost his Paladin abilities, not because he doesn't deserve to under normal circumstances, but instead because his deity sees him as the good heart in a bad time that will ultimately repair the order?


----------



## Mallus

Sylevus said:
			
		

> But for all the people clamoring about how a devout paladin is boring because its so stereotypical... can't we say the same for all the chaotic neutral badass attitudes today?



We could, we'd be right, but we'd also be missing the point. We're talking about one character whose outlook and motivation were clearly laid out on page 1. Do you find Cedric to be a poorly conceived character?


> Sorry, I am in the game to have a good time, not get away with things I know better than to do in real life.



You mean like using lethal violence to solve most of your problems? You don't do _that_ when you game? Sounds a little dull...


----------



## enrious

Ok, I'm convinced.  Let's redefine "paladin" to mean "any drunken lech with an overdeveloped libido, with any alignment,  who happens to serve as an example to everyone what happens when you mix venereal disease and hangovers with cure disease and lay on hands. Said paladin also serves as an example of his faith, whenever he's sober enough to remember to do so."

Since we now have paladins acting as the "blessed" of their dieties/forces of belief, we can dispense with the cleric class.

I'm not making the mistake I did with 3.0, I'm getting into the 4.0 class changes from the ground floor.


----------



## Sylevus

To Mallus...

I posted a very long post addressing Cedric..   You counter with two paragraphs at the bottom addressing other comments that have appeared in the thread.   Read more IMHO.


For the OP...

You have already rule zero'd, then you post a character without the given context, then you want generic opinions on the appropriateness.   That takes it from a what if to a troll post.   You have a preordained "right" conclusion already in mind without providing everyone else the same info.   If you look up I admit that Rule Zero is always a possibility and more power to you.

On the other hand you act as if the objections to the character are based on more than the PHB definition.   Please see above where I put in objections that are based 100% around the PHB definition.... for the sake of debate shall we say..


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

Honestly, the only thing that is really borderline non-Paladin by the RAW is how defeatist he is. This character could work just fine if he was a bit more confident in what he was fighting for, it'd be no problem. 

The only other thing that could possibly disqualify him from being a Paladin is that by some people's definitions, he isn't acting honorably. But this is subjective, in the end. Not only to the DM and players in the game, but to the order the Paladin belongs to, whether it be a church or another group of knights.


----------



## nopantsyet

Yes.

 And it's about the only kind of Paladin I'll allow. Not that every one has to be that particular brand, but I will not have another would-be Lancelot playing up the Victorian notion of honor. Please! Any Paladin that doesn't experience any conflict from the extreme dichotomy of his nature is not a Paladin--he is an extremist.

 The rules only say the Paladin has to uphold a code of conduct. Nowhere does it say which one, or what types of restrictions it entails. Moreover, nowhere does it say that the code of honor of the order is the same as that expected by the god. Plenty of religious groups take on stricter interpretations that are expressly doctrinal. That does not make the stricter interpretation the correct one. It simply makes it the conventions of the order, which the Paladin is not required to follow.

  So the order on a whole very well _could_ follow those strict tenets. Sir Cedric is the incomprehensible mystery. He flouts those conventions, but still is empowered by the god. Maybe he even has greater gifts than other members of the order. Maybe there are some tasks at which only he of the whole order can succeed. And neither he nor they understand why.

 The most important thing that is missing is a solid backstory explaining how he came into his Paladinhood. Did he run from his calling in the pattern of Jonah, only to finally yield after being tormented by his god, then finally accede defiantly, "I'll do your work and follow your word, but you will have no hold over that part that is not yours!" Some would say that's not a true Paladin. I say read a book about the called of god that dates back before the 19th century. The further the better.


----------



## Torm

Mallus said:
			
		

> You mean like using lethal violence to solve most of your problems? You don't do _that_ when you game? Sounds a little dull...



No, no, no - you've got it exactly backwards. He's saying that he _does_ use lethal violence to solve most of his problems _in real life_! I'd tread lightly in arguing with him, if I were you!

(j/k, obviously - _I hope_  .)


----------



## The Sigil

Mallus said:
			
		

> What perks are you talking about? You don't mean the paladin power set, do you?



That is precisely what I mean.  The "perk" of being immune to disease, the "perk" of being able to heal, you know all the "class abilities" that make the paladin a "paladin" and not a "fighter/cleric."



> The sole 'perk' I can see for this character is the RPiing situations that shilsen described on page 1.
> 
> Why is the abstract notion of 'paladin' somehow more important than actually having a 'facinating, smart, and thought-provoking' one in play?



Because this character is not a paladin (IMO).  I think you're starting backwards... you're starting by deciding, "I will take a paladin" and asking, "what is his motivation and role-playing potential?"  What you *should* be doing is deciding, "I will take a character with this motivation and role-playing potential" and *then* asking, "is he a paladin?"

Simply put, certain things will disqualify a character from certain career paths.  The character with a 4 Intelligence and 17 Strength is, in effect, barred from pursuing the wizard's path because he simply cannot figure out how to cast spells.  Similarly, a lawful alignment might preclude one from being a barbarian.  A player whose "background and motivation" causes him to eschew the wilderness is not cut out to be a druid.

What I'm doing is looking at an interesting, thought-provoking character, and asking myself, "is he a paladin?"  No... in the very same way someone who is scared of the arcane and refuses to have anything to do with it is simply not a sorcerer.  He may be a fascinating character to role-play, but he's no sorcerer.  He's just not cut out for sorcery, because he would flat-out reject the tenets of the sorcerer class.

I'm not sure yet how to directly address your point about "holding 'paladin' as more important than 'smart, fascinating, thought-provoking character'" - all I can do is point to the paragraphs above and say, "it's not that I think you have to do X and Y to somehow 'qualify' for a class; rather, I think that your choice of X and Y in character concept 'disqualifies you' from certain classes."  In other words, it's not that "paladin" is more important than "smart, thought-provoking, fascinating character," but rather that the personality chosen for Sir Cedric removes "paladin" from the list of choices that can further define/round out his character.  I will probably figure out exactly what I want to say at 2 am this morning, but hopefully my point comes across - it's not that "paladin" is some excruciating standard that "character concept" must be sacrificed to; rather, "character concept" is an excruciating standard to which the option to have the class of "paladin" must sometimes be sacrificed.


> I just don't get that... Its like you're standing on principle, but for the life of me, I can't identify what that principle is... what are you supposed to _do_ with the game, if not create fascinating characters full of dramatic potential??



The character is full of dramatic potential, and I love the character.  I just don't see him as a paladin because of who he is.  You can't make a character however you want and then haphazardly slap the "paladin" or "wizard" or "fighter" or "bard" or "whatever" class on him... because the combination is completely intellectually dissonant.  If you're going to base a character on a concept, you need to make the character and THEN look at him and ask, "what class describes him best?"  

--The Sigil


----------



## shilsen

Sylevus said:
			
		

> For the OP...
> 
> You have already rule zero'd, then you post a character without the given context, then you want generic opinions on the appropriateness.   That takes it from a what if to a troll post.   You have a preordained "right" conclusion already in mind without providing everyone else the same info.   If you look up I admit that Rule Zero is always a possibility and more power to you.




Sorry you think this is/was a troll. The reason I posted and made it a poll was because I was curious to see people's opinions/responses and because I thought it would make for an interesting discussion (which, on the whole, I think we've been having - except when a few people take exception to others' opinions). And I'm really not concerned about persuading anybody that my opinion about the character is "right". As for the context, part was left out to create more ambiguity and basis for discussion/analysis and partly because it would have been really, really long if I added more.



> On the other hand you act as if the objections to the character are based on more than the PHB definition.   Please see above where I put in objections that are based 100% around the PHB definition.... for the sake of debate shall we say..




Fair enough. 



> If we analyze per the PHB description of a paladin.... with selected excerpts.
> 
> "Few have the purity and devotion..."
> 
> Cedric is lacking in both... A rough edged paladin still needs a purity of purpose, and some sort of devotion.




I figure this is subjective. I don't see anything about him lacking either. His purpose is still to do what all other paladins do. He just also happens to some things they don't. And he's devoted to his deity. 



> "Even a mundane mission ...is an opportunity..to demonstrate bravery"
> 
> Brave and consigned are not the same thing. He is consigned, but not very brave.




I'm not sure what you mean by consigned (which generally means to be handed over into someone else's hands/control/care). Do you mean he's consigned to his deity's care or the paladin's path? I don't see where he's not brave. He's not stupid, yes, since he realises there are things out there which he cannot defeat, but he will fight them nevertheless. Seems brave to me.



> "Becoming a paladin is answering a call..."
> 
> Some have ventured that Cedric is forced to act, that is not the same as answering a call. As a cleric/fighter he can still answer the compulsion to act, and perform all the tasks listed in the character description.




I'd see him as choosing to answer the call, while being fully cognizant of what it entails.



> "Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
> 
> The issue of prostitution has to be handled per the class description, because we are asked in general if the character is acceptable. Rule zero always applies, but as a general look at paladins indulging in prostitutes without any guilt about doing so is not quite right. Considering the manners and temperament of most who would, the number of conflicts caused by him protecting the girls would almost outway the benefit of having him. Especially if it affected overall business. The average madame cares about the health of her girls, but the profits more so. Turnover is a given in that industry.
> 
> That being said, I think his endorsing the business contributes to the delinquency and harm of the staff, and his failure to act in any circumstance where someone is threatened/harmed would be grounds for losing his powers.
> 
> Legalized prostitution can be lawful, but is rarely good. A high class establishment would have temple priests of some pro-sex deity to care for the girls, they would not cater long to a surly paladin... Therefore he has to be acting from the lower class establishments..bringing in all the above conflicts.




So as long as the girls are not being harmed or enslaved, and he makes sure to protect the staff while present, that would be fine, right?



> In this case moral code is not adequately defined. Without a specific deity or pantheon brought into play we can not tell if he SHOULD be morally outraged by the conduct. Given the controlling nature of the sex industry/slavery implications, associating with a house of ill repute does not examplify purity or devotion. Its been mentioned that his bleak outlook shows little faith...




All in all, considering his response to and interaction(however limited) with the girls and madam, evidently they do not offend his moral code.



> All in all I can not see anything that justifies him being a paladin.




As I said before, fair enough. I'm just mentioning my take on it for the purposes of discussion.



> The character concept is acceptable, but hopefully has room for growth. Perhaps over time he can redeem his lack of faith. "No one, no matter how diligent can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not". You are effectively creating a fallen paladin out the gate. Questing for/finding a cause for redemption would be a pretty epic goal for this character. A sharp player can tease his adventuring group with glimmers of who Cedric could be.




Actually I was shooting for a paladin who's achieved the perfect (or, according to some, perfectly imperfect ) balance. He has a completely open-eyed understanding of what he does. He knows he is just one good man in an inimical universe. He knows his actions are quite likely to be futile in the long run. And he still chooses to act as he should, simply because it is what he should. How much more moral can you get?


----------



## Arcane Runes Press

I'd allow him as a paladin, so long as he was played well, and his clued-in burnout schtick wasn't used to justify an anything goes play style.

Heck, I kinda like the guy. He's a good hearted curmudgeon.


----------



## The Sigil

shilsen said:
			
		

> This is another of the places where I intentionally left out a little clarification. I visualized Cedric as aware that there is nothing intrinsically dishonorable about frequenting brothels, swearing or drinking, and being more than a little amused at Magnus' unthinking acceptance of the conventional attitudes.



I had some inkling that this is where you were headed - the "experienced" religionist who knows precisely which are the "core" values of the faith and which are optional "traditions" added on to that core being amused by a fresh-faced zealot who hasn't had the experience yet to tell the difference.  However, I'm genuinely curious... if frequenting brothels, swearing, and drinking is not seen as dishonorable, what IS seen as dishonorable?  The list in the PHB was, I think, to be an exemplary list, not an exhaustive one... is the entirety of his code only those things specifically called out in the PHB?  (i.e., "respect legitimate authority, don't lie, don't cheat, don't use poison, help those in need, punish those who harm or threaten innocents").

As an aside, I might note that brothels by their nature might be construed to harm or threaten innocents - most who worked in brothels did not start in brothels as their first choice of careers; most (not all) started out as innocents being exploited and potentially diseased (harmed) by their work, which ill fortune or ill friends often forced them into.  If you're desperate to pay the rent, even if you "say" you're willing, is not some coersion and harm therefore involved?

I can see the argument that swearing and drinking do not harm or threaten innocents, but I'll be honest - I have a very hard time stomaching the idea that the madame of every brothel in your world does not fall under the "harming or threatening innocents" umbrella (yes, I can imagine a very promiscuous society where it's a prestigious profession and every single prostitute grew up dreaming of becoming a prostitute and the damsels are treated to as many cure disease spells as they wish, but I really doubt that's even the exception to the rule, let alone the norm).



> The last part of the diatribe would have involved a paragraph or so showing what Cedric was thinking, which would have involved amusement at Magnus' probable response as well as at the fact that his actions might be seen as inimical to the code even though he knows with complete certainty that they are not.
> 
> Perhaps I should write a version with all the 'answers' in there, sometime.



I would be very curious to see that diatribe, provided it pointed out was was "inimical to the code."  Truly.  I want to try to wrap my head around it. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Romnipotent

People keep jumping to a lack of faith, not maintaining a code, and many other things. I would love this level of character description and flavour in my games. Not many deities have abstinence, celebacy, and such as domains and most expect their Paladin to die in a cause or have kids. The main arguement people have with Cedric is, as stated, a *subjective* standpoint on the actions and limited knowledge we have of him and his surroundings. WE have a glimpse of his downtime, just like Magnus does, and we throw a spanner into the idea that he isn't honourable, faithful, brave, et cetera ad nauseum. 
If a paladin went to church and prayed for the 5 weeks of downtime it would be a simple passover, nothing exactly exciting there. A Fighter may very well act without restraint and be able to go to a brothel, but in an objective aspect so can the Paladin.
Strip away the ideas that drikning is bad, swearing if soul, and prositution is wrong; and you end up with someone supporting the local community who has more respect for the girls than many other clients.

I can't think of anything better for a Paladin to do in his downtime but to spread some legs and the word. The ladies of Catherines establishment respect or at least know Cedric, hes a kind person all up. They know who he serves and that means the girls see signs that they can trust a man of Torm, St Cuthbert or whoever. In fact Cedric probably has more effect spiritually on the girls than a ranting new age ideals evangelist with some bent on a probably time old and essential service.

Just a little bit of information, many societies we base our games off had houses of burlesque, no matter how monogomous the society, there would be a farm house or abandoned keep/cathedral somewhere locals and officials would go to enjoy an orgy, of cheese fondue and grapes. More often than not the ideals many western modern societies hold for sexual trades were not and not expected to be imposed on older societies. I cant drag realworld religion into this but thats what it is, realworld religions are the main progenitors against prostitution. It is, and often has been, the cleanest way to get casual relations, something only a few species do. 

On a game mechanics side there are many classes in the BoEF from Valar press that are sexual based prestige classes, some even heal. If you haven't read it because its "smut" or the like then I can understand why you dont like Cedric. (not having a go at anyone, just saying there could be a corellation)


----------



## Mallus

The Sigil said:
			
		

> The "perk" of being immune to disease, the "perk" of being able to heal, you know all the "class abilities" that make the paladin a "paladin" and not a "fighter/cleric"



What I was getting at is paladins are supposed to be balanced without regard to their code of conduct. The don't get 'perks' for following behavioral restrcitions any more than a fighter does.


> I think you're starting backwards... you're starting by deciding, "I will take a paladin" and asking, "what is his motivation and role-playing potential?" What you *should* be doing is deciding, "I will take a character with this motivation and role-playing potential" and *then* asking, "is he a paladin?"



There really isn't any *should* here... any process that gets you to an interesting character is the right one. 
IMHO, he has to be a paladin, in the same way a "bad cop" PC for modern game would have to be a police officer. 

If you decide Cedric is an interesting character, then you have to allow his central conceit; the fact he's a fully-charged, non-fallen paladin. If not its a totally different character.


> The character is full of dramatic potential, and I love the character.  I just don't see him as a paladin because of who he is.



You can't explore a conflict over what it means to be a paladin (Cedric core story) without making him a paladin. In same way you can't explore being a crippled Vietnam vet if your protagonist is one of the Teletubbies. OK, maybe you could, but it would be inane...


> You can't make a character however you want and then haphazardly slap the "paladin" or "wizard" or "fighter" or "bard" or "whatever" class on him... because the combination is completely intellectually dissonant.



Cedric isn't the equivalent of a mage who's too thick to learn a spell. Implying that what shilsen outlined is somehow haphazard is a bit intellectually dishonest (and I wish I knew what "intellectually dissonant", I must involve sound ...). Cedric (arguably) deviates from baseline paladin in _one_ area; and shilsen provided a damn good rationale for it from the characters point of view. If you can explain a character in a way that makes good (dramatic) sense to me, then the rules, whatever they say, are at best a secondary concern.


----------



## The Sigil

Mallus said:
			
		

> Cedric is designed around the conflict between his carnality and the more commonly orthodox doctrine of his religion (with the tension coming from "who's right?). IMHO, he has to be a paladin, in the same way someone making a "bad cop" PC for modern game would have to be a police officer.



*shrugs* Perhaps I think that Cedric is NOT designed around the conflict between his carnality and the more commonly orthodox doctrine of his religion because _there is no question in his own mind_.  Cedric is not an example of conflict in and of himself; rather, he only creates tension when he has to deal with another member of his religion.  Big difference.  This is no different then creating an "elf who likes dwarves and hates elves - except himself" because the character's personality does nothing mind-stretching by itself - it requires someone else to tease the mind-stretching out.

If Cedric was exploring the conflict within himself, I might give him the benefit of the doubt and let him be cast as a paladin.  But as I have mentioned before, in the snippet we were given, his habits are described as vices and his reaction really didn't show that he didn't think they weren't vices, but rather he has no problems succumbing to the appetites of the flesh ("if I want the comfort of a drink or of legs wrapped around me, I deserve it" or whatever the exact phrase was).  

In my mind, now that Cedric has not only surrendered to his carnal desires, but embraces them, makes him a *fallen paladin* - not because he's slipped and fallen (as all in the human condition do) but because he has no desire to "get back up and try again."  There's simply no two ways about that.  So here we have someone who has not even the desire to control his appetites (not a particularly lawful trait) and who engages in behavior most would consider dishonorable (probably neither a good nor a lawful one)... everything about this character screams "neutral" - cares for others (good), but also makes sure he gets what he wants (evil).  Does whatever he wants in his private life (chaotic) while doing what duty requires (lawful).  That balance suggests "neutral."

Now you're telling me that paladins are LG and only LG... but this character, who seems to be Neutral, is a paladin.  That creates "intellectual dissonance" (by which I mean sending mixed signals that pain the mind when you try to comprehend both at once - or that which happens when you try to engage in "doublethink" for you Orwell fans).



> You can't explore a conflict over what it means to be a paladin (Cedric core story) without making him a paladin. In same way you can't explore being a crippled Vietnam vet if your protagonist is one of the Teletubbies. OK, maybe you could, but it would be inane...



Bullocks, followed by a straw man.  What better way to explore the conflict over what it means to be a paladin than by having an "ex-paladin" - the one who has seen BOTH sides of the coin (being and not being a paladin)?  Someone who has only seen one side (a paladin) cannot truly know what it means to be a paladin because he hasn't experienced life without it, right (we do not know what we have until it is lost and all that)?  Casting Sir Cedric as a fighter/cleric, a pure cleric, a pure fighter, or even an ex-paladin still allows you to explore what is a paladin... by exploring the character who is "not quite a paladin" and seeing where he falls short!  You can come at the limits of paladinhood from the other side, you know!



> Cedric is hardly the equivalent of a mage who's too thick to learn a spell. Implying that what shilsen outlined is somehow haphazard is intellectually dishonest (and I wish I knew what "intellectually dissonant meant"...). It (arguably) deviated from paladin in _one_ area; and he provided a damn good rationale for it from the characters point of view.



No, Cedric is the equivalent of a character who thinks magic is evil, spooky, and doesn't like the fact that things can just appear out of thin air, and refuses to have anything to do with the supernatural... and oh, by the way, is a sorcerer.  Simply put, a character like that, even if he had latent sorcerer powers, would refuse to use them and take another career path!  Or a devout atheist... who just happens to be a high priest receiving great blessings because of his faith in his deity.  It simply doesn't work without causing headaches!  

You're using fiat to overrule common sense.  In some ways, the paladin class (along with every other class), is not a buffet where you can pick and choose what you want; it is an ensemble meal, all parts of which you must accept.  With a sorcerer, you must accept that at some level, the character accepts magic and is willing to use it.  With a bard, you accept that the character not only has some musical talent, but uses it.  With a paladin, you accept that the character must be lawful good and adhere to a code of conduct and everything that goes with it.  You can't just discard the code of conduct or the LG alignment because "it doesn't fit the character you want to create."  

(Maybe I'm just a bit sensitive about this point because it seems like every single player I've ever gamed with who wants a "thought-provoking paladin" really wants "a paladin without the goofy alignment restriction whom I can play as CN/CE.")

Similarly, Cedric's attitudes suggest that he could not have stayed on the path of paladinhood for long, if at all, since not only did he succumb to the appetites of the flesh (a chaotic trait), he doesn't really see any point of fighting off those appetites.  He simply doesn't believe in some of the principles I see as being core to a paladin (for instance, the lawful good alignment, to me, implies some measure of self-discipline, which he obviously does not want to practice... well, if you don't want to practice that, you're not LG, and therefore not a paladin).

All of this is IMO, YMMV, etc. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Desdichado

fusangite said:
			
		

> Why is the paladin class here being used instead of one of the numerous other holy warrior classes available in D20 material that might be a better fit for this particular lifestyle?



And why is it that you think the paladin class is a lesser fit for this particular archetype?  Nothing in the core rules describing the paladin class precludes it.


----------



## dzeeman

*Judeo-Christian Paladins vs. Pagan Paladins?*

I would definitely allow such a Paladin in my campaign, as it would make him (or her!) more three-dimensional.  As long as their deity doesn't have any issues with it, why should the Paladin?  Who says they have to be celibate, anyhow?  Who says he (or she!) isn't in love with one prostitute in particular, and sees only her?

Interestingly enough, by condemning the Paladin, we're also condemning the prostitute.  Who's to say she isn't good and kind and decent, just fallen on hard times, with no recourse.

David


----------



## shilsen

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I had some inkling that this is where you were headed - the "experienced" religionist who knows precisely which are the "core" values of the faith and which are optional "traditions" added on to that core being amused by a fresh-faced zealot who hasn't had the experience yet to tell the difference.




That pretty much hits the nail on the head.



> However, I'm genuinely curious... if frequenting brothels, swearing, and drinking is not seen as dishonorable, what IS seen as dishonorable?  The list in the PHB was, I think, to be an exemplary list, not an exhaustive one... is the entirety of his code only those things specifically called out in the PHB?  (i.e., "respect legitimate authority, don't lie, don't cheat, don't use poison, help those in need, punish those who harm or threaten innocents").




I think this is one of the core areas where we disagree. I do see the list in the PHB as an exhaustive one, rather than an exemplary one. As soon as one goes beyond the PHB list is that it then becomes a question of personal interpretation of what is "honorable", and raises all sorts of questions, e.g. can a paladin sneak attack someone or use a bow against someone with a sword? One of the reasons I've been mentioning the RAW often is because I am specifically trying not to work beyond it here. Obviously, many other people do so with the paladin as a class.



> As an aside, I might note that brothels by their nature might be construed to harm or threaten innocents - most who worked in brothels did not start in brothels as their first choice of careers; most (not all) started out as innocents being exploited and potentially diseased (harmed) by their work, which ill fortune or ill friends often forced them into.  If you're desperate to pay the rent, even if you "say" you're willing, is not some coersion and harm therefore involved?




No arguments there, though I wouldn't apply it as a blanket category as much as you are. As long as it is not a case of someone being forced into the the profession, there is some degree of choice. The degree to which it is coercion gets into issues of economics, social class, society, religion, etc. which I think are too expansive for this discussion.   



> I can see the argument that swearing and drinking do not harm or threaten innocents, but I'll be honest - I have a very hard time stomaching the idea that the madame of every brothel in your world does not fall under the "harming or threatening innocents" umbrella (yes, I can imagine a very promiscuous society where it's a prestigious profession and every single prostitute grew up dreaming of becoming a prostitute and the damsels are treated to as many cure disease spells as they wish, but I really doubt that's even the exception to the rule, let alone the norm).




Obviously, if Cedric was associating with and benefiting from a madam who was harming innocents, he'd be fallen before you could say "watch the paladin go poof!" I'm visualizing the madam in this case as not one who is harming innocents, and yes, they do exist. My grandmother is a social worker and she's met more than a few madams who would fall outside that category. 



> I would be very curious to see that diatribe, provided it pointed out was was "inimical to the code."  Truly.  I want to try to wrap my head around it.
> 
> --The Sigil




Actually, the diatribe was the speech to Magnus. And by inimical to the code, I meant that drinking, swearing and living at a brothel (I actually saw it as a semi-permanent home for him, rather than one he visited when in the mood), which someone like Magnus would see as inimical to the code, whereas Cedric knows they are irrelevant to it.


----------



## Maliki

Great depth of character(well written as well) but not a paladin in my world. A fallen paladin or a want to be paladin maybe but nor a paladin. It takes more than fighting the good fight and being willing to sacrifice oneself to be a paladin, any fighter, rogue, ranger etc could be just as willing. The paladin should be the shining example of the greatness of his god and the powers of good and the potential of man.  Cedric sounds as if he is losing his faith and is oozing with self pity. His actions are neither lawful or good, so in my campaign he would not be a paladin.


----------



## Mallus

The Sigil said:
			
		

> ...snip... it requires someone else to tease the mind-stretching out.



You had to go and respond to my post before I edited it, now didn't you...

Anyway... Yes. It requires other people created by the DM to act as foils... that's inherent in any RP-heavy character like Cedric. He can't exist in a vacuum (show me a good character that can...) and the DM has to be game.



> If Cedric was exploring the conflict within himself, I might give him the benefit of the doubt and let him be cast as a paladin.



I'm looking at Cedric as a character in a work of fiction (which is all he is, at this point). His presence inside the narrative is the vehicle through which these issues are explored. Hopefully by actions, scenes, etc. What's happening in his head isn't particularly relevant to me. A good fictional character doesn't need to be aware of the role their playing in the piece, even if they're RPG PC's...


> Bullocks, followed by a straw man.  What better way to explore the conflict over what it means to be a paladin than by having an "ex-paladin" - the one who has seen BOTH sides of the coin (being and not being a paladin)?



A funny straw man... But seriously, look at what 'ex-paladin' means in actual play, a fighter who talks a lot about morality. Given the realities of medium, where you don't have free indirect discourse or interior monologue, how exactly do you dramatize Cedric's story? By making him a fallen paladin, you gut the conflict. You've answered the central question already (Cedric is wrong) and all that's left is pantomime... Its a fantastic way to deflate the dramatic tension that was inherent in the character. Its much more fun if that remains unresolved and Cedric keeps clashing with his superiors. And his inferiors. Or that fourway he's afraid of....  



> Or a devout atheist... who just happens to be a high priest receiving great blessings because of his faith in his deity.  It simply doesn't work without causing headaches!



Now who's building strawmen? Cedric's a holy warrior who faces personified eternal evils on a day-to-day basis and sometimes seeks the bottle and a uncoerced ho. What's so difficult about that? Plenty of basis in real-world history if you ask me... 


> You're using fiat to overrule common sense.



Nope. I'm using common sense to overrule a rigid reading of the rules that perclude characters that are easy to conceptualize, summarize and are, according to some folks around here, facinating and thought provoking...


> You can't just discard the code of conduct or the LG alignment because "it doesn't fit the character you want to create."



Why does (again arguably) one excetion to the code == discard?


> (Maybe I'm just a bit sensitive about this point because it seems like every single player I've ever gamed with who wants a "thought-provoking paladin" really wants "a paladin without the goofy alignment restriction whom I can play as CN/CE.")



And maybe I'm a little insensitive, because its been an awfully long time since I gamed with folks like that...


----------



## Brennin Magalus

I agree with you, The Sigil. This character, while very interesting, is incongruous with the PHB paladin and the literary archetype on which he is based. Of course, if someone chooses to call an apple an orange in his campaign, it ultimately don't make no nevermind to me.


----------



## shilsen

I figured if might be time to start fleshing out Cedric's story a little bit, perhaps with little insights of how others see - or have seen - him. Here's a little titbit. I wonder if it makes him more of a paladin or simply muddies the waters further:

*Through the eyes of others, Pt.1*

Cedric wiped his mouth and smiled at the shocked expression on Magnus' face, before hooking his foot around a stool and pulling it in front of the younger man. "Sit down," he said, much less sternly than before. For a moment it looked like Magnus would refuse, but then he dropped into the seat, carefully avoiding the table with the spilled ale on it. Cedric smiled inwardly at the fastidiousness and leaned forward. "So Madam Catherine told you where you could find me?"

...

Catherine counted the coins for the second time to make sure, before placing them back in the bag. Then she opened a ledger, took a pen and settled down to her daily calculations. Just as she was finishing, there was a polite knock on the door.

"Come in," said Catherine, closing the ledger. 

Alyssa entered."Excuse me, Catherine. Is Cedric still here?"

"No, he left awhile ago. Why?"

"Oh, Maya just came by to see him. She'll be disappointed."

Catherine laughed. "Why am I not surprised?"

Alyssa also grinned, before saying, "Well, you can't really blame the girl. She'd still be working the bars and rolling drunks if it wasn't for him - and you."

Catherine waved away the compliment. "I couldn't have done it without him." After a moment's pause, she smiled again and said, "And with Maya it isn't just gratitude. She's not the first one who owes him, and she won't be the last, but she's the only one who shows up to meet him whenever he's in town."

"True," said Alyssa. "Plus he was always especially fond of her. Heck, I almost expected them to get married."

"Not Cedric," said Catherine. "He always told me that he'd never make a woman a widow." 

"Well," said Alyssa, "I might as well go tell her he's left. Will he be back?"

"Not till next month, I think," said Catherine, as the other woman began to open the door, and then stopped. Looking back at the madam, Alyssa asked, "Do you think Maya and he have...?"

Catherine smiled at her curiosity and said, "Not since she left. He won't touch a girl who has got out."

"Interesting," said Alyssa, and left. 

As the door closed behind her, Catherine silently mouthed to herself, "Yes, he certainly is." The madam leaned back in her chair and mused for a moment, her expression turning distant and cold while she thought about what she had experienced years ago, when she had been a prostitute herself. She thought of the incredible luck that got her out of the profession, and her vow to enable as many as she could to do so. For a moment she considered the possibility of just dividing the money she had among all the girls and telling them to get out and on with their lives, but then dismissed it with a sigh. A month and they'd be penniless and back on the streets she'd plucked them off. One step at a time, she told herself, as she did daily, one step at a time.

With a sigh, she turned back to her ledger, before her eyes fell on the bag. A small smile quirked her lips. That would be more than enough to get at least one of them out immediately, as soon the arrangements could be made. "Bless you, Cedric," she said quietly, before opening the ledger again.


----------



## Ogre Mage

With the additional info, Cedric comes off like CG Holy Liberator (Complete Divine), not a LG Paladin.  Holy Liberators work towards good, but their methods are far more unorthodox than those of a paladin.  The brothel angle certainly plays into that.  Also, their code of conduct is much more lax.  And the tendency to indulge in such vices (drinking, hiring prostitututes, etc.) is definitely more associated with chaotic characters.   Even if such things are technically legal,  very few paladins would consider it proper behavior.  But CG doesn't care what is "proper" so long as good is being served (helping the women to have a better life).  And if he has a little fun in the process, it's all good.

So perhaps Cedric is slipping not toward blackguardism, but holy liberatorism.  Such things are not uncommon.  His relationship with his former order would be interesting.  Both still serve the cause of good, but there would be undeniable tension.


----------



## FireLance

You know, I think the key disconnect that many people are experiencing is that there is a lot of baggage associated with the term "paladin". At a mechanical level, levels in the Paladin class simply define the abilities of a character in the game. However, standing apart from the Paladin class is the paladin archetype. I think what this thread has demonstrated is that some DMs are quite willing to allow characters to take levels in the Paladin class even if they do not conform to the "standard" paladin archetype.

It does not help that different people have different ideas of what the paladin archetype is. Some have a view of the archetype which requires the character to be chosen by a deity, to refrain from vices, and be a shining example of clean living and proper behavior. Others feel that the willingness to fight against evil and to sacrifice one's life in doing so is enough. 

Kudos to shilsen for creating a character that raises so many issues: 
Cynicism - Does a paladin have to be optimistic? 
Prostitution - Does a paladin have to be chaste? Celibate? Is prostitution Evil? Chaotic? 
Vices - When is a vice a vice, and when it is merely recreation? Is indulging in a vice Evil? Chaotic?

I personally would have no problems with such a character in my game, but I do like characters that are played against type. Such as the honest, honorable Watch detective. Is he a rogue? No. Does he have levels in the Rogue class? Yes. Or the lazy son of the Baron who never applies himself to his studies. Is he a commoner? No. Does he have levels in the Commoner NPC class? Yes.


----------



## shilsen

FireLance said:
			
		

> You know, I think the key disconnect that many people are experiencing is that there is a lot of baggage associated with the term "paladin". At a mechanical level, levels in the Paladin class simply define the abilities of a character in the game. However, standing apart from the Paladin class is the paladin archetype. I think what this thread has demonstrated is that some DMs are quite willing to allow characters to take levels in the Paladin class even if they do not conform to the "standard" paladin archetype.




I think that is a really key point in this whole discussion. 

Personally speaking, I tend to ignore archetypes from literature/history/mythology (while having been a mythologist since I was 4) in my D&D games. The wizard in my game is based almost purely on the PHB, not on Merlin or Gandalf or any such example. The ranger in my game has nothing to do with Aragorn or Robin Hood or any such example. Or, to be more precise, PCs do not *have* to use the archetypes (that's up to the players creating the characters). The same goes for the paladin. If someone wants to create Galahad in my game using the paladin class, that's cool. And if someone wants to create a Cedric, that's cool with me too. Now if someone wanted to create Cedric and make him a thief to boot, I'd have problems with that PC being a paladin since it doesn't work with the RAW. But the archetype is never a factor in my decision. Would Cedric be a problem for someone playing D&D who had absolutely no historical/cultural knowledge of the pre-existing traditions outside the game? I think not.


----------



## Romnipotent

Archetypes are funny to break. I had an angry sorcerer who was turned into a monkey, and chose to live with the shame ofloosing a spell duel. while it raises less issues than Cedric he never got played (well 1 session I dont count cause the group cant roleplay, its a smashies group). The archetype here? theres probably one out there but he certainly didn't fit it.


----------



## fusangite

The Sigil said:
			
		

> As an aside, I might note that brothels by their nature might be construed to harm or threaten innocents - most who worked in brothels did not start in brothels as their first choice of careers; most (not all) started out as innocents being exploited and potentially diseased (harmed) by their work, which ill fortune or ill friends often forced them into.  If you're desperate to pay the rent, even if you "say" you're willing, is not some coersion and harm therefore involved?




While I'm on your side Sigil, I have real difficulty with the idea that brothels are such exemplary cases of terrible oppression. In a previous post, I suggested that women working in brothels in many pre-modern societies were more likely to be a self-selecting group than women working in many other fields. 

In the pre-modern world, a lot of women were having sex they did not want to have. Many were in arranged marriages that entailed them having carnal relations with a man they did not choose. Many also chose to escape virtual slavery as serfs or peasants on rural estates by becoming prostitutes in towns. Now, I agree that the majority of women who lived in unhappy arranged marriages or were virtually owned as low-grade farm machinery felt that these lives of suffering and drudgery were better than those of prostitutes but a minority felt that prostitution was the lesser evil and selected that profession. 

Even in the modern world, while we would like to believe that all people who trade sex for money are doing it to support their crack habit or whatever, many modern sex trade workers also state that this is a job they are choosing to escape far less bleak forms of drudgery and oppression than prostitutes were escaping in the past. While these individuals are perhaps a minority of the prostitutes working today, they are a sizeable one.

If this paladin is living in the quasi-medieval fantasy world one expects, perhaps he should consider abstaining from grains given the oppressive yoke under which so many serfs toil. Perhaps he shouldn't associate with aristocrats whose wives find them repugnant. Perhaps he shouldn't fight alongside men who have been awarded war captive brides. I just don't see the special case for boycotting prostitutes compared to other activities that involve some kind of systemic power imbalance. 

While I generally agree with your arguments, I think you are making a mistake in arguing that prostitution is something lawful good characters shouldn't engage in. I agree that prostitution does not fit with paladinhood but that incompatibility does not stem from the alignment requirement.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And why is it that you think the paladin class is a lesser fit for this particular archetype? Nothing in the core rules describing the paladin class precludes it.




We're not being asked to judge this question simply on the basis of the letter of the rules. As GMs I thought it was pretty clear that the question was whether we invoke rule zero over it. Just as I would not allow someone to be a monk under any conditions in my European-style campaign, I would not allow a carnal paladin because, in my view, the paladin class is designed to represent the ideal of the grail knight. For the same reason, if I were running an Asian-flavoured campaign, I wouldn't allow paladins at all. I know that for some people, classes are simply mechanics that exist outside for any cultural context but that doesn't work for me and the games I run.


----------



## drnuncheon

The Sigil said:
			
		

> So here we have someone who has not even the desire to control his appetites (not a particularly lawful trait)




 Well, that depends on what you mean by 'control his appetites'.  Sure, he drinks (so does everyone in a medievalesque society - the water's not safe).  Does he drink to excess?  To the point where it interferes with the performance of his duty?  It doesn't seem like it.  He's remarkably lucid when he speaks to Magnus, probably thanks to the Divine Grace bonus to his Fortitude saves.  

 Does he wench to excess, to the point where it interferes with the performance of his duty?  Again, not that we've seen.

 So, it seems to me that he does have control of his appetites, and they do not control him - he does not shirk his duty to indulge them that we have seen.



> and who engages in behavior most would consider dishonorable (probably neither a good nor a lawful one)...




 ...but not necessarily a neutral or evil one either.  Honor does not necessarily equate to 'good'.  If someone insults you, honor might demand satisfaction, but that does not mean that slaughtering him in a duel is good (even if it upholds your honor).



> everything about this character screams "neutral" - cares for others (good), but also makes sure he gets what he wants (evil).




 Whoah, hold on there, slim!  Since when is 'getting what you want' _evil_?  Are good people required to never get anything they want?  Am I evil because I wanted to eat lunch and got what I wanted?

 Evil is making sure you get what you want _even if it is at the expense of other people_. And we don't see Cedric doing that at all.  In fact, he seems to go out of his way to avoid taking advantage of people.



> Does whatever he wants in his private life (chaotic) while doing what duty requires (lawful). That balance suggests "neutral."




 And yet, is anything he does in his private life incompatible with his duty? Is he ever putting himself above his duty or other people?  If he's not, then it's not really chaotic, is it?  It's at worst neutral.

 Now, if Cedric ever succumbed to that cynicism - if he ever stayed in bed with the whores when a peasant came to ask for help and he said "go away, I'm getting busy", if he ever said "Why go out and fight? It's not going to change anything, so I'll just stay here and drink" - then he'd have lost his paladinhood.

 J


----------



## shilsen

Ah, bugger! I was just looking at a couple of The Sigil's points and thought up some incredibly coherent and cogent responses to make. And then I read fusangite's and drnuncheon's last posts and discovered they'd already been made. I'm going to bed!


----------



## The Sigil

Needle point here...



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I think this is one of the core areas where we disagree. I do see the list in the PHB as an exhaustive one, rather than an exemplary one.



The phrase in the SRD (don't have the PHB handy) is (emphasis mine):

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, *and so forth*), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

The phrase "and so forth" is explicitly set forth and thus the list itself admits that is *not* exhaustive but is exemplary.  I think we have to figure out what items fall under the "and so forth" in order to complete the list (clearly, there must be at least one additional item - and probably more - not on the list as written or the phrase would not be needed).  _Of course the problem with that is finding something we agree on as the "and so forth" item(s) that need to be on the list per the Rules as Written._ 

So yes, I guess we disagree on that point (exhaustive vs. exemplary) but I think I have enough ammunition to lend credence to my argument based on the RAW.  

--The Sigil


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

That "And So Forth" just makes the whole honour thing even more subjective than it already is. I think whatever applies in that place would depend on the specific Paladin's Code/God/Whatever. The hard part about applying the Paladin to a world with many Gods is that the achetype is based on a concept of following only ONE God, of which doesn't exist in the D&D world.

The whole honour thing would be different for each Paladin, depending on what exactly he follows. If its a Deity, it would be that Deity's code(which could easily allow for Cedric's actions). If its just his own personal calling to the act of Good, then its a bit more flimsy. I believe that's a big reason why a DM and player of a Paladin should set down what exactly his Code is and what those "And So Forth" actions really are.


----------



## The Sigil

Needlepoints...


			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> ================
> and who engages in behavior most would consider dishonorable (probably neither a good nor a lawful one)...
> ================
> ...but not necessarily a neutral or evil one either.  Honor does not necessarily equate to 'good'.  If someone insults you, honor might demand satisfaction, but that does not mean that slaughtering him in a duel is good (even if it upholds your honor).



It looked to me - and I hope I'm reading it wrong, because the rest of your post raises some good issues - that you weren't disagreeing with my assessment of his behavior as "dishonorable."  If that is the case, he's in violation of the paladin's code ("to act with honor").  Just want to make sure that you ARE in fact disputing the assertions that his actions are dishonorable, because that wasn't how I read your response, but some meaning gets lost in pure text medium.


> Whoah, hold on there, slim!  Since when is 'getting what you want' _evil_?  Are good people required to never get anything they want?  Am I evil because I wanted to eat lunch and got what I wanted?
> 
> Evil is making sure you get what you want _even if it is at the expense of other people_.



Yes, I was in a hurry and didn't get time to expand that point properly.  In an oversimplified nutshell:

Good - Putting the wants of others before your own.
Neutral - Putting the wants of others before your own when it's not overly inconvenient.
Evil - Putting the wants of self before the wants of others.

Perhaps I was reading a bit more than I should have into his "I think I've earned my wine women and song" comment, but it seemed to me to be an angry, "hey, I put in my 9 to 5, and after that I can gratify myself."  Again, probably a failing of text as properly conveying shades of meaning. 

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil

One final needlepoint directed to no one in particular...

SUPPOSITION: Drinking and patronizing brothels are against the teachings of of Cedric's religious order with regard to code of conduct (which I gather from Magnus' comments).

PREMISE 1: Tenets/teachings of that order come from the priests of that religious order.

PREMISE 2: The priests of the religious order represent the legitimate authority of that order (if they did not represent the deity in question, they would not receive spells, etc., no?)

AXIOM: The paladin's code requires him to "respect legitimate authority."

COROLLARY: "Respecting legitimate authority" means "obeying the instructions - including code of conduct" given by that authority within the scope of its authority.

CONCLUSION:  Cedric drinks and patronizes brothels.  This is against the teachings of his order with regard to code of conduct (supposition).  These instructions come from the priests of his order (premise 1), who represent legitimate authority (premise 2).  In not following these instructions, Cedric is not respecting legitimate authority (corollary).  Therefore, by axiom 1, Cedric is in violation of the paladin's code and thus loses his paladinhood.

CONCLUSION 2: If Cedric does not follow the teachings of the order and keeps his paladinhood, one of the suppositions, premises, or the corollary above is incorrect (the axiom cannot be).  This means that if Cedric is played as written and keeps his paladinhood:

a.) Drinking and womanizing are NOT proscribed by the clergy of Cedric's church (unlikely given the fiction piece).

b.) The priests of his order do not represent the legitimate authority of a deity (possible, but checking on this would be as simple as checking on whether or not they receive clerical empowerment).

c.) That "respecting legitimate authority" has a meaning other than "obedience" (possible, but I don't think that's the intent of the rules).

This is not my only objection to Cedric (obviously), but if he's not living up to the tenets of the order as preached by those in authority (the priests), he's not exactly "respecting legitimate authority."

As a second aside, this piece makes for a great example of "absolute morality" versus "relative morality" - though in this case (to the dismay of some, I'm sure), the "relative morality" of the culture in question (Cedric's order) is set higher than - rather than "lower than" the level of absolute morality, which is seldom perceived to be the case.  But that's another discussion altogether. 

--The Sigil

(BTW, I can see the other side's argument, but I think it's important to consider all the ramifications from both sides, and it's turned into an excellent and mature discussion - which is why I continue to post  ).


----------



## The Sigil

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> That "And So Forth" just makes the whole honour thing even more subjective than it already is.



Bingo. 


> I think whatever applies in that place would depend on the specific Paladin's Code/God/Whatever. The hard part about applying the Paladin to a world with many Gods is that the achetype is based on a concept of following only ONE God, of which doesn't exist in the D&D world.



Doesn't USUALLY exist in the D&D world, anyway. 


> The whole honour thing would be different for each Paladin, depending on what exactly he follows. If its a Deity, it would be that Deity's code(which could easily allow for Cedric's actions). If its just his own personal calling to the act of Good, then its a bit more flimsy.



Yes... returning to the example at hand, I think the teachings of Cedric's order are VERY relevant to the discussion, as they shape the "and so forth" - which is why Magnus' comments are so important.  Assuming, of course, that Cedric is called by a specific deity and not by "Good" itself.


> I believe that's a big reason why a DM and player of a Paladin should set down what exactly his Code is and what those "And So Forth" actions really are.



Agreed. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Brennin Magalus

Someone brought this up previously:

"Few have the _purity_..."

This excerpt from the paladin description cannot be reconciled with a paladin who goes a-whoring.

_Quod erat demonstrandum_


----------



## maddman75

The most important arguement was how shilsen posed the question - would *you* allow Sir Cedric in your campaign?

The answer depends on many variables.  One of the most important, its clear to me as this debate goes on, is whether your world features are modern or medieval outlook.  Some fantasy worlds, (one may argue that settings such as Forgotten Realms included) has a rather modern outlook.  Sure there's no planes or trains, but the people are mostly educated, generally egalitarian, open to the religions of others, and consider slavery or even quasi-slavery such as serfdom as abhorrent.  In such a setting, clearly Sir Cedric is inappropriate as a paladin.

A medieval worldview tries to recreate the attitudes, at least some of them, of the past.  Life is hard, and people suffer.  Most are uneducated and superstitious, and wary and possibly violent toward someone of the same race with a funny accent, nevermind an entirely different race!  And other faiths could be seen as dangerous delusions or demon worship.  Slavery is still looked down upon, but serfdom and other lower class people are where they are supposed to be.  A prostitute is a lowly profession to be sure, but not really lower than a ditch-digger or other unskilled labor.  In such a setting, Sir Cedric is perfectly appropriate.  Heck, I'd have the members of the Order upset not because he visits the brothel - what knight doesn't? - but because he doesn't try to hide it. 

Also there is the nature of the religions in the campaign.  Are the gods specific and direct, often speaking to their clerics and telling them exactly what is and isn't appropriate?  Or are they more aloof, largely leaving men to divine their own interpretations and dogmas from the teachings?  And about the drinking, it depends again on the modern/medieval mindset.  If the people have some concept of basic sanitation, then a paladin drinking could be seen as scandalous.  In a medieval world he's a paladin who doesn't want to get dysentary (okay, he's immune to disease, but that's not the point).  Everyone drinks alcohol - men, women, even children, because it's safer than water.

I'd allow Cedric in a heartbeat.  But then I have a harsh medieval mindset world with aloof, unspecific deities.  He's fit right in.  Other settings he might not.


----------



## Brennin Magalus

maddman75 said:
			
		

> A medieval worldview tries to recreate the attitudes, at least some of them, of the past.  Life is hard, and people suffer.  Most are uneducated and superstitious, and wary and possibly violent toward someone of the same race with a funny accent, nevermind an entirely different race!  And other faiths could be seen as dangerous delusions or demon worship.  Slavery is still looked down upon, but serfdom and other lower class people are where they are supposed to be.  A prostitute is a lowly profession to be sure, but not really lower than a ditch-digger or other unskilled labor.  In such a setting, Sir Cedric is perfectly appropriate.  Heck, I'd have the members of the Order upset not because he visits the brothel - what knight doesn't? - but because he doesn't try to hide it.




I definitely disagree. A paladin is not based on a "typical" medieval knight. Rather, he is based on literary figures like Galahad and Roland, as well as the historical Templars and Hospitallers (and perhaps Joan of Arc), none of whom would go a-whoring.


----------



## sword-dancer

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Cedric is not an example of conflict in and of himself; rather, he only creates tension when he has to deal with another member of his religion. --The Sigil



Cedric isan example of a Pally who had seen that the war he fights in is lost.
He wouldn?t resign, surrender or desert, he is ready to fight this to the bitter end, willingly going the dark road till he dies.
If Cedric is right is another Question, but that he is willingly to ly his leife for a lost cause, because this fight shouldn`t be abandonnend is an ac´t  of a true Paladin, if the Person has the class of a Pakky is irrelevant.

In his "free time" he drinks?
Had Cedric took a vow of ascetism? No, also what`s the Problem, he is sexually active, as long as these let the Partner with a cultural stigma and he didn`t enter the  game with wrong Expectations by his Partner, so what?

That he goes to Prostitutes is only a Problem if these is usually forbidden from his god, or "forced on the Prostitutes".  
Burt if he does this without being reasonably sure he would fall.
OTOH their had it given temple Prostitutes, young woman had their 

He is cynic,oh yes, he knows(or believes so) his fight is lost, has seen so many dark and cruel things, fates.. why should he be merry?

Charlemagne btw massacred 5000 Saxon at Verden at theAller, murdered them with cold blood.
The Titel Paladin comes from his Palace officers.


----------



## sword-dancer

The Sigil said:
			
		

> PREMISE 2: The priests of the religious order represent the legitimate authority of that order (if they did not represent the deity in question, they would not receive spells, etc., no?)
> ).




The Premise that Priests hold Authority over an order of Pallys is possible, but not on i consider  a very likely one, i consider it  unlikely.
The Premise that  a Priesthood, who mistakenly made a missinterpretation in the teachings of their god,  would cut of from divinesupport, if the god would even get "aware" of this, is  especially by a LG god, very unlikely.







> COROLLARY: "Respecting legitimate authority" means "obeying the instructions - including code of conduct" given by that authority within the scope of its authority.



If the god accepted the oath of  CoC, and found that the possible changes of the CoC are righteous, there is no other authoritie he needs.


----------



## Darkness

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Someone brought this up previously:
> 
> "Few have the _purity_..."



Would you allow a cowardly Barbarian?


----------



## Sejs

> This excerpt from the paladin description cannot be reconciled with a paladin who goes a-whoring.



 Sure it can, he's immune to disease, right?  *rimshot*


Anyway, joking aside and with a note to the _"and so forth"_ end of the honorable behaviour line.  Looking at it some ways, Cedric's patronage of brothels may actually be the more honorable option when compared to say wooing a succession of (non- "working") women, loving them, and leaving them.  Restricting himself to professional ladies only, he's not going around breaking hearts or giving false impressions.  Both parties fully understand the nature of their transaction; money in exchange for service rendered.  Thank you for your patronage, please visit us again the next time there's a need.


There's nothing against a paladin having relations.  It's just that given Cedric's pragmatic view on how most paladins end their careers, he does what he can to avoid romantic entanglement because he doesn't want to hurt the person he loves, and who loves him, when and if something happens to him.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> Cedric isan example of a Pally who had seen that the war he fights in is lost.



Perhaps not lost so much as stalemated.  That was my reading of it, anyway.


----------



## shilsen

Here's a little bit more on Cedric, picking up from the point where the original post ended. Bear in mind that the original idea was never completely fleshed out, so I'm just making these up as I go along (last 5 minutes, to be precise ). So let's not be expecting Shakespeare here. And without further covering of my ass, here goes:

*Through others' eyes, pt. 2*

Cedric nodded as Magnus completed the story. "Very well. I will leave today." He rose to his feet and took a step away from the table, before stopping and raising the flagon in his hand to his lips and draining its contents. With a contented "Aah!" and a loud belch, he placed it back on the table and then quickly headed for the bar.

Reaching the bar, Cedric quickly said to the waiting barkeep, "I'm off. Be seeing you." The two men shook hands before the paladin headed for the door, a bemused Magnus following him.

"So he's gone again?" asked one of the regulars at the bar. 

"Yeah," said the barkeep, picking up an empty mug and beginning to clean it. "Right on the dot. Every month, it's exactly the same. He'll ride into town at the start of the third week and put up at Catherine's. He'll come here once daily at exactly the same time. He'll have seven ales, never more or less. After exactly one week, he'll leave. And the same the next month. I swear, that man's either a machine or a force of nature - I'm still not sure exactly which."  

...

Outside, Cedric took a deep breath and ran his fingers through his hair, making it very slightly less unruly than before. "You can head back to the Abbey," he said to Magnus. "Bob and I..."

Magnus looked even more puzzled than his brief interaction with Cedric had already made him. "Bob?"

"Yes," said Cedric, with a deadpan expression, though the twinkle in his eyes gave him away. "Bob is my horse."

Magnus choked momentarily, before managing to sputter, "Your celestial steed, granted by the grace of the High Lord, is called BOB?!"

"Well," said Cedric, "Actually he likes to be called Beobarius the Magnificent, but that's too bloody long for me. So Bob it is." 

...

Beobarius raced across the plains of Elysium at incredible speed, enjoying the play of the celestial sunlight on his shoulders and the feel of the wind in his mane. The other horses galloped behind him, but none came any closer. Any watcher would have realized that even among the heaven-born horses of the herd, he stood out as unique, but there was none to see.

A faint prickling was the only sign, but Beobarius recognized it immediately. Cedric was calling! Incredibly, the celestial warhorse actually lengthened its stride, pulling away from the other horses. A tunnel of light that only he could see opened up before him, its walls flecked with the palest of blue. The sound of distant trumpets came to the horse's ears as it entered the tunnel and it whinnied gladly in response. To any watcher, the animal seemed to simply disappear in mid-stride. 

Beobarius raced along the tunnel, even though he knew that time within its boundaries was only an illusion. Whether he walked or galloped or even came to a stop, he would emerge at exactly the same time. But his friend was calling, so Beobarius ran. As he did, a saddle and the accoutrements of war miraculously appeared on him. His previously unshod hooves now rang metallically on the floor of the tunnel.

A small dot of light appeared at the end of the tunnel and then swiftly the walls peeled away, to reveal the middle of a street, where Cedric and an armored young man stood. Beobarius stepped out of the tunnel and onto the ground beside Cedric, drawing amazed stares from the people passing by. 

Magnus stared at the warhorse in shock, as Beobarius happily nuzzled his owner and was rewarded with a pat. His eyes ran along the bony flanks, the spindly legs, the tattered ear. "Thi...s is your horse?"

"Yes," said Cedric, with a smile. "Pretty, ain't he?" In a mock-serious tone, he said, "Come on, Bob - show the nice man how you sit up and beg."

Beobarius bared his teeth in what passed for a grin with him and then took a swift bite at Cedric. The paladin barely dodged and then instantly swung himself up into the saddle. "Good try, Bob" said Cedric, honest appreciation in his tone, "Better luck next time." For a moment Beobarius considered bucking him off - there was a nice midden not too far away, after all - but decided to leave it for another time.

Looking down, Cedric smiled at Magnus and said, "As I said, head back to the Abbey - fast. I'll get to the temple as soon as I can. Tell Father Shikuna to send word to the closest group of templars to meet me there."

His words brought Magnus back to himself. "Should I not come with you? Father Shikuna said that going alone will mean..."

Cedric's smile disappeared. "Yes," he said quietly, "I know. But there is no time and somebody has to be there." He looked down at the downcast young man and said more kindly than before, "If I return, I will speak to you. Thank you for your message." Without even a movement from him, Beobarius turned away. As the horse headed away, Cedric called back, "Watch your step, Sir Magnus."

Magnus watched him ride away for a few seconds. Then he shook his head, still trying to make sense of the man he had been sent to meet, before taking a step. There was a 'squelch' and he looked down, to discover what Cedric's departing words had meant. Magnus had just stepped in celestial horse-poop.


----------



## shilsen

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Needle point here...
> 
> 
> The phrase in the SRD (don't have the PHB handy) is (emphasis mine):
> 
> "Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, *and so forth*), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
> 
> The phrase "and so forth" is explicitly set forth and thus the list itself admits that is *not* exhaustive but is exemplary.  I think we have to figure out what items fall under the "and so forth" in order to complete the list (clearly, there must be at least one additional item - and probably more - not on the list as written or the phrase would not be needed).  _Of course the problem with that is finding something we agree on as the "and so forth" item(s) that need to be on the list per the Rules as Written._
> 
> So yes, I guess we disagree on that point (exhaustive vs. exemplary) but I think I have enough ammunition to lend credence to my argument based on the RAW.
> 
> --The Sigil



 A hit, a palpable hit ! As you say, the nebulous area would be in deciding what the "and so forth" means, and obviously no two games will have exactly the same take on it. Do you think it would be safe to say that the definition thereof depends on a mix of the given society, the established religion (if there is one) which the paladin belongs to, and the deity the paladin worships (if he does one)? I think Ankh-Morpork Guard puts it neatly in the post following yours.



> Perhaps I was reading a bit more than I should have into his "I think I've earned my wine women and song" comment, but it seemed to me to be an angry, "hey, I put in my 9 to 5, and after that I can gratify myself." Again, probably a failing of text as properly conveying shades of meaning.




Much as it may hurt my literary pretensions, I agree about how that section reads. If this was a fully fleshed-out character in play, that speech would be a combination of Cedric being a little pissed at Magnus' sudden accusation and also him (quite amusedly) emphasizing one part of the point more strongly than he might otherwise to mess with (and seek to expand) the younger man's worldview a bit. As written, it lacks that insight into the character's motivations.



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Perhaps not lost so much as stalemated. That was my reading of it, anyway.




Glad to hear it. That's how it was intended.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

IMO, it neither makes him more of a paladin nor muddies the waters--it simply continues the hollywoodization of the story with the implicit intent to make prostitution seem like a good, shiny, happy thing. If you want to write a story and conclude it "and this is the moral: prostitution is a neutral--and possibly a good--thing, and debauchery can be both lawful and good" you can do that, but it no more demonstrates the point than creating an order of Holy Torturers who are, by DM/author fiat Lawful Good, would demonstrate that torture is lawful or good.

However, as to the story itself: In some ways, it makes the situation worse for Cedric. Cedric's speech to Magnus is most obviously interpreted as exhibiting defensiveness, hostility to external standards, and a sense of entitlement. The most reasonable way to interpret Cedric's relationship with the brothel based on the original story alone is simple hedonism. Cedric has decided that, if the battle against evil is winnable, he won't live to see it and has decided to invest his energy in seeking pleasure when he has the opportunity to do so rather than wholeheartedly focussing upon the struggle or (so it appears) giving it any more attention than is required. (Sir Cedric, from the beginning seemed to me to approach paladinhood as his job--the thing that he does when it's required--rather than who he is).

If Cedric does not consider the nature of his business in the brothel as entirely hedonistic, then his angry speech is disingenuous. It's not just about the pleasure he deserves and the battle he thinks he can't win. By misleading Magnus as to his true motives, he encourages Magnus to either entirely reject Cedric and to tighten the strings of his "unnecessary traditions" in order to avoid falling into the position of Sir Cedric or he encourages Cedric to take him at his word and adopt pure hedonism without whatever mixed motives and effects this part implies there might be. It's one thing if that is the result of an authentic defensive reaction. It's another thing entirely if it isn't. And, it seems to me that the most authentic defense of a mixed motive version of Sir Cedric would contain at least some clues as to his true motives. In other words, even if it is granted that this story is in some way exculpatory, that raises a new question of honesty and judgement.

Anyway, the title of the second part: "Through the Eyes of Others" is misleading. Even, accepting the story at face value (which I don't--control of the story is too important a factor in a question like this to be left to an interested party to expand at will to the exclusion of other interested parties), it is still only the story through the eyes of others who were positively affected by Sir Cedric. There is no mention of the man in town who saw that Sir Cedric obviously has no problem with brothels and was thereby enabled to overcome whatever reluctance he might have otherwise had (and Sir Magnus's reaction indicates that there is at least some social disapproval of prostitution and debauchery in this culture) to frequenting the less holywoodized (but cheaper) brothel down the street. There's no mention of the drunk on the verge giving up the bottle who sees Sir Magnus putting away the beers and decides that, if it's good enough for a knight, it's good enough for him. There's no mention of the girl who sees the glamorous clients that these prostitutes get and is thereby encouraged to make choices she will later regret and may never be able to reverse.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I figured if might be time to start fleshing out Cedric's story a little bit, perhaps with little insights of how others see - or have seen - him. Here's a little titbit. I wonder if it makes him more of a paladin or simply muddies the waters further:
> 
> *Through the eyes of others, Pt.1*


----------



## shilsen

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> IMO, it neither makes him more of a paladin nor muddies the waters--it simply continues the hollywoodization of the story with the implicit intent to make prostitution seem like a good, shiny, happy thing. If you want to write a story and conclude it "and this is the moral: prostitution is a neutral--and possibly a good--thing, and debauchery can be both lawful and good" you can do that, but it no more demonstrates the point than creating an order of Holy Torturers who are, by DM/author fiat Lawful Good, would demonstrate that torture is lawful or good.




Making prostitution seem good, shiny and happy wasn't an implicit or explicit intent. Prostitution can be (and often is) something in between the hollywood version and the mix of slavery and depravity which you seem to characterize it as. Anyway, fusangite already made that point very well earlier, so I won't repeat myself. And just for the record, Catherine and the situation in her brothel is actually modelled on a couple of real-life women I know about.



> Anyway, the title of the second part: "Through the Eyes of Others" is misleading. Even, accepting the story at face value (which I don't--control of the story is too important a factor in a question like this to be left to an interested party to expand at will to the exclusion of other interested parties), it is still only the story through the eyes of others who were positively affected by Sir Cedric. There is no mention of the man in town who saw that Sir Cedric obviously has no problem with brothels and was thereby enabled to overcome whatever reluctance he might have otherwise had (and Sir Magnus's reaction indicates that there is at least some social disapproval of prostitution and debauchery in this culture) to frequenting the less holywoodized (but cheaper) brothel down the street. There's no mention of the drunk on the verge giving up the bottle who sees Sir Magnus putting away the beers and decides that, if it's good enough for a knight, it's good enough for him. There's no mention of the girl who sees the glamorous clients that these prostitutes get and is thereby encouraged to make choices she will later regret and may never be able to reverse.




Good point, but people misinterpreting a paladin's actions is a factor for every paladin, I would think. For example, the standard D&D campaign/game/fiction doesn't consider the people who are inspired by the paladin's shining example to go out there and get themselves killed by trying to be heroic, esp. since they lack the god-given abilities of the paladin.


----------



## Torm

It seems to me that a great deal of this conversation revolves around the morality of associating with prostitutes. Which brings me to a question: How many of you have known prostitutes? And I don't mean the sort of knowing that means you've given them patronage - I mean the sort where you've had them over for dinner or some such. Seems to me a lot of people are throwing around judgement on what it means to be around or to actually be prostitutes, without anything other than academic knowledge.

I will say that, while I have never had cause or call to hire one, I have known several - including the mother of one of my former DMs, who was a $1000/night prostitute (and brazen with it - she used to arrange "dates" on the phone in front of said DM and his gaming friends) - and while I _know_ there are horrible crimes committed against young women in bad situations (I've known some), I can tell you there is an entirely different type of the oldest profession that is considerably less coerced or, arguably, immoral. (Against the rules of a _specific religious code_ is an entirely _other_ situation, but since we don't know the rules of Cedric's order, that part is irrelevant for the moment, until Shilsen decides to clarify those rules.)

As far as further references in fiction go, if any of you have seen the tv series "Gunsmoke", I've got to ask you two questions: 1. Would Marshall Dillon make an acceptable Paladin? and 2. Please describe _all_ of Ms. Kitty's occupational activities.


----------



## reapersaurus

Great character, shilsen. You obviously understand the core components of a paladin, and how they shouldn;t be viewed dogmatically (i.e. sex=evil)
Tom Cashel and Elder Basilisk have it right also, mostly. (great hearing from people who truly understand the class, BTW)


			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I was doing a writeup for a paladin character concept I had, and was curious how other DMs would react to it.



Well, I'm not a "DM", but you've (probably) read enough of my posts on paladins that I should be OK to chime in.

(Note, I'm only responding to your first post.
Also, I appreciate Piratecat opening this thread back up. It's nice to see a thread with good discussion not get closed because of people who care more about religion than about the paladin class in a fantasy roleplaying game.)

Cedric is very close to being a perfectly-fine paladin in my book.
There are only a couple problems.

a) The sleeping with whores bit.
It's not a problem that he's womanizing, or that he likes sex- there's nothing in the paladin description that requires him to be chaste. The problem is that he's knowingly hanging around people with no moral code.
The prostitute-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche notwithstanding, most prostitutes are not good people. They sell themselves, and others if they had the chance, for a living. That is not a group that is worthy of his company.
Further, he shouldn't have to go to whores if he believes he deserves the company of a woman. He's likely a very charismatic guy, and if he's still alive, he probably has just done good deeds for women. It's highly likely that there would be many a woman (not a whore) that would be willing to reward their knight with a night (IYKWIMAITYD).
The problem then is what does he do about protection? How does he prevent many offspring from being born with no father present, and likely orphaned (if he believes he'll die one day soon)?

b) The drunk bit.
There's no problem with him casually drinking, IMO - as long as he's still in control, and not reducing his capabilities.
I just don't get why he's ACTING drunk (as evidenced by him steely-nerved and alert when talking to the young knight).

c) The cursing.
This is straight out.
By cursing, he is not displaying the reserve and control that is inherent in a paladin. He is not disciplined in speech, and all paladins must be disciplined.

Lastly, I don't see why a paladin like Cedric would accept a knight-hood from whatever order you mentioned.
As I see it, he would not answer to "Sir Cedric", nor would he put any stock in it. If they want to give him a title, he'd view it an internal ceremonial title.
I have played paladins that do not believe in Paladin Orders before.
It is NOT required for a paladin to be a member of a group.

This Cedric as you described him in the first post seems to me to be an individualistic paladin, who has his head on straight about what it really means to be a paladin. In fact, I've debated for years, advocating a similar approach to what you've taken with Cedric.


----------



## reapersaurus

That (above) was my first post, typed days ago before I read the thread mostly.

I hadn't read the paragraph where you displayed Cedric's nihilism.
I'd agree with the others that said that's not an appropriate trait for a leader of men.
And all paladins are leaders, by example if not station.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

To answer your original question, after reading the description of your concept, I'd say "Yes, with a few reservations".

The whole "brothel" bit doesn't disturb me one bit. Just because prostitution is "morally" vilified in most western societies around here, doesn't mean it can't have a different take that actually allows prostitutes to be viewed as normal part of society and allow them to "stay" normal persons.

What bothers me a little more is the whole cynism/end of the world view Cedric takes. Being convinced that everything is lost anyway, that no matter what he does, it won't make an impact on the world, and that all the good he does will vanish when he is dead is, at best, resignation, at worst it is despair. Both usually stem from doubts that are confirmed time and time again. The point is that a paladin seldom doubts. He is immune to fear, and doubt in most of its forms is rooted in fear. A paladin doesn't fear, so he rarely doubts.
The whole look and demeanor stem from this cynism and resignation, and I'd ask you to adjust that if you wanted to play Cedric as an active paladin in one of my campaigns. Paladins radiate hope, not cynism, and lead through example as well as through words, and that goes for their demeanor as well as their looks. That doesn't mean they have to spend hours a day to polish their armor or weapons, but a clean look and polite behaviour is the minimal requirement I'd ask towards everyday life.

On the other hand, as a paladin who's lost his powers after doing a good deed which resulted (unwittingly) in an evil end, and who's not ready yet to break through all the despair and doubt that swarmed his mind all of a sudden, he'd be brilliant. One or two adventures that show him that not all is in vain, and at some point, a "redemption" scenario. That's how I'd handle Cedric as a DM.

So, hope I could help a little.  Sorry for not going into the fine points of a paladin's code of conduct, or alignment issues...but all that wasn't necessary for me to answer your question. And well...I guess those points already took up 10 pages.


----------



## shilsen

Torm said:
			
		

> It seems to me that a great deal of this conversation revolves around the morality of associating with prostitutes. Which brings me to a question: How many of you have known prostitutes? And I don't mean the sort of knowing that means you've given them patronage - I mean the sort where you've had them over for dinner or some such. Seems to me a lot of people are throwing around judgement on what it means to be around or to actually be prostitutes, without anything other than academic knowledge.




I think it's safe to say that you're absolutely right on this point.

I will say that, while I have never had cause or call to hire one, I have known several - including the mother of one of my former DMs, who was a $1000/night prostitute (and brazen with it - she used to arrange "dates" on the phone in front of said DM and his gaming friends) - and while I _know_ there are horrible crimes committed against young women in bad situations (I've known some), I can tell you there is an entirely different type of the oldest profession that is considerably less coerced or, arguably, immoral. [/QUOTE]

As before, I genuflect diligently before the words of the god of paladins  Making the assumption that all prostitution consists of coercion is just as silly, IMO, as assuming that "Pretty Woman" is a realistic movie. 



> (Against the rules of a _specific religious code_ is an entirely _other_ situation, but since we don't know the rules of Cedric's order, that part is irrelevant for the moment, until Shilsen decides to clarify those rules.)




I'll come up with something about that in the next little bit I write. Time to pull stuff out of my nether regions again


----------



## fusangite

You can count me as another person who has dealt, in real life with prostitutes, and not as a client. Of course, were she here, she'd be kicking me right now because I'm not using the PC term "sex trade worker." 

I've got to say, Elder Basilisk, do you have anything beyond thick, strident rhetoric to back up your position on prostitution?


----------



## shilsen

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Cedric is very close to being a perfectly-fine paladin in my book.
> There are only a couple problems.
> 
> a) The sleeping with whores bit.
> It's not a problem that he's womanizing, or that he likes sex- there's nothing in the paladin description that requires him to be chaste. The problem is that he's knowingly hanging around people with no moral code.
> The prostitute-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche notwithstanding, most prostitutes are not good people. They sell themselves, and others if they had the chance, for a living. That is not a group that is worthy of his company.




Now I think you're being a little dogmatic here. Writing off all prostitutes as having no moral code is a bit harsh and unwarranted, IMO. As I've said before and Torm pointed out above, there are many aspects of prostitution. And as long as we're dealing with prostitutes who aren't being enslaved or enslaving others, where's the moral problem? Objectively speaking, there is nothing immoral about selling one's body (it's only if you buy the subjective, culturally-mandated idea that sex is either sacred or wrong in some way, that such a conclusion arises). Heck, from my perspective, the person selling her body to someone with the clear understanding that it's temporary and a job is being a lot more moral than the average "yes-man" in an office who pretends to agree with anything his boss says. People sell themselves everyday and they sell their identities and opinions (which, IMO, make you more than your physical body does). In comparison, a prostitute selling her body seems a lot more honest.  



> Further, he shouldn't have to go to whores if he believes he deserves the company of a woman. He's likely a very charismatic guy, and if he's still alive, he probably has just done good deeds for women. It's highly likely that there would be many a woman (not a whore) that would be willing to reward their knight with a night (IYKWIMAITYD).
> The problem then is what does he do about protection? How does he prevent many offspring from being born with no father present, and likely orphaned (if he believes he'll die one day soon)?




Perhaps he just prefers to keep it professional, where there is a clear (lawful?) exchange between him and the woman. Perhaps he thinks that with a prostitute there is less chance of her misunderstanding the exchange. Lots of possibilities (I'm just outlining some random ones here, rather than what I'd definitely use in play). As for protection, in play I'd definitely have Cedric using protection (esp. magical). See - now I have a paladin I can use the BoEF with  



> b) The drunk bit.
> There's no problem with him casually drinking, IMO - as long as he's still in control, and not reducing his capabilities.
> I just don't get why he's ACTING drunk (as evidenced by him steely-nerved and alert when talking to the young knight).




He wasn't acting drunk. Magnus assumed he was, and was surprised to discover he wasn't. It's a perspective error (and not the first) on Magnus' part.



> c) The cursing.
> This is straight out.
> By cursing, he is not displaying the reserve and control that is inherent in a paladin. He is not disciplined in speech, and all paladins must be disciplined.




I think that would depend on the manner of cursing. I know more than a few people who use expletives as part of their everyday speech, and they do so when they are completely in control. It's just a normal part of their vocabulary. I do think that swearing tends to create imprecision in language usage and loses its efficacy when used constantly, but I don't think it shows any less discipline. "To be or not to be" is not objectively more disciplined than "To be or *bleep* not to be". It just scans worse 



> That (above) was my first post, typed days ago before I read the thread mostly.
> 
> I hadn't read the paragraph where you displayed Cedric's nihilism.
> I'd agree with the others that said that's not an appropriate trait for a leader of men.
> And all paladins are leaders, by example if not station.




I'd say that all paladins being leaders, or more precisely, *how* they are leaders, is another area where most people make unwarranted assumptions. I don't think all paladins have to be leaders, though I agree they're usually seen that way. As for Cedric, I'd see him as a leader in his actions for the cause, rather than in how he characterizes it to someone like Magnus. I'd also see him a leader in making others see beyond the veneer of paladinhood, beyond the shiny surface and the polished words, to the very core - namely, doing what should be done, simply because it should be done, irrespective of whether one is thanked, or honored, or the odds, or whether one hopes to win. 

Hmm - I think I have a couple of ideas for a further instalment of the saga of Cedric. Maybe I'll post something later today.


----------



## drnuncheon

The Sigil said:
			
		

> It looked to me - and I hope I'm reading it wrong, because the rest of your post raises some good issues - that you weren't disagreeing with my assessment of his behavior as "dishonorable." If that is the case, he's in violation of the paladin's code ("to act with honor").




 Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with your assessment, which was that "some people regard his behavior as dishonorable" - not the same thing at all.  Since honor has vastly different meanings in different times and places, as a DM one has to decide the final arbiter of honor with regards to paladins - his culture? His church? His god? Himself?  So that's still an open case.


----------



## drnuncheon

The Sigil said:
			
		

> One final needlepoint directed to no one in particular...
> 
> SUPPOSITION: Drinking and patronizing brothels are against the teachings of of Cedric's religious order with regard to code of conduct (which I gather from Magnus' comments).




 Granted.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> PREMISE 1: Tenets/teachings of that order come from the priests of that religious order.




 Significantly worded! The priests, and not the deity.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> PREMISE 2: The priests of the religious order represent the legitimate authority of that order (if they did not represent the deity in question, they would not receive spells, etc., no?)




 Here's where I disagree.  They may be correct about some of the God's desires/authority/rules but not all.  They could still receive spells because their rules are a superset of the deity's rules, and those rules that are not directly from the deity do not conflict with those that are.



> AXIOM: The paladin's code requires him to "respect legitimate authority."
> 
> COROLLARY: "Respecting legitimate authority" means "obeying the instructions - including code of conduct" given by that authority within the scope of its authority.




 And now we can ask 'does the authority of the religion extend past that directly granted by the god itself'?



> b.) The priests of his order do not represent the legitimate authority of a deity (possible, but checking on this would be as simple as checking on whether or not they receive clerical empowerment).




 All true except for the parenthetical note - the priests could be "close enough" for the deity in question, and Cedric could as well - the 'reality' being between the two.  The priests could be deluded as to the source of their power - maybe it is a different deity, an ethos, a forgotten relic.  If you have a setting like Eberron, where deities can literally have priests of any alignment and are not directly meddling in the affairs of the world (the way they are in, say, FR), then the matter gets even murkier.

 J


----------



## drnuncheon

Also, I'd like to change my vote, because I wouldn't let Cedric in the game with a steed named "Bob".


----------



## fusangite

Sigil, 

I generally agree with your idea that Magnus's reactions indicate a real problem but I thought, for fun, I would poke some holes in the argument.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> SUPPOSITION: Drinking and patronizing brothels are against the teachings of of Cedric's religious order with regard to code of conduct (which I gather from Magnus' comments).




You are universalizing the teachings of "the priests" perhaps inappropriately. Why would there be priestly unanimity here? Within many religions in the past, clergy was factionalized or locally distinct so I don't buy that because one set of priests have a particular standards that these standards would be the universal standards of the faith.



> PREMISE 1: Tenets/teachings of that order come from the priests of that religious order.




Two problems here: (a) this rests on the supposition of a monolithic priesthood; (b) why can't they also originate from ascetics, lay leaders and holy warriors? In medieval Europe, often the teachings of mendicant friars were more respected and received with greater authority than those of secular clergy whose job it actually was to communicate the beliefs to the people.



> PREMISE 2: The priests of the religious order represent the legitimate authority of that order (if they did not represent the deity in question, they would not receive spells, etc., no?)




It depends on how much this god micro-manages and how many manifestations of the godhead there are. Look at Saint Paul's letter to the Romans (_Romans_) for how, within the same faith, two distinct groups can be governed by two distinct sets of rules. 



> AXIOM: The paladin's code requires him to "respect legitimate authority."




Agreed.



> COROLLARY: "Respecting legitimate authority" means "obeying the instructions - including code of conduct" given by that authority within the scope of its authority.




Agreed. But what evidence do we have (a) that there are violations of the code governing Cedric going on, and (b) that the code that governs him is created by priests and not be theologians, ascetics or other holy warriors?



> CONCLUSION:  Cedric drinks and patronizes brothels.  This is against the teachings of his order with regard to code of conduct (supposition).  These instructions come from the priests of his order (premise 1), who represent legitimate authority (premise 2).  In not following these instructions, Cedric is not respecting legitimate authority (corollary).  Therefore, by axiom 1, Cedric is in violation of the paladin's code and thus loses his paladinhood.




House of cards here I'm afraid. I much prefer my model for not letting him do this stuff.



> CONCLUSION 2: If Cedric does not follow the teachings of the order and keeps his paladinhood, one of the suppositions, premises, or the corollary above is incorrect (the axiom cannot be).  This means that if Cedric is played as written and keeps his paladinhood:
> 
> a.) Drinking and womanizing are NOT proscribed by the clergy of Cedric's church (unlikely given the fiction piece).




I think I've shown perfectly credible alternatives such as a non-monolithic priesthood, multiple types of worshippers, a sovereign order of holy warriors or one allied with a group other than the secular clergy, etc.



> b.) The priests of his order do not represent the legitimate authority of a deity (possible, but checking on this would be as simple as checking on whether or not they receive clerical empowerment).




Not at all. Look at the Saint Paul model or, more recently and up to the present, the rules for married clergy within different parts of the Roman Catholic world. For a non-Ukranian Catholic priest to marry, it is grounds for being defrocked and possibly excommunicated yet there is no loss of authority for Ukranian priests. Similarly, Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are allowed to stay married with no consequences.


----------



## The Sigil

shilsen - "a hit, a palpable hit" - great line!  I know it's not much, and certainly doesn't "turn the discussion" in any fashion, but it encourages me that this whole discussion has been done civilly and with enough sense of humor that some really deep and important issues have been plumbed and thoughts examined without things going ugly. 

fusangite & Dr. Nuncheon - Excellent job of dissecting and raising objections to some of the assumptions.  As I'm sure you know, if an assumption can be brought into question, the conclusion is of course automatically in question.

Dr. Nuncheon - Nearly fell off my chair laughing at your "I'd like to change my vote based on the horse being named 'Bob' line."  Please come over to clean up the water I spit all over my monitor at your earliest convenience. 

I think, for the most part, the "Best Arguments" for both sides have been put forth and the holes have been poked in the arguments for both sides.  At this point, it comes down to "which opinion do you have/which side to you hold" as regards some of the views on "purity" and "self discipline as a lawful trait" and what is meant by "and so forth" - and these will vary from person to person and there is no correct answer.  I think further arguing on the points presented to this point would serve only to "entrench each party further in the opinion that it is right."

I can see the argument from both sides (in fact, I could have made many of your arguments for you), something that I think it important to truly understand one's point of view.  Unless I see something that sparks my thought in some new way, I'm afraid I will be able to contribute little more of "worth" to the thread in terms of provoking thought and examination of a position or moral opinion; my points have been made and clearly have evoked some of the thought I hoped they might.  With nothing more "deep" to contribut for now, I'll be a little quieter... though I am curious to see some more of the "fiction" fleshing out Sir Cedric.

--The Sigil


----------



## shilsen

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Also, I'd like to change my vote, because I wouldn't let Cedric in the game with a steed named "Bob".



 *runs to Bob and covers his ear and a half* 

Aw, come on - could you think of a steed which might be more appropriate for Cedric than Bob? Although I did consider a dyspeptic dromedary called Monique too. 



			
				Sigil said:
			
		

> shilsen - "a hit, a palpable hit" - great line! I know it's not much, and certainly doesn't "turn the discussion" in any fashion, but it encourages me that this whole discussion has been done civilly and with enough sense of humor that some really deep and important issues have been plumbed and thoughts examined without things going ugly.




Sure. One of my intentions with the thread was to get people to consider atypical takes on the paladin without it getting acrimonious, as such threads seem invariably seem to do. And I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion, especially where posts such as yours make me evaluate and re-evaluate my own positions.  



> Dr. Nuncheon - Nearly fell off my chair laughing at your "I'd like to change my vote based on the horse being named 'Bob' line." Please come over to clean up the water I spit all over my monitor at your earliest convenience.




Bastard  

If I may speak for Bob here - If you summon us from our celestial realms, are we not special steeds?


----------



## Orius

Some more thoughts of mine upon reading through this thread (and I'm glad it reopened):

It's implied that Cedric gets his abilities from a divine source.  And there's two interesting bits of characterization to take note of here: 1) one of the first things Cedric does when we wakes up is to pray and 2) while Cedric himself is described as being unkempt, the holy symbol of his god is described as "polished", which I assume means he takes better care of it than he does of himself.  From this it seems that regardless of Cedric's behavior and attitude, he's still obviously devoted to his god.  It would also seem that the god isn't bothered by Cedric's activities or attitude, since he still is granted his powers.  Also note that it is never mentioned exactly _which_ god Cedric serves.

I'd say that Cedric does come off as a bit arrogant, at least in his reply to Magnus.  Maybe he's just sick of constantly defendign himself.  Who knows?

Cedric is a bit cynical, or perhaps I'd say more realistic (but then I'm a cynic myself ).  He knows he likely will get killed somewhere along the line.  Where some paladins are overconfident in their faith, he's a bit smarter.  Just because you're relying on the power of faith doesn't mean you won't face an opponent who isn't empowered by an evil faith which is just as strong or stronger as yours.  Hence the moral of Sir Bodel.  After all, paladins are on the front lines in the conflict of good and evil.  But in the end Cedric will still fight because he believes it's the right thing to do, even if he loses.  Perhaps this willingness to sacrifice his life in the name of good even if it ends up being meaningless impresses Cedric's god more than the faith of a paladin who blindly believes that good will always triumph over evil.  After all, the blind paladin doesn't feel he has anything to lose, while Cedric is openly chosing to sacrifice himself.  After all, with his view of things, he could just say, "Screw it, let someone else do this," but he isn't.

Even if he's not fighting demons, maybe just some evil warlord, he knows over the long run it doesn't make a difference.  Why?  I don't see it as simple pessimism, but as taking the long view.  You defeat an evil warlord, you create a power vacuum.  Who's to say some worse bastard won't come along to take the last one's place?  He doesn't have a rose-colored view on his actions, seeing it as "I kill the bad guy and everyone lives happily ever after."  Maybe it's more like being smart enough to know that his actions have consequences.

Finally there's the whole consorting with prostitutes angle.  He's using his powers to help them out.  A lot of people, like Magnus, would just turn their noses up at the girls see them as nothing more than filthy whores and turn their backs on them.  Cedric doesn't do that.  He's healing them, protecting them, and so on.  And he's doing some good here too; many people l(like Magnus), either don't give a damn what happens to the whores or look down on them.  Perhaps this goes against the spirit of the teachings of the god Cedric serves, and he still gets his powers because he serves those in need without judging them.


----------



## drnuncheon

Woo! One monitor and a chance at a bruised tailbone. I'm in the _zone_.

 More seriously, I have never been able to take a Bob seriously after "Bob the Cleric", the NPC band-aid for a pubescent, spike-laden barbarian, a halfling ranger with a three-legged riding dog, and a chunky elven sorceress.  

 Everything else about Cedric could fit into a serious game, except for calling his steed "Bob" - and I think this character is interesting enough that I'd want him in a serious game.

 In fact, he raises all _kinds_ of great plot points - which is the best reason for allowing him in the game.  Why _isn't_ Cedric stripped of his paladinhood?  What are the church elders hiding?

 J


----------



## Warrior Poet

Unfortunately, I had to vote no . . . 

. . . but only because I'm with hong on this one.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> See, if you banned paladins, you'd be able to play all sorts of cool white-hat character concepts -- like the one that Shilsen posted that started this thread -- without getting bogged down in stupid arguments over whether it's class X or class Y.




I don't allow them in games where I am DM.  Never cared for the class much, in any iteration of the game.  I don't mind if other people play them in a game where I am also a player (I'm actually in a game now with someone playing a paladin), but as a DM, I find them really irritating.  It may be that I've seen too many played from the "immovable absolutist" perspective, and that grates on my DM sensibilities (which may be why I should stop being a DM for D&D  ).

That said, I think the character sounds great, and his cynicism aside, he sounds like he'd be fun to go drinking with sometime.



			
				Brennan Magalus said:
			
		

> A paladin is based on . . . the historical Templars and Hospitallers (and perhaps Joan of Arc), none of whom would go a-whoring.




Don't know about Joan of Arc, but as to the Templars/Hospitalers, well, I think you and I are reading different history books.  The *ideal* for Templars/Hospitalers might have included absolute chastity and refusal to patronize prostitutes, but I think a lot of those dudes must've slept through Chaste Behavior and Not Consorting with Courtezans 101 in knight school. However, your observation that paladins are based on literary figures like Galahad (the Chaste), is very accurate, I think, and that's probably where much of the paladin characterization in D&D comes from.

Incidentally, for another good perspective on the paladin that really tries to live up to the codes and ideals of his faith, but is having an _awfully_ hard time doing so (and no, it's not all his fault), check out Sepulchrave II's story hour and spend some time getting to know Eadric of Deorham.

OK, fine, I admit it, there is a paladin I like.  

Well, tolerate, anyway. 

But I still think Mostin and Nwm are better.  

Thanks,

Warrior Poet


----------



## Zog

No.

In fact, based on some of his statements to Magnus, verging on evil.

Yep, Evil.  He is counseling despair.  He is stating that evil can not be defeated.  He is advocating the death of hope and the lack of a bright future.   Its not to far from Cedric actually lost to his previous demon-opponent, and was replaced by a servant of darkness, whose goal is drag down as many of Cedric's fellow paladins as possible.

And whats up with the story of the quad. paladin?  No clerics with regenerate?  No Heal?  No magic items which allow use of mage hand a few times a day so he can care for himself?  Give the quad an animated sword, strap a shield to him, and srap him to his horse, and he'll still be out there, fighting demons.  THAT is a true Paladin.  One who never gives up.  Never says that battle can not be won.  And even if there is not sufficient magic for an animated item or a regenerate, etc. - The paladin still rides around town a few times a week to cure disease, and lay on hands.  And his appearance is always met by a hushed silence, as the townsfolk nod in respect to this crippled, ruined figure, who still holds his head up high, who still believes, who still inspires.  THAT is something Mr. Doom and gloom, boo-hoo we can't make a difference Cedric will never do.  As written, his is (in my opinion) not a Paladin.  Cedric has given up hope.  He still fights, but Mere Fighting is Not Enough!  To fight for a cause, for a better future, THAT is what makes the difference between a soldier and a Paladin.

Cedric's lack of faith in the future, lack of hope, failure to believe in his fellow humanity, that is why his is not a Paladin, IMHO.  To me, a Paladin exists to not just battle evil but to inspire others to do the same.  And Cedric's message of hopelessness will have the opposite affect.

Now, all of that said, as Shilsen writes more, and reveals a bit more about the character, the character becomes closer to a paladin.  But it is still missing that spark, that belief in a greater good, that at the end of the day Good will triumph.  With out that hope, I do not believe a character could be a Paladin.

Paladin inspirations: Deed of Paksennarrion, Legend of Huma, The War Gods Own & Oath of Swords


----------



## drnuncheon

Zog said:
			
		

> Yep, Evil.  He is counseling despair.




 But he's not.  If he were counseling despair, why would he bother to keep fighting?  What's the point? Why keep living, keep fighting, etc?  Something in him must not have given up, because no matter how much he complains, _he still goes and does it_.



> And whats up with the story of the quad. paladin? No clerics with regenerate? No Heal? No magic items which allow use of mage hand a few times a day so he can care for himself?




 Believe it or not, some people do play in low-magic games where such things are not commonplace.



> Give the quad an animated sword, strap a shield to him, and srap him to his horse, and he'll still be out there, fighting demons.




 Well, for 4 rounds, when the 'dancing' stops.



> The paladin still rides around town a few times a week to cure disease, and lay on hands. And his appearance is always met by a hushed silence, as the townsfolk nod in respect to this crippled, ruined figure, who still holds his head up high, who still believes, who still inspires.




 Maybe he wants to, and the church doesn't want people thinking "look what happens if you fight for good - you wind up a ball of meat."  

 Anyway, there's a saying - "scratch a cynic and you find a disappointed idealist".  I suspect that somewhere in Cedric, that idealist is still there, and that's what keeps him from really despairing. But he's been battered around by the world enough that it's hard to see.

 But clearly, he thinks that one man makes a difference, because he still goes out and fights.  Even if he thinks that that difference is keeping the world from falling into blackness for one more day, that's still one more day - and so he fights.

 That's why he's such a fascinating character.  Unlike other paladins who are miles away, he's ridden right up to the edge of the chasm and looked in.  He's riding along the edge, and he doesn't fall.  The question of "will he?" makes watching him a heck of a lot more exciting than some shiny fanatic who never has doubts or flaws.

 J


----------



## Mallus

Zog said:
			
		

> Give the quad an animated sword, strap a shield to him, and srap him to his horse, and he'll still be out there, fighting demons.  THAT is a true Paladin.



"I didn't play D&D for all those years and not learn a little something about courage" --Frohicke (I think...), _The X-Files_


----------



## Warrior Poet

Mallus said:
			
		

> "I didn't play D&D for all those years and not learn a little something about courage" --Frohicke (I think...), _The X-Files_




It was some random kid who had supposedly seen a UFO.  Scully <pant, pant> was interviewing the kid about it and she asked if he was scared.  His response was as you noted.  The episode is "Jose Chung's _From Outer Space_," which also spawned the great goofy character name "Lord Kinbote."

I'm laughing now just thinking about it.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Mallus

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> It was some random kid who had supposedly seen a UFO.  Scully <pant, pant> was interviewing the kid about it and she asked if he was scared.  His response was as you noted.  The episode is "Jose Chung's _From Outer Space_," which also spawned the great goofy character name "Lord Kinbote."



Damn, how'd I forget that... that's my favorite episode... but all I can remember quote-wise is "I said he _looked_ like Alex Trebek."

The Jose Chung episode of Millenium that smears Scientology and Deepak Chopra, "Jose Chung's Doomsday Defense" is pretty great, too.

Oh, I swear that "Lord Kinbote" is a nod to Vladimir Nabakov's _Pale Fire_, which is narrated (err, after a fashion, 'annotated' would work better...), uber-unreliably, by a professor Charles Kinbote. _Pale Fire_ plays with the idea of 'what's the true stroy and who's story is it to tell'?


----------



## shilsen

And here's another bit on Cedric. Same caveats as before, of course 

*Through the eyes of others, pt.3 *

Shikuna asked, "So the messages have all been sent out?"

"Yes, Father," said Magnus. "I doubt, however, that any of them will be delivered - and answered - before tomorrow at the earliest."

The old priest sighed and said, "That, alas, we cannot do anything about. But you have done well. Go and rest now."

The younger man turned towards the door, and then hesitated, as Shikuna had known he would. Magnus turned back and said, a little diffidently, "Pardon me, Father, but if you would allow it - I have a question..."

"About Cedric," completed Shikuna.

Magnus reddened, but continued. "Yes, Father."

"Sit down," said the old man, thinking inwardly, _This will take a while, but better now than later._ Once Magnus had taken a seat, Shikuna leaned forward and said, "Something bothers you. Tell me what it is."

Magnus cast about for a way to begin and then burst out, "Everything! You sent me to deliver a message to someone who I'd always been told was a hero, an icon of the Order! And I find a ... a ..." 

"...foul-mouthed drunkard and lecher?" finished Shikuna.

"YES!!" Magnus was almost shouting in his confusion. "How ... I mean ... why does the Order allow this... *blasphemy?!*" Realizing a little too late how loud he was, Magnus came to a halt. 

Shikuna waited while the excited youth took a deep breath to calm himself, and then said quietly, "You think we should strip Cedric of his paladinhood? Even though the choosing is done by the High Lord himself?"

Magnus stared for moment, before saying, a little lamely, "No, I did not mean ... well ... but he is breaking every tenet of the Order. Isn't he?"

_You were right, Cedric,_ thought Shikuna. _You will only show them, but I will have to do the teaching._ "Well, let's see now," he said. "What do the Tenets say about alcohol?" 

Magnus recited like a schoolboy, "Thou shalt not allow alcohol to impair thy judgement."

"Good. Did Cedric seem like his judgement and capability was impaired?"

"Well, no. But what about..."

"And what do the Tenets say about visiting prostitutes?"

"Huh?" There was a pause, and then Magnus said a little more slowly, "Well, they do not mention it...."

"And what about swearing? Remember a Tenet about it?" pushed Shikuna.

"No-oo," said Magnus, even more slowly than before. He paused for a moment, evidently thinking very quickly. "But no priest of the Order that I have met actually does..."

"...any of that. True. Perhaps later you can take time to think about why that is so. But for now, you think that it is wrong for a paladin to do so?"

"Yes!"

"Very well. Tell me, warrior of the Order, what is a paladin?"

Again, as if repeating a catechism, Magnus recited, "A paladin is the greatest servant of the High Lord. The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil - these are the weapons of the paladin. The paladin is the upholder of the Code. The paladin stands on the edge, between the light and the darkness, and he does not yield. The paladin sees with the eyes of the spirit, not of the flesh."

"Good," said Shikuna, picking his moment to interrupt. "With what eyes did you see Cedric, Magnus?"

"Huh?" said Magnus, caught off-guard.

"That's all right," said Shikuna, waving a hand. "Now let me tell you a little about paladins. As they say in the tales, once upon a time..."

And Shikuna told Magnus the stories...

... about a young man, full of righteousness and zeal just as Magnus was, who served in the ranks of the Order and rose to the rank of paladin, vowing his life to the service of the High Lord.

... about the man who singlehandedly led a force of peasants to victory over a superior army of monsters, and returned to their village to find it gutted, with everyone in it killed, raped, and eaten.  

... about the man who sat alone in a room for three days, without food or water, and who emerged to say that now that he had "had words with the High Lord", *now* he understood, to cast aside his shining armor and gleaming trappings, to embrace what he said was "the soul and center" of paladinhood and the Order.

... about the high priest of the Order, who commanded that the Tenets of the High Lord be modified so as to be able to cast out an "inappropriate influence" from the Order, and who awoke the next morning stripped of his clerical powers. 

... about the man who singlehandedly slew three blackguards, gave them the last rites, buried them, and wept over their graves, because that is what he might have been.

... about the man who walked and laughed and drank among the hungry and outnumbered soldiers of the Third Army, while the generals slept in their silk tents, before helping them to victory at the Battle of Atin.

... about the man who, when asked what was the most important thing that a paladin should remember, said, "That he is a human being."

... about the man who alternately walked and crawled on a broken leg for three days, carrying a wounded comrade, because he was "too pissed off to meet the High Lord right now."

It was over an hour later when Shikuna paused, more due to hoarseness than anything else. Magnus looked perhaps even more tired than the old man. 

"And that was Cedric?" said the young man, hesitantly.

"Yes," said Shikuna. "There is much more I could tell you about him, but I will end with one tale."

And Shikuna told Magnus a tale which had nothing to do with heroism and war, with glory and purity. He told a tale* of Cedric sitting up all night in a peasant hovel with a dying old man, taking away such pain as he could, soothing away his terror, seeing him safely on his way ... and then cleaning him up, laying him out, making him neat for the funeral, helping the weeping widow to strip the bed and wash the sheets, staying with her the whole day and up the next night to watch over the coffin and officiating at the funeral ... and then going home and sitting down for five minutes, before some shouting man comes banging on the door, angry because he doesn't open the door quick enough, complaining that his wife's giving birth to his first child and the midwife's having trouble ... and Cedric smiling at the man and accompanying him without a word. 

"That," said Shikuna, "Is the root and heart and soul and center of paladinhood. The soul and the center."

"So," said Magnus quietly, "You think I should do as he does?"

"Hah!" laughed Shikuna explosively. "No," he said, with a smile. "I do not think there is one among us - or among the paladins of the world, whether of our Order or any other - who could do what he does and fail to slip over. Not even you, young Magnus."  

Magnus blushed at the comment, but Shikuna went on, almost as if talking to himself. "You were right. The paladin does stand on the edge between light and darkness, but every paladin besides Cedric faces into the light. He looks over the edge into the darkness. Every moment of every day, he watches the dark, and he watches the dark watch him, and he walks the edge between the two. He is one of the few - the very few - whom the High Lord blesses with true sight and understanding, and that is as much of a curse as a gift." The old man's voice was thick with mingled fascination and pity as he finished.

Shikuna shook himself and then leaned over to pat Magnus on the shoulder. "But that is enough for now. You need to go and rest, and so do I. Maybe tomorrow I will tell you some more."

"I would like that," said Magnus as he rose to his feet and made a formal bow to the priest. "Thank you, father - for everything."

"You are always welcome," said Shikuna, and watched as the young man slowly walked out of the room. _Hopefully, there goes someone who will never trust only his eyes again._

As he rose slowly to his own feet, he thought, _You are right, Cedric - you exist as a lesson to us all. And only the High Lord knows exactly what the lesson is._

* If you think you recognize that section from Terry Pratchett's _A Hat Full of Sky_, you're right. My little homage to the master.


----------



## shilsen

Orius said:
			
		

> Cedric is a bit cynical, or perhaps I'd say more realistic (but then I'm a cynic myself ).




Would you be surprised if I said I'm the same? Or, as one of my friends once said, "You're the most realist, idealistic, optimistic, cynical person I know. You make me ill!"  



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Everything else about Cedric could fit into a serious game, except for calling his steed "Bob" - and I think this character is interesting enough that I'd want him in a serious game.




You think calling his celestial steed by a shortened form makes him too comedic for a serious game? Personally speaking, I like to have a little humor in my serious stuff. Let's just say I like Shakespeare more than Aeschylus (though I really like Aeschylus too).



> That's why he's such a fascinating character. Unlike other paladins who are miles away, he's ridden right up to the edge of the chasm and looked in. He's riding along the edge, and he doesn't fall. The question of "will he?" makes watching him a heck of a lot more exciting than some shiny fanatic who never has doubts or flaws.




Hah! I didn't even read this post before writing the last section. I like standing on the edge and looking in.


----------



## fusangite

Zog said:
			
		

> In fact, based on some of his statements to Magnus, verging on evil.
> Yep, Evil.  He is counseling despair.  He is stating that evil can not be defeated.



So, tell me, in the core rules D&D cosmology with the Great Wheel, can evil ever be defeated?


> He is advocating the death of hope and the lack of a bright future.



To advocate and to acknowledge are two different things.


> THAT is a true Paladin.



Being "not a true paladin" is not equal to being evil.


> Cedric's lack of faith in the future, lack of hope,



Odin knows Raagnarok is coming in which he and the other gods will all die, along with all the people who worship him. Is Odin evil?


> failure to believe in his fellow humanity,



I don't see that.

What about that scene in _Return of the King_ (the book) in which Eomer takes command after Theoden dies, don't you recall that point where he lost hope but continued fighting, when the war cry is changed to "death"? While hope can be a component of goodness, its absence does not render someone evil.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Yes. I used to work at a hostel in the Amsterdam red light district. I knew one lady there who lived at the hostel--when she had the money to afford it and wasn't staying with one of her Johns--and came back with her face bruised on a reasonably regular basis. 

One of my aquaintances in college also mentioned that he had turned a few tricks in San Francisco but it was clearly a shameful experience for him and I never asked more about it.

While I was in Amsterdam, I also ran into a LOT of people who came there for the sex and drugs (and alcohol though they didn't really need to go to Amsterdam to get that), found them, spent all their money on them (or were robbed), and were never able to leave. Every now and then, they'd save enough money to open a bank account and think about putting their life back together either in Holland or where they came from, they'd blow it all on ale and whores again.

There's more to it than that, of course, but let's not pretend that the institution of prostitution is innocent until proven guilty and I have to defend my rhetoric in detail but those who strongly state their view that it's innocent fun and games can get by without doing so.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> You can count me as another person who has dealt, in real life with prostitutes, and not as a client. Of course, were she here, she'd be kicking me right now because I'm not using the PC term "sex trade worker."
> 
> I've got to say, Elder Basilisk, do you have anything beyond thick, strident rhetoric to back up your position on prostitution?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

shilsen said:
			
		

> And as long as we're dealing with prostitutes who aren't being enslaved or enslaving others, where's the moral problem? Objectively speaking, there is nothing immoral about selling one's body (it's only if you buy the subjective, culturally-mandated idea that sex is either sacred or wrong in some way, that such a conclusion arises).




Umm, objectively speaking, the idea that coercion and slavery are wrong are just as subjective and culturally mandated than the idea that sex is either sacred or wrong unless proven otherwise. (In fact, one could quite easily argue that those particular ideas are far more unambiguously mandated by western culture than anything about sex (which has very strong but also very very confused cultural mandates).



> Heck, from my perspective, the person selling her body to someone with the clear understanding that it's temporary and a job is being a lot more moral than the average "yes-man" in an office who pretends to agree with anything his boss says. People sell themselves everyday and they sell their identities and opinions (which, IMO, make you more than your physical body does). In comparison, a prostitute selling her body seems a lot more honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that would depend on the manner of cursing. I know more than a few people who use expletives as part of their everyday speech, and they do so when they are completely in control. It's just a normal part of their vocabulary. I do think that swearing tends to create imprecision in language usage and loses its efficacy when used constantly, but I don't think it shows any less discipline. "To be or not to be" is not objectively more disciplined than "To be or *bleep* not to be". It just scans worse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This perspective while quite common, ignores the history and context of cussing. In most speech, the words serve the purpose of conveying hostility and a person who swears like a sailor (a concept that has been around for quite a long time, indicating that people using expletives as "a part of their everyday speech" is not historically unique and likely does not represent a significant divergence from the historical place of coarse language) generally learns the contexts and settings in which it is likely to have consequences. They understand something that is ignored by those who simply say "swearing: it's another means of talking"--namely that language has a shared meaning which includes its implications. To say, I f-ed the girl is a lot less respectful than to say we screwed, had sex, made love, had relations, or pretty much any other way of saying the same thing. I'm not saying that it's objectively chaotic to use coarse language as a matter of course, but what that communicates should be troubling for a paladin.
> 
> The notion that swearing could be a part of Sir Cedric's normal volcabulary without indicating anything more than that Sir Cedric likes swearing also implies that language has no fixed meaning or significance. While that is a fairly common perspective, I'm not certain that it's true. Shared meaning isn't necessarily all that there is to the story, but I think it's enough to create some tension (though not necessarily unresolvable tension) in the idea of a paladin who swears like a sailor or a rapper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm - I think I have a couple of ideas for a further instalment of the saga of Cedric. Maybe I'll post something later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't. (At least not in this forum). It actually makes it more difficult to discuss the concepts brought up by the initial post if you continue the story. Rather than being able to lift the character portrait out of the initial story and discuss whether or not the character's attributes are compatible with paladinhood, it forces anyone who disagrees with you to reject the story at a fundamental level. For instance, in order to argue that Sir Cedric is not a paladin, it is necessary to edit the warhorse scene out entirely--not because it demonstrates that Sir Cedric has the character, purity, or actions appropriate to the paladin class but because it demonstrates that he has the abilities of the paladin class in the story and that the story must therefore be rejected if one is to preserve disagreement).
Click to expand...


----------



## shilsen

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> There's more to it than that, of course, but let's not pretend that the institution of prostitution is innocent until proven guilty and I have to defend my rhetoric in detail but those who strongly state their view that it's innocent fun and games can get by without doing so.




We must not be reading the same thread, or you really like exaggerating. I haven't seen anyone arguing here that prostitution (and esp. prostitution as a whole) is "innocent fun and games". What I have seen, however, is people arguing that the institution of prostitution is much more multifaceted than you make it out to be. Yes, there are people who are prostitutes because they have been enslaved or forced into it. There are also people who have chosen to be prostitutes because they prefer it to scrubbing floors or working in a field. And there are a lot of other variants, especially if you look at prostitution across the ages. You seem to completely discount any possibility other than "prostitution as coercion/slavery", and that's what a number of people here have responded to.



> Please don't. (At least not in this forum).




Too late 



> It actually makes it more difficult to discuss the concepts brought up by the initial post if you continue the story. Rather than being able to lift the character portrait out of the initial story and discuss whether or not the character's attributes are compatible with paladinhood, it forces anyone who disagrees with you to reject the story at a fundamental level. For instance, in order to argue that Sir Cedric is not a paladin, it is necessary to edit the warhorse scene out entirely--not because it demonstrates that Sir Cedric has the character, purity, or actions appropriate to the paladin class but because it demonstrates that he has the abilities of the paladin class in the story and that the story must therefore be rejected if one is to preserve disagreement).




I see your point, but anyone posting here is free to ignore my later additions and focus on the first one. A lot of posters mentioned the lack of context and/or elucidation of various factors in my original post as causing problems towards making an informed decision. So I'm trying to address that, as well as expanding a little bit on how I could make Cedric work in my campaign. I think we've already moved the discussion past my original question, and I believe at least some people are enjoying the additions.


----------



## drnuncheon

shilsen said:
			
		

> You think calling his celestial steed by a shortened form makes him too comedic for a serious game?




Not the idea of the nickname in general - just the fact that it's "Bob". It just seems too jarringly modern (yes, even though Robert is a perfectly respectable name going back centuries).

Admittedly, "Ray" would be just as bad, especially if the horse's real name was something like "Glorious Beam of Blazing Sun".

J


----------



## Torm

shilsen said:
			
		

> We must not be reading the same thread, or you really like exaggerating. I haven't seen anyone arguing here that prostitution (and esp. prostitution as a whole) is "innocent fun and games". <snip> You seem to completely discount any possibility other than "prostitution as coercion/slavery", and that's what a number of people here have responded to.




Exactly. I didn't say my ex-DM's mom was completely well-adjusted - she had come from a horrible childhood, as I recall. BUT, she seemed mostly happy at the point in her life when I knew her, and was making a VERY nice living. And as for Ms. Kitty in her fictional but fairly realistic situation, well, I'm sure she was doing what it took for her and her girls to get by in a largely unsettled west - not necessarily what they'd have been doing in their own idealized versions of their lives, but better than a lot of alternatives.

I used to see prostitution as a straight, out-and-out evil situation. But I've met women selling their bodies who were obviously suffering from poor self-esteem, mental health, and people taking advantage of them, and others who were "just getting by", and still others that I wouldn't swear weren't better adjusted than ME. And it just _isn't_ a black-and-white thing.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I think we've already moved the discussion past my original question, and I believe at least some people are enjoying the additions.




Indeed. They clarify the original intent of Cedric's character, and provide fodder for additional discussion to keep the thread going. But - that last one nearly made me get all teary-eyed, so don't do that again.


----------



## shilsen

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Not the idea of the nickname in general - just the fact that it's "Bob". It just seems too jarringly modern (yes, even though Robert is a perfectly respectable name going back centuries).
> 
> Admittedly, "Ray" would be just as bad, especially if the horse's real name was something like "Glorious Beam of Blazing Sun".




Fair enough. I'm in the "it can't really be anachronism in fantasy since fantasy isn't historically accurate" camp myself, so it doesn't bother me as much as it does many people. And frankly. I really like the "Ray" idea  



			
				Torm said:
			
		

> Indeed. They clarify the original intent of Cedric's character, and provide fodder for additional discussion to keep the thread going. But - that last one nearly made me get all teary-eyed, so don't do that again.




That was the intent. And it's a close approximation to my idea of real heroism. Fighting BBEGs is simple. They win or you do and it's over (or at least so it is in most literature and fantasy and D&D games). But getting down into the trenches and facing the tiny little troubles of day-to-day life, the kind of trouble that you can't ever overcome (because they don't end, but are part and parcel of existence) but can only withstand, where there is no glory or medals or honor to be gained, and especially giving other people the courage to face them, and doing so without asking for or expecting thanks or praise (and not asking/expecting any thanks usually means that you won't get any) - now *that* takes courage. 

Of course, to give credit where it's due, the best part of that last section was the exercpt from Pratchett. I was about to put down something similar, and then realized that he says it better than I would, so I used it.


----------



## carpedavid

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that it's objectively chaotic to use coarse language as a matter of course, but what that communicates should be troubling for a paladin.
> 
> The notion that swearing could be a part of Sir Cedric's normal volcabulary without indicating anything more than that Sir Cedric likes swearing also implies that language has no fixed meaning or significance.




Actually, to understand the place that "vulgar language" has in history, we have to look at the meaning of the word vulgar - which literally means "common." Much vulgar language is simply the common man's terminology, and takes on negative connotations only through comparison to the language of upper crust.

More to the point - language doesn't have fixed meaning or significance. Words only have the significance that we apply to them, and that meaning constantly changes and varies by geography and temporality. We're lucky that we manage to hold on to meaning long enough to communicate. For example, ask me what a boot is, and I'll point to the thing on my foot. Ask an Englishman, and he'll point to the back of his car.

But, to tie this into the thread: If Cedric is a member of the common class, then it makes far more sense for him to speak in a "vulgar" manner than for him to not. In my opinion, it would be more chaotic for him to adopt an affected speech pattern than to stick with what he knows.


----------



## fusangite

carpedavid said:
			
		

> More to the point - language doesn't have fixed meaning or significance. Words only have the significance that we apply to them, and that meaning constantly changes and varies by geography and temporality.




While this is true for us as players, it is not true for the characters. If, as I have reasoned elsewhere, D&D's physics are Aristotelian, or even Platonic, or pre-modern Christian or Judaic, objects are objectively not subjectively named. Thus, all the "true name" magic that fits into demonology. While, in our physics, object naming is subjective, names for most of history have been objective.



> But, to tie this into the thread: If Cedric is a member of the common class, then it makes far more sense for him to speak in a "vulgar" manner than for him to not. In my opinion, it would be more chaotic for him to adopt an affected speech pattern than to stick with what he knows.




Elite language is typically more structured because it is more closely moored to written tradition. I don't buy that adopting a more structured and formal manner of speech is somehow chaotic.


----------



## Torm

fusangite said:
			
		

> Elite language is typically more structured because it is more closely moored to written tradition. I don't buy that adopting a more structured and formal manner of speech is somehow chaotic.



I don't either. BUT, it _is_ possible that if Cedric had a humble background in his youth, he might consider his mode of speaking to be staying true to that and himself - and doing otherwise would be a LIE, of sorts. Much worse than the swearing itself.

(Sure he a Paladin _now_, but he's still street, dawg! He be keepin' his shizzle _real_, na mean?)


----------



## Rostek

As much as I hate to jump head first into an active debate (cross-fire, after all ), I think I might as well lend my opinion.



> Originally Posted by *Elder-Basilisk*
> This perspective while quite common ignores the history and context of cussing. In most speech, the words serve the purpose of conveying hostility and a person who swears like a sailor (a concept that has been around for quite a long time, indicating that people using expletives as "a part of their everyday speech" is not historically unique and likely does not represent a significant divergence from the historical place of coarse language) generally learns the contexts and settings in which it is likely to have consequences



*Elder-Basilisk*, I think your point is correct to _some_ extent- however, at the same time *CarpeDavid*'s explanation is a bit closer to the truth-  Just read some Chaucer; some parts "foul" language is that which is used by the commoners as opposed to the "civilized" tongue used by the privileged upper class.  While there are certainly portions of cursing that fall under your definition, much (if not most) of this type of language falls under colloquialisms and idioms of the lower-class (and thus is associated with chaos and "bad". This is a common theme- we put that which is "royal" on a pedestal and thus everything "common" has negative connotations).
I'm just going to stay away from the prostitution angle aside from saying that IMO (and experience), such things are far more complicated than the position you espouse. 
The cynicism is refreshing for me.  Granted- our only source of info is kind of stripped from it's context in fiction, but *shilsen*'s explanation leaves me confident in the intention of the speech.
That said- I would allow Cedric IMC, slightly modified of course to fit properly with how I run alignment and religion. I see nothing in his behavior that is inherently "aligned", and the context provided gives me confidence that unless the Paladin Code in question (DM determined, as it should be- Campaign specific) specifically forbids it, it is fine.
This Paladin is very refreshing- I'm sick of the stupidly zealous Boy Scout who doesn't temper his belief with thought. This one is a Boy Scout who thinks, which I definatly appriciate.


----------



## taliesin15

FireLance wrote:
You know, I think the key disconnect that many people are experiencing is that there is a lot of baggage associated with the term "paladin".

*Pirate Cat, you certainly have a tough job on your hands!

*fwiw, the few prostitutes that I have known well were pretty flippant about the whole thing, easy money for not much work, and they never had to do anything they didn't want to do. And I'm well aware of the other end of the spectrum. 

*and maybe that's what needs to be considered? That maybe the Houses of Healing in a Goddess based polytheistic society might have an, er, "intimate" side to their healing and rituals?

*now on another subject, I'm wondering if anyone's ever done a poll on what spells they think a Paladin should always have memorized...I'd love to see one on the non Wizard spellcasters too


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

You're misinterpreting me. What I'm saying is that the kind of hermetic seal that seems to be postulated by you and other posters between the various kinds of prostitution is a bad way to approach the issue. (Your position might be rhetorically summed up as this: OK, all prostitution isn't OK, but some of it is and since this is one of the [unusual] kinds that fits my definition of OK prostitution, it's the only kind that's relevant.) I think that there's a lot more to even the higher class prostitution than you're covering, (aside from any inherent issues about the nature and purpose of sex, there's also the effect upon the johns to consider--I haven't known anyone whose marriage has been destroyed by such a habit, but I've met plenty of people who have tossed their futures away for a pair of thighs wrapped around them now) but that's not been the point I've been making. (For that matter, I also question the assumption that it's practically possible for someone to draw a bright line and accurately discern between the various kinds of prostitution, etc. IME, most rationalization of any kind begins by assuming that subtle distinctions between the various mechanisms of satisfying ones appetites are clear and can be stuck to). By patronizing this establishment which, by DM/writer fiat is entirely clean of anything improper, Sir Cedric is making a statement about his society should and should not accept and what "everyone" does and does not do. That statement does not simply apply, in the minds of his observers, to "this particular house of prostitution which is clean and well run and where everyone is there by free and informed consent with an eye by the madame towards getting them out." Rather, it applies to prostitution as a whole.

Now that I've had a while to think this over, I think that a part of this equation that has gone undiscussed in this thread so far is this: _appearances matter a lot_ and any lawful good character should know that. (Ordinarily I ignore law and chaos for the reason that I think the axis is incoherent, but this concept fits so perfectly with the three lawful alignments that I think it's worth mentioning as a part of the archetype). A paladin need not just _do_ the right thing; he has to be *seen to do* the right thing as well. Conversely, if a man or woman in a position of prestige, he will know that it is not enough to simply not do the wrong thing, he has to also not be perceived to be doing the wrong thing. A paladin considering whether or not to accept a gift from a local lord would not just consider whether the gift was actually a bribe but whether it would be seen as a bribe and would thereby tarnish his order's reputation with corruption. Working from the premise that slavery is wrong, a paladin should not only not own slaves, but should not give the impression that he supports it. (In some ways, this would circumscribe the activities of a paladin in a society where slavery is controversial like pre-civil war America much more than those of a paladin in a society where it isn't controversial like ancient Rome. The American paladin would be aware that being seen in certain places or with certain people would lend support to their cause (slavery) but, since slavery was not a cause as much as a fact of life in ancient Rome, his actions would generally not be seen to support or oppose it unless he took explicit pains to make them do so). In the same way, a paladin might have doubts about the odds for victory, but, by appearing to view failure as inevitable, he would make it so. Consequently, the life of a paladin cannot be one of unambiguous openness. When in command, he must don the mask of command. When in a position of authority and respect, he must ensure that the authority and respect is turned to good uses rather than evil ones.

It is also at least a part of the issue relating to language. Language is one of the lines by which people declare their allegiance or identity with certain parts of society. To talk about AmeriKKKa would declare my (counterfactual as it happens) allegiance with a certain political subgroup. To talk in what Tom Wolfe describes as f-- patois declares one's identity with another group. 

In this sense, the _impression_ that Sir Cedric is a drunkard or a lecher can be just as important as the facts of the matter. Sir Cedric, however, does not appear to take any care for appearances. In fact, that appears to be partly the point of the exercise. Sir Cedric is a paladin who does not look or act like a paladin in everyday life. (This also is about the only justification I can see for the Holy Liberator suggestion that I've seen several times on this thread. Chaotic people are expected to treat the indirect consequences of their actions as irrelevant).



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> We must not be reading the same thread, or you really like exaggerating. I haven't seen anyone arguing here that prostitution (and esp. prostitution as a whole) is "innocent fun and games". What I have seen, however, is people arguing that the institution of prostitution is much more multifaceted than you make it out to be. Yes, there are people who are prostitutes because they have been enslaved or forced into it. There are also people who have chosen to be prostitutes because they prefer it to scrubbing floors or working in a field. And there are a lot of other variants, especially if you look at prostitution across the ages. You seem to completely discount any possibility other than "prostitution as coercion/slavery", and that's what a number of people here have responded to.


----------



## ajanders

*Character concepts*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> Because this character is not a paladin (IMO).  I think you're starting backwards... you're starting by deciding, "I will take a paladin" and asking, "what is his motivation and role-playing potential?"  What you *should* be doing is deciding, "I will take a character with this motivation and role-playing potential" and *then* asking, "is he a paladin?"
> ...
> What I'm doing is looking at an interesting, thought-provoking character, and asking myself, "is he a paladin?"  No... in the very same way someone who is scared of the arcane and refuses to have anything to do with it is simply not a sorcerer.  He may be a fascinating character to role-play, but he's no sorcerer.  He's just not cut out for sorcery, because he would flat-out reject the tenets of the sorcerer class.



I'm coming to this a little late, but I think I have to disagree with at least the two examples you specify and maybe the general principle as well.
Sorcerors are traditionally said to be born, not learned.  You can be terrified of arcane magic all you like, but barring major Mcguffins, nothing can strip your sorceral spell powers from you.  It's not like being a wizard, who can break his staff and burn his books.
Even if the sorceror swears off using magic and sticks to fighting or roguery, there's still always those spells inside you, waiting to be cast.
Paladins may be different.  The SRD and core books aren't clear about how you become a paladin.  My conception of it (from which everyone elses may vary) is that a paladin is chosen by the powers of Law and Good.  The powers of Law and Good don't always choose the wise people, or the strong people, or the people with high charisma.  They don't always choose the people the man in the street might expect, either.

I'll go further and suggest that many classes could be played against type profitably.  There's no reason not to have cowardly fighters (who only fight when cornered or forced) honest rogues (who are detectives or security consultants) or even nonperforming bards (like the scholar-bard from Unearthed Arcana).

One could, also, *ahem* role-play a paladin who had sex with a succubus of dubious ontological status on the altar of his deity and come up with a campaign I think most of us would agree we'd like to be able to run and love to be able to play in.

In fine, the SRD code of the paladin gives a great deal of latitude to GM's to define a paladin's code.  That's exactly what it's supposed to do, so I'm not kicking.
Should you spring this character on your DM suddenly?  No.  But you shouldn't create any character without checking with the DM to see if it fits the campaign...and if your character is so generic it can fit in any campaign, it's probably a pretty bad character.
Play away, kids.


----------



## Torm

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> You're misinterpreting me. What I'm saying is that the kind of hermetic seal that seems to be postulated by you and other posters.... <snip>



DUDE! You sure do like to use big words!   I promise I don't mean to harsh you with this, I have a great deal of respect for your educated opinion, and would like to help you have it more easily understood. "Hermetic seal" = "separation" and "postulated" = "suggested" in normal-people-speak. And please tell me you didn't just use the word "patois"!   Write for your audience. Which is not to say anyone here can't understand you, but the goal of writing is to effectively communicate, not to make your readers _work_ for it.

That said, I will restate what I read in your post in two statements, then respond to them:

1. You feel that some posters are acting like there are several different isolated types of prostitution, and you would suggest that it is more of a single scale.

Fair enough. But I know, at least in my case, I didn't mean to suggest they are different things, but rather that there are points on the scale that are less immoral. And saying that you can't pick one of those to write about because it fails to impress upon the reader the terrible things at other points in the scale is the same as saying I can't write about a man saving his wife from rape by shooting her attacker with a gun, because that would fail to convey all of the horrible things that _can_ be done with guns. This point on the scale is the one Shilsen picked, because it makes Cedric possible.

2. You feel that, for a Paladin, appearance matters about as much as actions. A disreputable appearance says bad things about his associates, and promotes bad behavior in others.

I mostly agree. BUT: Who does the most good - the person who shows already relatively moral people a bright shiny path, or the person who stoops to meet people in the gutter half-way to show them something that, while maybe still not up to polite society's standards, is still better than what they've known?

Not to get religious, but even Jesus went amongst the Samaritans. 

Also, if this is what Cedric already was when he "got the call", his deity knows what he asked for, and to try to "keep up appearances" as something he isn't would be a LIE.


----------



## reapersaurus

OK, let's cut to the chase here.

shilsen, I think it's manipulative for you (and others) to view this "Sir Cedric" strictly within the boundaries you are creating.
(example - viewing prostitutes thru this "working woman" lens which ignores the moral, physical, and psychological degeneracy inherent in the profession/industry. 
I have not had much real-life experience with prostitutes or pimps, and I hate to break it to you, but I don't have to to have a solid footing in how prostitution is viewed by the majority of society.
There are serious problems with the lifestyle, and I think it's misleading to ignore all of them simply because you controlled all the parameters of Sir Cedric's story and placed him within "one of the good whorehouses".)

It's a further cop-out to create a high-level paladin of questionable appearance, yet he's happened to prove himself time and time again with heroic and saintly deeds, who even had his diety directly support him (in all his incorrect behavior) over a HIGH PRIEST OF HIS CHURCH. You've also apparently given Cedric a diety who thinks everything Cedric does is kosher with him. Don't you see how that's an artificial, unfair/skewed set-up to begin with?

You've also hand-waved many accurate arguments against Sir Cedric as written, basically saying "I view those objections as being subjective, and not requirements of the paladin class."

The paladin class, unlike any other, is one of absolutes and strict discipline, sacrifice, and leadership (both moral, spiritual, etc). To view it with a contemporary relativistic view is absolutely an antithesis to the concept of the class.

shilsen - it is _you_ who is proposing the non-standard view.
We can debate all we want (and your side's examples are quite compelling), but after is all said and done, we're still faced with the cold hard reality that the typical paladin would not be viwed as a whoring, excessive-drinking, excessive-cussing nihilist.

shilsen, from how you describe yourself, you and I are very similar in character/personality.
And you approach paladins in a very similar fashion to me.
I've been on record for years that there are more paladin types that should be allowed. I founded the "Paladins of the Board Unite" Play by Post thread years ago which showcased many non-standard paladins. My Kerith in that thread said many things very close to what you espouse for Sir Cedric.

But you go too far.

While it's correct that a paladin doesn't have to be a typical knight in shining armor, he DOES have to adhere to certain rules of conduct and expectations of a holy warrior. The personality traits inherent in a paladin (discipline, leadership, decisiveness, self-sacrifice, etc) are in conflict with the problematic traits you have given Sir Cedric.

If you just kept to the main thrust of the character (that a paladin's powers come from his god, and that relationship and him upholding the principles of his god is more important than the worldly church's interpretations of their diety) than it would be a stronger character.

By including the whoring (instead of simply enjoying the pleasures of flesh) and the excessive drinking (instead of just occasional drink) and the excessive cussing (instead of just being untraditional in speech and not all "flowery") and the nihilistic attitude (instead of just not being Lawful Stupid), you've pushed the character too far from being a real paladin.
There are many other things he could be - all of which are cool characters to play, I'd wager - but they aren't a Paladin.

Elder Basilisk, you keep getting down with your bad self.
It's a pleasure to read your posts on paladins. You obviously get it. 
And shilsen, I know you get it, too - you just go too far with pushing the envelope with this particluar character.


----------



## Torm

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> By including the whoring (instead of simply enjoying the pleasures of flesh) and the excessive drinking (instead of just occasional drink) and the excessive cussing (instead of just being untraditional in speech and not all "flowery") and the nihilistic attitude (instead of just not being Lawful Stupid), you've pushed the character too far from being a real paladin.



Well, I'll admit I agree that I initially felt a bit taken aback by his negative attitude - but it occurred to me that maybe Magnus was catching him at a bad moment. I consider myself to be a pretty optimistic person, but you catch me at the wrong moment (like, say, reflecting on life over a glass of beer) and I may be a little gloomy, too. We haven't seen Cedric in the field, and I think his reported actions show that he really thinks he does some good. He just seems to believe in personal battles (helping the hookers get out, etc) of good and evil, rather than global ones - and _those_ he definitely seems to think he can win. (Maybe that difference _does_ make him Chaotic rather than Lawful. But that depends on his actions, too.)

Rereading Shilsen's story posts, I'm not sure I would consider what he is doing to _be_ whoring, exactly. He isn't exchanging money for services - the women know that he helps them, and they want to do what they can for him. Prostitutes frequently aren't all that enthusiastic about actually performing the services they do, it is the money that motivates them, and yet these women are seeking Cedric out. One might argue that this is actually *WORSE* on Cedric's part, because he is allowing himself to be rewarded for that which, as a Paladin, he should be doing for free! But, it depends on the exact nature of his relationship. After all, many of us buy gifts for those we care about on Valentine's Day, and some of us have sex later that day, but that doesn't make the gift "payment" for the sex, necessarily.

And as for his language, well, from what I've read in the story posts, I think too much is being made of that - like someone else said, his language seems "vulgar" in the sense of "common".

Contrary to saying he is pushing the envelope _too_ far, I would say Shilsen has done an excellent job of making a Paladin that walks _the very line_. Cedric makes me cringe. But as a fellow Paladin who is still convinced that he is, overall, a force for Good, it is _my_ *Duty* to defend his honor, rather than look down my nose at him - until he _does_ push too far.


----------



## shilsen

fusangite said:
			
		

> While this is true for us as players, it is not true for the characters. If, as I have reasoned elsewhere, D&D's physics are Aristotelian, or even Platonic, or pre-modern Christian or Judaic, objects are objectively not subjectively named. Thus, all the "true name" magic that fits into demonology. While, in our physics, object naming is subjective, names for most of history have been objective.




fusangite, this is why I love your posts and often end up disagreeing about them  I think you're looking for a little more consistency in the D&D universe than it actually has. I think language as subjective or objective both work in D&D, simply because the D&D multiverse doesn't consistently lean one way or the other. 



			
				Torm said:
			
		

> DUDE! You sure do like to use big words!   I promise I don't mean to harsh you with this, I have a great deal of respect for your educated opinion, and would like to help you have it more easily understood. "Hermetic seal" = "separation" and "postulated" = "suggested" in normal-people-speak. And please tell me you didn't just use the word "patois"!   Write for your audience. Which is not to say anyone here can't understand you, but the goal of writing is to effectively communicate, not to make your readers _work_ for it.




 

I think Elder-Basilisk was just inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity - if you see what I'm saying 

You already covered much of what I would have responded to E-B in your post, so I won't repeat it, but:



> Not to get religious, but even Jesus went amongst the Samaritans.




Darn you! I've been so proud of myself thus far for making the will saves to not make that reference! Spoilsport


----------



## shilsen

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> OK, let's cut to the chase here.
> 
> shilsen, I think it's manipulative for you (and others) to view this "Sir Cedric" strictly within the boundaries you are creating.
> (example - viewing prostitutes thru this "working woman" lens which ignores the moral, physical, and psychological degeneracy inherent in the profession/industry.
> I have not had much real-life experience with prostitutes or pimps, and I hate to break it to you, but I don't have to to have a solid footing in how prostitution is viewed by the majority of society.
> There are serious problems with the lifestyle, and I think it's misleading to ignore all of them simply because you controlled all the parameters of Sir Cedric's story and placed him within "one of the good whorehouses".)




I'm not ignoring problems with the lifestyle. I'm just saying that the lifestyle isn't a black-and-white thing, so there are ways and situations where a paladin can interact with it while fitting the requirements of the class in the PHB. If a paladin were consorting with and taking advantage of prostitutes who were essentially slaves, would it be a problem? Of course. To use an analogy, paladins consort with priests regularly. There are also evil priests who torture and kill the helpless. Does that mean a paladin can't consort with priests at all? Nope. Just that he can only consort with the right kind. 



> It's a further cop-out to create a high-level paladin of questionable appearance, yet he's happened to prove himself time and time again with heroic and saintly deeds, who even had his diety directly support him (in all his incorrect behavior) over a HIGH PRIEST OF HIS CHURCH. You've also apparently given Cedric a diety who thinks everything Cedric does is kosher with him. Don't you see how that's an artificial, unfair/skewed set-up to begin with?




Well, that wasn't the set-up I began with. That's what I added later to flesh out the character, and as I've said before, if you don't care for it, feel free to ignore it in your discussion. There isn't a point on this thread where I've said, "His god accepts him, so he must be a paladin", and I'm not about to.



> You've also hand-waved many accurate arguments against Sir Cedric as written, basically saying "I view those objections as being subjective, and not requirements of the paladin class."




But I do view those objections as subjective. You obviously don't. So we disagree. Nothing wrong with that.



> The paladin class, unlike any other, is one of absolutes and strict discipline, sacrifice, and leadership (both moral, spiritual, etc). To view it with a contemporary relativistic view is absolutely an antithesis to the concept of the class.




Don't forget that I'm explicitly focusing on the 3e PHB paladin as written. Not the archetype. Not the conceptions which people may have from playing paladins in earlier versions of D&D. Not the literary versions. Did you notice that (IIRC) the PHB description of the paladin never mentions "leadership", for example? Tabula rasa, baby!



> shilsen - it is _you_ who is proposing the non-standard view.




Of course! I thought that completely went without saying. I've been saying from the beginning that Cedric is an atypical paladin. But, from my perspective, he is a character who still fits the parameters of the PHB paladin as written.



> We can debate all we want (and your side's examples are quite compelling), but after is all said and done, we're still faced with the cold hard reality that the typical paladin would not be viwed as a whoring, excessive-drinking, excessive-cussing nihilist.




True. Which is fine, because Cedric's not a typical paladin. 



> shilsen, from how you describe yourself, you and I are very similar in character/personality.
> And you approach paladins in a very similar fashion to me.
> I've been on record for years that there are more paladin types that should be allowed. I founded the "Paladins of the Board Unite" Play by Post thread years ago which showcased many non-standard paladins. My Kerith in that thread said many things very close to what you espouse for Sir Cedric.




Perhaps, but I doubt it.



> But you go too far.
> 
> While it's correct that a paladin doesn't have to be a typical knight in shining armor, he DOES have to adhere to certain rules of conduct and expectations of a holy warrior. The personality traits inherent in a paladin (discipline, leadership, decisiveness, self-sacrifice, etc) are in conflict with the problematic traits you have given Sir Cedric.
> 
> If you just kept to the main thrust of the character (that a paladin's powers come from his god, and that relationship and him upholding the principles of his god is more important than the worldly church's interpretations of their diety) than it would be a stronger character.
> 
> By including the whoring (instead of simply enjoying the pleasures of flesh) and the excessive drinking (instead of just occasional drink) and the excessive cussing (instead of just being untraditional in speech and not all "flowery") and the nihilistic attitude (instead of just not being Lawful Stupid), you've pushed the character too far from being a real paladin.
> There are many other things he could be - all of which are cool characters to play, I'd wager - but they aren't a Paladin.




And these are the places where we disagree on what, IMO, are matters of interpretation and taste. 



> Elder Basilisk, you keep getting down with your bad self.
> It's a pleasure to read your posts on paladins. You obviously get it.
> And shilsen, I know you get it, too - you just go too far with pushing the envelope with this particluar character.




No arguments about the first point. I enjoy E-B's posts, even if I generally don't agree. And for the latter, obviously I disagree. I think I am pushing to the envelope to the edge - and stopping there. As I mentioned before, I think it's good to stand on the brink of the abyss and look in unwaveringly.


----------



## shilsen

Torm said:
			
		

> Contrary to saying he is pushing the envelope _too_ far, I would say Shilsen has done an excellent job of making a Paladin that walks _the very line_. Cedric makes me cringe. But as a fellow Paladin who is still convinced that he is, overall, a force for Good, it is _my_ *Duty* to defend his honor, rather than look down my nose at him - until he _does_ push too far.




Cedric is definitely supposed to make the average paladin cringe . 

In fact, on the subject of being atypical, I think a character like Cedric would work best in a setting where most paladins are the conventional type. The conventional paladin is great, but one of the dangers that it runs (both for the paladin and the people who interact with him) is to shift the focus from the work that he does to the trimmings that go along with it. The shiny armor and the special mount and the flowery speech - these are not what make a paladin. But they are often what people focus on. Cedric would be a paladin stripped of all trimmings other than what gives the paladin meaning - the good that he does. In that sense, he would be a reminder to others - both paladins and others - of exactly what it is that matters. That's why I put in that bit (in the last piece of fiction) about Shikuna calling him a lesson. 

Of course, that's just my take on it, so feel free to disagree


----------



## fusangite

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> You're misinterpreting me. What I'm saying is that the kind of hermetic seal that seems to be postulated by you and other posters between the various kinds of prostitution is a bad way to approach the issue.




We're not advocating the idea of separate disassociated types of prostitution. We are arguing that there is a continuum of different types of prostitution.



> (Your position might be rhetorically summed up as this: OK, all prostitution isn't OK, but some of it is and since this is one of the [unusual] kinds that fits my definition of OK prostitution, it's the only kind that's relevant.)




Well, as it is the only kind of prostitution the paladin is interacting with, why wouldn't it be more relevant than the types with which the paladin is not interacting?



> I think that there's a lot more to even the higher class prostitution than you're covering, (aside from any inherent issues about the nature and purpose of sex,




Yes. But the "purpose" of sex is a socially constructed thing, at least for the purpose of running RPGs. Even if you want to argue that sex in this world has some absolute "purpose" that is transhistorical and transcultural, what is the point of running a fantasy RPG if the fantasy world has to conform to the transcultural, transhistorical truth you posit for this world? The fact is that how we think about sexuality does vary based on social conditions. Now, if you want to argue that your particular cultural approach to these issues is the absolute reference frame and all other cultures can be judged based on their proximity to this view, that's fine. It still does not alter the fact that different cultures really do think about sexuality differently. Look at the Inuit and Mongol definitions of hospitality, for instance. 



> there's also the effect upon the johns to consider--I haven't known anyone whose marriage has been destroyed by such a habit, but I've met plenty of people who have tossed their futures away for a pair of thighs wrapped around them now)




Yes. But in other cultures, these dire consequences are less common or there are different consequences because those cultures understand sex differently. 

Look, I've gamed with people who feel that D&D is about modern people thinking modern thoughts living in modern cultures using medieval tech and magic. That's a fine way to play D&D -- it's just not a way I enjoy playing the game. And I don't think that's the playing style that most people contributing to this thread favour. 



> (For that matter, I also question the assumption that it's practically possible for someone to draw a bright line and accurately discern between the various kinds of prostitution, etc. IME, most rationalization of any kind begins by assuming that subtle distinctions between the various mechanisms of satisfying ones appetites are clear and can be stuck to).




But we're not doing that. What we are saying is that prostitution runs along a continuum on which there are no sharp distinctions. Your reasoning here is essentially as follows: because there is no point in the spectrum where there are discreet breaks between colours, all colours are therefore yellow because yellow is the colour I see most frequently.



> By patronizing this establishment which, by DM/writer fiat is entirely clean of anything improper, Sir Cedric is making a statement about his society should and should not accept and what "everyone" does and does not do. That statement does not simply apply, in the minds of his observers, to "this particular house of prostitution which is clean and well run and where everyone is there by free and informed consent with an eye by the madame towards getting them out." Rather, it applies to prostitution as a whole.




OK -- this is just an insane logical leap on your part. Your argument is that because paladins are exemplary individuals, every single thing they do should be/is viewed as a blanket endorsement of all practices associated with it. So, for instance, if a paladin travels by boat somewhere, he is endorsing press gangs and galley slavery. If he eats a loaf of bread, he is endorsing serfdom and agricultural slavery. If he uses a metal weapon or dons metal armour, he is endorsing slavery. If he engages in combat, he is endorsing all unjust wars and genocides. Etc.

Your point here is just nonsense. While I have agreed with you on other threads, I really think you need to take a step back and ask yourself if you are making any sense here at all. 



> A paladin need not just _do_ the right thing; he has to be *seen to do* the right thing as well.




Let's just step into the modern world for a second: I believe that factory-farmed animals are raised under horrible conditions akin to torture; most vegetables are grown using pesticides that have adverse health impacts both on farm workers as well as on the people consuming them. Now, my paladin would buy organic vegetables and eat free range organic meat. Your paladin, faced with the same situation, would starve himself to death.

I agree that paladins should set examples. Paladins should oppose bad rules by endorsing good kings. They should oppose bad landlords by associating with those who treat their peasants well. Etc.



> Working from the premise that slavery is wrong, a paladin should not only not own slaves, but should not give the impression that he supports it. (In some ways, this would circumscribe the activities of a paladin in a society where slavery is controversial like pre-civil war America much more than those of a paladin in a society where it isn't controversial like ancient Rome. The American paladin would be aware that being seen in certain places or with certain people would lend support to their cause (slavery) but, since slavery was not a cause as much as a fact of life in ancient Rome, his actions would generally not be seen to support or oppose it unless he took explicit pains to make them do so).




I'm watching you tangle yourself up here. I think you're seeing the problem of trying to create these transhistorical and transcultural values. Paladins live in the context of their culture; in Rome, a paladin wouldn't be indifferent to all forms of slavery; he would associate with people who treated their slaves well and who granted manumission fairly and generously. 



> In the same way, a paladin might have doubts about the odds for victory, but, by appearing to view failure as inevitable, he would make it so.




What portion of Aragorn's army that marched from Minas Tirith to the Black Gate thought they would win? From my reading of the text, less than 20%. But there sense of hopelessness didn't make victory any more or less real. Fortunately, through most of history, this modern nonsense about creating one's own reality was not really part of people's thought. Whether you believe you will succeed is not actually the preponderant factor in determining success. 

In the jurisdiction in which I used to live, there was one election in 1991 when something totally incredible happened and a bunch of people were elected to the legislature who did not believe that victory was possible. People who ran $300 campaigns were swept into office past incumbents who had spent over $100,000. Many of these candidates were not available to the media on election night because they believed victory to be so improbable/impossible that they were out doing other things. Many grudgingly quit their jobs, having made no plans to become full-time parliamentarians, etc. Belief in one's success is not a necessary condition of success.

While I agree with you that deportment is a necessary part of paladinhood and that Cedric does not rise to the standard I would set, I'm not sure that hope is a necessary part of said deportment.


----------



## fusangite

shilsen said:
			
		

> fusangite, this is why I love your posts and often end up disagreeing about them  I think you're looking for a little more consistency in the D&D universe than it actually has. I think language as subjective or objective both work in D&D, simply because the D&D multiverse doesn't consistently lean one way or the other.




I agree with you here. But I do think the D&D multiverse _leans_ in an Aristotelian direction. More things stop working if you abandon Aristotelianism in favour of other physical systems than if you do the reverse and ignore the Aristotelian elements. D&D is absolutely not coherent but I find that the easiest, most efficient way to make it consistent is to go with the physics it reflects the most. 



			
				repersaurus said:
			
		

> shilsen, I think it's manipulative for you (and others) to view this "Sir Cedric" strictly within the boundaries you are creating. (example - viewing prostitutes thru this "working woman" lens which ignores the moral, physical, and psychological degeneracy inherent in the profession/industry.




Ok but wouldn't you agree that killing is generally bad? Surely if shilsen wrote a scene in which Cedric killed an orc, you and Elder Basilisk wouldn't immediately shout, "You know killing is actually usually quite bad. More often than not innocent people are killed and often those murdered die panifully. You're really sanitizing killing and making it look far too good. Killing is wrong and by showing this one example of good and appropriate killing, you're legitimating all murder." 



> There are serious problems with the lifestyle, and I think it's misleading to ignore all of them simply because you controlled all the parameters of Sir Cedric's story and placed him within "one of the good whorehouses".)




This is a D&D game, not a documentary on prostitution. It's not the job of D&D to offer a fair, realistic and balanced portrayal of every activity it depicts.



> It's a further cop-out to create a high-level paladin of questionable appearance,




Guys, why don't you read some medieval saints' lives where the author brags about how filthy, smelly and unkempt the saints were to show their contempt for the superficial and willingness to suffer?



> You've also hand-waved many accurate arguments against Sir Cedric as written, basically saying "I view those objections as being subjective, and not requirements of the paladin class."




Well, here's what's going on, broadly:
- those who support Shilsen, are making their argument based on the letter of the rules which clearly do not prohibit anything Cedric is doing
- those who oppose Shilsen are arguing either 
(a) that the rules require certain things they do not literally spell out; or
(b) that as GMs they would create world-specific requirements that would prohibit a Cedric (this is my camp)



> the nihilistic attitude




This is my second corrective. This paladin is not a nihilist; he has a clear morality -- he just does not think the universe shares it.


----------



## Mallus

fusangite said:
			
		

> Look, I've gamed with people who feel that D&D is about modern people thinking modern thoughts living in modern cultures using medieval tech and magic. That's a fine way to play D&D



I'd like to add its the only _honest_ way for most people to play the game. I can try to coat my characters with a veneer of cultura/lhistorical accuracy, but that's the salt on top of the meat, so to speak. If I'm going to be candid, I'm not sure I can fully imagine what's its like to be, say, _Canadian_ --wait, you all like something called back-bacon, right?-- let alone a citizen of some quasi-Medieval feudal state.


BTW Fusang, I really enjoy your posts.


----------



## Mallus

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I think it's manipulative for you (and others) to view this "Sir Cedric" strictly within the boundaries you are creating.



That's how drama _works_. An author creates situations through which they manipulate the audience. That's what you're paying for... well, ok, in this case its free.


> I have not had much real-life experience with prostitutes or pimps,



How much experience have you had living under a feudual aristocracy in a pre-Industrial agrigarian society? I've read  its not pleasant. Most working people are de facto slaves. 







> There are serious problems with the lifestyle, and I think it's misleading to ignore all of them simply because you controlled all the parameters of Sir Cedric's story and placed him within "one of the good whorehouses".)



So idealizing one brothel is somehow irresponsible, but idealizing a Crusader is fine? Not to mention life in (quasi) Medieval Europe in general... 

Let's put this back into the context. Are you really suggestion that prostitutions is too serious a topic to treat lightly in a game that treats wholesale slaughter in a cavalier manner? In every game I've played, D&D has been about assuming the role of _killers_. What are the ramifications of that? 

And I'd like to point out, if you replace the word _prostitution_ with _occult_, you've neatly duplicated the objection raised by fundementalist Christians against D&D as whole. Their whole point is that the game treats grave moral isssues (magic, demons, the spiritus mundi) far too lightly... 



> And shilsen, I know you get it, too - you just go too far with pushing the envelope with this particluar character.



My point all along is, since the character is obviously interesting enough for this long and entertaining thread, why not get a bigger envelope?  Look at the conflict Cedric created in this thread... whose game would be the poorer for having that in play?


----------



## fusangite

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'd like to add its the only _honest_ way for most people to play the game. I can try to coat my characters with a veneer of cultura/lhistorical accuracy, but that's the salt on top of the meat, so to speak. If I'm going to be candid, I'm not sure I can fully imagine what's its like to be, say, _Canadian_ --wait, you all like something called back-bacon, right?-- let alone a citizen of some quasi-Medieval feudal state.
> 
> BTW Fusang, I really enjoy your posts.




Thanks for the compliment. You, needless to say, won't be surprised when I respond to your assertion here by saying that you are sounding dangerously like those postmodernist scholars who argue that we cannot discover other historical or anthopological/sociological realities because of our overwhelming subjectivity, that we are only ever talking about ourselves. As an historian, for obvious profesional reasons, I refuse to subscribe to that view. While it is of course impossible to capture fully the thoughts of people outside our culture, I think that we can make a good faith stab at it and for me, roleplaying (not so much D&D) is about the joy of that stab.


----------



## Mallus

fusangite said:
			
		

> You, needless to say, won't be surprised when I respond to your assertion here by saying that you are sounding dangerously like those postmodernist scholars who argue that we cannot discover other historical or anthopological/sociological realities because of our overwhelming subjectivity, that we are only ever talking about ourselves.



Would you be surprised to learn I dabbled in postmoderism as a wayawrd youth?  

I'd never suggest that investigating other cultures/historical periods/etc. is meaningless in light of our "overwhelming subjectivity"... what I meant to suggest is that any serious endeavor along those lines is beyond the scope of my Tuesday night D&D game. My aim is to get the players involved in the drama we're creating. Historical simulation isn't a priority. To that end I try to the make the game as accessible as possible. In order to make the drama work, I need to give them NPC's that are, to a large extent, _familiar_.

For the most part, my gameworld's full of thoroughly modern folk in anime/Medieval drag. Hell, a recent NPC refered to his press gang as an "assymetrcial recruitment squad". An important god is a deified divorce lawyer... you see where this is going...

And are we always "talking to ourselves"? I'm thinking about literature right now, the way works get labelled 'universal'... not because they contain some objective truth about the human condition, rather because they mirror so many individuals subjective experiences. I think its an important distinction. Does that make sense? So yes, we're usually talking to oursevles, but we're frequently saying the same thing. 



> I think that we can make a good faith stab at it and for me, roleplaying (not so much D&D) is about the joy of that stab.



It sounds fascinating, but I don't know enough people interested in make a good faith stab...


----------



## Torm

Mallus said:
			
		

> It sounds fascinating, but I don't know enough people interested in make a good faith stab...



Nonsense! Paladins with swords are _all about_ making stabs in good faith!


----------



## shilsen

Torm said:
			
		

> Nonsense! Paladins with swords are _all about_ making stabs in good faith!



 Ah, Torm - as the demon lord said to the celestial - you slay me, truly 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> This paladin is not a nihilist; he has a clear morality -- he just does not think the universe shares it.




This reminds me, fusangite, I completely forgot to respond to that question you'd asked a few pages ago, about whether people would be interested in a thread on whether the D&D universe is amoral or not. I thought that would make for an interesting discussion. Why don't you start one?

P.S. Nice work jumping E-B and reapersaurus . Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Orius

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> By including the whoring (instead of simply enjoying the pleasures of flesh) and the excessive drinking (instead of just occasional drink) and the excessive cussing (instead of just being untraditional in speech and not all "flowery") and the nihilistic attitude (instead of just not being Lawful Stupid), you've pushed the character too far from being a real paladin.




I have to agree.  I like the concept of Cedric, but I think in trying to change people's preconceptions of the paladin, shilsen didn't just bend some people's preconceptions, he went the extra mile and smashed them into very very small pieces.   Of course, that made things much more controversial.  I think the character still works, and if toned down, he wouldn't be considered as objectionable.


----------



## shilsen

Orius said:
			
		

> I have to agree.  I like the concept of Cedric, but I think in trying to change people's preconceptions of the paladin, shilsen didn't just bend some people's preconceptions, he went the extra mile and smashed them into very very small pieces.




Thank you - you're too kind 



> Of course, that made things much more controversial.  I think the character still works, and if toned down, he wouldn't be considered as objectionable.




When you say that the "character still works", do you mean as a paladin? Or does he go too far to be considered as such? I wasn't completely sure from your post.


----------



## Orius

shilsen said:
			
		

> When you say that the "character still works", do you mean as a paladin? Or does he go too far to be considered as such? I wasn't completely sure from your post.




I think the character works; however, he's over the top enough that plenty of people disagree.


----------



## shilsen

Orius said:
			
		

> I think the character works; however, he's over the top enough that plenty of people disagree.



 Thanks for the clarification.

I think this thread's run its course, so I'm wrapping up the little story of Cedric with one last post below.


----------



## shilsen

*Fighting the good fight*

Beobarius galloped along the abandoned path, his bony frame and angular body moving with a precision and speed which would have surprised any onlooker. Atop him, Cedric cast a look at the sun, now westering right ahead of him. _We will barely make it at this speed_, he thought, _And that too if Shikuna was right._ 

He leaned forward and patted the horse's sweat-streaked neck softly. "I am sorry, old friend. I know you are tired, but we cannot stop." He chuckled inwardly, and then said, "So, Bob, how about _really_ moving that celestial ass of yours?" 

There was a short whinny in reply, followed by a mental message whose emotional overtones of amused irritation did not quite hide the love and respect beneath it, and then incredibly, Beobarius actually lengthened his stride. Paladin and steed raced into the sunset, their dark shadows streaming behind them like pursuing furies. 

***

The only thing in the clearing was a decrepit old temple. Despite its evident age, the walls and roof were still upright and the vegetation seemed to have spared it strangely, not even any moss or ivy wreathing its walls. Just as strange was the complete silence in the clearing. The only signs of life were half a dozen figures looking up at the building.

Greed battled with caution in the eyes and voice of Caseith, anointed high priest of the Dark Fury, as he asked the figure standing beside him, "Are you sure this is the place?"

"Yes, Caseith," came the answer in a throaty purr which made even the simple statement seem like an invitation to carnality.

"Then, dear Alecto," said Caesith, "Why don't you lead the way?"

"Coward," said his companion laconically, before walking up the two broken steps to the doorway. Caseith did not respond, but a single gesture sent the four armored figures behind him moving forward after her.

Alecto reached forward and shoved, sending the door flying open. For a split second the others saw only darkness within and then light flared.

Cedric calmly dropped the torch onto the carefully prepared pile of oil-soaked wood he had prepared and the flames leapt up instantly, illuminating the doorway and the area beyond. On and below the steps leading to the door stood four armored figures,   weapons in hand. Behind them stood another figure in similar armor, a scaled helm hiding his features, a cruelly barbed spear in his hand. Cedric mentally marked down the last as the greater danger, but his attention was focused on the singular figure standing in the doorway. The figure could have been that of an incredibly beautiful woman, perhaps the most beautiful he had ever seen, raven hair curling around an exquisite figure. Except for the half-spread bat-wings, that is.

Even as the succubus snarled in surprise, Cedric smiled at her and raised his sword in a mock-salute. _Six to one_, he thought. _Not good. But perhaps..._

"Greetings, lady," he said companionably, "Shall we dance? Unless your chaperones mind, that is."

The answering smile from Alecto was significantly less mirthful that his. "This fool is mine!" she spoke over her shoulder to those behind her.

"How kind of you," said Cedric, still holding the smile. "I'd ask you to have a drink, but I'm almost out." With his other hand he raised a bottle to his lips, draining the remaining liquor in it, still carefully keeping an eye on her. The heat of the alcohol burned into his throat even as the magic potion he had placed within did its work, preparing him for the battle.

With a sweep of her wings, Alecto hurled herself forward through the air, claws reaching for him. Having waited for exactly this moment, Cedric responded immediately, flinging the bottle into her onrushing face and following it with his slashing blade. The demoness screamed as the holy sword laid open her arm and Cedric swayed away from her talons. 

But even as he did so, a bolt of ravening dark energy came flying through the door, slamming into Cedric and momentarily draining his strength. Though he took the blast stoically, it was just the distraction Alecto needed, and she was instantly on top of him. He managed to land another shallow wound before she was inside the sweep of his sword, claws digging into his shoulders, bearing him to the ground. Cedric struggled for a few moments against her magically enhanced strength, but the claws digging into his wrist finally forced him to drop the sword.

_Think fast, moron!_ said Cedric to himself as he looked up into the snarling face. Steeling himself, he smiled up at her and stopped struggling. "Be gentle," he said. "This is my first time - with a succubus." The comment drew first a look of surprise and then an anticipatory leer. Exactly as he had been hoping, Alecto leaned over and kissed him.

The demoness felt her captive's energy drain and flow into her and she revelled in the feeling. As they always did, he went completely limp and helpless beneath the onslaught of her unearthly allure. Raising a hand to stroke the quiescent face, Alecto slid her tongue wetly into his mouth and suggested sweetly around it, "Wouldn't it be better to help me find it, so that we could stop fighting and explore ... other possibilities?" _Fool!_ she thought. _Nobody can resist my suggestions._

Cedric felt the waves of magical compulsion wash over his mind and body and laughed inwardly. This was his mind and body, and for years they worked in unison, neither conflicting with the other as the average person's - and paladin's - did. No  demoness of the Pit could have any hold over him. He felt her tongue probe deeper into his mouth - and bit down.

Caught completely off-guard, Alecto tried to scream. The puny human's teeth should have had no effect on her demonic flesh, but they sheared through it with the same power and painful effectiveness of a celestial blade. Though she had a host of magical abilities at her command, all she could concentrate on was the incredible pain. With a strangled shriek she tried to scramble backwards, clawing desperately at Cedric. There was a moment of exruciating pain and she was free. Blood bubbling from her ravaged mouth, the succubus looked up, just as Cedric's holy sword came around in a shining sweep.

Alecto's headless torso collapsed and Cedric looked over it into the shocked eyes of those standing beyond the door. Then he turned to spit the first half of her tongue onto the ground, before flashing a brilliant smile and tapping his teeth. "Holy teeth," he said, companionably. 

A befuddled Caseith gaped at this strange enemy. "You enchanted your _teeth?!_"

"Hey, if you're expecting a succubus...," said Cedric, letting the sentence trail off into the obvious. Raising his sword into a ready position, he asked "Who's next?"

"KILL HIM!" shrieked Caseith in rage, hurling another spell at the paladin which he calmly deflected. The four armored figures hefted their weapons and charged. As the first of them burst through the doorway, stepping on a piece of flooring that Alecto had flown over during her attack, Cedric took a quick couple of steps and dived through the closest window, taking the cloak he'd hung over it with him. He hit the ground outside with a painful thump, but the sound was overshadowed by the thunder of falling masonry beside him. 

Rising to his feet, Cedric looked with satisfaction at the almost completely crumbled ruin, momentarily shrouded in dust. As it settled, he saw that three of the walls he had worked carefully on had collapsed completely, taking the roof and part of the fourth wall with them. Only a boot protruding from beneath tons of stone revealed where the four attackers had been.

Caseith stared in amazement at the sight and then back at Cedric. "You TRAPPED it?"

"Obviously," was the calm answer. "Care to run?"

With a snarl, Caseith swung the spear in his hand to face Cedric. "I will take your body, paladin, and Soulstealer here will feast on your spirit."

"Fair enough," said Cedric, warily noting the black and red flames that ran up and down the barbed blade of the spear. "I, on the other hand, will kick your stupid ass, cut off your ing head, give you a bloody decent burial and say prayers for your oh-to-totally-ed-up soul."

Without a shouted curse, Caseith charged and the battle was on. Within moments of the start, Cedric knew he was somewhat outmatched. Even though his individual skill was lower, his enemy was literally bristling with magical protections. Even so, the odds might have been on the paladin's side, but the long ride and the battle with the succubus had tired him. Most worryingly, the dark spear seemed to anticipate his moves, almost guiding its wielder's hands to the perfect position every time.

Cedric fought on, stoically taking blows that he could not avoid and looking for an opening. Finally, Caseith stumbled and Cedric managed to catch him with a sweeping blow that should have cut him in half. But at the very last moment, the priest swayed aside, turning a killing blow into merely a serious one. Unfortunately for Cedric, there was no way to halt the momentum and he felt the flames of agony as Caseith pierced him with the spear.

"The Dark Fury be praised!" screamed the priest in triumph as he saw the spearhead completely enter the paladin's stomach, fixing his eyes on his enemy's face to watch him die.

To his consternation, Cedric looked down at the spear and up at him, before painfully whispering, "The Dark Fury can kiss my ass!"

And then Cedric hurled himself up along the shaft of the spear, completely impaling himself. The last thing Caseith saw was the cold eyes of the paladin flaming in triumph, as did the holy sword which decapitated him.

Cedric collapsed on the ground, feeling the life flow out of him in a torrent, incredible agony running through his entire body. He pulled feebly at the shaft of the spear, to no avail. As his vision dimmed, for a moment he thought of simply letting go, before his  natural fighting spirit reasserted itself. With a last effort and a mental prayer to the High Lord, Cedric poured all of his healing ability into himself. Energy flowed into his body, knitting rent flesh and torn organs, causing flesh and bone and sinew to reconnect itself into the form it had been before.

***

"A squad of templars has arrived, Father," said the excited youth, "And Sir Cedric too!"

Even as he spoke, there was a knock on the door behind him. "You in there, Father?" called a familiar voice.

"Cedric!" said Shikuna, rising hurriedly to his feet. "Come in!"

Cedric entered, walking in a curiously hunched over fashion, carrying a sack in one hand. 

"Are you hurt?" asked Shikuna, quickly moving towards him. 

"No, I'm fine - well, mostly," was the reply. Looking at the waiting acolyte, Cedric said, "I'd like to speak to the Father alone."

The acolyte quickly bowed and left, but not without a couple of backward glances. And as soon as he was gone, Cedric shut the door behind him.

"What's wrong?" asked Shikuna. "And what happened? Did they get the..."

"No. But there are two things to do," said Cedric, before opening the bag and tossing a deadly-looking barbed spear to the ground. The spear shaft, however, was hacked short. 

"We need to destroy this," said Cedric.

"Sure," said Shikuna. "What is the second thing? And why are you walking like that?"

Cedric looked slightly embarrassed and said, "Well, that's the same bloody thing." He twitched away his cloak and opened the front of his shirt, to reveal a four inch wooden shaft protruding from his stomach, and then turned to reveal another few inches sticking out of his lower back. There was no sign of a wound, healthy flesh holding the wood in place.

"What...?" asked Shikuna in bafflement.

Cedric looked even more embarrassed. "Let's just say someone poked me with that spear, and I couldn't take the shaft out before I healed myself. So..."

***


----------



## Romnipotent

Yo Reapersaurus

its not whoring, the girls are allowed to work, and as such probably have permits... mine 
would, and health checks. Shilsen didn't cover this, that I can tell, but registered workers in the field of sexual related work are often very well trained in society as well. They could be whores, or they could be "escorts" or (firefly ) "companions."



> viewing prostitutes thru this "working woman" lens which ignores the moral, physical, and psychological degeneracy inherent in the profession/industry.



moral? many of those are socially built rather than a serious 'moral' idea.
The industry may not be what you think it is. Many of the people who use the industry do so because it is cleaner and less risky than a random fling. Chances are it might have been the same with reputable houses in older times. Maybe you should get to know some pimps and prostitutes.
Less respected places, and girls who work in them aren't treated or respected kindly by ladies in reputable places. I know strippers, dancers, professionals, and its just another aspect of services. Like an electrician. Strictly by the code of conduct there is nothing Cedric has done wrong.


----------



## rln

I would probably allow it depending on the campaign; it would probably work better in Hârn or Midnight than in the Realms. 

I would tell the character he's a paladin on the edge of what's accepted. He may find resistance from other paladins and clerics who think he's a "bad example". If he strays much further, he might find his god restricts him the use of certain abilities.

For example, a paladin who spends too much time in the brothel may find his _Divine health_ and _Remove disease_ abilities no longer work. When he finds out he's acquired an STD, he can't get rid of it himself and the priests of his faith refuse to treat him, saying it is the will of their god etc. He'll have to "return to the path" by doing some good deed (for example, making sure the girls at the brothel are cured from the disease) before he himself is cured.


----------



## the Jester

I don't have a problem with this guy, with one caveat.  Depending on his behavior while drinking and whoring, he might slide away from lawful (i.e., prostitution/drinking is illegal, the paladin is a player with the ladies, leaving broken hearts behind him, etc).

But, heck yeah!  I'm all for players' different takes on the classes.  Give me gritty paladins, urban rangers and riddle-master bards.  I'll take 'em.


----------



## S'mon

I'd be fine with it in principle; however since the Paladin likely gets his powers from his deity I might restrict the deity choice, an anti-sleepin-with-prostitutes deity wouldn't grant him his Paladin-powers.  The main thing about the Paladin is he has to have a LG code, and stick to it.  As long as his behaviour doesn't violate that code, ok.  Frequenting well-run brothels might be ok where picking up lotus-addled streetwalkers desperate for their next drugs fix might not be.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

I can't agree with the idea that patronising a brothel - assuming it is, indeed, a non-exploitative institution - is inherent non-lawful. The character clearly "plays by the rules", refusing special treatment just for being a good customer. One can assume that he never drinks to the point of a loss of self-control, either, even if he does drink to get drunk. Assuming that his paladinic order or the deity he follows does not impose a code akin to Sir Galahad's, and that prostitution and liquor are considered acceptable outlets, he has no problem.

The cynicism makes him interesting; it's the edge to the character which hints at the possibility of a fall from grace, which every paladin should have.


----------



## robberbaron

Certainly, procided the player could keep it up and could work with the others in the party.

I can appreciate that some GMs would hate this style of paladin but IMO they are merely blinded by the ideal of a "Holy Warrior" without understanding any of the realities of life.

Upholding the Law doesn't mean you have to remain aloof from society.
Being Good doesn't mean you have to be pleasant.
Being a Paladin doesn't assume chastity, benevolence, philanthropy or anything other than following the strictures of your religion.


----------



## Berandor

I just stumbled upon this thread. But I would be delighted to have such a paladin in my game. It's a great character!


----------



## Barendd Nobeard

ThoughtfulOwl said:
			
		

> I would readily allow him (barring of course special circumstances like setting-specific costraints or having a 12 years old player at the table).



What he said.


----------



## sfedi

I voted no.
But only because of two things:
-he's not an example of high ideals
-he has an attitude that doesn't give hope to other people

The last point is redeemable if his deeds outdo by far his words.


----------



## Berandor

Just in case nobody has answered it yet:


			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> Reminds me... Are there drinking rules in D&D? If they're based on Fortitude saves, drinking a paladin under the table would be almost impossible, what with his good Fortitude save, likely high Con and divine grace Cha bonus to saves.



EN Publishing has the great "Tournaments, Fairs & Taverns" that contain drinking rules and tie them to Constitution. So, Paladins can get drunk normally


----------



## Berandor

Darkness said:
			
		

> Sune (CG, an exception).



See? A Paladin of Sune, the Goddess of beauty, love and passion? Seems to be possible, after all.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Berandor said:
			
		

> See? A Paladin of Sune, the Goddess of beauty, love and passion? Seems to be possible, after all.




Whose paladins espouse the ideals of [chaste] *courtly love*?

Who serve as stalwart defenders of beautiful *places* and *artifacts*?

Yeah, I'm not sure they get much play.


----------



## Mallus

This thread's been resurrected??

I guess its true; it's hard to keep a good man down...


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> This thread's been resurrected??
> 
> I guess its true; it's hard to keep a good man down...



 After all, how can you dislike a paladin who enchants his teeth in preparation for meeting a succubus? Of course, I might be a teensy-weensy bit biased


----------



## Berandor

Darkness said:
			
		

> Would you allow a cowardly Barbarian?



Yes.


----------



## iwatt

I voted yes. I have no problem with his drinking and wenching. as long as the code doesn't say:

"You shal not drink and you shall not wench."

The only caveat I have is that Cedric seems way to fatallistic to inspire others. his " doesn't matter what I do" spiel is downright unheroic ;D .


----------



## Berandor

I just wanted to thank all involved for a great and thoughtful discussion. Now that I read the whole thread, I must say it's been very enlightening. Even though I'm fairy sure which side I'm on (I don't really care whether the paladin lives in such a brothel and drinks alcohol, and I really think his fatalistic approach is exciting), there were points I had to agree even with those on the other side of the fence. And even when I disagreed, I couldn't say you were wrong, either.

Thank you for giving me something like that to read.


----------



## Sir_Syco

I voted Yes but I would take some abilities away.. like immune to disease. Then I'd let him catch one or two. It might change his ways. 

But in all seriousness I do think that if a player can keep up a LG image and Role play him properly I dont see why not. I have a barb who is actually a pal and the DM and I agreed to remove some abilities and to hell with the 17 cha. He is from a foreign land afterall and some of his customs and quirks are not welcome in this part of the land.

He is probably a highbred char

He cant cast spells, he cant cure disease but he is immune to disease. He can LOH at half strength. Instead on tithing the church it goes to the local community. He gets a faithful horse but not a war horse. He goes up levels as a pal. He is LG and I play him as that but it doesnt mean you have to be a goody-2-shoes. He obeys the law and hates evil with a passion.

He still can detect evil intend and has a protection aura and +2 to spell ST. He can turn UD like norm pal.

I think its all in the way you RP it. Your pal could be a highbred char. It doesnt even need to be a pal its just that that class is the closest that it resembles. Actually be reading through it he sounds more like a pal-swashbuckler. A Musketeer type.. They are LG and like the ladies..

Good luck


----------



## Ormiss

I would allow the character, but he would not be a paladin.

I don't have a problem with buying prostitutes, since it's his own prerogative to do so if it's lawful in his society. However, I would just like to mention, as an addendum to the debate on prostitution, that the arguments that support it (as a woman's conscious choice) are equally effective for child labor (in China, for example.) Just keep that in mind.

On the subject of drinking, do keep in mind that alcohol is an _addictive drug_ that impairs judgment. Drinking in moderation is fine, but you should be held accountable for any actions taken while inebriated. (As an aside, modern day societies don't hold you accountable for purposefully impairing your judgment and committing crimes as a result, but let's not go down that road here...)

I have two problems with Sir Cedric, which make him a fallen paladin in my campaign.

1) He believes he's entitled to rewards for doing what he does. A person who does good deeds to get rewarded isn't good. He's neutral. In D&D (and I subscribe to this notion in real life as well) a good deed is one done with no thought for reward (other than the sense of satisfaction you feel when you do the "right thing." )

2) He is not an inspiration. In my opinion, the code of conduct in the PHB has nothing to do with the paladin himself. It's a tool that enables the paladin to inspire others to the cause of good. The fact of the matter is, as Cedric so bitterly exclaims, his cause is hollow because he is just one man. By inspiring others, Cedric "recruits" common folk to the cause of good, and paves the way for new paladins. This is the most important part of being a paladin--far more important than slaying succubi.



> As an aside, I find it rather amusing that so many people in the "what does a 2nd level commoner give a 12th level paladin" thread are replying "herself", but when a paladin pays for it, it's bad...




Hm? If you truly feel that way, you've just equated prostitution with making love to your wife. The difference between getting paid to make love to a person and making love to a person because you _want to_ is quite staggering in my eyes. Did I misunderstand your point?



> In fact, on the subject of being atypical, I think a character like Cedric would work best in a setting where most paladins are the conventional type. The conventional paladin is great, but one of the dangers that it runs (both for the paladin and the people who interact with him) is to shift the focus from the work that he does to the trimmings that go along with it. The shiny armor and the special mount and the flowery speech - these are not what make a paladin. But they are often what people focus on.




There's a middle ground here. On the one hand, you have the paladin who wears shining armor and speaks with "thee" and "thou" on a regular basis. On the other hand you have Sir Cedric who, without switching "sides" manages to directly oppose that concept. In the middle, you have a paladin who doesn't wear polished silver armor and doesn't speak like a noble, but still treats people with fairness and respect and doesn't get drunk and cuss out people because they annoy him. Patience and perseverence are important virtues for a holy champion. If Sir Cedric can be a paladin, paladins will be numerous in your world.

Here's an example of a paladin concept that differs from the PHB that I would allow:

_Riemal is the son of a blacksmith, born and raised in Harrathos; a truly unremarkable village in the hinterlands of the Queendom of Kereloc. As a child, he read stories of great paladins (who spoke with flowery speech and wore shining plate mail) but never did he imagine that he would even see the lands outside of his home. To cut a potentially long story short, Riemal's story changed one day when an adventuring party's gambit led a band of devils straight through Harrathos. Sure, the adventurers slew the erinyes that had hunted them for the past few months, but the village was destroyed in the process, and the minor devils made off with numerous survivors. Riemal survived through sheer luck, partially trapped underneath a bunch of debris.

Narrowly evading madness in his grief, Riemal found that the only way he could cope with his loss was to focus on something. He began to search for the lost villagers, determined to prevent their further suffering at the hands of the devils. The problem is just that everywhere Riemal goes, there are other people who have lost loved ones, and he just can't seem to make himself insensitive to their suffering. He just has to help them, too. Sure, he rescued the last missing villager from Harrathos several years ago, but there's plenty of other people who need saving, so he can't rest yet. There's always more people who need help.

At some point, a god took notice of Riemal, and surreptitiously imbued him with the powers of a paladin. Riemal began to notice that he could do things he couldn't do before, but wasn't sure what to think. He's never communed with his god, and he has no idea that he's a paladin. In fact, Riemal is shy, filled with the humility of a small towner, and would never say something as preposterous as "I have been chosen by the gods." Why, even the thought makes him blush with shame. He's just a common man, doing what needs to be done. Sure, he's seen a lot of bad things and there doesn't seem to be an end to the madness outside of the village, but someone's got to help people, right?

Riemal is, above all, humble. He has learned that patience and understanding are the only ways to combat hatred. Within, Riemal is constantly struggling. He fights to keep believing that people are good at heart, but some days--like that day when the queen sentenced the Knights of Everue to death, or the time the fiend Halthyon orchestrated the pogrom of Lion's Marsh--it's a losing battle. So far, he's holding his ground, and he does not let anyone know of this struggle.

Outwardly, no one would guess Riemal is a paladin, but his actions and optimism make him an inspiration to others: He's an attainable ideal, a common man who just happened to land on the road of a hero. Oh, don't tell him he's a hero unless you want a good laugh, though. He's been known to blush and stutter if you do that._​
Ouch, that was long. Sorry! It was just so fun to write when I got started. 
Note that I didn't say much about the lawful aspect in my example. To tell the truth, I'm not a big fan of lawful good, since lawful is a limitation that embraces a particular society's (or god's) law, which may or may not be "objectively" good. If I were to play Riemal, I would play him as a Holy Liberator from Complete Divine.

Still, the reasons I don't approve of Sir Cedric have nothing to do with the lawful aspect.


----------



## fusangite

Ormiss said:
			
		

> However, I would just like to mention, as an addendum to the debate on prostitution, that the arguments that support it (as a woman's conscious choice) are equally effective for child labor (in China, for example.) Just keep that in mind.



Medieval-style agrarian economies often used both child labour and quasi-slave labour. While I agree that modern people in modern cultures in medieval drag is a way of playing D&D, it is not the only way of playing D&D. It seems to me that you are making the argument that paladins could not really comfortably exist in the high medieval society. 

Now don't get me wrong here. I don't think this paladin belongs in medieval society either. But the idea that paladins would be incompatible with societies practicing child labour seems to force D&D into being less representative of medieval culture than a badly run chapter of the SCA.







> On the subject of drinking, do keep in mind that alcohol is an _addictive drug_ that impairs judgment.



Again, this kind of reasoning works fine if this game is just a 21st century drag act but come on -- the idea that a Christian sacrament might be incompatible with paladinhood is, again, really dubious here.







> Drinking in moderation is fine, but you should be held accountable for any actions taken while inebriated.



Agreed. But this is just how a pre-modern person would think. The idea of intoxication as a defense comes from our modern pathologization of the human will (and I think we agree here).







> 1) He believes he's entitled to rewards for doing what he does. A person who does good deeds to get rewarded isn't good. He's neutral. In D&D (and I subscribe to this notion in real life as well) a good deed is one done with no thought for reward (other than the sense of satisfaction you feel when you do the "right thing." )



Where in the Cedric text do you get the sense that his good deeds are contingent upon reward. Recognizing that there will be reward for your good deeds is different, ethically, than making your deeds contingent upon reward. People can be genuinely good and live Christian lives and _expect_ that they will go to heaven because they are living in a godly way. But this doesn't cheapen their good deeds unless they are deeds they would not otherwise perform.







> 2) He is not an inspiration. In my opinion, the code of conduct in the PHB has nothing to do with the paladin himself. It's a tool that enables the paladin to inspire others to the cause of good. The fact of the matter is, as Cedric so bitterly exclaims, his cause is hollow because he is just one man. By inspiring others, Cedric "recruits" common folk to the cause of good, and paves the way for new paladins. This is the most important part of being a paladin--far more important than slaying succubi.



I think you may have a point here. While I think a fatalistic paladin could be an inspiration, this one is not.


----------



## Torm

Ormiss said:
			
		

> However, I would just like to mention, as an addendum to the debate on prostitution, that the arguments that support it (as a woman's conscious choice) are equally effective for child labor (in China, for example.) Just keep that in mind.



Um, no. First, a person has to be old enough to be competent to make their own decisions - a child laborer probably is not, a grown woman prostitute is usually. Then, there's the matter of coercive circumstances - if a family is being intentionally KEPT in a situation where they will have no choice but to send the kids to work, then the conscious choice still isn't a FREE one. Sometimes that can be said of prostitutes and their pimps, families, and/or drug habits, but _not always_ - and therein lies the point. (Of course, one _could_ argue that having to live in this world _at all_ is a coercive circumstance - but that doesn't get us anywhere. )



			
				Ormiss said:
			
		

> Drinking in moderation is fine, but you should be held accountable for any actions taken while inebriated. (As an aside, modern day societies don't hold you accountable for purposefully impairing your judgment and committing crimes as a result, but let's not go down that road here...).



I happen to agree with your aside and related sentiment, but no one is talking about that in this case - Shilsen went out of his way in his story segments to show that Sir Cedric is not allowing himself to become influenced to the extent of being unable to properly perform his Duties. (_any_ of them, IYKWIMAITYD )


----------



## Ormiss

Gack, I didn't want to get involved in a discussion about prostitution and child labor.  In response, let me just explain what I meant. In general, the defense of prostitution that has been brought up in this thread states that women often turned to prostitution because it was the best choice out there. In China and other countries, children work because they don't care to starve to death along with their families. It's a choice, but it's still not a good one from our point of view. I just meant that people should keep this in mind, but I don't want to get into an expansive discussion because both prostitution and child labor are tricky subjects. Generally speaking, I'm against both, though, but that's not the point of this thread. Feel free to send me an e-mail if you want to discuss it further without hijacking the thread.

As for the comments on paladins and child labor, I would say that firstly, obviously the idea that children shouldn't work is largely a concoction of our modern society. It's a noble idea, but it doesn't work that well in a society that doesn't have a well-developed foundation of health care and social security. That said, I feel that a paladin should strive to ensure that no woman needs to prostitute herself and that no child or other being should work under inhuman conditions. Obviously there's a big difference between someone offering a child work and a person who takes advantage of impoverished children for labor.

About drinking: I might've given the wrong impression here. I did not mean that a paladin--or anyone else--should be disallowed to have a glass of wine or ale during a ceremony or even dinner, only that they should not submit to drug abuse of any form. Anything that is addictive (such as chocolate) could be said to be a drug, but unless it impairs your judgment, it's fairly harmless. From the flavor, I did not feel that Sir Cedric drank with moderation, however.



> Where in the Cedric text do you get the sense that his good deeds are contingent upon reward. Recognizing that there will be reward for your good deeds is different, ethically, than making your deeds contingent upon reward. People can be genuinely good and live Christian lives and expect that they will go to heaven because they are living in a godly way. But this doesn't cheapen their good deeds unless they are deeds they would not otherwise perform.




I agree about the difference, though that's a matter for a universe more gray than D&D.  Mainly, Sir Cedric's comment about being entitled to drink and carouse with women because he fights the good fight was what made me feel he was being mercenary. It's extrapolation, certainly, but that's the impression I got from the flavor.

In general, I just think the meeting between the squire Magnus and Sir Cedric made the latter seem depressingly uninspiring. Everything else aside, this paladin is spurious in my eyes based on the fact that his code of conduct does not make him an example to others.


----------



## Mallus

Ormiss said:
			
		

> Everything else aside, this paladin is spurious in my eyes based on the fact that his code of conduct does not make him an example to others.



How does he work for you as a _character_, in the literary-type sense?


----------



## Ormiss

> How does he work for you as a character, in the literary-type sense?




Interesting that you should ask; I just finished having a discussion about this post with my best friend, who took a somewhat opposing view. I think Sir Cedric is a good character, in the literary sense, because (to steal my friend's main argument) he teaches us not to judge a book by the cover. Being rude and crude doesn't mean you're a bad person at heart. My first reaction of Sir Cedric was that I thought he was a good guy, but I didn't like him as a person. I still stand by what I said in my posts, but I should add that if you were to rename the class "Holy Champion" I'm fine with Sir Cedric being one.  

I have a hard time liking characters that are rude and unpleasant, even though they are entitled to be (as with Magnus' rude and prejudiced behavior toward Sir Cedric). I'm not sure I'd enjoy a book written about Sir Cedric as a protagonist, but as one of several main characters or as a side character, it could be interesting. I definitely agree that giving characters flaws, foibles and quirks are important for characteriziation, but that clashes with the way I view the iconic D&D paladin. That said, I don't like paladins who are happy and live pleasant lives fighting evil. Being a paladin is to _suffer_, plain and simple. You're supposed to live each day struggling against your inner demons and resist the urge to curse and scream at your god.


----------



## Endur

I voted no.  However, I think he would be fine as a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good version of a Paladin (i.e. Holy Liberator, etc.).  

The character described is definitely good.  He just doesn't meet the requirements for Lawful.  Especially to the degree in which a Paladin must meet the lawful requirements.

For example, lets take Westerns.  Our two most famous Western Actors are John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.  They both play good-alingment characters.  John Wayne typically plays a Paladin character.  Clint Eastwood normally does not play a Paladin character.


----------



## Mallus

Ormiss said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd enjoy a book written about Sir Cedric as a protagonist...



See now I would... shilsen, are you still reading this? Have some free time? How hard can it be, its only _fantasy_ for God's sake  



> I definitely agree that giving characters flaws, foibles and quirks are important for characteriziation, but that clashes with the way I view the iconic D&D paladin.



It's not just a question of little personality ticks that help decorate his character. Its the central conflict that drives his story.


> Being a paladin is to _suffer_, plain and simple. You're supposed to live each day struggling against your inner demons and resist the urge to curse and scream at your god.



If that's my only option, I'd rather play a nice game of chess.


----------



## Ormiss

> If that's my only option, I'd rather play a nice game of chess.




*laugh* Well, I'm not saying your life isn't supposed to be good from time to time. My view of suffering isn't what every other tragic fantasy novel shakes at our faces. You could have a happy family and a loving wife and still suffer because you're fighting evil. I just don't think it's plausible for a person so devoted to an ideal to have an easy life.

But the bottom line? This is D&D. You can do whatever you want with your paladin, and I won't care as long as you don't post about it here, asking for my opinion. I don't even think all paladins need to be iconic or subscribe to an unattainable ideal--that's just how I prefer my D&D paladins to be. I only rarely play D&D though (90% of the time, we just make up our own rules), and I've never played a paladin, so it's partially a moot point.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I didn't mean that every paladin has to constantly struggle with his faith and budding dismay for his god or goddess. I'm just saying that logically a paladin, being human (or at least demi-human  ), will have a hard time living up to the ideal he/she has set for him/herself. Besides, you don't need to play a paladin to be a holy warrior. Fighter works just as well.


----------



## Torm

Mallus said:
			
		

> If that's my only option, I'd rather play a nice game of chess.



But noooooo. Instead, _you_ get Global Thermonuclear War.


----------



## Navar

Darkness said:
			
		

> This question is a little complex. Some things to keep in mind when trying to answer it:
> 
> First of all, requiring a paladin to have a patron deity is a house rule. The RAW in the PHB do not require it. (PHB, p.43)
> FR (and GH too IIRC) does require it, though, so it's not an uncommon rule.
> 
> Second... Even if a paladin has a patron deity, this deity does not necessarily have to be LG too. A common rule (e.g., in FR) is a maximum of 1 step removed. Somehow, I don't think we'd be having this discussion if we all were thinking of Cedric following a NG deity.
> Examples of non-LG FR deities who have paladins: Azuth (LN), Chauntea (NG), Helm (LN), Kelemvor (LN), Lathander (NG), Sune (CG, an exception). Less prominent deities can have paladins too of course (e.g., Red Knight might have some).
> 
> Third... Wenching does not, in itself, violate the paladin code of conduct. (Unless you house-rule it, of course.)
> Situations in which the articles of the code could be violated:
> "Respect legitimate authority." (If prostitution is illegal, which is unlikely but whatever, or a wartime commander forbids it, etc.)
> "Act with honor." (If the paladin is in a kind of marriage that forbids this.)
> "Help those in need." (If the prostitutes are virtual slaves or similar.)
> "Punish those who harm or threaten innocents." (Ditto.)
> Drinking doesn't violate it either but you should be careful.
> 
> Fourth, a character's alignment depends on all of their (somewhat recent) actions, not just a few select ones. As long as the paladin stays LG, he's fine. (Assuming he doesn't violate the CoC, obviously. See above.)
> 
> Right, so much for the rules part.





I know this quote is from WAY early in this thread, but all of the points are good.  I thought I would throw in my 2 cents.

It is correct that a paladin does not require a patron deity, but my comments assume that a "Holy Warrior" has devoted himself to a god.  The Champion in Monte Cook's AU is MUCH better for a fighter who is devoted to an ideal.

The crux of the reason I voted no is because part of the paladin's code is to "Respect legitimate authority."  There are just TOO many legitimate authorities in a paladin's life (IMHO) to have NONE of them have a problem with his whoring and drinking.  His god likley will have a problem of getting Sex for Money.  If he was a Paladin of Jesus then I would 100% say no (and I think that anyone else would as well.)  But I can't think of any god that allows paladins that would be ok with sex for money.  Even a god of sex would likley be offended that someone is out there paying for it.  Also Church elder's likley don't like having a paladin who pays for sex.  
There are several problems with the sex for money thing (if thought out) brings up.  Those women tend to spread diesease.  LG churches likley have a problem with something like this.  Also they tend to attract women who arn't emotionally steady and allow them to make their lives worse.  I think that if the genders on this board were reversed this would have been a resounding NO.
"Act with honor." is another paladin code option that hurts his paladin.  Pride and Professionalism start with your self.  Your personal appearance is how you honor not just yourself, but also those around you.  In fact I think that paladins likley have a problem with the sin of Pride.  But taking care of yourself (wearing nice clean cloths, Shaving, personal hygene in general, etc.) is where honor starts.  In fact I would not allow a paladin who didn't take care of himself.  This point of the code doesn't depend on a god either.  You either have self respect, or you don't, but without self respect then you can't have honor.  
The drinking aspect I am actually OK with depending on 2 conditions.
#1 He doesn't drink to excess.
#2 He doesn't spent too much money on the drink.

#2 would be a problem though if the paladin liked food too much as well though.  I would have a hard time having a paladin who spent 5 gp on every meal because he liked only the finest foods.  A truley Pious paladin would have spartan living quarters and simple meals, but great armour, weapons, and holy items.  (and simple meals doesn't mean Bad food, plain bread (no mold), simple meat, a vegetable, and good clean water would be great.)


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> See now I would... shilsen, are you still reading this? Have some free time? How hard can it be, its only _fantasy_ for God's sake




Yes, I'm still reading this. And if I can just take some time out from the classes, and the grading, and the Ph.D. exams, and the conferences, and the two D&D campaigns ... well, you get the idea  

Actually, Cedric's kinda grown on me ever since I started the thread, so maybe I'll write some more about him later. But it's not likely to happen before my summer break, unfortunately.


----------



## The Sigil

I'm back, because I found another point to make.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Look, I've gamed with people who feel that D&D is about modern people thinking modern thoughts living in modern cultures using medieval tech and magic. That's a fine way to play D&D -- it's just not a way I enjoy playing the game. And I don't think that's the playing style that most people contributing to this thread favour.



Which, of course, why we're using modern moral relativism to justify as good acts which, in the pseudo-medieval cultures on which the game is based, were defined as evil by a moral absolutist society.

/mild sarcasm

Sorry, but here you seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it, too, by only taking "modern thoughts" when it suits your arguments.



> But we're not doing that. What we are saying is that prostitution runs along a continuum on which there are no sharp distinctions. Your reasoning here is essentially as follows: because there is no point in the spectrum where there are discreet breaks between colours, all colours are therefore yellow because yellow is the colour I see most frequently.



While there may be a continuum, if playing by the RAW, there is also alignment.  If there is alignment, there are also "evil acts" - acts which are by their nature, evil.  I have yet to hear someone posit that there is *no* point on the prostitution continuum that falls under "evil acts."  Please draw a clear and distinct line on your continuum so that it is unambiguous where "evil acts" are and where they aren't.  (Of course as soon as you do that, I can stand an inch on either side of the line and nitpick at how close the other side is... why the difference).  

If I put the line as "before the continuum starts" (i.e., ALL prostitution is evil) I can't get that nitpicking on why Prostitution A is evil but Prostitution B is not and the definition is pretty consistent (you may not like that I defined it as evil, but the line as to what I consider an "evil act" is pretty clear, no?).

Those were the only points to which I felt I could contribute further thought and useful dialogue with a response at this time.  Please continue the discussion. 

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil

Navar said:
			
		

> The crux of the reason I voted no is because part of the paladin's code is to "Respect legitimate authority." There are just TOO many legitimate authorities in a paladin's life (IMHO) to have NONE of them have a problem with his whoring and drinking.



An astute observation.  Also, I may point out something in Darkness' post, which Navar quoted:


			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> Wenching does not, in itself, violate the paladin code of conduct. (Unless you house-rule it, of course.)
> Situations in which the articles of the code could be violated:
> "Respect legitimate authority." (If prostitution is illegal, which is unlikely but whatever, or a wartime commander forbids it, etc.)
> "Act with honor." (If the paladin is in a kind of marriage that forbids this.)
> "Help those in need." (If the prostitutes are virtual slaves or similar.)
> "Punish those who harm or threaten innocents." (Ditto.)



I find a bit disturbing that to *avoid* violating the code by wenching, there are sure an awful lotta "ifs."  Adding Navar's point that odds are good at least one legitimate authority would have a problem with wenching, in order to accept Cedric as a paladin, we are being asked to accept a "perfect storm" not only of Cedric's qualities, but of the qualities of his church, his culture, and every single person of authority in his life.  That, to me, is more than a bit unlikely.


			
				Navar said:
			
		

> I think that if the genders on this board were reversed this would have been a resounding NO.



An astute observation, and one I think bears repeating.

--The Sigil


----------



## fusangite

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Which, of course, why we're using modern moral relativism to justify as good acts which, in the pseudo-medieval cultures on which the game is based, were defined as evil by a moral absolutist society.



Prostitution was not only legal but government run in many medieval cities. Slaves/bondmen existed in virtually all medieval societies. So I don't need to use any modernist construct to tell you that medievals didn't find these things evil -- I can just take medieval documents about these things at face value.







> While there may be a continuum, if playing by the RAW, there is also alignment.  If there is alignment, there are also "evil acts" - acts which are by their nature, evil.  I have yet to hear someone posit that there is *no* point on the prostitution continuum that falls under "evil acts."  Please draw a clear and distinct line on your continuum so that it is unambiguous where "evil acts" are and where they aren't.  (Of course as soon as you do that, I can stand an inch on either side of the line and nitpick at how close the other side is... why the difference).



Do you understand what a continuum is? People kill in D&D. Sometimes it is evil to do so. Sometimes it is not. Your challenge that we draw a clear and distinct line between evil and non-evil prostitution will be viewed as reasonable the second you can establish the same kind of universal rule/distinction for killing.


----------



## S'mon

Endur said:
			
		

> For example, lets take Westerns.  Our two most famous Western Actors are John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.  They both play good-alingment characters.  John Wayne typically plays a Paladin character.  Clint Eastwood normally does not play a Paladin character.




The Pale Rider was a pretty classic Paladin character IMO.  The Man With No Name would be Neutral in D&D Alignment terms, so (I think) would be the High Plains Drifter.  I guess Bill Munny in Unforgiven could be classed as Good-but-no-Paladin, his backstory seems to be a Man With No Name mercenary gunslinger redeemed by a good woman.


----------



## apesamongus

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I find a bit disturbing that to *avoid* violating the code by wenching, there are sure an awful lotta "ifs."  Adding Navar's point that odds are good at least one legitimate authority would have a problem with wenching, in order to accept Cedric as a paladin, we are being asked to accept a "perfect storm" not only of Cedric's qualities, but of the qualities of his church, his culture, and every single person of authority in his life.  That, to me, is more than a bit unlikely.




Well, we accept that no legitimate authority objects to his choice of dinner or his chosen dancing style, so we're already living in fantasy land.  Your criteria makes being a paladin impossible - not hyperbole "impossible", really and truely impossible.  If you have multiple legitimate authorities and they disagree ("You miust worship in my temple from 4-5pm on wednesday.  No!  You must worship in MY temple from 4-5pm on wednesday"), then poof, no more paladins.


----------



## shilsen

fusangite said:
			
		

> Do you understand what a continuum is? People kill in D&D. Sometimes it is evil to do so. Sometimes it is not. Your challenge that we draw a clear and distinct line between evil and non-evil prostitution will be viewed as reasonable the second you can establish the same kind of universal rule/distinction for killing.




Ah, bugger! I read The Sigil's post above and immediately thought about killing in the D&D game as something which clearly exists in a continuum. And then I continued reading, figuring I'd post a response about that, and then I find you've already done it. I feel so useless now. *sob*


----------



## Navar

fusangite said:
			
		

> _#1 _ Prostitution was not only legal but government run in many medieval cities. Slaves/bondmen existed in virtually all medieval societies. So I don't need to use any modernist construct to tell you that medievals didn't find these things evil -- I can just take medieval documents about these things at face value. _<Snip> #2_ People kill in D&D. Sometimes it is evil to do so. Sometimes it is not. Your challenge that we draw a clear and distinct line between evil and non-evil prostitution will be viewed as reasonable the second you can establish the same kind of universal rule/distinction for killing.




OK I did a small snip and I added numbers so I could address your points point by point.

#1	IF we are using real life medieval cities as an example then we have to use Jesus Christ as our god.  And in this case Jesus would not allow his paladins to pay for sex.  Neither would LG elder Clerics of Jesus (both of whom are in authority over the Paladin.)

#2	But killing a killer stops that person from killing any more.  And in D&D with alignment that is a good act.  Killing someone whom will kill more than 1 person in the rest of his live causes LESS people to die.  On the contrary NOT paying a woman for sex is the best way to stop that from happening (throughout the world) in the future.  This is the doing your small part not to contribute to an industry thing, BUT still there can be no argument made that would allow paying a professional woman for sex to be a "Good thing" nor a thing that would have good effects, and only going to the “good brothels” still allows the bad ones to flourish.


----------



## Mallus

Navar said:
			
		

> BUT still there can be no argument made that would allow paying a professional woman for sex to be a "Good thing" nor a thing that would have good effects



What if the woman had no other means of income (a depressingly common occurance even now)?


----------



## D+1

Late to the thread but...

I wouldn't allow such a paladin.  I _don't _think that paladins need to be the absolute paragons of virtue that some people do.  Paladins, like any other PC, need room for being flawed, for being dynamic and reasonably realistic in how they react to their world.  On the other hand, I also don't think that they should be capable of openly flaunting their utter _lack _of virtue as Cedric does.  IMO, being a paladin may mean you are chosen by a deity to represent them BY BEING a LG, virtuous, "self-appointed", judge-and-executioner-at-large, but it also means that the choice of character is DEFINED by the class and a character who proves so lacking in even at least TRYING to be virtuous will be drop kicked out of the club.  The deity may not need to be LG but the paladin still does - because by definition that is what the deity WANTS as a righteous, fighting representative.

There's "wiggle room" in the class description for what a paladin can/can't do, as well as in the description of alignment and HOW alignment is applied in the game.  While it may not state it specifically it's pretty clear that paladins are supposed to be morally and ethically clean.  Drinking and womanizing can be character flaws, and thus a paladin could be conceived who is a drinker and whore-chaser.  But a paladin who openly revels in drinking and whoring is crossing the unspoken boundries of what is morally acceptable.  Particularly if there is ANY assumption in the society in which the paladin exists that whoring and alcoholism are NOT morally acceptible behaviors.

I think it's the whoring in particular that would be problematic.  VERY few cultures or religions APPROVE of it or even openly tolerate it.  They might accept it in the way that you have to accept all the other ills of an imperfect world but they don't APPROVE of it.  The Bishop of Belltown may sleep with whores - but he knows he's not SUPPOSED to do it.


----------



## Endur

I slightly disagree.  The Pale Rider was close to being a Paladin, and he definitely had the good part, but was not quite the full lawful part.  The Man with No Name was Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.    





			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> The Pale Rider was a pretty classic Paladin character IMO.  The Man With No Name would be Neutral in D&D Alignment terms, so (I think) would be the High Plains Drifter.  I guess Bill Munny in Unforgiven could be classed as Good-but-no-Paladin, his backstory seems to be a Man With No Name mercenary gunslinger redeemed by a good woman.


----------



## Mallus

D+1 said:
			
		

> I also don't think that they should be capable of openly flaunting their utter _lack _of virtue as Cedric does.



Whose virtues is he openly flaunting? His church's or his god's? The implication is they're not exactly the same thing.

Is the church doctrine in keeping with the spirit of the divinely-reveaved knowledge?

Sure, you can set things up so the doctrine and the god's will are one in the same. But in doing that, you eliminate a situation that's ripe with conflict. And conflict is the heart of dramatic storytelling.

To my mind, the question shouldn't be "is Cedric good?". It should be "is Cedric's story dull?"

What does "good but dull" get you in the end?


----------



## freebfrost

Just saw this thread, but I would say a definite yes.

A good example of this is the Paladin that I recently ran in a Forgotten Realms campaign.  He was a worshipper of Lathander (who based on his most recent description in the FR books is more of a light-hearted god) that enjoyed partying and "relaxing" awith the ladies of Sune after an adventure.  And naturally, he donated coin to the Temple of Sune for the ministrations of her priestesses.

Was my paladin in violation of the dictates of his faith?  In my eyes and in the eyes of our group - no.  

In the case given, Cedric is the protector of the brothel - and part of his payment is in the form of physical pleasure.  Not knowing entirely what Cedric's faith is, I cannot say that he is clearly in violation of his faith either.  As a DM, I would want an explanation of why Cedric acts this way, but providing that was well-thought out (i.e. my paladin's relationship with Lathander "The Partier" and the church's connection to Sune), I would certainly allow it.

Likewise for the alcohol use.  If he was a paladin of Samuel Adams (God of Brewers and Patriots), then he might be *required* to regularly inbibe alcohol.  To dismiss him as a paladin based on the stereotypical "goody-two-shoes" paladin concept is unfair to say the least.


----------



## The Sigil

fusangite said:
			
		

> Prostitution was not only legal but government run in many medieval cities. Slaves/bondmen existed in virtually all medieval societies. So I don't need to use any modernist construct to tell you that medievals didn't find these things evil -- I can just take medieval documents about these things at face value.



I hope this won't lock the thread due to a religion reference, but unless I miss my mark, my impression was that the Catholic church had no small amount of influence in those days and that fornication and adultery - which means brothels - were "evil sins" in the dogma of said church.  I only bring this up because the paladin is a "holy warrior" and as such if you're claiming to model the world on the medieval period, it makes sense to model his religion on the dominant "holy" medieval religion, local cultures notwithstanding.


> Do you understand what a continuum is? People kill in D&D. Sometimes it is evil to do so. Sometimes it is not. Your challenge that we draw a clear and distinct line between evil and non-evil prostitution will be viewed as reasonable the second you can establish the same kind of universal rule/distinction for killing.



Fair enough.  Using the RAW (which include alignments for all beings), I can get away with: 

"Killing is an evil act, with the following enumerated exceptions:"

(1) "killing anything with an evil alignment is not evil"

(2) "killing anything with a good alignment is not evil only if it is in direct defense of a character's (PC or NPC) life, lawfully-deserved freedom (i.e., no obstruction of justice), or limb"

(3) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if that thing is at the time of battle acting in concert with those of evil alignment"

(4) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if it is in direct defense of a character's life, lawfully-deserved freedom, or limb."

Will that do? 

--The Sigil


----------



## Navar

Mallus said:
			
		

> What if the woman had no other means of income (a depressingly common occurance even now)?




This is a "Straw Man" Argument.  The implication is that in reality the ONLY OPTION a woman has to earn money is to have sex for it.  This is not, nor will ever be the case.  As I said before if their were more women on this board then men this would not even be an argument.  If fact the more I think about the implication of your post the more sickened and angry I get to think that someone so chauvinist exists.  I hope that you don't live in a civilized country, and if you do that you are 13 years old or younger.


----------



## Mallus

Navar said:
			
		

> I hope that you don't live in a civilized country, and if you do that you are 13 years old or younger.



I don't live in a civilized place. I live in Philadelphia.

And I'm 35, though I was just carded for cigarettes today. 

And speaking of civilized places, ENWorld is a fairly cvil (virtual) one, so posts like yours are considered bad form.

What, exactly, did you find chauvanistic about my post? The idea that in some places socioeconomic conditions exist that effectively force women into the sex trade? Conditions that deny women meaningful choices (unless you consider starvation and death meaningful choices). Consider SE Asia, the slums of India, sub-Saharan Africa. I'm sure I could find places far closer to (my) home, but let's start with the easiest examples.

It sickens me that such conditions persists all over this 21 century Earth. What part of acknowldeging that --as I said before, depressing fact-- makes me a chauvanist?

Its a different issue entirely to claim issues like the sex trade are too serious to trivialize in an RPG campaign. Is that the point you were trying to make?


----------



## Navar

Mallus said:
			
		

> I don't live in a civilized place. I live in Philadelphia.
> 
> And I'm 35, though I was just carded for cigarettes today.
> 
> And speaking of civilized places, ENWorld is a fairly cvil (virtual) one, so posts like yours are considered bad form.
> 
> What, exactly, did you find chauvanistic about my post? The idea that in some places socioeconomic conditions exist that effectively force women into the sex trade? Conditions that deny women meaningful choices (unless you consider starvation and death meaningful choices). Consider SE Asia, the slums of India, sub-Saharan Africa. I'm sure I could find places far closer to (my) home, but let's start with the easiest examples.
> 
> It sickens me that such conditions persists all over this 21 century Earth. What part of acknowldeging that --as I said before, depressing fact-- makes me a chauvanist?
> 
> Its a different issue entirely to claim issues like the sex trade are too serious to trivialize in an RPG campaign. Is that the point you were trying to make?




No, I don't think that the sex trade is too trivial to be brought into an RPG campaign.  In fact the problem here is that all of the example you gave ARE EVIL.  So you post proves my point.  If women don't have another choice the entire soceity is evil, and any paladin worth his salt would free the women and overthrow the despot who caused the problems in the first place.  I don't feel that starving or whoreing are the only 2 choices that women have in any part of the world (Though I know that whoreing or death is a sad reaility as they are slaves but that takes out the choice), but I also know that it is often the Easist choice.  Let me give an example.  To get my 3.5 books I can either go to work, get stressed, come home late, miss my family, and get paid then use that money to buy my books, or I can get a board, drive a nail in it, walk into my LGS and take whatever book I want.  I choose to work.  In those countries the women may be socially conditioned to beleive that they only have 1 choice, but I know that if their clients stopped using their services they would find another way to survive.


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  Using the RAW (which include alignments for all beings), I can get away with:
> 
> "Killing is an evil act, with the following enumerated exceptions:"
> 
> (1) "killing anything with an evil alignment is not evil"
> 
> (2) "killing anything with a good alignment is not evil only if it is in direct defense of a character's (PC or NPC) life, lawfully-deserved freedom (i.e., no obstruction of justice), or limb"
> 
> (3) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if that thing is at the time of battle acting in concert with those of evil alignment"
> 
> (4) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if it is in direct defense of a character's life, lawfully-deserved freedom, or limb."
> 
> Will that do?
> 
> --The Sigil




So you have to be photosynthetic to not do evil?

Meat is murder?

Even vegetarians eat killed plants.

Slapping mosquitos is evil?

I guess we are all sinners   

Come on Sigil, I think you can do better than this.   

Are you defining "anything" as "sentient creatures"?


----------



## Voadam

Navar said:
			
		

> but I know that if their clients stopped using their services they would find another way to survive.




Or die.


----------



## Navar

Voadam said:
			
		

> Or die.




True, but that is "natural selection."  You adept or die, as long as you have an easy source of food/money/etc. you don't have to change, if that source goes away you adept or die, but I think that humans are nothing if not adaptable, but then again I am optimistic.


----------



## shilsen

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I hope this won't lock the thread due to a religion reference...




*tackles The Sigil and knocks him to the floor, throws a big non-religious rug over him and sits on it as the mods walk by*

"Hello, moderators - fancy seeing you in this little thread I started. Yes, yes, it'sa lovely day. Trouble? No, no - must have been ... er, um, that "3.5e is only played by poopyheads" thread down the road. Why is this rug moving? Termites. Yeah, big ones. Awakened ones, which is why it's swearing. No worries, I'll deal with it."

*continues to sit on rug till moderators walk over to the next thread, before getting off and letting The Sigil out*

"Darn it, man! That was CLOSE!" 




> Fair enough.  Using the RAW (which include alignments for all beings), I can get away with:
> 
> "Killing is an evil act, with the following enumerated exceptions:"
> 
> (1) "killing anything with an evil alignment is not evil"
> 
> (2) "killing anything with a good alignment is not evil only if it is in direct defense of a character's (PC or NPC) life, lawfully-deserved freedom (i.e., no obstruction of justice), or limb"
> 
> (3) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if that thing is at the time of battle acting in concert with those of evil alignment"
> 
> (4) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if it is in direct defense of a character's life, lawfully-deserved freedom, or limb."
> 
> Will that do?
> 
> --The Sigil




That's pretty comprehensive, but too simplistic, IMO. For example, I'd say that walking in and killing an evil guy who happens to be just sitting in the local tavern and having a beer would count as evil, whereas your point (1) sees that as okay. It comes down to interpretation again.


----------



## Mallus

Navar said:
			
		

> In fact the problem here is that all of the example you gave ARE EVIL.



The fact is the examples I sited went to address your statement that women _always_ had a meaningful choice regarding prostitution. No matter where or when they are...

They were not intended to address to quesion "is prostitution always wrong?".


> So you post proves my point.



Which point? That I'm a knuckle-dragging chauvanist for having the temerity to point out that brutal socioeconomic conditions exist that force women into horrible situations? I'd like to think my post demonstrates thats false. Seeing as you didn't weigh in on that point, I'm assuming you agree that it does.


> ...snip...any paladin worth his salt would free the women and overthrow the despot who caused the problems in the first place.



You're making the assumption that that's even remotely possible. Why?


> I don't feel that starving or whoreing are the only 2 choices that women have in any part of the world



And this opinion is based on something other than a deeply-felt desire for it to be true?


> Let me give an example.  To get my 3.5 books I can either go to work, get stressed, come home late, miss my family, and get paid then use that money to buy my books, or I can get a board, drive a nail in it, walk into my LGS and take whatever book I want.  I choose to work.



Frankly, the example is meaningless. You do understand that large numbers of people exist in places riven by such poverty, civil disorder, collapse of even the most basic elements of civil society that they don't _have_ the option to work an honest job. You get this, right?


> In those countries the women may be socially conditioned to beleive that they only have 1 choice,



'Social conditioning?' Do you honestly think that's a deciding factor in areas where vast numbers of people still starve to death and die of ridiculously-preventable diseases?

Choice is a lovely thing. And we're terribly fortunate to live in a society that affords us so damn much of it. But do you honestly think that your being compassionate and pro-woman by assuming that everyone, everywhere has the same?


----------



## shilsen

Navar said:
			
		

> True, but that is "natural selection."  You adept or die, as long as you have an easy source of food/money/etc. you don't have to change, if that source goes away you adept or die, but I think that humans are nothing if not adaptable, but then again I am optimistic.



 Don't forget that part of adapatability and free choice involves making choices that other people might disagree with. There are many women (although certainly a minority among those in the profession) who choose prostitution as a profession despite having other options. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Yes, prostitution as a profession can cause all sorts of problems socially and for the individual, esp. when it comes to prostitution through coercion. But is prostitution *inherently* evil? I don't think so. The only time prostitution is inherently regarded as evil and immoral (a term that often gets used synonymously with evil in this case) is if you think there is something sacrosanct about the sexual act and prostitution debases it in some manner. I don't think there is anything sacrosanct about it and so I can't see anything inherently wrong with prostitution. You, and I'm sure many here, will disagree.


----------



## The Sigil

Voadam said:
			
		

> So you have to be photosynthetic to not do evil?
> 
> Meat is murder?
> 
> Even vegetarians eat killed plants.
> 
> Slapping mosquitos is evil?
> 
> I guess we are all sinners
> 
> Come on Sigil, I think you can do better than this.
> 
> Are you defining "anything" as "sentient creatures"?



Should have clarified that, but I was in a hurry.  For the sake of my four points above, replace "anything" with "creatures with an Intelligence score greater than 2" (i.e., above animal intelligence).  

Add also a fifth point:

5.) If the "killer" is a neutral creature with an intelligence score of 2 or less, killing is not an evil act (as I will submit that to commit an evil act, the actor must be capable of making moral judgments; an actor falling under exemption 5 cannot commit evil as it lacks the ability to make moral judgments, thus its actions, while "destructive" are not evil - and yes, that includes people whose intelligence is so impaired as to be below even the lowest "normal range" - frex, those suffering from severe brain damage).

And a sixth point:

6.) Killing a neutral creature with an intelligence score less than or equal to 2 (i.e., creatures not covered as "anything" by points 1-4 above) is an evil act if not done for the purpose of self-defense or for using some portion of the creature to physically/materially benefit oneself or others in a direct manner OR if the method chosen for such a killing is chosen primarily on the basis of its ability to inflict significant amounts of suffering on the creature before allowing it to die - i.e., killing for food or pelts is fine, killing for pleasure is not.

--The Sigil


----------



## Navar

@ Mallus still the point of my post was that if the clients stopped then the women WOULD make other choices.

And the point that you proved was that prostution was evil (if the women have no other choice) which was what your "What if the woman had no other means of income (a depressingly common occurance even now)?" statment implied.  So back to the origional point of the thread.  *A paladin who pays for sex is not a paladin at all.*
If they are prostutite/slaves then that is one thing and they actually have no choice, but if they choose that lifestyle then they are making choice.  It goes back to "The simplest solution to a problem is not always the best."  Yes it is VERY easy for them to get paid for sex, but other choices exist. (excepting when they are slaves which is another argument alltogether.)


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Should have clarified that, but I was in a hurry.  For the sake of my four points above, replace "anything" with "creatures with an Intelligence score greater than 2" (i.e., above animal intelligence).
> 
> --The Sigil




  Just giving you a hard time here.


----------



## Navar

shilsen said:
			
		

> Don't forget that part of adapatability and free choice involves making choices that other people might disagree with. There are many women (although certainly a minority among those in the profession) who choose prostitution as a profession despite having other options. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Yes, prostitution as a profession can cause all sorts of problems socially and for the individual, esp. when it comes to prostitution through coercion. But is prostitution *inherently* evil? I don't think so. The only time prostitution is inherently regarded as evil and immoral (a term that often gets used synonymously with evil in this case) is if you think there is something sacrosanct about the sexual act and prostitution debases it in some manner. I don't think there is anything sacrosanct about it and so I can't see anything inherently wrong with prostitution. You, and I'm sure many here, will disagree.




I actually had a hard time with this as well, but I think the problem with prostitution is that it may not have bad effects on the 2 people who are involved in the act.  The problem is that it degrades society.  Having whores around does not have any benefit, and provides an outlet for disease, and it allows for Pimps to abuse women.  It also causes society to further objectify women.  (These 2 things are a problem for me and have nothing to do with weather sex is sacrosanct or not)


----------



## Mallus

Navar said:
			
		

> And the point that you proved was that prostution was evil (if the women have no other choice) which was what your "What if the woman had no other means of income (a depressingly common occurance even now)?" statment implied.



Cool. We agree. Coercive prostitution is evil. See, no need to get angry (unless you think that's fun, which I'm embarrassed to say I do, sometimes).


> So back to the origional point of the thread.  *A paladin who pays for sex is not a paladin at all.*



Good idea, back to Cedric. The way I see it, Cedric is unable to change the entire fabric of his society. What he can do is look out for the girls, drop some money into their coffers, keep them healthy. Its about as equittable and fair-minded exchange (even respectful) as they're likely to get in the (implied) context of their society. He cannot address the greater evil, so he does a little localized good. Accepting shilsen's set-up, its hard to imagine the women Cedric frequents being better off without him (and the brothel). Who would marry, feed, employ, and protect them otherwise?  

Again, I can see raising objections to such an idealized view of Medieval prostitution, but in the context of a game that idealizes feudalism in general, not to mention wholesale slaughter, larceny, and in the case of certain brutish races, genocide, why quibble?


----------



## Navar

OK Sorry that I did get angry (I am under a little stress at work.)  I wronged you and I am sorry.

I can't argue with the gumdrop and happy stardust prostitution where everyone is doing what they want no man every cheats on his wife, all the working girls stay disease free, all of them are doing exactly what they want to be doing.  I just think that forces me to suspend disbelief a little too much.  If you include 1 actual fact about prostitution (disease spreading, sometimes forced, objectification of women, infidelity, bad role models for children, etc.) then the entire scenario collapses, and the question was "would I allow that Paladin in my game" and to that I say NO because in my game whores are just that, they have Stds (and spread them), men pay for them and don't buy things for their wives, and while some make the choice WAY too many have the choice made for them, so it is evil.  So in my game whoring happens, but it is bad.  YMMY


----------



## Mallus

Navar said:
			
		

> I wronged you and I am sorry.



No worries. Its been a while since anyone called me a chauvanist. Its actually kinda bracing...


> If you include 1 actual fact about prostitution (disease spreading, sometimes forced, objectification of women, infidelity, bad role models for children, etc.) then the entire scenario collapses



I understand it doesn't work for you, but change 'prostitution' to 'the knighthood' as watch what happens. Would paladins abide the more secular knighthoods (that do a lot of awful things to the peasantry, if we're modelling our knights after the Real McCoy...)? I'm guessing that most people wouldn't think twice about paladins giving tacit approval to the systematized abuses found in real-world feudal aristocracies. So doesn't the whole "knights-in-shining armor" routine require the same kind of "gumsdrops and happy stardust --love the phrasing, BTW" treatment as prostitution? 

I just find it intriguing that some people can so readily sanitize fuedalism, but balk at doing the same to prostitution. Different stokes for different umm... perhaps I should rephrase that.


----------



## fusangite

The Sigil said:
			
		

> my impression was that the Catholic church had no small amount of influence in those days and that fornication and adultery - which means brothels - were "evil sins" in the dogma of said church. I only bring this up because the paladin is a "holy warrior" and as such if you're claiming to model the world on the medieval period, it makes sense to model his religion on the dominant "holy" medieval religion, local cultures notwithstanding.



Right. You came in later in the thread. I agree with you here. I do think that not being celibate disqualifies the paladin from being a paladin. I would not allow Cedric in my campaign. However, you were arguing that prostitution was evil and that I would not accept.







> "Killing is an evil act, with the following enumerated exceptions:"
> 
> (1) "killing anything with an evil alignment is not evil"
> (2) "killing anything with a good alignment is not evil only if it is in direct defense of a character's (PC or NPC) life, lawfully-deserved freedom (i.e., no obstruction of justice), or limb"
> (3) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if that thing is at the time of battle acting in concert with those of evil alignment"
> (4) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if it is in direct defense of a character's life, lawfully-deserved freedom, or limb."
> 5.) If the "killer" is a neutral creature with an intelligence score of 2 or less, killing is not an evil act (as I will submit that to commit an evil act, the actor must be capable of making moral judgments; an actor falling under exemption 5 cannot commit evil as it lacks the ability to make moral judgments, thus its actions, while "destructive" are not evil - and yes, that includes people whose intelligence is so impaired as to be below even the lowest "normal range" - frex, those suffering from severe brain damage).
> 6.) Killing a neutral creature with an intelligence score less than or equal to 2 (i.e., creatures not covered as "anything" by points 1-4 above) is an evil act if not done for the purpose of self-defense or for using some portion of the creature to physically/materially benefit oneself or others in a direct manner OR if the method chosen for such a killing is chosen primarily on the basis of its ability to inflict significant amounts of suffering on the creature before allowing it to die - i.e., killing for food or pelts is fine, killing for pleasure is not.



So, how does one act when confronting creatures[/QUOTE]I have a huge problem with this list. Alignments can change. What if a person who is evil today has an epiphany and becomes good tomorrow? Unless you're dealing with outsiders, the vast majority of evil creatures is possessed with free will and capable of becoming non-evil. 

And what about human beings who are evil? Is it okay to summarily execute an evil 12 year old child who hasn't actually committed a crime yet? To me, that's evil. 

The second problem you have is one of imperfect knowledge. How can someone who is not a paladin or in possession of sufficient Knowledge skills to know all the characteristics of the individual/species they face make these calls? How do you know the intelligence and alignment of every creature you meet unless you're a paladin with maxed-out Know - Arcana, Religion, Nature, etc.? How do you act with imperfect knowledge?


			
				navar said:
			
		

> A paladin who pays for sex is not a paladin at all.



I agree with you here. But this does not make paying for sex evil. I have read your views about the sex trade and I strongly suggest you get a little more educated about its realities. Perhaps you should read the actual biographical accounts of people who have worked in the industry. A vocal minority of those women and men who work in the field enjoy their work or simply find it the least objectionable of the available options; if their clients enjoy receiving their services, where does the evil come from?


----------



## zarabel

*Bravo Shil*

I expected nothing less from you. It gave me a good laugh I must say. I would let this paladin into a game I was running. (If I actually preferred to DM) I say it's about time that we break away from the ideas that all paladins should behave like a boring stick in the mud that nobody wants to be around. Let's face it, for the most part, a group picks up a paladin, and there is a collective sigh from the table. Most characters do not feel comfortable with a paladin because most characters are not lawful good and know they will be judged. It's like, oh boy, he comes the paladin, the party's over. lol. I see nothing wrong in how Cedric behaved seeing as how he broke no laws. Do you think that all gods/goddesses are chaste? Not even. I feel he was lawful while still showing he was human. So, enough of my boring prattle, this is simply my opinion. (And we all know what they say about opinons   ) I thought the writing was excellent, and the character was completely acceptable.


----------



## The Sigil

fusangite said:
			
		

> I have a huge problem with this list. Alignments can change. What if a person who is evil today has an epiphany and becomes good tomorrow? Unless you're dealing with outsiders, the vast majority of evil creatures is possessed with free will and capable of becoming non-evil.



You asked me to draw a clear line about where killing is acceptable and not an "evil act."  I did.  It's not my fault you don't like the line.  You didn't ask me to try to "increase the good" by offering baddies the chance to have the epiphany.  You asked for something more simplistic - how do I avoid evil?  (Maximizing good and simply avoiding evil are two very different things  ).  My "line" wasn't necessarily drawn to keep a good character good, it was drawn simply to keep a neutral character from crossing into evil.  Please show me where the line is internally inconsistent. 

We can deal in what if's - "what if the evil person becomes good?" - but they're ultimately speculation, not cold hard fact (I presume here you mean he turns good after sparing his life, not killing someone who is now good because once upon a time he was evil). 

The fact is, when he was killed, he was evil.  So he never became good.  The "what if" doesn't matter - because "it didn't happen."  

(I am here reminded of the LotR:RotK EE easter egg...

"What if the ring WASN'T destroyed?"
"It was."
"But... what if... it wasn't?"
"It was!"
"But... what if... you know... it WASN'T?"
"It WAS!")

Yes, it's a simplistic worldview.  But is completely internally consistent, no?  When he was killed, he was evil.  He never became good.  Where's the problem?

(I have posted elsewhere that ideally, a paladin offers his quarry the chance to repent unless offering that chance is likely to lead to the harm of an innocent, but since we're not talking about "increasing good" but simply "not doing evil" here, it's somewhat off-topic.)


> And what about human beings who are evil? Is it okay to summarily execute an evil 12 year old child who hasn't actually committed a crime yet? To me, that's evil.



Allow me to answer your question about the child not quite as stated, but instead substituting the word "crime" with "evil act" (to avoid the whole, 'whether or not something is a "crime" is a function of local laws" side trek) and address it from that angle.

I reject the premise that you can be "evil" and not yet have committed an "evil act."  Alignment is "who you are" - and what you do is a function of "who you are."  It is in action (or deliberate inaction) that one's goodness or evilness - or neutrality (a mix of both that doesn't heavily favor one or the other) is displayed.  These actions need not be the "ultimate visible act of evil" but thoughts, words and deeds in preparation for that act are also evil (e.g., if you're plotting to murder someone, the acquisition of poison, the planning process to insinuate yourself close to them, etc. are evil acts at the time of commission... they aren't neutral acts that suddenly become evil when the "ultimate act" of murder occurs).

You defined the child as "evil" in alignment, therefore he must have committed acts sufficient to classify him as "evil" in the first place - someone with an evil disposition but who doesn't ever act on it is "neutral."  

Again, "alignment is what you are, and what you do reflects what you are."  If you haven't committed any evil acts, you aren't "evil," you're "neutral" ... so your question is a meaningless paradox.

The answer I would give is, "if the 12-year-old is evil (then he will have committed evil acts); it is not evil to slay him."  If the 12-year old has not committed evil acts (then he is not evil); it is evil to slay him.  Whether or not it is evil to slay him is a function of which of the two conditions you asserted is true; both cannot be true at the same time.

I would structure it thusly using formal logic.

1 - If X is of evil alignment, then X will have committed evil acts.
2 - X is evil.
3 - X has not committed evil acts.
4 - Because X has not committed evil acts, X is not of evil alignment (Modus Tollens).
Conclusion: Line 4 and Line 2 contradict each other, therefore one of our premises (1-3) must be wrong.

If you wish to reject my premise (i.e., a necessary part of moving from "neutral" to "evil" in the first place is the prior commission of evil acts), fine... but since I hold it as a true principle unless proven otherwise, you will need to either prove otherwise or cede that we cannot continue to have a meaningful argument about the original question.  I'm not telling you "disprove this!" I'm just saying if you don't agree, we're probably at a logical impasse on this one and will have to move our attentions elsewhere... and I think we may be.


> The second problem you have is one of imperfect knowledge. How can someone who is not a paladin or in possession of sufficient Knowledge skills to know all the characteristics of the individual/species they face make these calls? How do you know the intelligence and alignment of every creature you meet unless you're a paladin with maxed-out Know - Arcana, Religion, Nature, etc.? How do you act with imperfect knowledge?



The simple answer is, you don't need to have perfect knowledge.  You meet a creature.  If you know it to be evil (e.g., a demon), you kill it on the spot.  No evil committed.  

If it threatens you, you kill it.  You are in defense of life and limb, regardless of its alignment, and if you kill it, you're not committing an evil act.  Hungry animals, mindless constructs, etc. are likely to fall into this category even if you don't know exactly what it is.

If you are not familiar with the nature of the creature, and it is not an immediate threat, you ought to take a moment or two to parlay in order to determine its nature (problem is, most PCs don't know how to do anything but slay; parlay is all but an obscene word) - thus solving your problem of lack of knowledge.  If it attacks when you parlay, go back to "it threatens you" above.

Does this leave you open to treachery?  Of course... but that's one of the "costs" of being good (in the same way that the old "-for-tat" solution to the prisoner's dilemma game is that you always get bitten first, but this is offset by higher potential gains from cooperation and taking the chance that you can get those gains - but that's getting off-topic).

(Note that it's quite possible to have two good-aligned people fight it out and have one of the slay the other and have that slaying NOT be an evil act.  For instance, maybe there is a good-aligned orc among the evil orcs in the old keep.  The players break into the old keep and start slaughtering evil orcs left and right (not an evil act).  The good-aligned orc comes to their defense, as there is no lawful (different alignment axis, remember) reason for the slaughter and kills a paladin PC.  The orc hasn't committed an evil act (defense of life and limb).  Another good-aligned PC then slays the good-aligned orc.  Defense of life and limb, not an evil act.  You now have two good-aligned characters who have slain other good-aligned characters... and no evil acts committed.)

--The Sigil

EDIT: Apparently Eric's grandmother doesn't like the "_this_-for-tat" strategy.  Oops!


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

I would guess that those of us who do so believe the problems of prostitution to be inherent in the institution while the abuses of feudal aristocracies are either extrinsic to the institutions (and therefore, supporting the institution is not supporting the abuse as such) or intrinsic to power structures in general (and hence unavoidable without supporting anarchy).



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that most people wouldn't think twice about paladins giving tacit approval to the systematized abuses found in real-world feudal aristocracies. So doesn't the whole "knights-in-shining armor" routine require the same kind of "gumsdrops and happy stardust --love the phrasing, BTW" treatment as prostitution?
> 
> I just find it intriguing that some people can so readily sanitize fuedalism, but balk at doing the same to prostitution. Different stokes for different umm... perhaps I should rephrase that.


----------



## Navar

fusangite said:
			
		

> I agree with you here. But this does not make paying for sex evil. I have read your views about the sex trade and I strongly suggest you get a little more educated about its realities. Perhaps you should read the actual biographical accounts of people who have worked in the industry. A vocal minority of those women and men who work in the field enjoy their work or simply find it the least objectionable of the available options; if their clients enjoy receiving their services, where does the evil come from?




As I said it doesn't hurt the 2 people involved, it bring down society as a whole.  I have had a lot of internal struggles with this very topic when I was taking my advance philosophy classes.  I have listed the reasons this is true before, and you can check them out (I think they are on page 8.)

And on feudalism being evil I think the assumption in most D&D campaigns that the Lords are of good alignment.  That is where is see the change from the real world and everything logically follows from there.  Even if every whore in the D&D world is lawful good it doesn't stop the spread of disease. 
Edit: Lost Ini on the Feudalism check, but EB's point is great as well.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

apesamongus said:
			
		

> Well, we accept that no legitimate authority objects to his choice of dinner or his chosen dancing style, so we're already living in fantasy land.  Your criteria makes being a paladin impossible - not hyperbole "impossible", really and truely impossible.  If you have multiple legitimate authorities and they disagree ("You miust worship in my temple from 4-5pm on wednesday.  No!  You must worship in MY temple from 4-5pm on wednesday"), then poof, no more paladins.




This is going quite a bit further than is justified. It's quite possible to accept the premise and say "but legitimate authorities don't disagree on such things." A paladin is not the ultimate nobody, forced to yield "legitimate" authority to anyone who acts like they have authority. ("You must worship in my temple from 4-5 PM on Wednesday." Paladin: "And who are you, to make such a pronouncement? Are you my commander, my confessor, or the chaplain of my order?"). Of course, I think this issue does go the root of what Cedric is about: he is the paladin who is his own authority, deciding for himself what is required and what is superfluous to the code. If paladins can never do that, then he can't be a paladin, but if an individual paladin can have legitimate and accurate insight that contradicts authorities that would otherwise be legitimate, then the question is whether or not Cedric's particular insights are valid.


----------



## Arkhandus

Quote from the Paladin description in the 3.5 SRD, emphasis mine:


> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she *respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),* and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
> Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, *a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.* A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.




Ask yourself if your paladin truly follows the parts I bolded in the SRD quote.  If not, they have lost their paladinhood.  Hedonism is inherantly chaotic, so not something a paladin should tolerate, let alone partake in.  Hedonism and prostitution offend the paladin's moral code, and thus is barred to the paladin.  Prostitution is not likely to be legal everywhere in most fantasy settings, so the paladin could not tolerate it in lands where it is unlawful, as it then violates respect for legitimate authority.  Prostitution is also dishonorable, which violates the paladin's code.  Helping a brothel would violate a paladin's code in that they aren't supposed to help those in need if they would "use that help for evil or chaotic ends", which prostitution and hedonism are.


----------



## Torm

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Prostitution is also dishonorable, which violates the paladin's code.



Please clarify: How, exactly, is prostitution (the actual practice of conducting a business transaction for a sexual service, not anything that you may assume is usually associated like drug use or some such) _dishonorable_? I mean, I can readily see "distasteful" - but "dishonorable"?

I think I'm becoming inspired - I'm going to have to go Sir Cedric one better, and create a Paladin that actually IS a prostitute!


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

That's a false dilemma. Cedric does not need to patronize the prostitutes in order to look out for them, help them out of financial trouble, or keep them healthy. Nor does he need to do all or even any of those in order to do good to them. Cedric's nighttime romps and his protection/assistance are not inseparable activities. It's quite possible to do one without the other. It's possible for one to be bad and the other good. And it's also possible (IMO, quite likely) that patronizing the prostitutes would actually interfere with helping them.

The question is not "would the prostitutes be better off without Cedric?" but rather, "is prostitution inherently evil/wrong" [and yes, I do use those words synonymously which is one thing that prevents me from buying  The Sigil's "it's evilly aligned, so it's always OK to kill it" paradigm] or "could Cedric do more good if he didn't patronize them?" [The last question, of course, would raise the further question of whether Cedric is obligated to do the most good possible and, if not, how much good he is obligated to do].

Everyone I know IRL who has worked to help prostitutes has assiduously avoided patronizing them. Though I've not done any in-depth study, I'm pretty sure that there are sound reasons that even a utilitarian would take that approach.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Good idea, back to Cedric. The way I see it, Cedric is unable to change the entire fabric of his society. What he can do is look out for the girls, drop some money into their coffers, keep them healthy. Its about as equittable and fair-minded exchange (even respectful) as they're likely to get in the (implied) context of their society. He cannot address the greater evil, so he does a little localized good. Accepting shilsen's set-up, its hard to imagine the women Cedric frequents being better off without him (and the brothel). Who would marry, feed, employ, and protect them otherwise?


----------



## Torm

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Everyone I know IRL who has worked to help prostitutes has assiduously avoided patronizing them. Though I've not done any in-depth study, I'm pretty sure that there are sound reasons that even a utilitarian would take that approach.



This much is certain. But I think it can also be taken for granted that, in the modern world, the word "help" in what you've written means, "help them to get out of that lifestyle." What about in a society where prostitution is a, if not highly regarded, not disrespected profession - regarded no lower than a ditchdigger? In that context, help _might_ mean making sure that they are not harassed or harmed in the course of their work.

Admittedly, that argument goes back to (unfairly?) framing Sir Cedric in a society where this is true, and this has irritated some in this thread, but it is not invalid - there HAVE been REAL societies in human history where it is true, as well, so it is as valid to have Sir Cedric in one where it is as one where it isn't.

P.S. I was disrespectful to you a couple of pages back regarding your verbosity, and I apologize. I have been waiting for us to post in the same thread again to tell you that. I don't think my writing advice was incorrect, but I should have been more polite. Sorry.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

fusangite said:
			
		

> We're not advocating the idea of separate disassociated types of prostitution. We are arguing that there is a continuum of different types of prostitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as it is the only kind of prostitution the paladin is interacting with, why wouldn't it be more relevant than the types with which the paladin is not interacting?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But the "purpose" of sex is a socially constructed thing, at least for the purpose of running RPGs. Even if you want to argue that sex in this world has some absolute "purpose" that is transhistorical and transcultural, what is the point of running a fantasy RPG if the fantasy world has to conform to the transcultural, transhistorical truth you posit for this world? The fact is that how we think about sexuality does vary based on social conditions. Now, if you want to argue that your particular cultural approach to these issues is the absolute reference frame and all other cultures can be judged based on their proximity to this view, that's fine. It still does not alter the fact that different cultures really do think about sexuality differently. Look at the Inuit and Mongol definitions of hospitality, for instance.




The purpose of sex is only socially constructed "for the purpose of RPGs" because the rules of morality in an RPG setting are, to some degree, socially constructed. "Murder is "wrong"" is a socially constructed thing in RPGs too, but I doubt there'd be any takers for Natural Born Killers paladins. And if there were any takers, they'd be wrong.

Your argument does not get any stronger by bringing examples of cultural relativism. Different cultures have different thoughts about sex. Different cultures also have different thoughts about slavery, genocide, rape, torture, and pretty much anything else you can come up with. 

You seem to have quite the antipathy to transhistorical, transcultural concepts. However, as I read the PHB, D&D takes that bull by the horns and posits good and evil (and law and chaos) as universal, transhistorical, transcultural phenomena. The paladin class is explicitly tied to these transhistorical, transcultural concepts.

 you're distorting several things in this paragraph:
1. How people (actually)





			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Elder-basilisk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's also the effect upon the johns to consider--I haven't known anyone whose marriage has been destroyed by such a habit, but I've met plenty of people who have tossed their futures away for a pair of thighs wrapped around them now)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But in other cultures, these dire consequences are less common or there are different consequences because those cultures understand sex differently.
Click to expand...



Really? Care to give some examples of cultures where there are generally no negative effects on the Johns here? Because, where I'm standing, I can see that kind of thing happening from modern Amsterdam (where I witnessed it firsthand) to urban America  and all the way on back to the first century (the parable of the prodigal son wouldn't work if people weren't familiar with the wastrel) to the time of the judges (Samson springs to mind). There are examples in pagan literature as well.



> Look, I've gamed with people who feel that D&D is about modern people thinking modern thoughts living in modern cultures using medieval tech and magic. That's a fine way to play D&D -- it's just not a way I enjoy playing the game. And I don't think that's the playing style that most people contributing to this thread favour.




You've read enough of my posts that you should know it's not my take on D&D either. However, there are two questions that go on from here:

1. There are more options to playing D&D than simply A. Modern people with modern thoughts in modern cultures but with magical-medieval tech and B. Foreign people with foreign thoughts in different (usually ancient) cultures with magical-medieval tech. The concept of alignment offers a way to play the second while still evaluating the cultures and perspectives adopted. One can play culturally in Thay and still say "they're evil." Doing so is not necessarily a modern thought (I would argue that it is timeless) and, in fact, it seems particularly alien to the (post) modern point of view.

2. In exactly what cultures that could support paladins would this kind of behavior be seen as admirable? How exactly do you manage to simultaneously support the idea that paladins have to be chaste (unless they're Faerie Queen paladins) and that Sir Cedric fits the concept of a paladin.



> (For that matter, I also question the assumption that it's practically possible for someone to draw a bright line and accurately discern between the various kinds of prostitution, etc. IME, most rationalization of any kind begins by assuming that subtle distinctions between the various mechanisms of satisfying ones appetites are clear and can be stuck to).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not doing that. What we are saying is that prostitution runs along a continuum on which there are no sharp distinctions. Your reasoning here is essentially as follows: because there is no point in the spectrum where there are discreet breaks between colours, all colours are therefore yellow because yellow is the colour I see most frequently.
Click to expand...



That seems to me to be exactly what you're doing. There is no clear point in the spectrum where prostitution becomes bad. The prostitution I'm choosing to look at at the moment is (by writer fiat) the stardust and gumdrops variety. Therefore all prostitution (that is relevant to this discussion) is the stardrops and gumdrops variety. 

My point here is this: if there is no bright line, but we admit that, realistically, the stardust and gumdrops prostitution is a rare thing (if it exists at all) and only a small portion of that spectrum, then: 1. How does Sir Cedric reliably tell the difference between OK and not-ok prostitution? (Surely, he doesn't think that his efforts only entitle him to debauchery at that particular brothel when he's in that particular town)
2. How does Sir Cedric keep his influence towards accepting stardust and gumdrops prostitution from extending to the nastier (and more realistic) varieties? It's not like the brothel has a "paladin approved" sticker on the sign to differentiate it from other brothels that look similar but differ in ethically significant ways.



> By patronizing this establishment which, by DM/writer fiat is entirely clean of anything improper, Sir Cedric is making a statement about his society should and should not accept and what "everyone" does and does not do. That statement does not simply apply, in the minds of his observers, to "this particular house of prostitution which is clean and well run and where everyone is there by free and informed consent with an eye by the madame towards getting them out." Rather, it applies to prostitution as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK -- this is just an insane logical leap on your part. Your argument is that because paladins are exemplary individuals, every single thing they do should be/is viewed as a blanket endorsement of all practices associated with it. So, for instance, if a paladin travels by boat somewhere, he is endorsing press gangs and galley slavery. If he eats a loaf of bread, he is endorsing serfdom and agricultural slavery. If he uses a metal weapon or dons metal armour, he is endorsing slavery. If he engages in combat, he is endorsing all unjust wars and genocides. Etc.
Click to expand...



If I didn't know better, I'd think you were deliberately misreading my point here. My point is this: This particular brothel does not have a sign: organic, pesticide-free stardust and gumdrops brothel: paladin inspected, paladin approved. As you yourself admit, there is no clear bright line between the kinds of prostitution that are fine for Sir Cedric and the kinds that he shouldn't participate in (or encourage others to do).

Your examples of "extensions" of the argument are all flawed. First, they are flawed because they are all necessary from time to time. If you want to get to an island, you need a ship (or a teleport, blah blah, blah). If you want to live, you need to eat (or have a ring of sustenance, blah blah, blah). If you want to fight effectively, you need metal arms and armor (or you take druid levels, blah, blah, blah). The last time I checked, prostitution was neither essential to survival, combat [which is in the paladin's job description], or travel. That immediately places it on a different level from your so-called extensions of the argument.

One might also take issue with the examples from a different point of view:
The ship: There is a pretty bright line between slave-rowed galleys and non-galley ships. (I seem to remember the Athenians boasting about their navy being rowed by free men which would also seem like a bright line, but I could be wrong about the history). There is also, I think, a difference between sailing and prostitution in that sailing isn't inherently exploitive in the same way. You can (and many did) run ships without press gangs.

The food: Well, let's face it, paladins DO generally support serfdom--at least in the literature where they were born. But that said, supposing that a feudal hierarchical system is wrong after a considered evaluation, a paladin would still have to eat something and would (presumably) do so in the manner that did the least harm (or pretty close to that). On the other hand, a paladin won't die if he doesn't visit prostitutes so he can avoid that harm altogether.

The armor: I'm pretty sure you can get iron and blacksmiths without slaves. Try getting a brothel without prostitutes. (OK, so we're back to inherent wrongness, but that's quite significant. Inherent issues aside, though, any injustice incurred by wearing armor is indirect--it is associated with the materials and manufacture. The injustice associated with prostitution is often present directly in the transaction. The analogy would be a lot closer if the miners and armorsmith had to endure whateve injustice they endured every time someone donned the armor). 



> Let's just step into the modern world for a second: I believe that factory-farmed animals are raised under horrible conditions akin to torture; most vegetables are grown using pesticides that have adverse health impacts both on farm workers as well as on the people consuming them. Now, my paladin would buy organic vegetables and eat free range organic meat. Your paladin, faced with the same situation, would starve himself to death.




Again, you're comparing patronizing prostitutes to eating. I've managed to get by for nearly thirty years without visiting a prostitute and I'm not dead yet.

As to the modern world, I'm not particularly concerned about factory-farming or pesticides. My paladin would poke Peter Singer in the eye and would drive his Hummer by the In and Out Burger drive through to get a double double on the way to the stopping the evil succubus or other villain of the week. 

If I read the comparison correctly, you're starting from the assumption that eating and having sex for money are ethically identical activities and the only ethically significant factors are how the sex object or food is produced. I think that's a faulty assumption.

1. Eating is a necessary activity, prostitution is not. That means that they occupy different ethical levels. The profound difference that this makes becomes clear when one considers our judgement of involuntary transactions. It is arguably acceptable to steal a loaf of bread. It is not acceptable to "enjoy" a prostitute without consent. They call that rape.

2. Food comes from non-human animals (yup, I'm a speciesist; run for the hills!) or plants. Prostitutes are human beings. That serves to reinforce the difference. It is worse to mistreat a human than to mistreat an animal. Thus the ethical issues involved in prostitution are more direct and immediate, and, often, are more significant.

2.1 Humans may be involved in the production of food, but that is incidental and can be changed. The prostitute is inherently human; that can't be changed. (Short of Star-Trek style holodecks or Arcanis's Phantasmal Lover spell).

2.2 In a fantasy setting, my general thought is that PC races plus a few others have the same ethical status as humans. I'm not so clear on inherently antagonistic races like mind flayers or ones with always in their alignment entries.

3. Food covers pretty much the entire category of necessary sustenance. Prostitution is only a small part of the category of sex. So, by comparing rejection of prostitution to rejection of all food, you are committing a category error. Just like you can reject factory farmed chickens and still accept free range chickens, it's possible to reject prostitution and still accept marital sex or even fornication and adultery.



> I agree that paladins should set examples. Paladins should oppose bad rules by endorsing good kings. They should oppose bad landlords by associating with those who treat their peasants well. Etc.




And they oppose those who treat women badly by not patronizing prostitutes. 

Even if I were to imagine that there was nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, paladins would still need a clear line dividing the good prostitution from the bad in order to patronize them. People observing Sir Cedric would have to be able to differentiate the good brothel from the bad on the basis of public information, like they can  differentiate between good landlords and those who treat their peasants well. By your own admission, there is no such bright line for prostitution. 

If patronizing prostitutes was necessary for survival or for fulfilling a paladin's duties things might be different. But, since it is not necessary, a paladin ought to hold himself to a higher standard of purity than he does in necessary things.



> I'm watching you tangle yourself up here. I think you're seeing the problem of trying to create these transhistorical and transcultural values.




Nope. Just the problem of applying them in particular contexts.



> Paladins live in the context of their culture; in Rome, a paladin wouldn't be indifferent to all forms of slavery; he would associate with people who treated their slaves well and who granted manumission fairly and generously.




You're right about the Roman paladin. But unless there is a concept of a good brothel in Cedric's game world like there was a concept of a fair and good master, it makes no difference to the impression he leaves. And unless there actually IS a good brothel (not just a concept of one), it makes no difference to whether or not Cedric is a paladin.

I think we agree on the central point of the digression, however: what ones' actions are interpreted to support and how they support it is culturally dependent.



> What portion of Aragorn's army that marched from Minas Tirith to the Black Gate thought they would win? From my reading of the text, less than 20%. But there sense of hopelessness didn't make victory any more or less real. Fortunately, through most of history, this modern nonsense about creating one's own reality was not really part of people's thought. Whether you believe you will succeed is not actually the preponderant factor in determining success.




Ordinarily I wouldn't break up your thoughts like this, but this example is so eggregiously wrong that I have to. Aragorn's army didn't win the day at the Morannon. The victory was won at Mount Doom. For that matter, Aragorn didn't travel to the Morannon in order to win; he travelled there to give Frodo a better chance of winning. Certainly, most of Aragorn's men (and Aragorn himself) probably expected to die. That they didn't was due to Gollum's timing.



> In the jurisdiction in which I used to live, there was one election in 1991 when something totally incredible happened and a bunch of people were elected to the legislature who did not believe that victory was possible. People who ran $300 campaigns were swept into office past incumbents who had spent over $100,000. Many of these candidates were not available to the media on election night because they believed victory to be so improbable/impossible that they were out doing other things. Many grudgingly quit their jobs, having made no plans to become full-time parliamentarians, etc. Belief in one's success is not a necessary condition of success.




Which is, of course, why Patton, Eisenhower, Alexander, and all the other great generals of history gave "we may win this battle, but if we're lucky, we'll die quickly and won't spend the rest of our lives as drooling imbeciles when the horrors of this battle become apparent to us" speeches. Victory is certainly possible for those who don't expect it. However, it seems to be one of the laws of leadership that confident and bold leadership generally contributes to victory.



> While I agree with you that deportment is a necessary part of paladinhood and that Cedric does not rise to the standard I would set, I'm not sure that hope is a necessary part of said deportment.




Hope may not be a necessary part, though I still believe that it is important. Sir Cedric's attitude, however, doesn't even measure up to the call to die a good death.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Torm said:
			
		

> This much is certain. But I think it can also be taken for granted that, in the modern world, the word "help" in what you've written means, "help them to get out of that lifestyle." What about in a society where prostitution is a, if not highly regarded, not disrespected profession - regarded no lower than a ditchdigger? In that context, help _might_ mean making sure that they are not harassed or harmed in the course of their work.




It can mean that even in the real world. It's not as much of a help, but it is still help. However, I suspect that, even in that context, a non-client relationship would generally be more advantageous than a client relationship. 

However, the main point is that you don't have to patronize the prostitutes to help them, and that's valid regardless of the context. (It's also likely to incite more notice and curiousity).



> Admittedly, that argument goes back to (unfairly?) framing Sir Cedric in a society where this is true, and this has irritated some in this thread, but it is not invalid - there HAVE been REAL societies in human history where it is true, as well, so it is as valid to have Sir Cedric in one where it is as one where it isn't.




I'm not so sure about this. I can't think of any real societies where prostitutes were, in general regarded as a respected profession. I can think of ones where prostitutes were an accepted part of society, perhaps on a par with ditchdiggers, but that's not the same as being respected. In a lot of societies, ditchdiggers were not very respected.

In any event, it's not clear to me that it's valid to have Sir Cedric in one of those societies. The paladin class only fits into some cultures and societies. (I'm probably more flexible on this than Fusangite, but I don't think the concept is infinitely flexible). In general, I think paladins fit into cultures more or less in direct proportion to their similarity to medieval europe. There are a lot of places where a paladin could only be present as an outsider rather than a native.



> P.S. I was disrespectful to you a couple of pages back regarding your verbosity, and I apologize. I have been waiting for us to post in the same thread again to tell you that. I don't think my writing advice was incorrect, but I should have been more polite. Sorry.




Thanks. I either missed or forgot the slight, but I still appreciate the apology.


----------



## Ormiss

Firstly, Elder-Basilisk, thank you for voicing your argument in such a lucid and elaborate manner. It was most refreshing to read your point of view, and it saves me the trouble necessary to elucidate my own thoughts on the subject. Actually, I've been nodding my head to the beat of your posts all through this (rather gargantuan) thread.



> I just find it intriguing that some people can so readily sanitize fuedalism, but balk at doing the same to prostitution.




I've actually forgotten whose quote this was... Mallus'? Anyway, you do bring up a good point, and I agree that there is much inherently wrong in the way feudalism was executed in pretty much all countries. However, I would attribute this to the will to power inherent in all governments. Even today, in the most "civilized" nations on earth, we are being mistreated by powerhungry officials. The only difference is that we have media ready to blow the cover on knights who abuse their power by ravaging peasant girls on the way to the market. Aside from that, I dare say there would be no difference at all.

Someone asked earlier how one could assume that it would be possible to overthrow the practice of prostitution. It was asked how a paladin could even begin to address this wrong. Might I point out that the paladin's job description is to eliminate evil from the world? If that's not a "lost cause" then I don't know one.  Furthermore, Sir Cedric himself believes that his championship of good is futile but necessary. He could very well apply this thought to the abolishment of prostitution as well. As several people said, it's not necessary (in fact I view it as directly wrong) to sleep with a prostitute in order to protect and cure her. Sir Cedric could spend the time playing cards with the girls instead, and pay for their time. "Stardust and gumdrops" aside, I think most prostitutes would prefer that.

There has been a lot of talk about what is legal or not in Sir Cedric's fantasy nation. I would like to posit this argument.

1) A paladin is lawful good.

2) In most campaigns that I've seen, paladins tend to have the authority and partial duty to enforce the laws of her kingdom.

3) If the paladin lives in a lawful evil society which, for instance, has a law that allows men who perceive an insult to their honor from a woman to... (well, use your imagination) then his actions, if he adhered to the concept of lawful good, would be considered chaotic by the government.

Can the "lawful" aspect be surgically removed from the "good" aspect? If a paladin perceives that a written law in his kingdom is not "good", what would he do about it? Can a paladin exist in a nation which is not lawful good? Can a paladin exist in a nation which is lawful neutral? Who determines whether the law is good or not?

My point? Well, even if prostitution is legalized, does that mean that Sir Cedric thinks that it is a good law?

Does it mean that a more iconic paladin, Sir Goody-two-shoes, thinks that it is a good law?

Would either of them enforce it, or adhere to it?

What if Sir Cedric travels to another kingdom; will he obey their laws?

In my eyes, this is a fatal problem with "Lawful Good," because I personally feel that the law can, in many situations, counter-act the good. The whole point of Lawful Evil is that the person abuses, without breaking, a lawful system to commit acts of evil.

Of course, it could be construed that the paladin only obeys divine law. If you subscribe to that notion, nevermind my ramblings.


----------



## Navar

Well I did not realize that the Paladin code forbid him from acting with Chaotic people as well.  I think that if more people realized this then there would be MUCH less debate.  Regardless of what you think about the good - evil nature of whores and drunks they are chaotic (drunks he associates with in the bar and whores. . .)


----------



## Navar

Ormiss said:
			
		

> There has been a lot of talk about what is legal or not in Sir Cedric's fantasy nation. I would like to posit this argument.
> 1) A paladin is lawful good.
> 2) In most campaigns that I've seen, paladins tend to have the authority and partial duty to enforce the laws of her kingdom.
> 3) If the paladin lives in a lawful evil society which, for instance, has a law that allows men who perceive an insult to their honor from a woman to... (well, use your imagination) then his actions, if he adhered to the concept of lawful good, would be considered chaotic by the government.
> Can the "lawful" aspect be surgically removed from the "good" aspect? If a paladin perceives that a written law in his kingdom is not "good", what would he do about it? Can a paladin exist in a nation which is not lawful good? Can a paladin exist in a nation which is lawful neutral? Who determines whether the law is good or not?
> My point? Well, even if prostitution is legalized, does that mean that Sir Cedric thinks that it is a good law?
> Does it mean that a more iconic paladin, Sir Goody-two-shoes, thinks that it is a good law?
> Would either of them enforce it, or adhere to it?
> What if Sir Cedric travels to another kingdom; will he obey their laws?
> In my eyes, this is a fatal problem with "Lawful Good," because I personally feel that the law can, in many situations, counter-act the good. The whole point of Lawful Evil is that the person abuses, without breaking, a lawful system to commit acts of evil.
> Of course, it could be construed that the paladin only obeys divine law. If you subscribe to that notion, nevermind my ramblings.




This is a problem.  I like your argument.  I Don't like alignment.  I honestly think that Monte Cook has the right idea in getting rid of it.  The problem with Alignment is that it is based on universal truths.  You can have a lawful Law and a chaotic law.  Most kings who follow every law to the letter are neutral good (in DnD.)   Being lawful doesn't mean followling the laws of the land.  So in a Lawful evil land if you act lawful good, you arn't being not lawful. (Wow, that sentence sucks.)

The SRD says on Law


> LAW
> Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
> “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.




The SRD says on Good


> “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.




I also find it hard to be respectful of the dignity of sentient beings, and pay them for sex.


----------



## ChaosEvoker

I think people get caught up in the Lawful Good concept. The paladin must follow a code of conduct, as long as he follws his code (which is partially dependant on his church) then anything else is up to his choice. Is one to say a paladin can't get married? Can't have sex? I understand that perhaps it isn't a good IDEA to patronize prostitutes but I woudln't say it infringes only either the GOOD or LAWFUL alignment unless his church SPECIFICALLY forbids it. Most here seem to be assuming that they know what the paladin's code is when they don't.

I vote yes.


----------



## ChaosEvoker

Navar said:
			
		

> I also find it hard to be respectful of the dignity of sentient beings, and pay them for sex.




And you would find it to be preserving their dignity MROE by going in and lecturing them on morality, putting them down, and acting as if you are higher than them. I am against prostitution becuase of the various consequences, but I don't find this argument to be valid.


----------



## Navar

ChaosEvoker said:
			
		

> And you would find it to be preserving their dignity MROE by going in and lecturing them on morality, putting them down, and acting as if you are higher than them. I am against prostitution becuase of the various consequences, but I don't find this argument to be valid.




No, and that is a false argument.  I never said he should lecture them at all.  I just said he shouldn't pay them for sex.  Jesus hung out with a "working girl" but he didn't a) pay her for sex or b) lecture her on her profession.


----------



## iwatt

Navar said:
			
		

> No, and that is a false argument.  I never said he should lecture them at all.  I just said he shouldn't pay them for sex.  Jesus hung out with a "working girl" but he didn't a) pay her for sex or b) lecture her on her profession.




If you believe some books he did marry her though


----------



## Navar

iwatt said:
			
		

> If you believe some books he did marry her though




This is correct Mr. Brown would be happy, even in the "rather screwed up" world he created Jesus don't have sex outside of merriage.


----------



## Voadam

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Helping a brothel would violate a paladin's code in that they aren't supposed to help those in need if they would "use that help for evil or chaotic ends", which prostitution and hedonism are.




Tell me, is hedonism an evil or chaotic end in your view?


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> You asked me to draw a clear line about where killing is acceptable and not an "evil act."  I did.  It's not my fault you don't like the line.  You didn't ask me to try to "increase the good" by offering baddies the chance to have the epiphany.  You asked for something more simplistic - how do I avoid evil?  (Maximizing good and simply avoiding evil are two very different things  ).  My "line" wasn't necessarily drawn to keep a good character good, it was drawn simply to keep a neutral character from crossing into evil.  Please show me where the line is internally inconsistent.
> 
> We can deal in what if's - "what if the evil person becomes good?" - but they're ultimately speculation, not cold hard fact (I presume here you mean he turns good after sparing his life, not killing someone who is now good because once upon a time he was evil).
> 
> The fact is, when he was killed, he was evil.  So he never became good.  The "what if" doesn't matter - because "it didn't happen."
> 
> (I am here reminded of the LotR:RotK EE easter egg...
> 
> "What if the ring WASN'T destroyed?"
> "It was."
> "But... what if... it wasn't?"
> "It was!"
> "But... what if... you know... it WASN'T?"
> "It WAS!")
> 
> Yes, it's a simplistic worldview.  But is completely internally consistent, no?  When he was killed, he was evil.  He never became good.  Where's the problem?
> 
> (I have posted elsewhere that ideally, a paladin offers his quarry the chance to repent unless offering that chance is likely to lead to the harm of an innocent, but since we're not talking about "increasing good" but simply "not doing evil" here, it's somewhat off-topic.)
> 
> Allow me to answer your question about the child not quite as stated, but instead substituting the word "crime" with "evil act" (to avoid the whole, 'whether or not something is a "crime" is a function of local laws" side trek) and address it from that angle.
> 
> I reject the premise that you can be "evil" and not yet have committed an "evil act."  Alignment is "who you are" - and what you do is a function of "who you are."  It is in action (or deliberate inaction) that one's goodness or evilness - or neutrality (a mix of both that doesn't heavily favor one or the other) is displayed.  These actions need not be the "ultimate visible act of evil" but thoughts, words and deeds in preparation for that act are also evil (e.g., if you're plotting to murder someone, the acquisition of poison, the planning process to insinuate yourself close to them, etc. are evil acts at the time of commission... they aren't neutral acts that suddenly become evil when the "ultimate act" of murder occurs).
> 
> You defined the child as "evil" in alignment, therefore he must have committed acts sufficient to classify him as "evil" in the first place - someone with an evil disposition but who doesn't ever act on it is "neutral."
> 
> Again, "alignment is what you are, and what you do reflects what you are."  If you haven't committed any evil acts, you aren't "evil," you're "neutral" ... so your question is a meaningless paradox.
> 
> The answer I would give is, "if the 12-year-old is evil (then he will have committed evil acts); it is not evil to slay him."  If the 12-year old has not committed evil acts (then he is not evil); it is evil to slay him.  Whether or not it is evil to slay him is a function of which of the two conditions you asserted is true; both cannot be true at the same time.
> 
> I would structure it thusly using formal logic.
> 
> 1 - If X is of evil alignment, then X will have committed evil acts.
> 2 - X is evil.
> 3 - X has not committed evil acts.
> 4 - Because X has not committed evil acts, X is not of evil alignment (Modus Tollens).
> Conclusion: Line 4 and Line 2 contradict each other, therefore one of our premises (1-3) must be wrong.
> 
> If you wish to reject my premise (i.e., a necessary part of moving from "neutral" to "evil" in the first place is the prior commission of evil acts), fine... but since I hold it as a true principle unless proven otherwise, you will need to either prove otherwise or cede that we cannot continue to have a meaningful argument about the original question.  I'm not telling you "disprove this!" I'm just saying if you don't agree, we're probably at a logical impasse on this one and will have to move our attentions elsewhere... and I think we may be.
> 
> The simple answer is, you don't need to have perfect knowledge.  You meet a creature.  If you know it to be evil (e.g., a demon), you kill it on the spot.  No evil committed.
> 
> If it threatens you, you kill it.  You are in defense of life and limb, regardless of its alignment, and if you kill it, you're not committing an evil act.  Hungry animals, mindless constructs, etc. are likely to fall into this category even if you don't know exactly what it is.
> 
> If you are not familiar with the nature of the creature, and it is not an immediate threat, you ought to take a moment or two to parlay in order to determine its nature (problem is, most PCs don't know how to do anything but slay; parlay is all but an obscene word) - thus solving your problem of lack of knowledge.  If it attacks when you parlay, go back to "it threatens you" above.
> 
> Does this leave you open to treachery?  Of course... but that's one of the "costs" of being good (in the same way that the old "-for-tat" solution to the prisoner's dilemma game is that you always get bitten first, but this is offset by higher potential gains from cooperation and taking the chance that you can get those gains - but that's getting off-topic).
> 
> (Note that it's quite possible to have two good-aligned people fight it out and have one of the slay the other and have that slaying NOT be an evil act.  For instance, maybe there is a good-aligned orc among the evil orcs in the old keep.  The players break into the old keep and start slaughtering evil orcs left and right (not an evil act).  The good-aligned orc comes to their defense, as there is no lawful (different alignment axis, remember) reason for the slaughter and kills a paladin PC.  The orc hasn't committed an evil act (defense of life and limb).  Another good-aligned PC then slays the good-aligned orc.  Defense of life and limb, not an evil act.  You now have two good-aligned characters who have slain other good-aligned characters... and no evil acts committed.)
> 
> --The Sigil
> 
> EDIT: Apparently Eric's grandmother doesn't like the "_this_-for-tat" strategy.  Oops!





Ahh but under your revised code, a kid who kills flies for pleasure and fries ants with a magnifying glass has committed many evil acts.

Or say he goes sports hunting with his dad and doesn't materially benefit from his kills but enjoys hunting.

So the kid could be evil (minorly say, but still enough for him to be evil) and therefore killing him is not an evil act.

Of course you can quibble that the DM should not make his alignment evil for the consistent committing such minor evil acts. Or that he is not responsible for his actions until he is an automatous adult and so kids are treated like animals and any cruelty is neutral, not evil, or evil but won't affect him alignment wise until he becomes an automotous adult.


----------



## The Sigil

Voadam said:
			
		

> Tell me, is hedonism an evil or chaotic end in your view?



Chaotic, I would think.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> "Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that *only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully* and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.



The highlighted portion seems to me to be pretty much "hedonism in a nutshell."

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil

Voadam said:
			
		

> Ahh but under your revised code, a kid who kills flies for pleasure and fries ants with a magnifying glass has committed many evil acts.
> 
> Or say he goes sports hunting with his dad and doesn't materially benefit from his kills but enjoys hunting.
> 
> So the kid could be evil (minorly say, but still enough for him to be evil) and therefore killing him is not an evil act.



If he spends his day doing nothing but frying ants and tearing the wings off of flies... yeah, he probably is evil.  He's clearly fixated on and enjoys the pain and suffering.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.



Now, if he does it every now and again, with other episodes of protecting his little sister or feeding the dog because it's hungry, or what have you, he's neutral... he lacks commitment to cruelty.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a *lack of commitment one way or the other,* but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.



Again, if it's something he does as regularly as he can and revels in the pain and suffering... and he's capable of moral action (more on that in a second), yes, he's evil.  If he's like most of us, and has tried it occasionally "just to see how it works" but also does "good" things just as often, he's neutral.


> Of course you can quibble that the DM should not make his alignment evil for the consistent committing such minor evil acts. Or that he is not responsible for his actions until he is an automatous adult and so kids are treated like animals and any cruelty is neutral, not evil, or evil but won't affect him alignment wise until he becomes an automotous adult.



Depends on the age of the child, I guess... a two-year old, I think, is neutral by fiat because a two-year old is incapable of moral action (understanding the consequences of his actions).  I would argue that the average twelve-year-old (this WAS the example posited) is in fact capable of moral action and thus capable of being evil.  Most of us by age 12 knew the difference between "right" and "wrong."


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.



There is a point at which a child goes from being "incapable of moral action" and thus neutral (e.g., if you subscribe to "tabla rusa" a human child is 100% neutral at birth)... that point probably varies by child and is somewhere between the ages of about 5 and 9, but once the child is able to comprehend the effects of his actions on others and identify with them, the child becomes capable of moral action.  Doing some good and some evil (experimenting with stuff) will keep him neutral.  Revelling in and consistently focusing on causing suffering will move him to evil.

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil

ChaosEvoker said:
			
		

> I think people get caught up in the Lawful Good concept. The paladin must follow a code of conduct, as long as he follws his code (which is partially dependant on his church) then anything else is up to his choice. Is one to say a paladin can't get married? Can't have sex? I understand that perhaps it isn't a good IDEA to patronize prostitutes but I woudln't say it infringes only either the GOOD or LAWFUL alignment unless his church SPECIFICALLY forbids it. Most here seem to be assuming that they know what the paladin's code is when they don't.
> 
> I vote yes.



How can the problem be that people are getting caught up in the Lawful Good concept?  Part of the paladin's code of conduct is that he must be Lawful Good!  The question then becomes, "is prostitution a Lawful or Good practice" (not, "is prostitution a lawful or a good practice") because Lawful (the alignment) is *not* the same as lawful (legal by the laws of the land/culture in which a particular character resides).

The problem is that this is really an alignment thread in disguise.

To go back the very beginning of the thread... by the "Rules As Written," is Cedric a paladin?

Let's bring up all of the "Rules As Written" that ought to be in play here, and slowly trace this out.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
> 
> Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.



First acid test: Is a paladin Lawful Good by the Rules As Written?


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Good characters and creatures protect *innocent* life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.



A good character may kill, provided he is not killing an innocent or if the reason he is killing is to protect an innocent (there's the violence angle).



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and *a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.* Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.



Even a "stardust and gumdrops" prostitution service does not exhibit a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, as it places a higher value on sex and money than on human dignity (or "sentient being dignity," if you will).  Prostitution, therefore, cannot be good by definition.

I'm going to avoid the question of, "is he making personal sacrifices" or does he expect to be "paid" (in women) for his services toward them?  Myself, I think he makes plenty of personal sacrifices without thought of reward (by putting himself in harm's way); accepting someone's offer of recompense now and again is not "non-good."  To me, the "personal sacrifices" question isn't at issue - Cedric is okay here as far as I'm concerned.  Besides there are PLENTY of other things that are far more obviously problematic.


> “Evil” implies hurting, *oppressing,* and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.



In Cedric's example, the prostitutes are clearly being oppressed... or he wouldn't be working to "spring them from the joint."  While Cedric himself may not be the oppressor, and even the particular brothel he frequents may not be actively oppressing women and instead helping them to get out, the institution of prostitution itself is evil by definition.  Thus, someone involved in providing prostitution services will be someone who consistently offends the paladin's moral code.

Furthermore, by frequenting brothels, the paladin is associating himself with an institution he knows to be evil.  While there is no express prohibition of this in the code (it prohibits associating with evil characters), it stands to reason that to associate with an evil institution, one necessarily associates with those who are actively serving that institution (and are thus themselves evil)... it also stands to reason that such association with evil institutions is implicitly forbidden in the code.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, *honor tradition,* and judge those who fall short of their duties.



If the tradition of the church/paladins is to avoid prostitution and heavy drinking (which the exchange between Cedric and Magnus seems to expressly indicate), Cedric's dalliances with prostitutes and heavy drinking are evidence that he is not lawful, as he is not honoring tradition.


> Chaotic characters *follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition,* and do what they promise if they feel like it.



Cedric does not like being told what to do.  He favors his own ideas over tradition.  He follows his conscience and lets it guide him.  Not only is there concrete evidence in the stories that he's not lawful, his actions are those of a chaotic character - diametrically opposed to lawful.


> “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, *obedience to authority,* and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.



Cedric isn't exactly what I'd call "obedient to church elders."   In his favor, he does seem to be honorable... we're not sure from what has been shown whether he is trustworthy or reliable.


> “Chaos” implies *freedom*, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, *resentment toward legitimate authority,* arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. *Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully* and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.



Again, this recalls Cedric's hedonism with regard to wine, women, and song.  Cedric seems to resent authority (in his conversations with Magnus), and enjoys his personal freedom - in fact, he makes it clear that personal freedom is quite important to him..


> Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.



Cedric is neutral at best; I'm not sure he even has a normal respect for authority and clearly feels no compulsion to obey tradition (though I think he seems to have a compulsion to rebel against tradition somewhat).  By the rules as written, Cedric is not lawful, and if he's not chaotic, he's a chaotic-leaning neutral.


> Lawful Good, “Crusader”: *A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act.* She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the *discipline* to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and *speaks out against injustice*. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.



Cedric does not act as a good person is expected to act (avoiding brothels is clearly expected of a good person per Magnus' comments).  He doesn't seem to be much for discipline (he does, to his credit, appear to be ever-ready to battle evil, but does not seem to be particularly disciplined).  Again, to go back to prostitution, that he's trying to "help the prostitutes get out of the brothel" tells me they're in a bad situation; not only should he be helping covertly, he should be "speaking out" against it.  He's not.

On many, MANY levels, Cedric fails to meet the very first requirement of being a paladin that most people think of - being lawful good - by the RAW.  Also note that in most of the examples I cited above, _culture doesn't matter_ - it's not "the law of the land" that's in question (are prostitutes legalized, regulated, etc.) but rather a definition of "Law" or "Good" as moral absolutes (which is the RAW, like it or not, and that was how the question was originally framed).

I'll stand by what I said at the beginning.  Cedric is an interesting character.  He's not a paladin... because he's chaotic (with mild neutral tendencies) good (with strong neutral tendencies), not lawful good.  By the RAW, failing even ONE of the tests above is enough to make you "not lawful good."  Cedric has, by my count, at least nine "red flags" that tell me he's not acting as a lawful good character would... and that's just problems with alignment.  I barely touched on "paladins code" violations.

--The Sigil


----------



## Voadam

Just going off the first post I'd have no problem with Cedric being Lawful Good.

He does what his god wants in fighting evil despite the risk to his life. 
I got the impression that he would do whatever the church/god ordered him to do because it was for the good and they ordered him to do it even though he felt he would eventually die horribly in doing his duty. He might moan and blubber about it but he'll do it. The job his life is dedicated to is fighting evil and following god's orders.

Even assuming he has chaotic or evil aspects to him he could still be LG under RAW as long as they are outweighed by his LG ones.

If he does an evil act however he then he loses his paladin status irrevocably.

If he grossly violates the code he loses his paladin status.

He must be LG and follow the code and not associate with evil characters.

I wouldn't label his actions evil or gross violations of the code.

I'm not arguing he must be classified LG, but I am saying I could fit him into LG since the alignments are so flexible with so much wiggle room in their definitions.


----------



## The Sigil

From the first post...

Visiting a brothel - chaotic (hedonistic, not respectful of tradition), evil (prostitution does not respect human dignity)
Prayer - good (active devotion to good)
Associating with Madam Catherine - violation of a paladin's code (associating with one who is engaged in prostitution and thereby oppression and thereby evil acts)
Heals the girls - good (note: it could be argued that hisability to do this is due only to writer fiat; if he's not a paladin, he can't heal)
_Paying to help "get the girls out" - good (though it is not made clear why he is paying until later; with just the first post, we might assume it is giving money to those who will use it for evil purposes - by the first post, impossible to tell)_
Heavy carousing - chaotic (not respectful of tradition)
Belching, cursing, scratching himself - chaotic (lack of discipline)
Not respectful to representative of his order - chaotic
"I fight the fight because it should be fought" - good (active devotion to good)
"I've earned (indulging myself) and if you don't (think so) you can just go **** yourself" - chaotic (values individual freedom, concerned about being rewarded for his efforts)

The tally:
0 lawful acts
5 chaotic acts
4 good acts (though one is ambiguous without later clarification and one is by writer fiat)
1 evil act
1 possible association that might violate the paladin's code

I see a chaotic good character in the first post (viewed only on its own).  In fact, the tendency towards chaos is far more clearly defined than the tendency towards good (since half of the good acts are ambiguous or possible writer's fiat), and there is also (to my mind) an evil act in there as well, making the tendency toward good less well-defined.  I see *no* tendency towards lawfulness (by the RAW); all of his actions that can be identified along the law-chaos axis by the RAW are chaotic.  

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.  I say he's Chaotic Good with neutral tendencies along the good axis.

--The Sigil


----------



## Voadam

" “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."

From the first post he says he will do whatever the church needs done.

If he's not lying then he is trustworthy, obedient to his authority, and reliable in that.

When the church/god/duty calls it sounds like he will answer.

That is what makes him able to qualify for lawfulness in my book.


----------



## Torm

Ormiss said:
			
		

> In my eyes, this is a fatal problem with "Lawful Good," because I personally feel that the law can, in many situations, counter-act the good. The whole point of Lawful Evil is that the person abuses, without breaking, a lawful system to commit acts of evil.
> 
> Of course, it could be construed that the paladin only obeys divine law. If you subscribe to that notion, nevermind my ramblings.



Allow me to ramble a bit, myself.  

There is a common misconception about the Lawful alignment - so common, in fact, that I've even seen the _paid authors of RPG books_ screw it up from time to time.

"Lawful" doesn't have doesn't have a lot to do with following the laws of men or gods! (There _is_ a connection, but it is less direct, and I'll touch on it in a moment.) It is an internal, behavioral descriptor - it refers to whether or not a person has an internal set of rules and organizational ideas *for themselves* that are relatively immutable. As opposed to someone who either does not have such rules, or for whom those rules frequently change or are ignored - someone with a "Chaotic" behavior, in other words.

The Rogue that steals whatever, whenever, as the mood hits them, with NO regard for anyone (not even bad regard, as in _wanting_ to hurt people) and no particular rules for himself is Chaotic Something, probably Neutral. The Rogue that _never_ steals from children, the elderly, the crippled, or anyone who has his own militia  , who _never_ steals from another Rogue unless that Rogue stole from him first, who _always_ leaves his victims with enough silver for their next meal - the Rogue that has a general Code inside himself that he is dedicated to, in other words - is probably *Lawful* Neutral.

(Twisted as it may seem, the Rogue who is _dedicated_ to an internal general Code that includes things like _never_ allowing someone to insult him without taking something they value away from them, who _only_ commits his crimes on evenly numbered dates, and who _always_ makes certain he knows someone's name before he kills them to take their stuff - well, he's *Lawful* Evil.)

The reason it frequently seems that Lawful characters will identify with the laws of men or of a particular church is because it usually (but not always) takes a Lawful minded character to come up with a general Code of laws, and since the Lawful mind follows a logic system, other Lawful characters are likely to understand and incorporate that logic - especially in situations where they may have been raised having that logic laid on top of their Lawful nature before they developed their own logics, or where (as in the case of many Paladin/Cleric characters) their own internal Code indicates taking up Duty to a greater cause, including taking up aspects of that Duty that might have never developed within themselves. Also because of the logical nature of Law, a Lawful character with no preconceptions on a particular subject who is entering a land with laws regarding that subject (say, a LN Ranger entering lands with slavery when he has never heard of it) is likely to internalize the logic of those laws - make them his own, so to speak - unless they contradict his Good/Neutral/Evil axis.

My point in all of this is that whether or not Sir Cedric's behavior is _Lawful_ Good or not isn't as simple as comparing it to some imaginary objective standard. We need to know: A. What the law of the land he was raised in was, and whether he would have good reason to have rejected the laws of that land. B. What the laws of the land he is currently in are, and whether he (or his church) feel any particular need to abide by them. C. What the laws of his church are, and D. What Sir Cedric's own internal Code (beyond that he has obviously taken on the Duty to and code of his church) looks like.

To be honest, Sir Cedric seems to me almost like a Chaotic Good character who is _just barely_ Lawful enough to have agreed to take up the Duty of being a Paladin - now that he has, he is determined to follow through on what that means, obligation-wise, but he just really doesn't _feel_ his church's or his deity's code. But there is one thing about being a Paladin that goes beyond the alignment requirement - _his deity called *him*_ - and so long as that deity sees him as a fit servant to empower as a Paladin, for whatever reason, that is what he is.


----------



## Torm

Oh, a quick postscript to my previous post: I realize some people may find places where the SRD contradicts my definition of Lawful. I don't care.  Like I said, I've seen the authors, even ones at TSR/Wizards, screw this up before, and I sincerely believe my way of looking at it works better. After all, if Lawful meant always having to respect "the proper authorities" all the time, you'd have to ride all over the Good/Neutral/Evil spectrum to stay Lawful, just depending on what town you're riding through! And if you look at their alignment definitions, they make it look like the "Lawful" in Lawful Good means something different than the "Lawful" in Lawful Evil. I'm sorry, but Lawful should mean the same concept regardless of whatever else you tack on - but maybe that's just _my_ Lawful nature coming out.


----------



## The Sigil

Torm said:
			
		

> Oh, a quick postscript to my previous post: I realize some people may find places where the SRD contradicts my definition of Lawful. I don't care.



But *your* definition of Lawful isn't relevant in this particular situation.  The original post specifically limited discussion to the rules as written (the SRD) - therefore, _for the purposes of this discussion,_ if the SRD contradicts your definition, you are wrong. 


> Like I said, I've seen the authors, even ones at TSR/Wizards, screw this up before, and I sincerely believe my way of looking at it works better.



This is handwaving to dismiss any aspects of alignment that you don't happen to like (or happen to poke holes in your argument).  That doesn't make the points less valid. 


> After all, if Lawful meant always having to respect "the proper authorities" all the time, you'd have to ride all over the Good/Neutral/Evil spectrum to stay Lawful, just depending on what town you're riding through!



Not at all.  "Lawful characters ... respect authority."  That does not mean that they may not privately disagree with some of the local laws, which are not Lawful (with a capital L; i.e., "absolutely morally Lawful" as opposed to "legal").  Whom a character accepts - or should accept - as the "proper authorities" in an area will vary by alignment on the good-evil axis.


> And if you look at their alignment definitions, they make it look like the "Lawful" in Lawful Good means something different than the "Lawful" in Lawful Evil. I'm sorry, but Lawful should mean the same concept regardless of whatever else you tack on - but maybe that's just _my_ Lawful nature coming out.



I don't see it.  

"Lawful" in lawful good means that the character sees "Law" as the best means to bring about good for all (i.e., laws should protect the innocent, respect life, and otherwise comply with "good").  "Lawful" in lawful neutral means the character sees law as the best way to bring about eqiutable treatment of all (the "neutral part").  "Lawful" in lawful evil means the character sees law as the best way to bring about evil (without respect for freedom, dignity, or life).

In all three cases, the "Law" is seen as the ideal means to achieving an end.  

A lawful good character will reject the legitimacy of Evil laws and is therefore able to break them with no special repercussions (for instance, in a corrupt citystate it might be illegal to pray to any non-evil deity; a Lawful Good character will reject this law as it is "evil" and suffers no particular repercussions; that law is not a Law, if you will); similarly, a lawful evil character will probably reject the legitimacy of Good laws (for instance, he might reject the legitimacy of a law that requires all citizens to protect any innocent that asks for protection; after all, if he did that, he'd never be able to get around to his own ends).

It appears (to me) that this is consistent across the alignments - your alignment on the "law-chaos" axis reflects your belief in what the "Best" means to achieve the end your alignment on the "good-evil" axis dictates.

As an aside, most laws and traditions - ESPECIALLY cultural ones (to go along with your "riding from town to town" note) - are lawful with a small "l."  Finding Lawful laws (with a "large L") that all characters, regardless of good-evil alignment will accept, is considerably harder.

(Hope that was clear; I didn't clarify as much as I would have liked to because it's time for me to go to lunch).

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil

Torm said:
			
		

> My point in all of this is that whether or not Sir Cedric's behavior is _Lawful_ Good or not isn't as simple as comparing it to some imaginary objective standard.



By the rules as written, yes, it is.  And the standard isn't imaginary, it's enumerated in the alignment descriptions.  Most of the standard transcends culture... with only one notable exception...


> We need to know: A. What the law of the land he was raised in was, and whether he would have good reason to have rejected the laws of that land. B. What the laws of the land he is currently in are, and whether he (or his church) feel any particular need to abide by them. C. What the laws of his church are, and D. What Sir Cedric's own internal Code (beyond that he has obviously taken on the Duty to and code of his church) looks like.



We need to know this, but only because part of the objective standard states that the character will follow tradition - we need to know what the traditions are to check him against the "Lawful" standard (and the "traditions" are really the only part of the objective standard that will change from culture to culture).  The rest of the objective standard has nothing to do with tradition.

I know a lot of people here don't like "objective standards" but that IS the rules as written.  If you want to tell me that you think it shouldn't be, fine, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand (which WAS "rules as written") and is therefore a strawman.

--The Sigil

And NOW I'm off to lunch.


----------



## Torm

The Sigil said:
			
		

> By the rules as written, yes, it is.



Well, the rules as written aren't very good and cause a lot of arguments. Mine are better. "Strawman" for the original question or not. And I said imaginery not because they didn't write one down, but because theirs _doesn't work_.

Iz all I'm sayin' ovah heah, see?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Really? So, in order to be respectful of human dignity, one can't condemn anything or lecture anyone on morality? Somehow I doubt you'd take that view about anything you actually think to be wrong. "Don't lecture those slavers about morality, put them down, or act like you're higher than them; lecturing people on morality is an offense against human dignity." "Don't lecture that rapist about morality, put him down, or act like you're higher than him, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. To do that is an offense against human dignity?" Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?

It is of course, possible for "lectures" on morality to be counterproductive or offenses against human dignity. However, the idea of moral instruction inherently recognizes human dignity--it treats people as moral beings who have the potential for virtue and are worth helping along that path. Indifference would not be nearly as respectful of the dignity of a moral being.

In fact, your contention here is, itself evidence of this. What could the admonition to avoid "lecturing people about morality" be if not moral instruction? (You say we should avoid it because it's offensive to human dignity).  The command implies a concern for human dignity, not the reverse. Even your confused and self-contradictory statement is evidence that moral instruction and human dignity are not opposed.



			
				ChaosEvoker said:
			
		

> And you would find it to be preserving their dignity MROE by going in and lecturing them on morality, putting them down, and acting as if you are higher than them. I am against prostitution becuase of the various consequences, but I don't find this argument to be valid.


----------



## Storyteller01

Torm said:
			
		

> Please clarify: How, exactly, is prostitution (the actual practice of conducting a business transaction for a sexual service, not anything that you may assume is usually associated like drug use or some such) _dishonorable_? I mean, I can readily see "distasteful" - but "dishonorable"?
> 
> I think I'm becoming inspired - I'm going to have to go Sir Cedric one better, and create a Paladin that actually IS a prostitute!




Might not fly. even if it is or is not honorable, it is still a form of exploitation. One is taking the other for a ride, no pun intended.


----------



## Voadam

RAW description of LG from SRD

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Cedric can be said to combine a commitment to oppose evil with discipline to fight relentlessly, tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

The arguments against him fitting the definition are that people expect good characters not to frequent brothels, get drunk, or be fatalistic. Some say prostitution is inherently unjust so he is not speaking out against injustice.

So I count six for fitting the definition exactly and two against.


----------



## Voadam

Under RAW

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.

. . .

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.


----------



## Voadam

*Law vs. Chaos*

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. 


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Arguments of how Cedric can be lawful

Tell truth, keep word, no contradictions from actions given. It is debatable whether his actions are disrespectful of authority (as he doesn't take guff from the messanger who is not his superior), dishonor his traditions(are his traditions against prostitution and drinking), and whether he fails to judge himself if his activities fall short of his duties (if his duties are to go smite evil and protect innocent he seems to do that so no self remonstration needed, if they are to be a chaste and temperate paragon then he has fallen short). It is easily conceivable that he respects the church and king honors traditions, and judges those who fail their duties.

Arguments against chaos

From the intro post I did not sense that Cedric favors new ideas over tradition, or would only do what he promises if he feels like it at the time. the "I earned my R&R and if you don't like it go stuff yourself" can be said to be a conscience following statement, however. He resents being looked down on by the other knight but does ask what the church needs him to do and states he is willing to do whatever needs to be done even though he believes it is futile. 

Arguments against law/chaos neutrality

He arguably has a compulsion to obey and there is no evidence he can be tempted to lie or decieve.


----------



## shilsen

Voadam's reading of alignment is pretty close to the way I read it, which is why I thought Cedric worked within the LG framework when I came up with the character concept in the first place. Obviously, as happens with alignment, many posters here differ. Sometimes I wonder whether it would actually be worth having a really clear-cut, absolutely specific (and no, I don't think that's possible) definition of the various alignments. After all, then we wouldn't have threads and discussions like this one (and no, don't tell me why that is a consummation devoutly to be wished ).

Which, as I've said before, has thus far been a very interesting and - perhaps more importantly - extremely civil one so far. Who says all alignment discussions have to devolve into flame-wars?


----------



## fusangite

shilsen said:
			
		

> Who says all alignment discussions have to devolve into flame-wars?



It only hasn't devolved yet because I've been busy arguing about Aragorn.


----------



## Ormiss

> There is a common misconception about the Lawful alignment - so common, in fact, that I've even seen the paid authors of RPG books screw it up from time to time.




Reading your definitions, I have to say that I find them logical and quite workable. However, the general consensus in literature and whatnot seems to be that "Lawful Good"-type characters constantly have to renege on their goodness in order to obey the law. This is, after all, one of the most common concepts in ALL literature. Of course, you could argue that truly good characters will eventually ignore the law to focus on their good aspect, but I digress...

Overall, I find myself agreeing with The Sigil's argument about the Chaos/Law axis and Sir Cedric's position thereon. In game mechanics, that provides a stronger argument than the one I used to deny Sir Cedric's presence (as a paladin) in "my" campaign.



> Which, as I've said before, has thus far been a very interesting and - perhaps more importantly - extremely civil one so far.




Egad! I'll have to do something about this. You are all... uh... awful people! Yes! You are!

But yeah, seriously though, civil arguments are great, unless you're not participating, in which case it's quite fun to read flamewars.

EDIT: I almost forgot: This is rather embarrassing after 9 pages of this thread, but what exactly does "RAW" stand for?  I can't seem to find it in the PHB or the SRD.


----------



## fusangite

The Sigil said:
			
		

> You asked me to draw a clear line about where killing is acceptable and not an "evil act." I did. It's not my fault you don't like the line.



I had assumed that the line you would draw would be one that did not conflict with people's ordinary sense of good and evil. And I'm not just talking about people's sense of these things in modern society. I'm talking about fairly transcultural standards for right and wrong.

The idea that people should be summarily executed without trial or a chance to amend their behaviour simply for having the wrong thoughts or state of mind is not an idea that one finds in any culture I have studied. 

And I find your idea especially absurd in this context. You argue that it is evil for two people, by mutual consent, to sleep together but it is not evil to summarily decapitate a twelve year old child you meet in the street because he has evil intentions. 

I find it very amusing that you use an LOTR videogame to support this view. The entire narrative hinges on the fact that Bilbo didn't kill Golum because, even though Golum was evil, he didn't have the right to kill him. And this act of mercy is what allowed the ring to be destroyed.

I'll take a stand here. Killing people for their thoughts not their deeds is evil, not merely non-good. It's evil. You then proceed to change my argument about killing twelve year olds because you can't answer the question I posed:







> Allow me to answer your question about the child not quite as stated, but instead substituting the word "crime" with "evil act" (to avoid the whole, 'whether or not something is a "crime" is a function of local laws" side trek) and address it from that angle. I reject the premise that you can be "evil" and not yet have committed an "evil act."



This is why I chose the word "crime" over "evil act"; there are lots of things that are evil that are not crimes. My point is that your view that it's okay to kill any evil person, any time, regardless of the circumstances breaks down when one recognizes that this includes summarily killing people, without recourse to any due process, who have committed no crime whatsoever. This person might be a narcisissistic jerk who lies, manipulates and hurts people every day. I had imagined one of those really nasty 12-year-old girls we all remember from high school who made it their life's work to hurt people -- like Regina character in the recent film _Mean Girls_. In your moral system, there would be nothing wrong with someone stabbing the character to death after school one day. After all, the fact that she eventually becomes a better person is irrelevant to you.







			
				Elder Basilisk said:
			
		

> I would guess that those of us who do so believe the problems of prostitution to be inherent in the institution while the abuses of feudal aristocracies are either extrinsic to the institutions (and therefore, supporting the institution is not supporting the abuse as such) or intrinsic to power structures in general (and hence unavoidable without supporting anarchy).



So, let me get this straight… when two people make an agreement by mutual consent to exchange a service for money, it's intrinsically evil. But a social system premised on the belief in the absolute inequality of persons is intrinsically non-evil? Feudalism is based on vassalage; vassalage is, by its very definition, a system in which the majority cannot be enfranchised and in which inequality is inherent. 

This strikes be as absurdly subjective. A system that collapses if the individuals within it have equality with one another, or are enfranchised, is, by our limited cultural definitions, an inherently evil way of living. Fortunately, D&D accommodates a level of cultural relativism that allows us to still have good people within this system. How, then do you propose that D&D does not allow a sufficient level of relativism for prostitution to be non-evil in any situation whatsoever?

Prostitution is not inherently non-consensual. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently unequal. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently disenfranchising. Feudalism is. 

So please clarify for me. Which modern values are so transcultural and transhistorical that they make prostitution always bad and which modern values are ones you're prepared to see as an inessential cultural attribute?







			
				navar said:
			
		

> it bring down society as a whole



Well, evidence against you here. Almost every society in history has involved prostitution and none has collapsed because of it. Now war, on the other hand…







			
				Arkhandus said:
			
		

> SRD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she *respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),* and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, *a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.* A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself if your paladin truly follows the parts I bolded in the SRD quote. If not, they have lost their paladinhood.
Click to expand...


Okay. Let's test.

1. Is patronizing a prostitute violating legitimate authority? Only if prostitution is against the law.
2. Is patronizing a prostitute dishonourable? Only if doing so is viewed as dishonourable by the society in question.
3. Is patronizing a prostitute lying? No.
4. Is patronizing a prostitute using poison? No.
5. Is patronizing a prostitute failing to help those in need? Only if the prostitute is being oppressed by her pimp.
6. Is patronizing a prostitute associating with evil characters? Only if the prostitute is evil.
7. Is patronizing a prostitute offensive to the paladin's moral code? Only if the moral code forbids prostitution.







> Hedonism is inherantly chaotic, so not something a paladin should tolerate, let alone partake in.



Well, it's fortunate, then that Cedric is not a hedonist. A hedonist is a person who is primarily _motivated_ by the pursuit of pleasure. Cedric's main motivation is do fight evil. You're not a hedonist simply by experiencing pleasure. Hedonism only arises when you choose pleasure over other important things. If hedonism where simply the regular experience of pleasure, nearly everyone would be defined as a hedonist.







> Hedonism and prostitution offend the paladin's moral code, and thus is barred to the paladin.



Really? I thought the GM and the player wrote the paladin's moral code. Is there some moral code template in the SRD I have missed?







> Prostitution is not likely to be legal everywhere in most fantasy settings, so the paladin could not tolerate it in lands where it is unlawful, as it then violates respect for legitimate authority.



So, because it's illegal to keep humans unchained in the Orc lands, a paladin must work to ensure that all humans are in chains everywhere?







> Prostitution is also dishonorable, which violates the paladin's code.



What is honourable in one culture is dishonourable in another. Why is prostitution always dishonourable?







> Helping a brothel would violate a paladin's code in that they aren't supposed to help those in need if they would "use that help for evil or chaotic ends", which prostitution and hedonism are.



So everyone who makes pleasure their first priority, even if they don't hurt anyone, is evil anyway just because them feeling good is their main goal? I thought that was being neutral.







			
				Elder Basilisk said:
			
		

> The question is not "would the prostitutes be better off without Cedric?" but rather, "is prostitution inherently evil/wrong"



Well, that's fine and dandy if you can show that it is. But you can't just declare an absolute transcultural truth by fiat here. There are cultures that had sacred prostitutes. Is it your contention that the letter of the D&D rules prohibits these cultures from being non-evil?







> Your argument does not get any stronger by bringing examples of cultural relativism. Different cultures have different thoughts about sex. Different cultures also have different thoughts about slavery, genocide, rape, torture, and pretty much anything else you can come up with.



Agreed. Well, I admire your consistency. So, you feel that the rules also prohibit setting games in Roman-style slave societies, Iroquous-style societies where torture is part of the male citizenship ritual and Viking-style or Mongol-style societies where female war captives become the conqueror's sexual property. It seems to me that you have adopted the view that D&D cannot and should not model the vast majority of societies based on the historical past, or even those that comprise a significant portion of those depicted in fantasy novels. I personally like Roman, Iroquous and Mongol inspired D&D societies and would be quite unhappy if I felt the rules prohibited them as settings.







> You seem to have quite the antipathy to transhistorical, transcultural concepts.



I do when they are used to suggest that the rules prohibit D&D from depicting things I find interesting.







> However, as I read the PHB, D&D takes that bull by the horns and posits good and evil (and law and chaos) as universal, transhistorical, transcultural phenomena.



I'll agree with you there. I think the single biggest flaw is that the alignment system tries to force you to only tell stories about modern people with modern values stumbling around with swords and armour. But you're right. The rules tell me that this is what I should do. Fortunately, the actual practice of gaming doesn't result in that. In fact, people continue to publish settings for slave societies, societies that torture their war captives and societies that make female war captives the sexual property of the conquerors; so, evidently, I am not alone in deviating from your highly literal reading of the rules.







> The paladin class is explicitly tied to these transhistorical, transcultural concepts.



Here, I also agree with you to an extent. I agree that there is a sexual morality that attaches to the class. But in my view, the rules as written, do not associate the paladin with these transhistorical, transcultural values any more than they do any other class. My argument against Cedric is one grounded in archetypes not in the rules -- because to ground these things in the rules would make it impossible for there to be good Roman emperors or good khans.







> 1. There are more options to playing D&D than simply A. Modern people with modern thoughts in modern cultures but with magical-medieval tech and B. Foreign people with foreign thoughts in different (usually ancient) cultures with magical-medieval tech. The concept of alignment offers a way to play the second while still evaluating the cultures and perspectives adopted. One can play culturally in Thay and still say "they're evil." Doing so is not necessarily a modern thought (I would argue that it is timeless) and, in fact, it seems particularly alien to the (post) modern point of view.



Your reading of alignment doesn't seem to do that. I agree that there exist readings of alignment that do so. But yours does not. If there are no conditions under which slavery can be non-evil, you have made the good emperor an impossibility.

And in your model, they are not playing culturall in Thay. They are outside Thay's culture looking in. Just as they would be if they found themselves in ancient Rome or ancient Egypt. That's not playing in a setting at all.







> 1. How does Sir Cedric reliably tell the difference between OK and not-ok prostitution?



By being observant. The same way he can tell who he should kill and who he shouldn't.







> 2. In exactly what cultures that could support paladins would this kind of behavior be seen as admirable?



I'm with you here. I think that the paladin archetype doesn't have enough room for Cedric. However, responding more generally to your point, not everything a paladin does has to be admirable. The paladin merely needs to be an admirable individual overall. If there is a requirement that every single a paladin does be admirable, then we are close to beating all the role playing out of the role.







> How exactly do you manage to simultaneously support the idea that paladins have to be chaste (unless they're Faerie Queen paladins) and that Sir Cedric fits the concept of a paladin.



I don't. I keep saying that I don't believe Cedric fits the bill. But the reason I keep posting here is to oppose those arguing that it is impossible to disentangle D&D from being operating within modern moral systems.







> 2. How does Sir Cedric keep his influence towards accepting stardust and gumdrops prostitution from extending to the nastier (and more realistic) varieties? It's not like the brothel has a "paladin approved" sticker on the sign to differentiate it from other brothels that look similar but differ in ethically significant ways.



Again, through observation and judgement.







> Your examples of "extensions" of the argument are all flawed. First, they are flawed because they are all necessary from time to time. If you want to get to an island, you need a ship (or a teleport, blah blah, blah).



Why is going to the island necessary? What portion of the people in medieval society ever got in a boat? Similarly, if a paladin wanted to avoid cereals and subsist on food gathered and hunted in the forests, he could eat without supporting vassalage or slavery.







> One might also take issue with the examples from a different point of view:
> The ship: There is a pretty bright line between slave-rowed galleys and non-galley ships. (I seem to remember the Athenians boasting about their navy being rowed by free men which would also seem like a bright line, but I could be wrong about the history). There is also, I think, a difference between sailing and prostitution in that sailing isn't inherently exploitive in the same way. You can (and many did) run ships without press gangs.



So, a person can distinguish between consensual and non-consensual models of propelling ships but he cannot distinguish between consensual and non-consensual models of prostitution? I would be more likely to take the reverse position; while a person might never meet an oarsman and be able to make an assessment of his relative oppression, the person would have to meet the prostitute whom he patronized, thereby allowing him to gain direct evidence about the person's state, evidence he could not obtain about the oarsman.







> If I read the comparison correctly, you're starting from the assumption that eating and having sex for money are ethically identical activities and the only ethically significant factors are how the sex object or food is produced. I think that's a faulty assumption.



I wasn't making any such assumption. All I was doing was comparing how a paladin moored to cultural-based values would be ethical to how a paladin moored to transcultural values would be ethical. 

Next time, however, I'll choose optional rather than essential activities for my illustrations.







> And they oppose those who treat women badly by not patronizing prostitutes.



So, how does that work if the prostitute is independent or part of an all-female priesthood or guild?







> You're right about the Roman paladin. But unless there is a concept of a good brothel in Cedric's game world like there was a concept of a fair and good master, it makes no difference to the impression he leaves. And unless there actually IS a good brothel (not just a concept of one), it makes no difference to whether or not Cedric is a paladin.



So, you can acknowledge that there can be non-evil ways of owning people but not that any of the female-run temple prostitution going on _in the same society_ could be non-evil.







> Ordinarily I wouldn't break up your thoughts like this, but this example is so eggregiously wrong that I have to. Aragorn's army didn't win the day at the Morannon. The victory was won at Mount Doom. For that matter, Aragorn didn't travel to the Morannon in order to win; he travelled there to give Frodo a better chance of winning. Certainly, most of Aragorn's men (and Aragorn himself) probably expected to die. That they didn't was due to Gollum's timing.



That's part of my point. They drew the eye away so that the day could be won at Mount Doom. So, yes, he did travel to the gate to win. But at the time he did so, he believed that the strategy he was part of would almost certainly fail. And his men _knew_ it would fail.







> I'm not so sure about this. I can't think of any real societies where prostitutes were, in general regarded as a respected profession. I can think of ones where prostitutes were an accepted part of society, perhaps on a par with ditchdiggers, but that's not the same as being respected. In a lot of societies, ditchdiggers were not very respected.
> 
> In any event, it's not clear to me that it's valid to have Sir Cedric in one of those societies. The paladin class only fits into some cultures and societies. (I'm probably more flexible on this than Fusangite, but I don't think the concept is infinitely flexible).



Hey! When you correspond with Torm, I have no dispute with what you're saying!







			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> Visiting a brothel - chaotic (hedonistic, not respectful of tradition),



This is only true in societies in which tradition does not respect prostitution.







> evil (prostitution does not respect human dignity)



Whereas killing twelve year old girls who have committed no crime clearly does…







> Belching, cursing, scratching himself



Whoa there Sigil! Are you seriously telling me that if your table manners are bad enough you lose your lawful alignment!?







			
				Elder Basilisk said:
			
		

> Really? So, in order to be respectful of human dignity, one can't condemn anything or lecture anyone on morality? Somehow I doubt you'd take that view about anything you actually think to be wrong. "Don't lecture those slavers about morality, put them down, or act like you're higher than them; lecturing people on morality is an offense against human dignity." "Don't lecture that rapist about morality, put him down, or act like you're higher than him, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. To do that is an offense against human dignity?" Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?



I'm with you here EB. Talk about transcultural values… exhorting people to live their lives differently is only transgressive in the weird sick society we live in today.


----------



## shilsen

Ormiss said:
			
		

> Egad! I'll have to do something about this. You are all... uh... awful people! Yes! You are!




So be it! *picks up gauntlet* You, sir, are a poopyhead! *sticks tongue out at Ormiss*



> But yeah, seriously though, civil arguments are great, unless you're not participating, in which case it's quite fun to read flamewars.




That I can't deny. I've always been very amused at how upset people can get because an anonymous stranger on a messageboard disagreed with them.



> EDIT: I almost forgot: This is rather embarrassing after 9 pages of this thread, but what exactly does "RAW" stand for?  I can't seem to find it in the PHB or the SRD.




Rules As Written. And no, the RAW makes no reference to RAW. It's a mystery, wrapped in a conundrum, making out with an enigma.


----------



## Ormiss

> Originally Posted by *fusangite*
> So, let me get this straight… when two people make an agreement by mutual consent to exchange a service for money, it's intrinsically evil. But a social system premised on the belief in the absolute inequality of persons is intrinsically non-evil? Feudalism is based on vassalage; vassalage is, by its very definition, a system in which the majority cannot be enfranchised and in which inequality is inherent.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Prostitution is not inherently non-consensual. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently unequal. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently disenfranchising. Feudalism is.




Yet, every civilized nation on earth is a form of vassalage. Even people in the United States are bound since birth to obey the laws of the nation. Yes, you can vote or be voted into office, and yes, this is not a fair analogy, but I think everyone understands what I mean. Every person that lives in a nation that is not an anarchy has given up a measure of personal freedom in order to secure a measure of safety and order. That said, I'm not saying democracy is a bad idea, because it's not.  Generally speaking, it could be argued that this bond between citizens and rulers is something necessary for civilization to exist.

However, personally I will never accept prostitution. Yes, it is 100% impossible to stop it, and it will go on forever, as it always has. Still, by accepting (allowing by law) prostitution, you're saying that it's okay to objectify women so that they can be bought and sold. I certainly feel that the act of prostitution is a violation of human dignity, and though I'm not sure I can present an immutable, logical argument for why exactly I feel that this is a fundamental truth, and why prostitution is more wrong than selling a Rolex watch for money, it is something that I regard as inviolable.

So what is my point, here? Well, according to _my_ morals, which, starting from myself, I will apply as transcultural values to any "traditional" campaign I make, prostitution is simply wrong. If that is indeed true, a good-aligned god will definitely agree with me. For another person, results may vary, but in such a campaign designed by me, Sir Cedric is violating his moral code.

This (my) post is almost entirely worthless except for one thing: I think there are people out there who agree with me. Maybe not a large percentage, but who knows.

On the subject of slavery and other such practices which are arguably little different from prostitution, I still feel that there is a moral line between these concepts. Is this logical? I don't know; perhaps not, but there is an inherent essence in the concepts of rape and prostitution that, in my mind, make them worse than murder and slavery.

PS. Shilsen! You, sir, make the worst chocolate chip cookies I have ever had the displeasure to taste. Take that! Also, thanks for the heads up on RAW.


----------



## Orius

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not at all.  "Lawful characters ... respect authority."  That does not mean that they may not privately disagree with some of the local laws, which are not Lawful (with a capital L; i.e., "absolutely morally Lawful" as opposed to "legal").  Whom a character accepts - or should accept - as the "proper authorities" in an area will vary by alignment on the good-evil axis.




That would depend on the society in which the lawful character resides.  Certainly, if he lives in a modern democratic society he may very well petition his legislators to repeal the laws, since that would be working within the legal framework to resolve a problem he has with the laws.  Or if he doesn't think he'll get his way with the politicians, he can always try to go over their heads and petition for a referendum.  Naturally, this doesn't necessarily apply to D&D campaigns. The bottom line is where a chaotic character ould just break the law because he thinks its wrong, the lawful character will try to use the law against itself.




> for instance, in a corrupt citystate it might be illegal to pray to any non-evil deity; a Lawful Good character will reject this law as it is "evil" and suffers no particular repercussions; that law is not a Law, if you will




There's also the matter of precedence.  Laws of a higher authority usually must be followed over lesser laws, or at least that's the way a lawful character would see it.  In your case, the character's god is almost certainly considered a higher authority than the ruler of the city, therefore it's right and proper for the character to break the no worship law since he's following the command of a higher mandate.


----------



## shilsen

Ormiss said:
			
		

> However, personally I will never accept prostitution. Yes, it is 100% impossible to stop it, and it will go on forever, as it always has. Still, by accepting (allowing by law) prostitution, you're saying that it's okay to objectify women so that they can be bought and sold. I certainly feel that the act of prostitution is a violation of human dignity, and though I'm not sure I can present an immutable, logical argument for why exactly I feel that this is a fundamental truth, and why prostitution is more wrong than selling a Rolex watch for money, it is something that I regard as inviolable.




Fair enough. As you say, there really isn't "an immutable, logical" argument for why you feel that way, and I would hazard that a big part of the reason is specific historical/cultural conceptions about the role of the body in morality. For me, personally, having a rational basis for my feelings (I worked out a while ago how to feel what I think I should) is important, and since I can't really see a rational difference between prostitution and selling a Rolex (as long as both sellers are doing so of their free will), I don't regard them as different. I'd ask you some questions about things like where one draws the line between someone selling a cake that he baked, or selling a massage, or prostitution, but you've already obviated them by your statements about how/why you feel the way you do. Different strokes, as they say.



> PS. Shilsen! You, sir, make the worst chocolate chip cookies I have ever had the displeasure to taste. Take that! Also, thanks for the heads up on RAW.




*swoons in horror*


----------



## apesamongus

Navar said:
			
		

> I also find it hard to be respectful of the dignity of sentient beings, and pay them for sex.




Paying someone for sex seems more respectful, to me, than paying them to clean up horse manure.  And I don't see anyone claiming the paladin is breaking his vows by patronizing the stables and their exploitation of the stable hands.


----------



## Voadam

shilsen said:
			
		

> Fair enough. As you say, there really isn't "an immutable, logical" argument for why you feel that way, and I would hazard that a big part of the reason is specific historical/cultural conceptions about the role of the body in morality. For me, personally, having a rational basis for my feelings (I worked out a while ago how to feel what I think I should) is important, and since I can't really see a rational difference between prostitution and selling a Rolex (as long as both sellers are doing so of their free will), I don't regard them as different. I'd ask you some questions about things like where one draws the line between someone selling a cake that he baked, or selling a massage, or prostitution, but you've already obviated them by your statements about how/why you feel the way you do. Different strokes, as they say.
> 
> 
> 
> *swoons in horror*




There can be plenty of rational arguments for why prostitution is morally different from other transactions.

Take the most analagous one (massage vs prostitution) to see where the differences lie.

Both commodify physical contact for pleasure. However one involves sex while the other does not. Many resons can be argued that sex is different in ways that have moral significance.

Sex is intimate and commodifying it can be considered a corrosive effect on the soul for both the seller and buyer. Massage is not the same intimacy, and it is something that can be done impersonally without that intimate contact so no corrosive effect on the persons involved.

Some consider sex outside of procreation within marriage to be immoral, period. Therefore the selling is irrelevant, it is the sex itself that is evil. Massage does not involve sex therefore it is morally different.


----------



## Psychic Warrior

I have not read much beyond the first post but I just wanted to say that I love this concept of a paladin Shilsen.  That and your opening bit of fiction is very well written.  An excellent example of role playing and character creation - well done!


----------



## shilsen

Voadam said:
			
		

> There can be plenty of rational arguments for why prostitution is morally different from other transactions.




Perhaps my use of "rational" wasn't the best choice, since that can be taken to mean a few different things. By rational, I specifically meant (a) not based primarily on emotion, and (b) not culturally mandated.



> Take the most analagous one (massage vs prostitution) to see where the differences lie.
> 
> Both commodify physical contact for pleasure. However one involves sex while the other does not. Many resons can be argued that sex is different in ways that have moral significance.




I'd personally say that any connection between sex and morality is a culturally-mandated one, since there is no intrinsic link between the two. IMNSHO, of course 



> Sex is intimate and commodifying it can be considered a corrosive effect on the soul for both the seller and buyer.




Again, I would say this is a culturally mandated conception. In a culture where sex is viewed without the strange mix of reverence/repulsion that it is in much of the world today, I don't think it would be viewed as such an intimate activity. And as for effects on the soul, that's a really culturally mandated concept.



> Massage is not the same intimacy, and it is something that can be done impersonally without that intimate contact so no corrosive effect on the persons involved.




As I said above. Sex can be just as impersonal, and whether that is viewed as a problem or not depends on cultural reasons, not rational ones. 



> Some consider sex outside of procreation within marriage to be immoral, period. Therefore the selling is irrelevant, it is the sex itself that is evil. Massage does not involve sex therefore it is morally different.




And again, this is a very culturally loaded idea.


----------



## shilsen

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> I have not read much beyond the first post but I just wanted to say that I love this concept of a paladin Shilsen.  That and your opening bit of fiction is very well written.  An excellent example of role playing and character creation - well done!



 Thanks. There are more parts of the "story" on pages 5 (two, I think), 6 & 7, IIRC.


----------



## sword-dancer

Navar said:
			
		

> OK I did a small snip and I added numbers so I could address your points point by point.
> 
> #1	IF we are using real life medieval cities as an example then we have to use Jesus Christ as our god.  And in this case Jesus would not allow his paladins to pay for sex.  Neither would LG elder Clerics of Jesus (both of whom are in authority over the Paladin.)
> .



I doubt really that the elders of the church had authority over the Pally, the bishops had definetly none over knightly orders, and many of the brethren were not rerally saints.
OTTOH looking on the acts of the chruches in this time a pally may be forced to fight against the church officials.

In the temples of Ishtar and another temples of the antike Hierodules, Temple prostitution was a normal, and afaik  sacred act.


----------



## fusangite

Ormiss said:
			
		

> Yet, every civilized nation on earth is a form of vassalage. Even people in the United States are bound since birth to obey the laws of the nation. Yes, you can vote or be voted into office, and yes, this is not a fair analogy, but I think everyone understands what I mean. Every person that lives in a nation that is not an anarchy has given up a measure of personal freedom in order to secure a measure of safety and order. That said, I'm not saying democracy is a bad idea, because it's not.  Generally speaking, it could be argued that this bond between citizens and rulers is something necessary for civilization to exist.



It is evident from this paragraph that you have absolutely no idea what vassalage is. I suggest you look up the system in an encyclopedia or something before continuing this argument.

As for your other comments, thanks for conceding that you cannot logically express why buying people without their consent is less evil, in your view, than people purchasing temporary access to someone's body by mutual consent.

EDIT:

But that doesn't mean I buy shilsen's idea that how we think about sexuality is solely a cultural construction. While I'm not an essentialist, I think it's pretty hard to argue that there are no essential aspects to how we can think and feel about sexuality.


----------



## Ormiss

> It is evident from this paragraph that you have absolutely no idea what vassalage is. I suggest you look up the system in an encyclopedia or something before continuing this argument.




I'll try this without an encyclopedia. Thank you, though.

1) Vassalage is the condition of being a vassal.

2) A vassal is "a subordinate or dependent." In feudalism, a vassal is either (A) a free man who is a vassal to the king or (B) a commoner who is a vassal to a lord.

3) Feudalism is based on a single principle: All free men are supposed to keep themselves ready for warfare in the case that their feudal lord has need of them. The practice came about as a result of the king wanting a fully dedicated fighting force. (Other nations' soldiers were farmers and the like most of the time.)

4) Keeping ready for war is expensive. Not everyone can afford it. As a result, people began to give up their freedom (the right to bear a sword, originally) and were absolved of the duty, swearing fealty instead to someone and paying taxes to that person so that they in turn could arm themselves and protect the commoners.

5) Modern nations are based on the same concept (although we are no longer allowed the choice): When you are born, you become a citizen of your nation. As an adult citizen, you have duties and rights. You pay taxes to the government, just as the farmers paid taxes to their lords. In return, the government pays for (among other things) police forces, fire departments and the army. These things contribute to protecting you. However, as a citizen you are subject to the laws of the government; you are not a free man. They decide what you are allowed to do. There are, however, some ways to rescind your nationality and citizenship. If you do, you are free to defend yourself and do whatever you want, as long as you're not on someone else's land. (Admittedly hard these days...)

Try to be civil next time, and please state which part of my argument you contend with, so that I can explain it to you.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot: My 5th point is akin to Thomas Hobbes philosophy, as he expressed his thoughts about the commonwealth/leviathan/sovereign in his book _Leviathan_. His reasoning is not necessarily similar to mine, but it's in the same vein.


----------



## fusangite

Ormiss,

Vassalage is being a subordinate or dependent of a person. This does not exist in the modern state. You cannot be a vassal to an abstract state structure, only to an individual. 

Modern scholars of the Middle Ages no longer use the term "feudalism" to refer to medieval social structures. Instead, the use the term "vassalage." A system in which individuals are subordinate to one another is one in which social inequality is a condition necessary for the structure itself to exist. A system in which all individuals are equally subordinate to the state is one in which social equality is assumed to be the natural condition. 

Therefore, to suggest that the modern state is a form of vassalage is incorrect. When George Bush becomes president, people do not become subordinate to him personally; they pledge allegiance to the flag not to George W Bush. The reason we pledge allegiance to states and their symbols rather than to individuals is because modern social contracts are specifically designed to prevent vassalage. The founding fathers of the United States created a state structure that would prevent legal subordination of individuals to other individuals. Ben Franklin and company would roll over in their graves if they heard you arguing that equality under the law and vassalage were indistinguishable.


----------



## Ormiss

> Vassalage is being a subordinate or dependent of a person. This does not exist in the modern state. You cannot be a vassal to an abstract state structure, only to an individual.




Per definition of the word, perhaps. We have more freedom than the peasants of the middle ages (but less than the lords, unless we're fabulously wealthy) but we are still subject to the laws of the "abstract state structure." Like the peasants whose ancestors helped create feudalism (or vassalage, whichever you prefer), we are born with duties, even though we never swore fealty to anyone. If you're only arguing that the word vassalage cannot be used to describe this, then that's alright with me. That wasn't my point.



> Modern scholars of the Middle Ages no longer use the term "feudalism" to refer to medieval social structures. Instead, the use the term "vassalage." A system in which individuals are subordinate to one another is one in which social inequality is a condition necessary for the structure itself to exist. A system in which all individuals are equally subordinate to the state is one in which social equality is assumed to be the natural condition.




Well, whichever term "modern scholars" prefer. In Sweden, we still call it feudalism, so you'll have to forgive me there. Strictly speaking, vassalage is only inequal in-so-far that logically not everyone can afford to be a knight, unless they live in say, a fantasy kingdom where everyone can afford to own a horse, an armor and weapons and still manage to somehow feed themselves while they train rigorously each day. Not so likely, but who knows where Sir Cedric lives?  Again, if you just want to argue that vassalage tends to disenfranchise most people from lordship, that's fine by me. However, "a system in which all individuals are equally subordinate to the state" is an utopia, no matter how much our well-meaning elected officials extoll the virtues of his or her particular system.



> Therefore, to suggest that the modern state is a form of vassalage is incorrect. When George Bush becomes president, people do not become subordinate to him personally; they pledge allegiance to the flag not to George W Bush. The reason we pledge allegiance to states and their symbols rather than to individuals is because modern social contracts are specifically designed to prevent vassalage. The founding fathers of the United States created a state structure that would prevent legal subordination of individuals to other individuals. Ben Franklin and company would roll over in their graves if they heard you arguing that equality under the law and vassalage were indistinguishable.




Indistinguishable? Very few things are indistinguishable. My argument is that vassalage and, shall we say, citizenship, are in the same vein, not that they are the same thing. If you want me to stop using the word vassalage to compare them, that's fine by me. However, just because sandstone and granite are both rock doesn't make them indistinguishable from each other.

This is not an argument about the freedom of americans, nor an argument that tries to imply that any other system on earth is more fair.

The casual comment I originally posted as a reply to your statements about vassalage (you yourself used the term feudalism, by the way... so I don't quite understand what your point about modern scholars is?) was not very well ordered--I'll give you that as well. Still, I thought that people would give me the benefit of the doubt and manage to decipher it. Clearly my paragraph was convoluted beyond disintegration, however. Sorry about that.



> Prostitution is not inherently non-consensual. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently unequal. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently disenfranchising. Feudalism is.




Let me say this: Feudalism is a sub-system which required a monarchy (generally) to be in place. The people in a monarchy are already disenfranchised and unequal. If you want to argue that feudalism/vassalage _further_ disenfranchises the people by separating them into nobles and commoners, that's fine by me, but it sounds a bit like saying "he died of blood loss" of a person who was crushed by a 1,000 ton boulder.

Also, feudalism was no less consensual than being forced to prostitute yourself to survive--during the first generation.  Obviously, everyone born from peasant children already had that choice made up for them. That point might not have been within your purview, though.

EDIT: If I lost sight of your original point, pardon me. I've focused merely on countering what you said in the argument spawned between the two of us. For instance, it might be pointless to say that monarchy is the culprit rather than feudalism.

EDIT (again!): Don't misunderstand me; I'm absolutely not saying that feudalism/monarchy was or is as fair as democracy. I'm proud to live in a society that adheres to the principles of "Ben Franklin and company."


----------



## Ormiss

> But that doesn't mean I buy shilsen's idea that how we think about sexuality is solely a cultural construction. While I'm not an essentialist, I think it's pretty hard to argue that there are no essential aspects to how we can think and feel about sexuality.




As a side note, I agree with you on this. While I am not the philosopher necessary to formulate a working logic of why I feel this way, I definitely do not believe that my views on sexuality are irrational. I just can't voice the rationality.  Well, except to say that to objectify women sunders gender equality.

Also, if I have seemed acrid towards you, I'm sorry about that. You managed to rile me quite a bit with the way you treated my comment. Perhaps you had no rude intentions.


----------



## shilsen

fusangite said:
			
		

> But that doesn't mean I buy shilsen's idea that how we think about sexuality is solely a cultural construction. While I'm not an essentialist, I think it's pretty hard to argue that there are no essential aspects to how we can think and feel about sexuality.




Actually, from your posts on ENWorld, I'd guess that I'm much more of an essentialist than you are  To be precise, I think that the kind of conceptions about sex and sexuality which I'm referring to are primarily a cultural construction. Perhaps they have certain roots in essential aspects of the sex act, but I think they move very far away from said roots in both theory and practice.



			
				Ormiss said:
			
		

> While I am not the philosopher necessary to formulate a working logic of why I feel this way, I definitely do not believe that my views on sexuality are irrational. I just can't voice the rationality.








> Well, except to say that to objectify women sunders gender equality.




No argument there. I was just arguing that paying a woman for sex only becomes objectification if one has the ambivalent conception of sex I've been referring to above. If sex is viewed as similar to most other physical activity, then paying for sex is no more objectifying an act than paying for a massage or paying for a loaf of bread. 

I don't think anybody (or at least not me) would disagree with you and say that objectifying women is fine. I don't think objectifying any indidividual or group is acceptable. The only reason I used female prostitutes in the original story was because female prostitutes have been historically more common. I think this debate would work just fine using male prostitutes, and I wonder what directions the discussion would have gone in if I had written Cedric as explicitly homosexual or bisexual. And since I haven't written him as *not* bisexual, that gives me some ideas


----------



## fusangite

Ormiss,

Spirited debate is my normal mode on ENWorld, as many can attest. And you'll find that everyone I disagree with gets the same treatment. There is no personal animosity intended. 

Anyway, to continue,



			
				Ormiss said:
			
		

> Let me say this: Feudalism is a sub-system which required a monarchy (generally) to be in place.



Actually, that's not really the case. Vassalage is a pyramidal structure; how far up it stretched varied from place to place and time to time. Sometimes, there was just the peasant and his lord. Sometimes, there were emperors above barons above lords, sometimes kings. The key feature of the system is that at each level, there is an unequal reciprocal relationship. Monarchy does not entail vassalage nor does vassalage entail monarchy.







> The people in a monarchy are already disenfranchised and unequal.



Monarchies come in all shapes and sizes. Two of the G8 nations today are constitutional monarchies (the UK and Canada) and are governed by elected parliaments.







> If you want to argue that feudalism/vassalage further disenfranchises the people by separating them into nobles and commoners, that's fine by me, but it sounds a bit like saying "he died of blood loss" of a person who was crushed by a 1,000 ton boulder.



Well, as I've just demonstrated, unequal hierarchical social structures are not intrinsic features of monarchy but they are intrinsic features of vassalage. That's why I chose to specify vassalage.







> Also, feudalism was no less consensual than being forced to prostitute yourself to survive--during the first generation.



Yes. But not all prostitutes are coerced; in all likelihood the vast majority are. But, as with monarchy, force is not an intrinsic feature of prostitution.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Actually, from your posts on ENWorld, I'd guess that I'm much more of an essentialist than you are.



Whatever are you referring to?







> To be precise, I think that the kind of conceptions about sex and sexuality which I'm referring to are primarily a cultural construction. Perhaps they have certain roots in essential aspects of the sex act, but I think they move very far away from said roots in both theory and practice.



My argument is more tied to my belief that some gender differences with respect to sexual behaviour are social constructions, some arise from physiological and neurophysiological differences between sexes and the majority arise from some kind of dialectic between the two.


----------



## Voadam

shilsen said:
			
		

> Perhaps my use of "rational" wasn't the best choice, since that can be taken to mean a few different things. By rational, I specifically meant (a) not based primarily on emotion, and (b) not culturally mandated.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd personally say that any connection between sex and morality is a culturally-mandated one, since there is no intrinsic link between the two. IMNSHO, of course




Uhm can you give me some examples of a valid reason to consider something immoral that is not at base an emotional justification?

Torture for example.

Torture is bad. why? because it hurts people. So? hurting people is bad. Why? It just is.

The last step in a logical chain is always to a self evident truth, which can only be evaluated emotionally. Does it make sense to you on its own. In High School geometry we called this a postulate.

Here the postulate is that sex is fundamentally intimate.

Your postulate is that sex is not fundamentally intimate, it can be impersonal depending on cultural values.

They don't seem to be different in kind statements (they are both postulates), just different in specifics. Of course without more discussion explaining any relevant differences going to the reasoning underlying those statements (i.e. why they are not postulates but consquences of other postulates).


----------



## Torm

Voadam said:
			
		

> Torture is bad. why? because it hurts people. So? hurting people is bad. Why? It just is.



Actually, you _can_ boil this down through logic and science. You're right that it will involve emotion, but not the way you imply:
Scientific exploration of physics, the human body, and human psychology indicates that humans generally share enough of a common experience to allow a general consensus amongst many people's perceptions to act as a predictor for individuals.

To use your example, I do not find torture to be an experience I would enjoy. I haven't actually conducted this poll, but I would be willing to bet that it is safe to say that a majority of the people here would agree. Based on this, it would be a good guess that a new member who joins tomorrow will not enjoy torture, either. When a trend like this is strong enough, one can conclude that exceptions are anomalies, and you might need to look for an extra factor in those cases - like someone who claims to enjoy torture, but who in fact enjoys degradation or certain types of pain. In those cases, there is almost certainly some sort of diagnosable psychological disorder or quirk that removes them from the standard.

To follow this back to the situation under discussion - prostitution - you have to put each type through the same test:

Type I: Being _forced_ to have sex in exchange for money or other compensation like drugs (coercive pimp type situation) is not something I would enjoy, and once again, I would bet most here would agree. So that is _wrong_.

Type II: Being lured by an amount of money difficult to resist into having sex for it, even though doing so violates the tenets of a religion one wants to follow, or causes an impratical likelihood of spreading disease or causing pregnancy. Here it becomes a little more vague, because there's no threat of violence - if one believes in degrees of wrong, this is a little less wrong than Type I on the part of the johns, a little more wrong on the part of the hooker. Still wrong, all the way around, though. And once again, placing most people here in the shoes of the hooker, I'm sure they would agree they were being wronged somehow.

Type III: Getting paid to have sex that one finds either indifferent or actually enjoyable, when one has no religious strictures against it. If the reasonably normal, not-sick-looking waitress (or waiter, depending on your gender and/or orientation  ) offered you a decent amount of money to have sex with them, _and you had no belief that there was any spiritual reason_ or reasonable logistical reason (high risk of disease, fear of pregnancy, angry spouse of the john) for you not to, I believe many people would. I freely admit I would.

The Type III situation is what we are talking about - a situation that it may be hard for many who have certain religious convictions regarding the sanctity of the body, sex, and relationships between men and women to even imagine. But a situation that is nonetheless entirely possible - as has been proven historically - in the absence of religion, or in religions without the same strictures.


----------



## shilsen

Voadam said:
			
		

> Uhm can you give me some examples of a valid reason to consider something immoral that is not at base an emotional justification?




Tempting as that is, this would probably result in a hugely complicated discussion and get into areas of semantics and philosophy which I'd rather not debate here, so I'll pass. But I do understand what you mean by a postulate and why you see it (as used here) as finally coming down to emotional justification. I'd lean closer - though with significant differences - to the kind of position Torm outlined above, so I think we differ mainly on issues of definition.



> Here the postulate is that sex is fundamentally intimate.
> 
> Your postulate is that sex is not fundamentally intimate, it can be impersonal depending on cultural values.




To be precise, I was saying that while certain cultures view sex as fundamentally intimate, it can be impersonal depending on the perspective of the individuals involved.


----------



## Ormiss

> Actually, that's not really the case. Vassalage is a pyramidal structure; how far up it stretched varied from place to place and time to time. Sometimes, there was just the peasant and his lord. Sometimes, there were emperors above barons above lords, sometimes kings. The key feature of the system is that at each level, there is an unequal reciprocal relationship. Monarchy does not entail vassalage nor does vassalage entail monarchy.




True, but you used the word feudalism in the post I originally replied to, and feudalism for me implies the system mimicked in "medieval fantasy" such as D&D. If you meant the entire spectrum of vassalage (which, due to the way language evolves, is quite huge) then I'm appeased.

I did say "(generally)" about monarchy. Vassalage implies that someone is capable of enforcing the system upon others. I'm genuinely interested in being pointed in the direction of a system where no governing body enforced the vassalage in the first place, if you have information about such a system. I can think of none off the top of my head, but I might be missing something.



> Monarchies come in all shapes and sizes. Two of the G8 nations today are constitutional monarchies (the UK and Canada) and are governed by elected parliaments.




Well, a constitutional monarchy isn't a monarchy. It's a constitutional monarchy. I'll grant you your point, but I assumed it would be implied that I meant autocratic, "standard" monarchy. I anticipated I might be called out on this point, however. Sweden is also a constitutional monarchy, for your information. An autocratic monarchy (such as the ones that gave rise to feudalism) is inherently disenfranchising and unequal. I think you will agree with me on that.

You mentioned earlier that you cannot be a vassal to a concept or intangible entity. While that is true in the historical sense of the word, it is hardly true in the modern use of the word. You can't be a knight of darkness or a vassal of pain in the logical sense, just as you cannot be a "slave to love." A slave, after all, has to be owned by a person.


----------



## Navar

The problem as I see it is that Good and Evil aren’t relative.  They are just as true as up and down (on the Prime Material Plane) or as North and South.  Prostitution MAY not hurt (be evil) to the 2 people involved, but it does hurt society.  AND hurting society is an evil act.  This is the CRUX of the victimless crime argument.  IF prostitution is allowed to exist then society is hurt by it.  If nothing else it encourages the objectification of women.  Objectifying women is a BAD thing (even if it is the social norm it is still bad.)  So prostitution encourages a bad thing.  Prostitution = evil.  If anyone can prove that prostitution doesn't encourage the objectification of women, or that said objectification of women is a bad thing then I have other points, but lets start with this one.


----------



## Voadam

Torm said:
			
		

> Actually, you _can_ boil this down through logic and science. You're right that it will involve emotion, but not the way you imply:
> Scientific exploration of physics, the human body, and human psychology indicates that humans generally share enough of a common experience to allow a general consensus amongst many people's perceptions to act as a predictor for individuals.
> 
> To use your example, I do not find torture to be an experience I would enjoy. I haven't actually conducted this poll, but I would be willing to bet that it is safe to say that a majority of the people here would agree. Based on this, it would be a good guess that a new member who joins tomorrow will not enjoy torture, either. When a trend like this is strong enough, one can conclude that exceptions are anomalies, and you might need to look for an extra factor in those cases - like someone who claims to enjoy torture, but who in fact enjoys degradation or certain types of pain. In those cases, there is almost certainly some sort of diagnosable psychological disorder or quirk that removes them from the standard.
> 
> To follow this back to the situation under discussion - prostitution - you have to put each type through the same test:
> 
> Type I: Being _forced_ to have sex in exchange for money or other compensation like drugs (coercive pimp type situation) is not something I would enjoy, and once again, I would bet most here would agree. So that is _wrong_.
> 
> Type II: Being lured by an amount of money difficult to resist into having sex for it, even though doing so violates the tenets of a religion one wants to follow, or causes an impratical likelihood of spreading disease or causing pregnancy. Here it becomes a little more vague, because there's no threat of violence - if one believes in degrees of wrong, this is a little less wrong than Type I on the part of the johns, a little more wrong on the part of the hooker. Still wrong, all the way around, though. And once again, placing most people here in the shoes of the hooker, I'm sure they would agree they were being wronged somehow.
> 
> Type III: Getting paid to have sex that one finds either indifferent or actually enjoyable, when one has no religious strictures against it. If the reasonably normal, not-sick-looking waitress (or waiter, depending on your gender and/or orientation  ) offered you a decent amount of money to have sex with them, _and you had no belief that there was any spiritual reason_ or reasonable logistical reason (high risk of disease, fear of pregnancy, angry spouse of the john) for you not to, I believe many people would. I freely admit I would.
> 
> The Type III situation is what we are talking about - a situation that it may be hard for many who have certain religious convictions regarding the sanctity of the body, sex, and relationships between men and women to even imagine. But a situation that is nonetheless entirely possible - as has been proven historically - in the absence of religion, or in religions without the same strictures.




What you are saying is that if people generally do not like it done to themselves then it is wrong. If you don't mind having it done to you then it is not wrong.

People don't want to be punished even if they do wrong. Does that make all punishment wrong? Nothing wants to die, does that make all killing wrong? Nobody wants to be fired, is all firing immoral?

Is it impossible to like something that is immoral or wrong without being diagnosably disordered?


----------



## Torm

Voadam said:
			
		

> People don't want to be punished even if they do wrong. Does that make all punishment wrong? Nothing wants to die, does that make all killing wrong? Nobody wants to be fired, is all firing immoral?



Well, there is a certain amount of, "what do I deserve?" involved, too, when it comes to being punished. Once again, you can take this back to what the general answer would be in, say, a poll of 1000 people. "What would you think you deserve to have happen to you if you killed someone else for monetary gain?"

Unfortunately, no one seems to really be doing these polls I speak of for consensus. Which is a shame, IMO, because without them to allow a more objective sentencing for crimes, it frequently does come down to the individual judge or juror - "What am *I* comfortable with doing to _someone else_ as punishment for this?" Which isn't the same question at all, and is frequently less than they would expect to have happen if they did it _themselves_. :\ People sometimes like to be gracious and "civilized," so they are lenient. OR, they are forced to ask themselves, individually, "What would I expect to happen to me?" Which is probably a little better, but they still have no way of knowing whether or not their individual answer deviates significantly from the general consensus of the society they are supposed to be serving as a judge or juror. If we had a societal consensus, up front and refreshed from time to time (maybe with the census) of what we consider to be fair to be done to ourselves if we commit specific crimes, that burden would be taken off of them somewhat, and society as a whole would feel that it was served better by the court systems than it is now.

(Of course, fixing the whole plea bargaining arrangement would help too. But that's not directly relevant to what we're discussing.)



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> Is it impossible to like something that is immoral or wrong without being diagnosably disordered?



Maybe at this time. But, that is only a failing of _current_ psychological knowledge, not an indicator that they won't be at some point in the future. I believe that, if mankind survives long enough, we will eventually understand the root causes of most behavior - all behavior, "deviant" or not, will be diagnosable and potentally "treatable." I only hope that at that point we will have the good sense to place the line between acceptable variance and unacceptable deviance somewhere that still allows for plenty of diversity and individual expression, or we'll doom ourselves.


----------



## Endur

I agree that Lawful should mean Lawful whether you are Lawful Good or Lawful Evil.  But I do not agree with your definition of Lawful as obedience to an internal code.  

Lawful, for me, is obedience to all relevant codes and authorities.  Sometimes the authorities may conflict (i.e. your internal code may conflict with divine orders or orders of your liege lorde), but Lawful requires that you are obedient to all of the authorities.



			
				Torm said:
			
		

> Oh, a quick postscript to my previous post: I realize some people may find places where the SRD contradicts my definition of Lawful. I don't care.  Like I said, I've seen the authors, even ones at TSR/Wizards, screw this up before, and I sincerely believe my way of looking at it works better. After all, if Lawful meant always having to respect "the proper authorities" all the time, you'd have to ride all over the Good/Neutral/Evil spectrum to stay Lawful, just depending on what town you're riding through! And if you look at their alignment definitions, they make it look like the "Lawful" in Lawful Good means something different than the "Lawful" in Lawful Evil. I'm sorry, but Lawful should mean the same concept regardless of whatever else you tack on - but maybe that's just _my_ Lawful nature coming out.




So your example rogue with a strong internal code would be neutral to me, neither lawful nor chaotic.


----------



## Navar

Torm said:
			
		

> if Lawful meant always having to respect "the proper authorities" all the time, you'd have to ride all over the Good/Neutral/Evil spectrum to stay Lawful, just depending on what town you're riding through!




Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it.  You can respect that Prostution is legal, and still not partake.  Laws (usually) forbid stuff or allow stuff.  Laws rarely Force you to do anything though.  "Don't speed" is a law.  "Drive exactly 55" isn't.  "Prostution is ok" could be a law.  "you must pay for sex" isn't likely to be a law.  So you can respect that it is legal to do whatever (or illegal) that doesn't mean you have to do the thing that is legal.  I can't think of an example where followling the law would change your moral alignment.


----------



## Torm

Endur said:
			
		

> Lawful, for me, is obedience to all relevant codes and authorities.  Sometimes the authorities may conflict (i.e. your internal code may conflict with divine orders or orders of your liege lorde), but Lawful requires that you are obedient to all of the authorities.



That just doesn't work, though - you could cause a person to lock-up by that standard. You have to have a hierarchy for law conflict resolution. I happen to prefer to start with this one:

"This above all else: To Thine Own Self Be True."

The thing is to recognise that ultimately, all of ANY person's behavior, whether you want to think of them as generally Lawful or generally Chaotic or what-have-you, comes from internal motivation _first_. The reason a Paladin would obey the tenets of his deity is ultimately that _he feels a desire to_. In a Lawful person, the pattern of these wants may form a sometimes self-conflicting hierchy, i.e. I don't desire to do _this_, but I swore an oath to do *that*, and my desire to fulfill that oath is more important to me than my desire to not do _this_. But still, it boils down to what that person values - not any sort of difference in the actual hardware, so to speak, of Lawful vs Chaotic beings. (Well, except possibly in the case of being made specifically to serve an alignment, like Demons or Celestials - but your run-of-the-mill PC is a free-willed, full run of behavior, type person.)


----------



## Endur

Torm said:
			
		

> That just doesn't work, though - you could cause a person to lock-up by that standard.




Nope, lockups aren't necessary.  Although angst and role-playing opportunities abound.



			
				Torm said:
			
		

> You have to have a hierarchy for law conflict resolution. I happen to prefer to start with this one:
> 
> "This above all else: To Thine Own Self Be True."




And that is pretty close to being Chaotic.  If you are only true to your self, then you have no code you follow other than your own internal code.  Now, if being true to yourself is your highest code, and you also follow other codes when they don't conflict, then that is more neutral.

If you try to follow and fulfill all of your obligations, and resolve any conflicts to the satisfaction of all parties, then you are lawful.


----------



## Torm

Navar said:
			
		

> Laws (usually) forbid stuff or allow stuff.  Laws rarely Force you to do anything though.



Um, WHAT?

You must wear a seatbelt, by law. You must acquire a permit to run a business, by law. You must report for Selective Service (if male over 18) by law. You must pay taxes, by law. I could go on and on.

You're thinking of _our_ country, and failing to take into account that, for the most part, we live in a nation where we are free enough to have mass objection to inappropriate laws. Try this one on for size, though, from several other countries and occasionally parts of our own, from throughout history:

You must, by law, stop at (insert time of day) and give praise and swear service to (insert diety or government).

That could come into conflict with the requirements of the faith of MANY people, and frequently their "alignment", if real people can be considered to have those. And that's just one example that occurred to me before I even finished reading your post!

To address the flipside, which I believe speaks even more to the point you were trying to make, you're right: Something being legal to do does not mandate it being done. I don't have to drive, but that is legal. BUT, that is completely irrelevant. The point of the discussion about Sir Cedric isn't whether he HAS to frequent prostitutes because it is legal, it is whether there is anything wrong with him doing so if it IS legal, it isn't against his religious tenets, and it seems to be a help rather than a hurt for the women involved.


----------



## Henry

Torm said:
			
		

> You must, by law, stop at (insert time of day) and give praise and swear service to (insert diety or government).




_Sidenote: I actually considered doing this to your Paladin in Zhentil Keep about a year ago, just to see what would happen. _

Another example: You must obey the local lords edicts as law at all times, and the punishment for failing to do so is death.

Third example: All lords have the right of "first night" with any new bride they choose under their domain.

If a paladin sees one of these acts or is subjected to one of these laws, does he submit, or does he resist?


----------



## Torm

Endur said:
			
		

> And that is pretty close to being Chaotic.  If you are only true to your self, then you have no code you follow other than your own internal code.



You're still missing it, so I'll put it straight forward, rather than long-winded, as I tend to be:

NO ONE follows anything OTHER than their internal code!

A young man or woman, called by their deity to serve as a Paladin, makes the decision as to whether or not to do so by their own internal code. Everything from that point on (or before that point, for that matter) is layers upon layers, all stacked upon the person's original personality and desires. In serving a diety, they serve THEMSELVES. 'Cause they _wanted_ to.

Some people take their original nugget of self, and build it up, based on their perceptions and opinions, into messy mass of jumbled, incomplete decision trees that aren't necessarily connected the same way twice, ever. Those people are Chaotic. And some people build it up into relatively static, organized trees of cause and effect and personal priorties. Those people are Lawful.

(And, btw, nothing in what I said said to _only_ be true to yourself. But to deny that the _ultimate_ authority within you IS you, is at best silly and at worst harmful.)

One last point for this post: If Lawful characters had _no choice_ but to serve authority, by their essential most basic selves, why would that authority _ever_ show appreciation for that service? Yet, they do.....


----------



## Voadam

Torm said:
			
		

> Well, there is a certain amount of, "what do I deserve?" involved, too, when it comes to being punished. Once again, you can take this back to what the general answer would be in, say, a poll of 1000 people. "What would you think you deserve to have happen to you if you killed someone else for monetary gain?"




Well not deserve is quite a different standard than not enjoy which was your scientific unemotional basis for why torture was wrong.

Even if people consider themselves deserving of punishment, none would find it enjoyable.

So does your definition of immoral now state that torture is wrong because nobody would say they deserve torture while they might say they deserve some punishment.

And moral judgment is based solely on consensus of such individual feelings of dessert?


----------



## Torm

Voadam said:
			
		

> Well not deserve is quite a different standard than not enjoy which was your scientific unemotional basis for why torture was wrong.
> 
> Even if people consider themselves deserving of punishment, none would find it enjoyable.
> 
> So does your definition of immoral now state that torture is wrong because nobody would say they deserve torture while they might say they deserve some punishment.



Not exactly. I'm not the simple creature you're making me out to be.  The punishment decided upon may still be _wrong_. But, because it is _the_ wrong that consensus (the best standard we have, since we aren't the Borg) agrees is appropriate to have inflicted upon them as justice for a particular wrong they would commit, it is _just_.

Court sentencing is very rarely a happy business, and the only thing that excuses the things that a judge or juror may decide or a correctional officer/executioner/what-have-you may do as part of it is that they are acting not for themselves but on behalf of society as a whole, in the pursuit of a greater good. And yes, that does kinda suck, but unfortunately the world doesn't always allow one to pursue those who have dirtied themselves and keep one's own hands _completely_ clean. :\ A Paladin _does_ still kill. Yet, murder (in most religions) is a sin......


----------



## shilsen

Endur said:
			
		

> I agree that Lawful should mean Lawful whether you are Lawful Good or Lawful Evil.  But I do not agree with your definition of Lawful as obedience to an internal code.
> 
> ...
> 
> So your example rogue with a strong internal code would be neutral to me, neither lawful nor chaotic.




Note that your definition does not match the PHB. The description of Lawful Neutral, for example, says that a "lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a *personal code* directs here...She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard..."

This was a change to the definition of LN from 2e, IIRC, and one which I'd personally thought was very necessary. I always found it silly that the 2e defn. of LN was someone who only followed external codes.

On the whole, I find that the definition of the law-chaos axis in 3e comes down not to group-individuality (as it is often, IMO wrongly, characterized) but to consistency-changeability. A character who follows his own personal code stringently can be very individualistic and would count as lawful. A character who acts on his whims can be equally individualistic and would count as chaotic.


----------



## The Sigil

Wrote a very long post, but here's the only part I think is worth injecting into the discussion at the moment:



> This is why I chose the word "crime" over "evil act"; there are lots of things that are evil that are not crimes.  My point is that your view that it's okay to kill any evil person, any time, regardless of the circumstances breaks down when one recognizes that this includes summarily killing people, without recourse to any due process, who have committed no crime whatsoever.



And *that's why I deliberately avoided it,* because you're drawing up a Strawman with it.  You're mixing the "lawful/chaotic" axis with the "good/evil" axis here.  *Due process is on the law/chaos axis, not the "good/evil" axis.* 

A chaotic good character doesn't (and shouldn't) give a flying rat's tail about due process.  Does that make him less good?  I might add that there are many things that are crimes that are not evil.  It wasn't lawful for Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give to the poor.  He went ahead and did it because it was "good" without regard for "due process."  In many ways, chaotic good is "easier to accomplish good with" than lawful good, because chaotic good can just go out and do it, without having to worry about protocol, etc.  But I'm getting off subject here.

Suffice to say you are going to great lengths to try to link "due process" and therefore "law" with "good" and that is a strawman, which is why I rejected it.  Due process is NOT inherently good.  In many cases, it hinders "justice" from being done on those who have committed evil acts... maybe because they have a good lawyer.  Maybe because they destroyed the evidence so well.  Regardless, if even one "evil act" goes unpunished solely because of the requirements of the law, can the law truly be characterized as "Good" with a capital G?  No, because now it's protecting those who have done evil from receiving justice!

That's why I've tried to be very careful this whole time to keep "Good" and "Law" separate, and why it annoys me when people get careless and try to lump them back together.

--The Sigil


----------



## fusangite

So, Sigil,

Just to clarify, is it your position that killing twelve year old girls who have committed no crime whenever you feel like it, simply because they are mean all the time is perfectly consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

fusangite said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Elder Basilisk
> I would guess that those of us who do so believe the problems of prostitution to be inherent in the institution while the abuses of feudal aristocracies are either extrinsic to the institutions (and therefore, supporting the institution is not supporting the abuse as such) or intrinsic to power structures in general (and hence unavoidable without supporting anarchy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This strikes be as absurdly subjective. A system that collapses if the individuals within it have equality with one another, or are enfranchised, is, by our limited cultural definitions, an inherently evil way of living. Fortunately, D&D accommodates a level of cultural relativism that allows us to still have good people within this system. How, then do you propose that D&D does not allow a sufficient level of relativism for prostitution to be non-evil in any situation whatsoever?
Click to expand...



I can't say your position strikes me as any less subjective. However, let's see if we can salvage something from the impasse here:
1. You're confusing a standard for evaluating acts with a standard for evaluating people. Starting from the assumption that lying is an evil act, it does not necessarily follow that anyone who ever tells a lie is an evil person in non-theological terminology. So, it's quite possible for D&D to simultaneously have a system that makes both vassalage and prostitution evil all the time and yet to simultaneously allow us to have good people--even good prostitutes--living within the system.

The situation is somewhat different for paladins since paladins have to keep track, not only of their virtue-standing (personal alignment), but also have to avoid specifically evil acts. That's the crux of this discussion. Sir Cedric could conceivably be Lawful Good (though he doesn't sound like it in the initial story and the other parts of the story are simply "rude paladin acts like a badass"). Lawful good characters can commit evil acts from time to time and the effect of a particular act on the overall evaluation of their character is not always clear. Where I part company with Shilsen is in whether or not Sir Cedric can be a paladin.

2. I don't see anything inherently evil about a hierarchical social system. It would be uncomfortable for most north americans, but as long as the natural rights of people are respected, I don't see it as necessarily better or worse than any other system. Systems are evaluated on the protection of natural rights and their effect on the virtue of their citizens, rather than on how closely they correspond to modern egalitarianism. Egalitarian democracy is a tool for achieving that; not a fundamental plank of my moral system.



> Prostitution is not inherently non-consensual. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently unequal. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently disenfranchising. Feudalism is.




Consent is a somewhat fuzzy concept itself it you get right down to it (as is demonstrated by the various sex codes and rules at universities which sometimes seem to suggest that consent can be withdrawn after the fact, the notion of tacit consent, the notions of an age of consent (which seems to imply that insent must be informed and competent and that, at certain times, some people are unable to meaningfully consent to acts or obligations whether sex or credit cards). More to the point, neither consent nor enfranchisement are the lodestones of my ethical system. On this point, it is sufficient to say that prostitution is wrong because it is contrary to the inherently intimate and non-commercial nature of sex.

That said, I would argue that prostitution _is_ inherently--or at least inescapably--unequal. So, if you choose to make consent and equality the only guiding lights of your moral system, it's still inconsistent to support prostitution.



> So please clarify for me. Which modern values are so transcultural and transhistorical that they make prostitution always bad and which modern values are ones you're prepared to see as an inessential cultural attribute?




Hmm. I don't think I necessarily said the values were modern unless simply being held by a contemporary individual makes them so. However, for a short list, I think:
truth, [retributive] justice, piety (sacred and familial), and sexual morality make the cut. Much as I like them, egalitarianism, free market capitalism, and democracy do not.



> Well, evidence against you here. Almost every society in history has involved prostitution and none has collapsed because of it. Now war, on the other hand…




I know this isn't directed towards me, but it seems a particularly weak argument. It's very difficult to point out the single specific cause of most societal collapses. Losing a war is far more often _how_ that happens than _why_ it happened. There are, however, a good number of societies which were destroyed or badly damaged after becoming lazy, decadent, and hedonistic. Greece was conquered by Philip of Macedon and Alexander because the Greeks lacked the will to heed the warnings of precedent men. Similarly decadence was the undoing of the Roman and Ottoman empires. If one were to analyze the moral decay, prostitution would almost certainly play a part of it. (Plautus, at least, provides plenty of evidence of that for Rome).



> Originally Posted by Elder Basilisk
> The question is not "would the prostitutes be better off without Cedric?" but rather, "is prostitution inherently evil/wrong"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine and dandy if you can show that it is. But you can't just declare an absolute transcultural truth by fiat here. There are cultures that had sacred prostitutes. Is it your contention that the letter of the D&D rules prohibits these cultures from being non-evil?
Click to expand...



It's no more declaring an absolute transcultural truth by fiat than saying that all inhibitions against prostitution are strictly cultural and have no truth value. The absence of transcultural moral significance is just as significant a declaration as its presence.

As for sacred prostitution, you're conflating several distinct things:
1. The letter of the D&D rules specifies that good and evil are transcultural. They do not, however, specify a very exhaustive content. So, while the letter of the D&D rules may not make prostitution evil, if prostitution is evil (which the D&D rules do not specify), they specify that it is transculturally evil and would influence participants alignments towards evil.

2. You're once again conflating the use of alignment as an evaluative tool for individuals or societies with its use as an evaluative tool for acts or practices. It's quite possible (indeed, it's even likely) that a neutral society (or even a good one) would have a number of evil cultural practices. The overall judgement of the culture is separate from the evaluation of each of its practices just like the evaluation of Hitler [evil, lest anyone be confused] is separate from the evaluation of his vegetarianism and anti-tobacco stance.

3. You seem to be under the impression that "sacred" prostitution is generally different from the normal kind. My understanding of the subject is that temple prostitutes were not necessarily free or respected. In fact, my impression of a lot of it is that the temples and shrines were just a religious veneer on top of the practice of prostitution--much like in Paradigm Concepts' Arcanis setting, most prostitutes have a shrine to Larissa in their place of business and call it "receiving Larissa's blessings."



> Your argument does not get any stronger by bringing examples of cultural relativism. Different cultures have different thoughts about sex. Different cultures also have different thoughts about slavery, genocide, rape, torture, and pretty much anything else you can come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Well, I admire your consistency. So, you feel that the rules also prohibit setting games in Roman-style slave societies, Iroquous-style societies where torture is part of the male citizenship ritual and Viking-style or Mongol-style societies where female war captives become the conqueror's sexual property. It seems to me that you have adopted the view that D&D cannot and should not model the vast majority of societies based on the historical past, or even those that comprise a significant portion of those depicted in fantasy novels. I personally like Roman, Iroquous and Mongol inspired D&D societies and would be quite unhappy if I felt the rules prohibited them as settings.
Click to expand...



I think you're mistaken to think that just because D&D can't model them as _GOOD_ societies, it can't model them. For me, a part of the interest in playing in such a society would be to explore the difference between their cultural conception of what it means to be a good Roman or a good Mongol and what it actually means to be a good person. That need not be done in a didactic or even obvious way--it's fine to play a character who embodies the Roman ideals but has LN or LE written on his character sheet instead of LG. Similarly, a viking game is easily supported by the D&D rules, but if I were playing Grettir the Strong or Skarphedin, I wouldn't have a good alignment on my character sheet.

The idea that D&D good and evil are meant to model the worldview of the cultures one encounters in game is an absurd one anyway that should be shattered as soon as one realizes that the goblin cleric with the Evil domain and Unholy Blight actually embodies the ideals of goblin society. If one asked the goblin who he was smiting with the spell, he certainly wouldn't say "good people." He might say "adherents of the slave/human morality," "enemies," or "the [morally] weak." That it actually harms good characters and neutral characters is the transcultural effect that produces the goblin's cultural view. Similarly,  Hextorites would not refer to themselves as evil, but would have a different word for the epitome of their ideals. The game system evaluates the goal as evil. The characters do not and should not.



> However, as I read the PHB, D&D takes that bull by the horns and posits good and evil (and law and chaos) as universal, transhistorical, transcultural phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll agree with you there. I think the single biggest flaw is that the alignment system tries to force you to only tell stories about modern people with modern values stumbling around with swords and armour. But you're right. The rules tell me that this is what I should do. Fortunately, the actual practice of gaming doesn't result in that. In fact, people continue to publish settings for slave societies, societies that torture their war captives and societies that make female war captives the sexual property of the conquerors; so, evidently, I am not alone in deviating from your highly literal reading of the rules.
Click to expand...



If you want to slap a [Good] alignment on them, you may be more alone than you think. I rather like the Arcanis setting which features nearly all of the things you list, but it doesn't generally insist that the slave traders are good aligned. In fact, I think the setting is at its most interesting where the various cultural practices and effects make it hard for a character to know what the right thing to do is and/or supports characters who don't care what the _right_ thing to do is as much as they care what the Elori or Coryani thing to do is--or what the profitable thing to do is.

Myself, I think it took the easy way out by refusing to give aggregate alignments rather than labelling the whole world as lawful evil to true neutral (with the possible exceptions of Solanos Mor and Tir Betoq). The paradigm people evidently think that such aggregate labelling wouldn't be helpful and aren't happy with alignment in general. But that's beside the point. 



> The paladin class is explicitly tied to these transhistorical, transcultural concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I also agree with you to an extent. I agree that there is a sexual morality that attaches to the class. But in my view, the rules as written, do not associate the paladin with these transhistorical, transcultural values any more than they do any other class. My argument against Cedric is one grounded in archetypes not in the rules -- because to ground these things in the rules would make it impossible for there to be good Roman emperors or good khans.
Click to expand...



And how would that would be different from reality?

Seriously though, I'm not sure why one needs to have good Roman emperors in order to be able to faithfully model Rome or good Khans to model the mongols. If we say that the great emperor is Lawful Neutral, how does that make him any less (or more) the embodiment of Roman ideals?



> 1. There are more options to playing D&D than simply A. Modern people with modern thoughts in modern cultures but with magical-medieval tech and B. Foreign people with foreign thoughts in different (usually ancient) cultures with magical-medieval tech. The concept of alignment offers a way to play the second while still evaluating the cultures and perspectives adopted. One can play culturally in Thay and still say "they're evil." Doing so is not necessarily a modern thought (I would argue that it is timeless) and, in fact, it seems particularly alien to the (post) modern point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading of alignment doesn't seem to do that. I agree that there exist readings of alignment that do so. But yours does not. If there are no conditions under which slavery can be non-evil, you have made the good emperor an impossibility.
Click to expand...



No more than having no conditions for prostitution to be non-evil makes a good prostitute impossible. (And I'm not arguing that there's no such thing as a good aligned prostitute or John; I'm just arguing that prostitution is evil and therefore forbidden to paladins).

Returning yet again to the distinction between the evaluation of individuals or societies and acts or social practices, it's quite possible to have a good character who commits some evil acts--just not a paladin who does so.



> And in your model, they are not playing culturall in Thay. They are outside Thay's culture looking in. Just as they would be if they found themselves in ancient Rome or ancient Egypt. That's not playing in a setting at all.




No they're not. They're proper Thayvians. It's just something that the players acknowledge to be an evil campaign. You seem to write as if all characters had to be good aligned or believe in the ideals of good. For all that I don't allow evil charactes in my campaigns, and generally don't find evil campaigns attractive, an evil campaign where the characters didn't pursue "evil," but rather pursue their own goals in a manner consistent with their [evil] culture could be interesting. And I certainly don't generally require that characters be dedicated to good as an abstract concept or specific moral order. (One of the interesting facets in my most recent campaign is how some characters whose goals are not primarily moral have been interacting with a moral universe).



> 1. How does Sir Cedric reliably tell the difference between OK and not-ok prostitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By being observant. The same way he can tell who he should kill and who he shouldn't.
Click to expand...



Sir Cedric's judgement seems a lot more likely to be impaired when the prospect of sexual pleasure is involved than otherwise--especially given his attitude that the world owes pleasure to him in return for his great services. (Also, at least in the story, there doesn't seem to be any great amount of discernment required for him to know who to kill--the bad guys he does kill might as well have t-shirts that say "Team Bad Guy.")



> 2. In exactly what cultures that could support paladins would this kind of behavior be seen as admirable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you here. I think that the paladin archetype doesn't have enough room for Cedric. However, responding more generally to your point, not everything a paladin does has to be admirable. The paladin merely needs to be an admirable individual overall. If there is a requirement that every single a paladin does be admirable, then we are close to beating all the role playing out of the role.
Click to expand...



I don't think we can boil the paladin down to simply needing to be an admirable individual all things considered. That's a lawful good character. A paladin is held to a much higher standard. He cannot commit any evil acts. That's not the same thing as saying his every deed must be admirable, but even if we adopt a culturally relative view of evil acts, the paladin cannot do anything that would be shameful.

Now, I don't think that beats all role-playing out of the class. Even if a paladin had to be perfect, actually trying to be morally perfect in a D&D world would be a role-playing challenge that, quite frankly, I don't think most gamers are up to. However, there's plenty of ground for conflict, decisions, and individual personality (ascetic or boisterous, grim or vivacious) in the class.



> 2. How does Sir Cedric keep his influence towards accepting stardust and gumdrops prostitution from extending to the nastier (and more realistic) varieties? It's not like the brothel has a "paladin approved" sticker on the sign to differentiate it from other brothels that look similar but differ in ethically significant ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, through observation and judgement.
Click to expand...



Much easier said than done since its other peoples observation and judgement that are in question as much as Cedric's. Perhaps more to the point, not something that Cedric has given the remotest shred of an indication that he does. In fact, his outburst to Sir Magnus, has quite the opposite effect as it would seem to justify patronage of _any_ house of prostitution. To go one step further, Sir Cedric seems almost explicit in his denial of any obligation to consider the effect of his example when "off duty."



> Your examples of "extensions" of the argument are all flawed. First, they are flawed because they are all necessary from time to time. If you want to get to an island, you need a ship (or a teleport, blah blah, blah).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is going to the island necessary? What portion of the people in medieval society ever got in a boat?
Click to expand...



It usually isn't, but it could easily be necessary because the plot mcguffin necessary to save the world (or whatever needs saving) is on the island. Maybe it's the lich's phylactery. Maybe it's the legendary sword of kingship that will reveal the true king and prevent the war. Whatever it is though, if the paladin wants to get to the island, odds are good that he wants to do something there that can't be accomplished somewhere else.



> Similarly, if a paladin wanted to avoid cereals and subsist on food gathered and hunted in the forests, he could eat without supporting vassalage or slavery.




I'm not convinced that vassalage is necessarily a problem, but it still misses the point. Food is essential to survival. Sex--even sex with prostitutes isn't.

And the analogy has a further flaw: if there is something inherently wrong with prostitution, the wrongness would be directly involved in soliciting the prostitute but only indirectly involved in eating serf-grown grain.

Still, the idea of a paladin/ranger who hunts in the forests and gathers his own food so that he can eat without living on the backs of the oppressed peasants of his land seems interesting--something to do with the new Dedicated Tracker feat no doubt.



> So, a person can distinguish between consensual and non-consensual models of propelling ships but he cannot distinguish between consensual and non-consensual models of prostitution? I would be more likely to take the reverse position; while a person might never meet an oarsman and be able to make an assessment of his relative oppression, the person would have to meet the prostitute whom he patronized, thereby allowing him to gain direct evidence about the person's state, evidence he could not obtain about the oarsman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the oarsman has less reason to lie about it (unless, if a slave, his owner knows what's behind the paladin's question), directly and by appearance. (Galley slaves aren't known for covering up their whip-scars with make-up. A prostitute who was beaten will wear make-up so that she still looks attractive to potential clients. A prostitute who wants to attract the paladin is, of course, going to say what she thinks he wants to hear. That's part of the business: appearing willing and eager.
> 
> More to the point, however, the only question in the ship is consent. Prostitution has the inherent issues as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I read the comparison correctly, you're starting from the assumption that eating and having sex for money are ethically identical activities and the only ethically significant factors are how the sex object or food is produced. I think that's a faulty assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't making any such assumption. All I was doing was comparing how a paladin moored to cultural-based values would be ethical to how a paladin moored to transcultural values would be ethical.
> 
> Next time, however, I'll choose optional rather than essential activities for my illustrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a better illustration for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how does that work if the prostitute is independent or part of an all-female priesthood or guild?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that all-female priesthoods or prostitute "guilds" were necessarily less exploitive than those run by men. The madame has almost as dark a reputation as the pimp if her whores get out of line. Nor is mistreatment only on the supply side of the equation. Plenty of prostitutes are mistreated by their Johns--and there are those who would argue that the situation is inherently mistreatment even if everything looks stardust and gumdropsy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right about the Roman paladin. But unless there is a concept of a good brothel in Cedric's game world like there was a concept of a fair and good master, it makes no difference to the impression he leaves. And unless there actually IS a good brothel (not just a concept of one), it makes no difference to whether or not Cedric is a paladin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can acknowledge that there can be non-evil ways of owning people but not that any of the female-run temple prostitution going on _in the same society_ could be non-evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm not necessarily admitting that there are non-evil ways of owning people. As your characterization of the Roman paladin went, he associated with those who were fair, treated their slaves well, and granted manumission--the last part meaning that they no longer owned the slaves since they had been freed. More specifically, however, all that matters for this purpose is that there be an acknowledged model of a good master that is _less_ evil. By associating with that model in the absence of an abolition movement, the paladin may at least reduce evil with his influence.
> 
> The point of the argument, however, went further. For the sake of this particular argument, I hypothesized a prostitution that wasn't inherently evil. However, in order to exercise influence in that instance, the "good prostitution/bad prostitution" divide would need to be socially acknowledged like that between the good and the bad master. Otherwise, nobody would notice the difference in what place was patronized and what wasn't. Furthermore, pointing back to the real argument, unless the social construct of the "good whorehouse" actually were non-evil (instead of just being thought to be non-evil), patronizing it would be a violation of the paladin's code.
> 
> On further examination, you'll note that there is an important distinction between associating with the "good" slave-owners and patronizing the "good" brothels. The one has the paladin associating with people who are involved in the practice in question; the other has the paladin actively involved himself. If one wanted to make the parallel precise, it would not be associating with slave owners vs. patronizing the brothel; it would be owning slaves vs. patronizing the brothel--quite a significant difference if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ordinarily I wouldn't break up your thoughts like this, but this example is so eggregiously wrong that I have to. Aragorn's army didn't win the day at the Morannon. The victory was won at Mount Doom. For that matter, Aragorn didn't travel to the Morannon in order to win; he travelled there to give Frodo a better chance of winning. Certainly, most of Aragorn's men (and Aragorn himself) probably expected to die. That they didn't was due to Gollum's timing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of my point. They drew the eye away so that the day could be won at Mount Doom. So, yes, he did travel to the gate to win. But at the time he did so, he believed that the strategy he was part of would almost certainly fail. And his men _knew_ it would fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He only traveled to the Morannon to win in a strategic sense. In terms of the battle, he travelled there to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there Sigil! Are you seriously telling me that if your table manners are bad enough you lose your lawful alignment!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, stepping into someone else's argument, why not? Certainly respect for tradition and convention falls under lawful alignment in most interpretations of it. Concern for appearances falls under lawful alignment. If you had a Victorian man who swore like a sailor in the drawing room with the ladies and ate using his fingers rather than a fork, and, furthermore, insisted on being "himself" regardless of the social expectations on him, would you describe him as lawful or chaotic? That kind of "authenticity" seems like the essence of Rosseau and Goethe tinted chaos to me. So, why not apply that standard to Sir Cedric?
> 
> Certainly, table manners, by themselves, are not likely to drop anyone to a neutral or chaotic alignment. However, ignoring table manners completely is rarely an isolated trait of someone's personality. Certainly for any individual leading a considered life (or, as many paladins do, accepting the consideration of others on authority), one would only consciously ignore table manners if one didn't care what impression one makes upon others, but just "has to be me." And that characteristic, which Sir Cedric has in spades, is generally considered to be chaotic if anything is.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Darmanicus

*whoa!!!!*


----------



## InzeladunMaster

Sure I would allow it!  If any has seen "Rustler's Rhapsody" with Tom Berringer, a good-guy must be confident in his sexuality.


----------



## Elminster

*I agree*



			
				Tinner said:
			
		

> I'd allow this PC, but only so long as he belongs to a faith that doesn't preach against any of these behaviors.
> None of his actions are "evil" or "unlawful". They aren't appropriate for what we think of as a "normal medieval paladin" but with the proper background on his faith, I'd allow it.




So long as it didn't go against the tenets of his chosen faith, I would let him play.


----------



## fusangite

EB,

I was not stating that I personally believe modern liberal democracy is inherently good or inequality is inherently evil. I was simply trying to get to which values you see as transcultural and transhistorical. You kindly provided me with a list:







> truth, [retributive] justice, piety (sacred and familial), and sexual morality make the cut.



You have to admit that this list appears, for people who do not share your values, to be pretty arbitrary. What I'm trying to draw attention to here is that even though you may esteem these things as transcultural, transhistorical absolute values, this is just your personal moral system. They are not natural laws received from the universe itself. And even if they were, if we can suspend so many scientific laws that really are mandated by the universe itself when we play D&D, why should your personal moral code not be subject to a similar suspension?

Also, part of the reason I was drawing towards the issue of slavery was this: you seem to be arguing that non-consensual ownership of people is not inherently evil but consensual renting of people is.

I'll deal with your post at greater length when I have done my conference presentation on Saturday.


----------



## Aristotle

I only read the fiction in the first post and the first page of replies. Mine won't likely be seen if others do the same, but I did vote "Yes" to allowing such a paladin but with the huge caveat that nothing the paladin is doing can be directly opposed to the deities portfolio.

I think to many people try to place 'modern' ethics on what is right or wrong for a paladin. The ethics, and the paladin's code, should fit the deity the paladin worships. IMHO of course.


----------



## Shieldhaven

I voted Yes when this thread first appeared.  I'm now getting around to commenting.

Basically, I like this character not for whether or not he is a paladin - his god says yes, so yes it is - but because he deals with the most horrifying parts of his world, and has to find a way to live with that.  I am interested in observing the psychological landscape and journey of characters.  My characters' personalities don't tend to be wildly different from me when first created.  My favorite thing in any game is watching to see how they change - to see how Balthasar, a scholarly cleric who has been on the front lines of battle for way, way too long and seen far too many loved ones die a final death, pulls himself together long enough to keep going, and to see how Balthasar becomes less like Shieldhaven, a bookseller for Barnes & Noble who has recently graduated from college.  (Balthasar did, incidentally, reach a point of acting a whole lot like Cedric.  Shieldhaven, fortunately, has not reached that point.  The Management does not intend for him to do so.   )

Shieldhaven


----------



## Runesong42

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I would allow him IMC, but with the caveat that he would lose his powers for such behavior (perhaps to be replaced by a demon in order to lead him further into debauchery) and would be hunted by the Church if it were cognizant of his actions.




ROFL what a great idea for a tag-along NPC.  Have "The Church" assign a bureaucrat to follow around the Paladin, record his activities and be his "moral compass".  If you're going to compare Sir Cedric to Angel, let's compare this NPC to the old Wesley (the one assigned as Faith's, then Buffy's Watcher).   I would highly enjoy such a situation.

- Dru


----------



## Seeten

Navar said:
			
		

> The problem as I see it is that Good and Evil aren’t relative.  They are just as true as up and down (on the Prime Material Plane) or as North and South.  Prostitution MAY not hurt (be evil) to the 2 people involved, but it does hurt society.  AND hurting society is an evil act.  This is the CRUX of the victimless crime argument.  IF prostitution is allowed to exist then society is hurt by it.  If nothing else it encourages the objectification of women.  Objectifying women is a BAD thing (even if it is the social norm it is still bad.)  So prostitution encourages a bad thing.  Prostitution = evil.  If anyone can prove that prostitution doesn't encourage the objectification of women, or that said objectification of women is a bad thing then I have other points, but lets start with this one.




Just thought I'd let you know I object to this paragraph as in every possible way. Your contention that prostitution harms society is as baseless as my statement that prostitution is a valuable outlet for the "passions" of people and helps preserve the mores of society by giving an outlet where the "baser" needs are taken care of, so polite society need not deal with them.

Society is only hurt by prostitution in the cultural context where people find sex offensive, particularly easy/sleazy sex. 

I don't find sex offensive. I don't find prostitution offensive. I can easily imagine worlds where it is not offensive, and I can find cultures in the real world, historically, where it was not offensive. For that matter, I can find cultures where sex with young boys, as a man, was considered beneficial to their betterment and education, and as a manly pursuit.

Thusly, I am of the opinion that your personal bias based on bible belt doctrine of intrinsic wrong in prostitution is A) Wrong and B) Certainly not something I want to explore.

In fact, everyone's personal bias has no bearing on the campaigns I want to play. As a Canadian, conservative moral values such as whether prostitutes or gays are inherently evil and decay the moral fabric of society are NOT universally accepted, even as close to America as Canada.  I don't subscribe to this belief, nor do I consider it a prerequisite to entry into any conversation, and more, I find IT objectionable, possibly as objectionable as you find the objectification of women.

I do not believe women should be objectified, at least, not more than they want to be. This last part is relevant in my opinion.  I have a friend who was a stripper in university. It is how she chose to pay her way through university. She went to law school.  She only stripped for 2 years, as after the initial 2 years, she was on scholarship, but she still dropped in occasionally for a little money, or to see old friends.  She told me between stripping for hundreds an hour and Subway for 60 a day, she'd take stripping any day. Plus, as something of an exhibitionist, she found it fun, and exciting.  She wasnt abused, raped, or beaten, she made good money, and people saw her naked.  If she was demeaned, it was no more demeaning than she chose it to be. She wasnt touched in ways she didnt want. She made good money. People like you, of course, insult her, and all she stands for, in the interest of "The betterment of society."

However, what you really mean, is, "Society the way I approve of it based on my wants/needs and what I think is best" and your better society is my "repressive, lawful evil, morally regressive pit".

I think a Paladin, who takes the view that all prostitutes are evil, and so is the institution, are as evil as any other Tyrant. Ie, they are lawful evil and treading on dangerous Blackguard ground. I guess my campaign and your campaign are drastically different.

So, I voted yes.

I think the concept is interesting, assuming the world supports it. Frex, he couldnt be in my current campaign, which had no Gods, no clerics and no Paladins, to start with, but now that Gods have appeared, this concept would work with one of the LG Gods that isnt concerned with Puritanism. (Which is all of them.) To me, the concept of purity and chastity is not an LG one.  I will not be commenting on the Catholic practice of the concept, but suffice it to say, I dont see it as a good institution.(Chastity for clergy that is.)

Great debate, but I find much of the debate has been far to puritanical for my taste. I guess I am glad I live where I do.


----------



## Endur

I think its possible that "prostitution" or other "victimless" crimes could be defined as evil even if we defined the people who participate in the act are themselves Lawful Good or another alignment.

i.e. good people can commit evil acts.  It may make them less good and closer to neutral, but committing an evil act doesn't automatically make someone evil.

Another example would be drinking alcohol.  One could define the institutionalized consumption of alcohol as "evil" because of the many bad effects that alcohol inflicts upon society.  Look at the abstinence movement in the USA that created Prohibtion in the USA in the 1920's for a list of those bad effects.

And yet legions of Lawful Good Dwarves enjoy their ale and beer every day.

Its also possible to argue that "victimless" crimes are never Evil.  That the requirement to have a victim is what determines whether the act is evil.  So participating in victimless crimes might mean that someone is chaotic, a lawbreaker, but not evil.


----------



## Mixmaster

I'd allow it, but I would keep a very close eye on him. The "angst" Paladin is different.


----------



## moritheil

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> But I've got no problem with the sex and alcohol; it's the cynicism bordering on nihilism that makes him a fallen paladin in my book.




I would say he isn't fallen yet, but he's getting there.  He's at least little bitter.  And, as DM, I would slip in a few succubi or something to confuse him, further his resentment at "having to die," and lead him down the path to Blackguard.

Ultimately, this is more of a question of the players' and DMs' beliefs surrounding morality, sex, inebriation, and hedonism.  It also depends heavily on setting.  If the paladin follows, say, the patron of Love in the FR setting, then it might make perfect sense for him to have as much fun as possible, in the game context.  I would rule that that order of paladins probably had a slightly different code in that respect.  But he would definitely at least have to obey whatever precepts for that fun that the patron set forth.

Just ask yourself "Where do the paladin's powers come from?" and work from there.


----------



## iwatt

I cast _Raise Thread_


----------



## The Sigil

fusangite said:
			
		

> So, Sigil,
> 
> Just to clarify, is it your position that killing twelve year old girls who have committed no crime whenever you feel like it, simply because they are mean all the time is perfectly consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment?



No.  Again, you're using a straw man here.  "Mean" is not the same as "Evil" (with a capital E, referring to a person whose alignment in an absolute morality sense is Evil).


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.



Hurting, oppressing, and killing others is "mean" under most senses of the word "mean" I am familiar with that do not involve mathematical averages.   Hence, an evil person is mean, but a mean person is not necessarily evil (in the same way that all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not necessarily squares).  A scrupulously honest, to the point of tactlessness, twelve-year-old girl would probably be considered as "mean" by most, but that does not make her evil.

Hypothetically, if I have a fat wife (I don't), is telling my wife, "yes, honey, that dress DOES make you look fat" a mean act?  An evil one?  If it's the truth, isn't it an evil act to lie?  That puts me in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" position.  Of course, being scrupulously honest, in such a case I would say, "no, dear, the dress doesn't make you look fat - you make it look fat."  *glad my wife doesn't read these forums*

So again, no.  You're trying to argue via straw man.  Mean != Evil.  

My position is that kililng a twelve-year-old girl who is known (by the slayer) to be Evil (capital "E"), regardless of whether or not she's actually committed a crime (because the local laws could be written so that "Evil" acts are "legal"), is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment.  Heck, I'll take it one step further.  Killing an infant who is known to be evil (example under the rules as written: a baby monster of a race whose alignment entry reads "always evil") is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment.

Whether or not I think these rules are good design choices (I'm not sure I like "always X-aligned") is immaterial.

Please stop trying to read into that more than it says.

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil

I want to re-iterate a point Elder-Basilisk made in his (lengthy) post, but in my own words.

One act does not a person's alignment define... it is possible for good people to do evil acts, and vice versa.  However, a paladin is held to a higher standard than simply maintaining a lawful good alignment.  *He cannot commit even a single evil act without losing his paladinhood.*


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who *willfully commits an evil act*, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.



Emphasis mine.

The above text states that an ACT can be adjudged as evil, not just an individual.  In other words, acts have an objective moral state (more on this below).

Sir Cedric seems to subscribe to a theory of "on-duty" and "off-duty" - i.e., provided he behaves himself while "on duty," he's entitled to do whatever he wants "on his own time."  But the rules as written make no distinction as to whether or not the paladin was "on duty" if he commits the evil act (and, I would suggest, should not).

I have, and Elder Basilisk has, already raised the objection that Cedric's behavior smacks of chaotic alignment, and not lawful alignment.  I won't re-hash that here.  I want to "drill down" on the "willfully commits an evil act" portion of the paladin's code, and pull some more from the SRD.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> While acknowledging that *good and evil are objective states, not just opinions*, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.



Emphasis mine.

By the rules as written, good and evil are objective states - in other words, what your culture accepts as "desirable" and "undesirable" (and what its language will refer to as "good" and "evil" respectively) is *not* used to determine whether or not an act is objectively good or evil.  This means that all considerations of "good or bad brothel" or "culturally acceptable" or even "sacred temple prostitutes" are 100% moot.  These are cultural externalities that do not have an effect on whether or not an act is Good or Evil (I'll use capitals from here on out to refer to the "objective good" and "objective evil" in the RAW as opposed to the "desirable" and "undesirable" acts which vary by culture).

Every act falls into one of three categories, then, on an objective scale: Good, Evil, or neither.  The act of choosing to eat your potatoes before your carrots or vice versa, for instance, falls under "neither" (I have a hard time thinking of non-absurdly-artifically-constructed-solely-for-the-purposes-of-being-ridiculous circumstances that would make it Good or Evil by the rules as written).  I will posit that if we cannot find a reason that an act satisfies an objective condition derived from the RAW that would make it Good or Evil, it is "neither."

We get very little guidance from the SRD as to exactly how we are to objectively evaluate acts to place them in the categories of good and evil.  Obviously, we get help from some spells ("casting this spell is an evil act") but the alignment section itself gives rather sparse guidelines...


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.



I will posit that we can expand these definitions by including the opposite qualities (since we are dealing in objective terms, it seems reasonable that if the opposite of "good" is "evil" then the diametric opposite of something that is good would be evil and vice versa); i.e.:

"Evil" implies misanthropy, contempt for life, and a scorn for the dignity of sentient beings... and hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
"Good" implies protecting, defending, and preserving others... and altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Note that I did not say a "disregard" for certain things is the opposite of respect; disregard implies not understanding, knowing or caring how your actions affect others because it just doesn't really enter your mind but if it did, you would at least consider the effects... which is usually more of a neutral aspect.

Drinking does not, insofar as I can tell, fall under the evil umbrella; swearing, when directed at a sentient being, probably is an evil act by the RAW (profanity directed at an individual - a sentient beings - generally connotes scorn for the dignity that being, since the profanity is often a direct assault on that person's dignity).  That sounds a bit harsh (even to me) ... but seems to fall out of the rules as written.

Now, the big question... prostitution.  I preface the remainder of this paragraph with a big, fat, *IN MY OPINION*:  


Prostitution implies misogyny (objectification of women) and as such is a subset of misanthropy.  
It implies a contempt for life, because the John generally is actively unconcerned about the potential offspring from such a union... and (treading carefully around political/religious discussion) the prostitute is often expected - by herself, the pimp, and the John (in other words, *everyone* involved) to abort any such progeny, which I treat as contempt for life (politically, you may disagree on this point; that is your perogative and I won't argue it for fear of closing the thread).  
It implies a scorn for the dignity of sentient beings... prostitution, regardless of the "sugar and gumdrops" that may accompany it, is far from dignified - you are selling your body for cash, and that just doesn't seem to jive with dignity to me.  
I am led to understand that violence against prostitutes by both pimps and Johns is the worldwide norm - there are many exceptions, especially in more civilized countries, but it does seem to be the norm worldwide... to say nothing of the diseases inflicted upon prostitutes (hurting), oppression (by pimps and/or madams - and while society may bear some blame for "forcing" prostitutes into their roles, the individuals who then exploit them - Johns, pimps/madams, etc. should not escape blame either).  
Killing does seem to be a relative rarity, but does also happen... 

In other words, not only does prostitution in general seem (to me) to meet one or two requirements of being an "Evil" act (of which satisfying but one is enough to call something "Evil"), it seems to go "above and beyond" by checking off pretty much the entire list!  In other words, by the rules as written, I have a hard time finding acts that are "more" evil in terms of finding more ways to satisfy the list provided (torture, rape, murder come to mind)!

Yes, in specific circumstances, fewer of the items will apply.  Not all prostitutes are abused or killed or even oppressed.  But even one "checkmark" is enough to call it an "evil act" and I can't think of a circumstance in which none of the above will apply (since trading sex for cash - the "simplest" definition of prostitution regardless of all other circumstance - is by definition to me scornful of human dignity).  YMMV, but there it is.  

Prostitution, to me, looks like one of the *EASIEST* examples to find of an "evil act" in the Rules As Written.  I am surprised, honestly, that we have seen so many people so vociferously defending it IN TERMS OF THE RULES AS WRITTEN.  I understand that you may have issues with the RAW (on whether or not good and evil are objective, on whether or not the lists given are correct even if they are), but the original question asked "RAW" so if you object to the RAW on general principles, that's fine for another thread but remains totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Of course, if my players are any indication, there will people who go to their grave saying, "the only things a paladin can't do are cast spells that explicitly state 'casting this spell is an evil act' and 'murder innocents' because those are the only acts that the rules explicitly state are wrong" because players always want the smallest possible definition of "evil acts" - because they read "evil acts" as "restrictions on how I play my character" - regardless of whether or not the rules as written obviously contemplate more acts than just those explicitly listed since they give guidelines for adjudicating those acts that are not explicitly listed.

I think I am done contributing/ranting for now. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

The Sigil said:
			
		

> The problem is that this is really an alignment thread in disguise.



Of course it is.  Most of the long ones are.   I'm VERY late to this thread, but it has been an immensely interesting read.  If infuriating at times.  People seem to have very different definitions than I of what constitutes "Good" and often completely unrecognizable definitions of "Lawful."  I'm particularly interested in your conclusion that Cedric is "good (with strong neutral tendencies)" from the post I'm about to dissect.



> Even a "stardust and gumdrops" prostitution service does not exhibit a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, as it places a higher value on sex and money than on human dignity (or "sentient being dignity," if you will).  Prostitution, therefore, cannot be good by definition.



What makes "stardust and gumdrops" prostitution un-good is that it is some form of attack on the prostitute's dignity?  I would buy that, but only if her personal dignitiy is somehow predicated on so superficial a thing as who she gives orgasms to.  Placing this immense burden of morality on the reproductive act is very strange to me.  (And I spent more than half my life as a devout Catholic)  To bring it back to game terms, animals are supposedly neutral, but a female cat will have sex with any male cat that comes along when she is in heat.  Doesn't that make her wanton and evil?



> If the tradition of the church/paladins is to avoid prostitution and heavy drinking (which the exchange between Cedric and Magnus seems to expressly indicate), Cedric's dalliances with prostitutes and heavy drinking are evidence that he is not lawful, as he is not honoring tradition.
> 
> Cedric does not like being told what to do.  He favors his own ideas over tradition.  He follows his conscience and lets it guide him.  Not only is there concrete evidence in the stories that he's not lawful, his actions are those of a chaotic character - diametrically opposed to lawful.



*RELIGIOUS CONTENT REMOVED*



> Cedric does not act as a good person is expected to act (avoiding brothels is clearly expected of a good person per Magnus' comments).  He doesn't seem to be much for discipline (he does, to his credit, appear to be ever-ready to battle evil, but does not seem to be particularly disciplined).  Again, to go back to prostitution, that he's trying to "help the prostitutes get out of the brothel" tells me they're in a bad situation; not only should he be helping covertly, he should be "speaking out" against it.  He's not.



From what I've read, it sounds like this brothel is very comparable to some of those in small town America.  The girls are there as sort of a halfway house to get the heck out of the life eventually.  The patrons of the tavern know about the place, the religious hierarchy clearly knows about the place and at least some of them don't approve.  We can assume that the religious demagogues would, at best, shut the place down and run the girls out of town, thereby eliminating a place that was acting as a haven for women who fled a much harsher version of that life in the city.  What do you think the women would do then?  You tell me: what is the Good thing to do?  Oddly, just like real life, and action you take has BOTH good and bad consequences.  It is easy to claim a particular "moral high ground" out of adherence to tradition.  It is harder to live in the real world and still do the most good for the most people.  You spend a lot more nights sitting up and agonizing over the decisions you've made.  For my money, that thought and self-exploration makes you a better person than the guy who was "just following orders" and managing to do "good." YMMV

Every great spiritual and cultural revolution in history (including the one that created Christianity) was sparked by someone trying to make people think in new ways about morality, tradition, and religion.  Heck, that's what most SAINTS did.  But, apparently, paladins aren't allowed to do that.  Who knew?

On a different note: a related set of comments on prostitution's "alignment"...



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> But that doesn't mean I buy shilsen's idea that how we think about sexuality is solely a cultural construction. While I'm not an essentialist, I think it's pretty hard to argue that there are no essential aspects to how we can think and feel about sexuality.



Yep.  As a neurobiologist, I can tell you that we are wired to think "sex=fun."

Unfortunately, our culture decided "fun=bad."

As always, the interaction between "nature" and "nurture" is what tells the story, so you do the math.



			
				Ormiss said:
			
		

> As a side note, I agree with you on this. While I am not the philosopher necessary to formulate a working logic of why I feel this way, I definitely do not believe that my views on sexuality are irrational. I just can't voice the rationality.  Well, except to say that to objectify women sunders gender equality.



Of course, there is an entire wing of the feminist movement dedicated to *being* objectified on their own terms.  It's part of the sexual (not gender) equality notion.  It tends to conflict with the, arguably, inherent psycho-social deviancy of our entire culture: liking sex makes you a deviant, according to our religious and cultural dogma.  Of course, we're wired to REALLY like sex.  Mmmmmm.... dopamine....

From my, limited, experience with this movement (sub-movement?), I think it comes from a class of woman who is fed up with the whole Madonna-Whore thing.  After all, I can imagine that it must suck for women in our culture to finally let him have sex with you, and then be deflated, morally, in his eyes for doing so.

Personally, I find it much more convenient to be a guy.  We're morally repellent BEFORE the sex act as well.  The consistency is handy.

All that nonsense aside, my personal belief is that gender inequality and objectification of women are both symptoms, and have no causal relationship to one another.  Telling you what I think the actual cause is would probably close the thread.  And I would hate to be the cause of death for so long-lived a discussion.  However, the point does bring me to this:



			
				Navar said:
			
		

> Prostitution MAY not hurt (be evil) to the 2 people involved, but it does hurt society.  AND hurting society is an evil act.  This is the CRUX of the victimless crime argument.  IF prostitution is allowed to exist then society is hurt by it.  If nothing else it encourages the objectification of women.  Objectifying women is a BAD thing (even if it is the social norm it is still bad.)  So prostitution encourages a bad thing.  Prostitution = evil.  If anyone can prove that prostitution doesn't encourage the objectification of women, or that said objectification of women is a bad thing then I have other points, but lets start with this one.



Aside from all the other things wrong with this statement... You can't prove a negative.  I can prove that other things cause the objectification of women.  I can prove that some men who go to prostitutes do NOT objectify women.  I can even prove that an extremely small scale and temporally limited "objectification" has been known to produce a result that both I and the woman involved would consider "Good."  Of course, that objectification goes both ways.  Is objectification of men also a "BAD thing"?  Most men don't seem to think so.  Heck, I encourage women to objectify me.  Does wonders for the self-esteem. 

In any case, I can not prove a negative.  If you cannot budge from your position without asking for the logically impossible, no further discussion is possible.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> That said, I would argue that prostitution _is_ inherently--or at least inescapably--unequal. So, if you choose to make consent and equality the only guiding lights of your moral system, it's still inconsistent to support prostitution.



Yep, the prostitute has access to something (Sex) that the buyer does not.  If this is unequal by definition, then sales should be inconsistent with the notion of equality.

That flippant comment aside, a fair number of people here seem to be fully embracing the notion that the only way to be good is to speak out against evil and refuse to associate with anything evil.  Unfortunately, you have gone to such an extreme with this that I have a hard time seeing how you could conceptualize a good man living in the world at all without massive angst and beating of his head against the wall.  Sort of rejects the notion of "good as its own reward."


----------



## Wild Gazebo

Thought I'd get a word in before this thread closes again.  For me, I really just appreciate the gritty feel of a world where the majority of noble/clerical men are mysoginists, are classists, racists, or any other 'ist' that make people deplorable in general.  The idea that a LG aligned order is capable of great travesties--as per our lovely history--seems to play into a more enjoyable setting.  As I said earlier, much earlier, I thought it would have been great if he had a child slave doing his bidding as well.  Oh, and I believe any moral spectrum is inherently a cultural construct.  Fun topic!


----------



## kigmatzomat

I'm fairly certain how well Cedric would be accepted IMC because the NPC paladin was very similar.  Being an ogre magi, he wasn't physically able to be a womanizer, but he had the zeal to enjoy what life offered.  The fact that he planned to challenge his culture's belief that the 'races of man' were not inept buffoons who should be treated as retarded children at best and semi-sentient animal slaves at worst meant he expected to be killed for his audacity and gave him the same quasi-cynical viewpoint as Cedric.

I'm just amused at the number of people who immediately latch onto "prostitution bad."    While not a historian, prudishness is a fairly recent invention.  When the whole world was farmers, every child knew the birds and the bees by the age of 8.  Sex education, if it existed, was more about doing it _well_ than doing it _right._ 

Galahad was a rare example of purity within the Knights of the Round Table, paladins all, because he had a basically chaste lifestyle by choice.  As a Knight he could get all kinds of willing nookie and he passed it up.  That alone made him either a lunatic or a bastion of goodness.  

In my DL game the paladins were the only ones with access to Cure Disease for centuries and they supported the prostitutes guild.  Willingly?  Not all.  But it was the best way to minimize the spread of STDs and plagues in general.  

Guildmembers carried a token, that changed regularly, to indicate they were clean.  When each prostitute (be they male or female) came to the Paladin, they were not only checked for illness but the paladin ensured they were there of their own choice.  They acted as confessors to the prostitues and were generally trusted due to their oath.  

The fact that the KoS then had a *massive* information gathering network at the street level was not lost on most nobles.


----------



## Piratecat

Canis, I have removed the religious content from your post.  Real-world religion is not permitted on EN World.  Please stay far, far away from that topic in the future.

Thanks.


----------



## Squire James

I think I've said this before (I voted on the poll long ago), but here goes...

If someone were to bring Cedric's character sheet to my game and start going over his background, I'd look at him funny and tell him he must have brought the wrong Cedric to the game because the story doesn't go with what's on the sheet at all!  If he asks me what the problem is, I'll point to the word "Paladin" and declare that the background indicates that word should be "Rogue" (or, if "Complete series" classes are allowed, "Favored Soul").  He can even stay Lawful Good, and think he's a paladin.

This isn't saying Cedric wouldn't be a darn interesting character, I just gotta shrug my shoulders and say "not in my game" if he wants that word "Paladin" to stay there.


----------



## shilsen

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Canis, I have removed the religious content from your post.  Real-world religion is not permitted on EN World.  Please stay far, far away from that topic in the future.
> 
> Thanks.



 Thanks for just firing a warning shot, Piratecat!


----------



## Wild Gazebo

I thought for sure it was toast...again.


----------



## shilsen

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> I thought for sure it was toast...again.



 Oh, ye of little faith - just like those who don't believe in Cedric


----------



## Orius

shilsen said:
			
		

> Oh, ye of little faith - just like those who don't believe in Cedric




Heh heh.


----------



## Torm

It just occurred to me, reading Rel's prostitute thread: Cedric should have a small group of ex-prostitute paladin cohorts!

Here's my train of thought. Rel said the characters in his game looked at the prices at a brothel, looked at their gold, and determined they could stay pretty much as long as they wanted. Which got me thinking that it would be cheaper and cleaner, in the long run, to set up their own place and put the women on retainer there. And that got me thinking about what the long-term results, in a medieval society, of having daily access to a Paladin's healing would do to a young woman as she grew into her 20s - she'd be perfect, relatively speaking, as though she had access to modern health care or better.

If Cedric has been providing Divine healing to the women of the brothel regularly, and teaching them occasionally of his god, and some of them started (as they may have, in a medieval society) in their mid-teens, Cedric may have done more than kept them clean - he may have affected their development to the point where he has created a small group of women with Charisma high enough and Knowledge (Cedric's deity) enough to warrant THEM being called as Paladins, too!


----------



## kigmatzomat

Torm said:
			
		

> It just occurred to me, reading Rel's prostitute thread: Cedric should have a small group of ex-prostitute paladin cohorts!




Well, if prostitution is not seen as an evil, they could be current-prostitue cohorts.  It would seem hypocritical for Cedric to frequent a place and then force any followers you cultivate to quit.


----------



## Torm

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Well, if prostitution is not seen as an evil, they could be current-prostitue cohorts.  It would seem hypocritical for Cedric to frequent a place and then force any followers you cultivate to quit.



I wasn't thinking they'd be _forced_ to quit, so much as they'd be too busy doing Paladin stuff, and only hooking as a sidebar, if at all.


----------



## Desdichado

Canis said:
			
		

> Yep.  As a neurobiologist, I can tell you that we are wired to think "sex=fun."
> 
> Unfortunately, our culture decided "fun=bad."
> 
> As always, the interaction between "nature" and "nurture" is what tells the story, so you do the math.



That's as ridiculous in the D&D milieu as it is in the real world.  Sure, sex is fun.  I'll be the first to admit it.  Sex outside of carefully controlled scenarios leads to all kinds of complications.  Teen pregnancies, or heck, any single mother or unwanted pregnancy scenarios are only the tip of the iceberg.  STDs is another tip of the iceberg.  Pretending that there aren't any reasons to be careful about sex other than cultural is a bit quixotic.

However, in terms of responding to this post as a response to The Sigil's post, there seems to be very little in the D&D milieu that says sex or even prostitution is evil or chaotic either one.  In fact, in the FR at least, there seems to be a fair amount of circumstantial and indirect evidence to the opposite viewpoint.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's as ridiculous in the D&D milieu as it is in the real world.  Sure, sex is fun.  I'll be the first to admit it.  Sex outside of carefully controlled scenarios leads to all kinds of complications.  Teen pregnancies, or heck, any single mother or unwanted pregnancy scenarios are only the tip of the iceberg.  STDs is another tip of the iceberg.  Pretending that there aren't any reasons to be careful about sex other than cultural is a bit quixotic.




I agree that potential real-world health consequences make prostitution a risky business,  ignoring any disagreement on morality. 

In a fantasy world where a guy says "Be Healed!" and you are, STDs become a minor issue (kinda like the 70's but with better penicillin).  While herbal contraceptives are only moderately effective IRL, one would imagine that the combination of magically cultivated plants and alchemists would eliminated unwanted pregnancies.  

At that point the only rationale against prostitution would be if it were evil.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> However, in terms of responding to this post as a response to The Sigil's post, there seems to be very little in the D&D milieu that says sex or even prostitution is evil or chaotic either one.  In fact, in the FR at least, there seems to be a fair amount of circumstantial and indirect evidence to the opposite viewpoint.




Well, there is the fact that all the deities that deal with things like romance and sexual relations are Chaotic (specifically, I'm looking at Sune and Sharess) and the main fertility goddess is Neutral (Chauntea).


----------



## Torm

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, there is the fact that all the deities that deal with things like romance and sexual relations are Chaotic (specifically, I'm looking at Sune and Sharess) and the main fertility goddess is Neutral (Chauntea).



I wouldn't think that implies that sex itself is Chaotic Neutral, though, so much as that is the alignment that can encompass the _full range_ of alignments that sex can be expressed in. If you have access to the BoEF, it does an excellent job of describing sex by alignment, in my opinion.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Torm said:
			
		

> If you have access to the BoEF, it does an excellent job of describing sex by alignment, in my opinion.




I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even it puts the sex with prostitutes portion firmly in the Chaotic camp.


----------



## Desdichado

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> In a fantasy world where a guy says "Be Healed!" and you are, STDs become a minor issue (kinda like the 70's but with better penicillin).  While herbal contraceptives are only moderately effective IRL, one would imagine that the combination of magically cultivated plants and alchemists would eliminated unwanted pregnancies.



STDs were only one of my objections, though.  And the magically cultivated plants and alchemists as birth control are a handwave.  There's *absolutely nothing* in any D&D book I've ever read to suggest such a thing.

Of course, I'm taking a bit of a devil's advocate position here; I like shilsen's concept.  I've suggested something similar to it in the past as about the only concept that would encourage me to actually play a paladin.


----------



## Torm

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even it puts the sex with prostitutes portion firmly in the Chaotic camp.



Really?

Read it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Torm said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Read it.




To do that I'd have to buy it.

Proving or disproving a minor point is not worth the cost ... or the shame!


----------



## Alodar

What's the problem? Some of the most morally upright people I know hide it with a lot of stage dressing and fancy talk.  Cedric tries so hard to fit the "dissipated" mold that he's almost got to be half-faking it.


----------



## domino

I would not allow him, no.


----------



## Torm

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> To do that I'd have to buy it.
> 
> Proving or disproving a minor point is not worth the cost ... or the shame!



Okay, then I'll give you the short version - it describes Lawful Good as it pertains to sex as entering into relations in which all involved parties have a clear idea of the terms of the relationship up front - regardless of the nature of the sexual relationship itself - and those terms are abided by.

If that doesn't describe straight forward prostitution, I don't know what does.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Torm said:
			
		

> Okay, then I'll give you the short version - it describes Lawful Good as it pertains to sex as entering into relations in which all involved parties have a clear idea of the terms of the relationship up front - regardless of the nature of the sexual relationship itself - and those terms are abided by.
> 
> If that doesn't describe straight forward prostitution, I don't know what does.




If anything, that sounds like a Lawful Neutral proposition and mindset.


----------



## domino

Torm said:
			
		

> Okay, then I'll give you the short version - it describes Lawful Good as it pertains to sex as entering into relations in which all involved parties have a clear idea of the terms of the relationship up front - regardless of the nature of the sexual relationship itself - and those terms are abided by.
> 
> If that doesn't describe straight forward prostitution, I don't know what does.



That can't be the only working factor.  Else, RAPE fits under that description.  And that's just not Good under any interpretation.


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I want to re-iterate a point Elder-Basilisk made in his (lengthy) post, but in my own words.
> 
> One act does not a person's alignment define... it is possible for good people to do evil acts, and vice versa.  However, a paladin is held to a higher standard than simply maintaining a lawful good alignment.  *He cannot commit even a single evil act without losing his paladinhood.*
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> The above text states that an ACT can be adjudged as evil, not just an individual.  In other words, acts have an objective moral state (more on this below).
> 
> I have, and Elder Basilisk has, already raised the objection that Cedric's behavior smacks of chaotic alignment, and not lawful alignment.  I won't re-hash that here.  I want to "drill down" on the "willfully commits an evil act" portion of the paladin's code, and pull some more from the SRD.
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> By the rules as written, good and evil are objective states - in other words, what your culture accepts as "desirable" and "undesirable" (and what its language will refer to as "good" and "evil" respectively) is *not* used to determine whether or not an act is objectively good or evil.  This means that all considerations of "good or bad brothel" or "culturally acceptable" or even "sacred temple prostitutes" are 100% moot.  These are cultural externalities that do not have an effect on whether or not an act is Good or Evil (I'll use capitals from here on out to refer to the "objective good" and "objective evil" in the RAW as opposed to the "desirable" and "undesirable" acts which vary by culture).
> 
> Every act falls into one of three categories, then, on an objective scale: Good, Evil, or neither.  The act of choosing to eat your potatoes before your carrots or vice versa, for instance, falls under "neither" (I have a hard time thinking of non-absurdly-artifically-constructed-solely-for-the-purposes-of-being-ridiculous circumstances that would make it Good or Evil by the rules as written).  I will posit that if we cannot find a reason that an act satisfies an objective condition derived from the RAW that would make it Good or Evil, it is "neither."
> 
> We get very little guidance from the SRD as to exactly how we are to objectively evaluate acts to place them in the categories of good and evil.  Obviously, we get help from some spells ("casting this spell is an evil act") but the alignment section itself gives rather sparse guidelines...
> 
> Originally Posted by SRD
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
> 
> I will posit that we can expand these definitions by including the opposite qualities (since we are dealing in objective terms, it seems reasonable that if the opposite of "good" is "evil" then the diametric opposite of something that is good would be evil and vice versa); i.e.:
> 
> "Evil" implies misanthropy, contempt for life, and a scorn for the dignity of sentient beings... and hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
> --The Sigil




In RAW objective alignment exists in the game world even though the definitions themselves are vague with little hard guidance. In the game world a paladin can commit an objectively evil act that can cost him his paladin powers. I agree with you there Sigil.

However, your extrapolated definition of evil acts seems exceedingly over broad and not a natural reading of the term as used in the game. 

It would seem to prohibit a paladin from huting or killing others. So no fighting evil. Period. It is expressly in the srd as something implied by evil.

Here are the problems I have with your extrapolated alignment definition expansions leading to your stated view of evil acts:

First implied does not equal the thing itself. Your expanded definition assumes that it does. Even though evil implies killing others, killing others does not necessarily equal evil. Under your expanded implied opposites view, killing others would also be considered good if done to protect others. The killing would be evil but the protection would be good.

Second you take anything implying the opposite of the implied qualities of good as defining evil while only some of those show up on the express list of qualities implied by evil. You are adding inferences and definitions that are not there in the srd. It does not say they are mirror opposites. Self interest as an opposite of altruism is not necessarily evil.

Third, to take your prior argument, mean does not equal evil. I would say the same applies to defining evil acts for paladins.

I would say your definition of evil acts seems a possible extrapolation of the srd guides, but it requires making unsupported inferential leaps and leads to artificial and unnecessary absurdities.

Under your extrapolated definition a paladin entering his first fight against an evil foe necessarily loses his paladin powers immediately.

PS my understanding of alignment descriptor spells is that there is no rule saying casting them is an aligned act, only that the spell itself detects as an aligned thing under detect alignment spells and divine casters do not have access to oppositely aligned spells. I would not say wielding an unholy sword is an evil act, nor would I say an evil summoner summoning an angel is doing a good act. In fact if he were to do so to commit heinously evil acts then I would say he is committing an evil act, though using supernatural good power to do so. And evil spells are a moot point because evil acts are only relevant in the context of paladins who do not have any evil descriptor spells on their spell list.


----------



## domino

Mean does not equal evil, no.

But paladins shouldn't be mean either.


----------



## Torm

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> If anything, that sounds like a Lawful Neutral proposition and mindset.



You're right - I left out the part where it says that the LG character will seek to enter relationships in this fashion that serve the desires of the other party or parties moreso than their own.

So, in other words, while Cedric is technically the one receiving the service, HE does an awful lot of the "work."  Probably one of the reasons the girls like him so much.


----------



## Ds Da Man

Cool concept....God chose his paladin, not paladin chose his god.....Good writing, and anybody coming up with a story like that for his character I would allow. 

Edit: Reread and thought, "Im a jacka$$". Sorry for the comment!


----------



## Heathen72

Ds Da Man said:
			
		

> ...And didn't JC end up with the hooker?



You're playing with fire there, Ds Da Man!


----------



## Ds Da Man

Yeah, maybe a tad bit bad choice on words, but kinda meant to show that JC didn't just hang out with the upper class, he was in the bottoms, helping the folks who really needed him!


----------



## Estlor

I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion without crossing over boundary lines, but I'll make an attempt anyway.

I think the paladin described herein suffers from two things that keep him from being a true paladin - misogyny and fatalistic doubt. And by that I mean 1) he had no respect for women and 2) he doesn't believe in his calling.

The problem is there is a lot of hair splitting going on here. In an attempt to define a paladin's code we're arguing over the definition of evil in a manner similar to defending something by saying, "Well, that all depends on your definition of 'is.'" Instead of looking at the words of the code, look at the spirit of it.

A paladin is a champion of the causes of order and morality as they relate to each other, hand-picked by a god and blessed with powers beyond the scope of a normal fighter. In some cases a cleric is much more a "weapon of the gods," but (IMHO) it seems like the cleric is more the warrior of the god's church and the paladin is more the warrior of the god. A RAW support of this is found in the mechanics that permit a cleric of a LG god to be NG or LN, but a paladin chosen by a LG god _must_ be LG.



			
				Merriam Webster Dictionary said:
			
		

> *Gace :* *a : *unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification *b* *:* a virtue coming from God *c* *:* a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace.
> 
> *Virtue :* *a* *:* conformity to a standard of right *: MORALITY* *b* *:* a particular moral excellence




The important thing about the paladin is it's not just about what's legal or what's moral to him. It's about supporting an environment in which morality guides law and law affirms morality. A modern example would be seat belt laws. You might say, "What business does the government have in telling me how I should drive me car?" But the philisophical root of that law is that 1) seatbelts save lives and 2) it's the responsibility of an enlightened government body to protect its citizens, often from themselves.

Now a paladin isn't a nanny or a babysitter. They know that not everyone is called to the same level of pious virtue that they are. No one is perfect (not even the paladin, though they're close), and everyone sins (in the D&D good/evil padagrim sense) from time to time. That's why a paladin doesn't promote a nanny-state in which they lead and strictly administer rights to others to prevent them from doing something "evil." A paladin recognizes that certain things are amoral - drinking, sex, dancing, gambling, rock music - and, in a healthy state these things do not need to be outlawed or condemned. However, the important thing to remember is that a paladin's state of grace is as important to them as the grace of those around them.

Like I said, certain things are amoral. However, if they exist or are used in an irresponsible manner, they become temptors. No doubt you've heard of the term "gateway drug." The idea behind that is that cigarettes and alcohol may be legal, uncontrolled substances, but the use of such increases one's likelihood to use illegal, uncontrolled substances. Likewise, irresponsible use of alcohol can also lead to other harmful behaviors such as casual sex or vehicular accidents. (*Warning:* Here's the most religious thing I'm going to say) A paladin, as a bastion of order and morality in an immoral, chaotic world, is obligated to avoid such acts that would place his immortal soul in peril. To put it secularly, he tries to avoid the temptation to break his oath.

Going back to Cedric, our example "paladin," he is currently in a state of casual sex and wanton drinking. Let's look into his motives.

At the brothel, Cedric sleeps with any number of women and hints at wishing to do the same with the madam, but he tempers this act by healing the girls and providing them with funds. Good act? What are his motivations? Does he go to the brothel to heal the girls and donate money freely? No. He goes to the brothel to have sex and heals while he's there anyway. He's not worried about those girls, he's worried about satiating his ever present lust. And before you bring up the money, the money he pays is irrelevant. A paladin who aids the poor does so without seeking anything in return. A paladin that acts according to the RAW (and to the expanded understanding of the RAW found in the BoED) would pay the money, heal the girls, tip his hat, and move on to the tavern for the night.

At the tavern, Cedric knocks back pint after pint while talking about the futility of his task. His drinking is not problematic. Chances are he drinks because he's a depressed fatalist. He genuinely believes that someday he is going to die and, no matter how much good he achieves in the meantime, it all means nothing because he can never succeed. He's turned to drinking to cope with the quiet times when he isn't killing sinners or womanizing about the town. That's neither a selfless nor a sacrificing attitude for a supposed bastion of morality and order chosen by a god to act as the arm of goodness on the Prime. He isn't inspiring those around him to strive for a higher cause or a greater good. If anything he would inspire them to turn away and take up the cause of hedonism - "Squeeze every last drop out of life, son, because some day you'll be dead and it won't matter. Tonight we drink!"

Cedric is a perfect example of an ex-paladin. He hasn't fallen, he's just fallen away. Something must have happened to splinter his understanding of the world around him to make him doubt the purpose of any of it. Maybe, someday, he can pull it back together and return to his state of grace, but for now he's the grizzled old drunk at the bar that tells stories of how things used to be.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Canis, I have removed the religious content from your post.  Real-world religion is not permitted on EN World.  Please stay far, far away from that topic in the future.
> 
> Thanks.



Sorry, guys.  Apparently my barometer of what's objectionable has gotten skewed during my long period of board inactivity.  That isn't even the part of the post that I was worried about.  I shall be more careful all around in the future.


----------



## Seeten

Estlor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion without crossing over boundary lines, but I'll make an attempt anyway.
> 
> I think the paladin described herein suffers from two things that keep him from being a true paladin - misogyny and fatalistic doubt. And by that I mean 1) he had no respect for women and 2) he doesn't believe in his calling.




You say he is a misogynist. I say he has more respect than any man who knows he will die young, marrying anyway, and leaving a widow behind. He avoids the entanglement. He treats the girls well. He obviously treats them with respect. He keeps them safe. He gives extra money towards their welfare.  I say in the Wild Wild West there were brothels, and there are today, despite our high society mindset, getting rid of them is not only not likely, but liable to be non-lawful. Try removing prostitution in Las Vegas, for example.

Part of the reason why Paladins suck is because all the high minded people put unreasonable non RAW expectations on them based on their OWN feelings, rather than based on the religion or calling they are actually from.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's as ridiculous in the D&D milieu as it is in the real world.  Sure, sex is fun.  I'll be the first to admit it.  Sex outside of carefully controlled scenarios leads to all kinds of complications.  Teen pregnancies, or heck, any single mother or unwanted pregnancy scenarios are only the tip of the iceberg.  STDs is another tip of the iceberg.  Pretending that there aren't any reasons to be careful about sex other than cultural is a bit quixotic.



I didn't pretend that.  I don't think I explicitly trivialized anything.  If the poor attempt at humor made it sound like I was trivializing it, that was not my intent.  I laugh so as to avoid crying.  In any event, I made no judgment, moral, practical, or otherwise, on sex in that comment.  I said we are wired to think that sex is fun.  Which we are.  (I could get into an explicit description of how that works, but detailed conversations about the medial preoptic area and dopamine receptors tend to make people's eyes glaze over.)  I also said that our culture generally equates fun with sin or "badness."  Which it does, if you belong to the same determinedly Judeo-Christian culture I do (your culture may vary, check your parents for washing instructions)

In any case, I am not espousing the opposite idea that fun = good.  Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.  My problem with the cultural mandate on the subject is that it is too broad.  Some types of fun ARE bad.  Some of them are good, bad, or ugly depending on circumstances.  For example, I do believe that giving other people pleasure is good.  But when you are also simultaneously giving them an STD, that's not so good (downright evil if you have an inkling that you might be doing it).  If you're also giving them a significant contribution towards an embryo, that's either really good or really bad depending on the circumstances.



> However, in terms of responding to this post as a response to The Sigil's post, there seems to be very little in the D&D milieu that says sex or even prostitution is evil or chaotic either one.  In fact, in the FR at least, there seems to be a fair amount of circumstantial and indirect evidence to the opposite viewpoint.



Absolutely.  I specifically said "our culture" not the D&D one.  As you said, in D&D terms, neither is evil or chaotic.  But if people were really basing their judgment of what made a paladin on the D&D milieu, we wouldn't have a couple hundred posts on the subject.  Which is not to say that we couldn't have a difference of opinion on the subject, but that we (hopefully) wouldn't feel so strongly about it as to keep posting.  It is very clear to me that decisions in this thread are almost entirely based on the cultural and personal inclinations of the posters, and have very little to do with D&D, really.


----------



## Seeten

Another point, everyone seems to assume the Gods have a personal stake and relationship with each and every paladin. That they micromanage every single one. I dont see it. I am more of the mind that even if one was falling from grace, it'd take more than one incident for the whole affair to get noticed. Once it is noticed, however, and the eye is on you, you could lose your powers fast.

There is a neat story in the Divine and the Defeated, about Corean's Fallen Paladin, and his redemption. It tells a story of his fall(which took multiple selfish and evil acts) and the story of his redemption. I think its a dim and narrow view that gods have nothing better to do than micromanage each and every one of their paladins


----------



## Dakkareth

> Magnus blushed at the comment, but Shikuna went on, almost as if talking to himself. "You were right. The paladin does stand on the edge between light and darkness, but every paladin besides Cedric faces into the light. He looks over the edge into the darkness. Every moment of every day, he watches the dark, and he watches the dark watch him, and he walks the edge between the two. He is one of the few - the very few - whom the High Lord blesses with true sight and understanding, and that is as much of a curse as a gift."




I haven't read the discussion in this thread, but I'd like to say, that I'm reminded of Eadric in Sepulchrave's Tales of Wyre 'walking the diamond path'. 


Edit:



> I think its a dim and narrow view that gods have nothing better to do than micromanage each and every one of their paladins.



It may be different from setting to setting, but the general assumption is, that they CAN, if they want. And paladins being important extensions of a deities will, they'll probably do it. Even going only by rules (which some think of as not representative of a deities true power) gods can do many things at once and have more than enough servants to delegate.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Estlor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion without crossing over boundary lines, but I'll make an attempt anyway.
> 
> I think the paladin described herein suffers from two things that keep him from being a true paladin - misogyny and fatalistic doubt. And by that I mean 1) he had no respect for women and 2) he doesn't believe in his calling.



To my mind, (2) is a debatable subject that will ultimately be between Cedric and his god (or Shilsen and his DM).  (1) is pure nonsense.  You are conflating patronizing a prostitute with misogyny.  At best, you are mistaking correlation for causation.  I wouldn't feel bad about it.  It seems to be a common problem.


----------



## Seeten

> Seeten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I think its a dim and narrow view that gods have nothing better to do than micromanage each and every one of their paladins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be different from setting to setting, but the general assumption is, that they CAN, if they want. And paladins being important extensions of a deities will, they'll probably do it. Even going only by rules (which some think of as not representative of a deities true power) gods can do many things at once and have more than enough servants to delegate.
Click to expand...



No Gods in my settings are omniscient. It'd have to be a single god world for omniscience to be supported.  Lack of omniscience = Lack of micromanagement. There are certainly not Invisible Angels hovering around every Paladin to insure he isnt "Falling from grace" and if there were, and he was about to die, they'd have to intervene, IMC, or THEY would fall from grace. Basically, I think its a contrivance and is silly.  YMMV, but thats how I do it.

Falling from grace is harder, and lengthier. If your alignment hits LN, you've fallen, just like you'd expect, but a single act of "badness" is not enough to do it. A single act evil enough to attract attention might warrant it, but sleeping around on your wife, or going on a good drunk dont qualify.  Patterns of behaviour over a period do.

Perhaps mine is different because I play with more roleplayers and less hackers, and thus, we like more substance than, I am Paladin, so my dm demands I take this action for A situation, and that action for B and any deviation loses my paladinhood.


----------



## Voadam

Seeten said:
			
		

> Another point, everyone seems to assume the Gods have a personal stake and relationship with each and every paladin. That they micromanage every single one. I dont see it. I am more of the mind that even if one was falling from grace, it'd take more than one incident for the whole affair to get noticed. Once it is noticed, however, and the eye is on you, you could lose your powers fast.
> 
> There is a neat story in the Divine and the Defeated, about Corean's Fallen Paladin, and his redemption. It tells a story of his fall(which took multiple selfish and evil acts) and the story of his redemption. I think its a dim and narrow view that gods have nothing better to do than micromanage each and every one of their paladins




Under RAW a paladin does not need a god. However godless paladins still lose their paladin powers immediately if they commit an evil act.

A good way to think about it is that paladin powers require a certain kind of spiritual purity that can be disrupted by the paladin doing an evil act.

No micromanagement required whether they have patron gods they serve or not.


----------



## shilsen

Dakkareth said:
			
		

> I haven't read the discussion in this thread, but I'd like to say, that I'm reminded of Eadric in Sepulchrave's Tales of Wyre 'walking the diamond path'.




You just compared something I wrote with Sepulchrave's Story Hour? Okay, that does it - I'm going off to throw myself on my holy avenger, since from this moment, the wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees is left this vault to brag of. Oh yes, thanks!


----------



## Son_of_Thunder

*Would I allow this paladin?*

Do you want it in one word or two.

No and/or Hell No!

He's not a paladin in my campaign, not even a cleric or favored soul.


----------



## Torm

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Do you want it in one word or two.
> 
> No and/or Hell No!
> 
> He's not a paladin in my campaign, not even a cleric or favored soul.



But...

Tell us what you REALLY think!


----------



## Darth K'Trava

You'd think that they'd know by NOW whether or not this guy is still a paladin in this game......  :\


----------



## Gez

My vote is the 421st! That's a lucky gamble! what do I win?


----------



## Rystil Arden

I remember when I was still a lurker and I first saw this thread.  Now its time to weigh in: 



> It is very clear to me that decisions in this thread are almost entirely based on the cultural and personal inclinations of the posters, and have very little to do with D&D, really.




I agree with this for the most part, although I'd like to think that I (and some of the others who agree with me) *did* make my decision that Cedric is A-OK on the basis of the D&D rules, rather than from real-world ideological judgments, whereas those who immediately dismiss Cedric do so because of personal reasons.  I'm sure those of you, like Pielo, who read the "jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf" thread know from my opinions on that thread in the Rules Forum the amount of respect that I pay the ruleset, so I'd like to think that my decision is based upon the rules, and that others are projecting real-world belief-systems into their game (and not to say unjustly so, for that seems to be the very intention of some of the quite reasonable naysayers in the thread, as compared to the "No and/or Hell No!" guys).


----------



## Allanon

Wow after reading this whole thread (and that ain't bragging) I can only say... yes I'd allow this Paladin. Why, first I love the backstory and his motivations. Second as a DM he would be very appriopriate as a PC because of his outset, he would be interesting and a surefire way of adding interesting plot hooks to an ongoing campaign.

Oh and btw. Shilsen the short pieces of story you hid through this thread alone for me put you on the same "Need to read that storyhour" level as Shemeska, Piratecat and Sepulchrave.


----------



## shilsen

Gez said:
			
		

> My vote is the 421st! That's a lucky gamble! what do I win?




Congratulations! Here you go!

*hands Gez something that reads "I posted on that damn paladin thread and all I got was this lousy chainmail bikini"*



			
				Allanon said:
			
		

> Oh and btw. Shilsen the short pieces of story you hid through this thread alone for me put you on the same "Need to read that storyhour" level as Shemeska, Piratecat and Sepulchrave.




*swoons in ecstasy* 

*opens eye and notes smiley*

*decides not to give a damn and swoons anyway*

Actually, with some of the compliments on this thread helping to swell my already overdeveloped head, I'm considering working on some of the writeups I do for my group and turning them into a story hour.  I'm off on summer break (back to India for 3 months) in 3 weeks time, so I should have a fair bit of free time.


----------



## Carpe DM

Absolutely -- I'd not only allow it, I'd love it.

Here are some other riffs on the "non-standard" paladin that I've really enjoyed seeing in play:

1.  The Paladin of Love: why on earth would a paladin of a goddess of love be a prude and a sissy?  We had one person play a temple "priestess" (there's another term) in the old fertile crescent tradition.  Gives the immunity to disease and the cure abilities a completely new meaning. 

2. The Unwilling: This one I really enjoyed.  The guy *wanted* to do all sorts of bad stuff -- he was a regular person like us all.  The problem was that his god talked to him. Literally.  And told him not to.  It was hilarious.  He'd start oggling some barmaid and ....stop.  He'd roll his eyes at the ceiling and say "oh, you CAN'T be SERIOUS!"

3. The decent man:  This guy refused to admit he was anything special.  Just some guy with a sword.  He wasn't devoted to a god in particular.  He just loved his wife and kids very, very much.  And was willing to fight the evil that threatened the world just to keep them safe.  My favorite paladin-of-a-cause concept.


----------



## Psychic Warrior

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Do you want it in one word or two.
> 
> No and/or Hell No!
> 
> He's not a paladin in my campaign, not even a cleric or favored soul.




Why?


----------



## iwatt

Carpe DM said:
			
		

> 2. The Unwilling: This one I really enjoyed.  The guy *wanted* to do all sorts of bad stuff -- he was a regular person like us all.  The problem was that his god talked to him. Literally.  And told him not to.  It was hilarious.  He'd start oggling some barmaid and ....stop.  He'd roll his eyes at the ceiling and say "oh, you CAN'T be SERIOUS!"




Love this....  

by the way......WHY WON?T THIS THREAD DIE!!!


----------



## Voadam

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I remember when I was still a lurker and I first saw this thread.  Now its time to weigh in:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this for the most part, although I'd like to think that I (and some of the others who agree with me) *did* make my decision that Cedric is A-OK on the basis of the D&D rules, rather than from real-world ideological judgments, whereas those who immediately dismiss Cedric do so because of personal reasons.  I'm sure those of you, like Pielo, who read the "jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf" thread know from my opinions on that thread in the Rules Forum the amount of respect that I pay the ruleset, so I'd like to think that my decision is based upon the rules, and that others are projecting real-world belief-systems into their game (and not to say unjustly so, for that seems to be the very intention of some of the quite reasonable naysayers in the thread, as compared to the "No and/or Hell No!" guys).




Check out the Sigil's arguments in this thread though. They argue that engaging a prostitute is an evil act based on extrapolations of the srd definitions of good and evil. I think his rules extrapolations are invalid, but I believe he thinks naysaying is fully supported by the rules.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I agree with this for the most part, although I'd like to think that I (and some of the others who agree with me) *did* make my decision that Cedric is A-OK on the basis of the D&D rules, rather than from real-world ideological judgments, whereas those who immediately dismiss Cedric do so because of personal reasons.  I'm sure those of you, like Pielo, who read the "jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf" thread know from my opinions on that thread in the Rules Forum the amount of respect that I pay the ruleset, so I'd like to think that my decision is based upon the rules, and that others are projecting real-world belief-systems into their game (and not to say unjustly so, for that seems to be the very intention of some of the quite reasonable naysayers in the thread, as compared to the "No and/or Hell No!" guys).



I don't think that's fair, either.  "The people that agree with me are staying within the bounds of the exercise, but the people who don't are not."

My point is that people on both sides of the argument used the rules to justify their points, but they had already made the decision before they started looking at the rules.  All referents to the rules are secondary rationalizations.  It's convenient that you can read the rules both ways, but not unusual.  The Devil quotes Scripture to his own purpose, after all. 

I'm equally guilty.  I would accept Cedric because he's a wonderful illustration of how far off the mark of true "Good"ness I find your average dogmatic paladin.  It's a convenience that I can easily read the RAW in a way that allows for him, despite my gross differences of opinion with the RAW on what constitutes Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Canis said:
			
		

> I don't think that's fair, either.  "The people that agree with me are staying within the bounds of the exercise, but the people who don't are not."
> 
> My point is that people on both sides of the argument used the rules to justify their points, but they had already made the decision before they started looking at the rules.  All referents to the rules are secondary rationalizations.  It's convenient that you can read the rules both ways, but not unusual.  The Devil quotes Scripture to his own purpose, after all.
> 
> I'm equally guilty.  I would accept Cedric because he's a wonderful illustration of how far off the mark of true "Good"ness I find your average dogmatic paladin.  It's a convenience that I can easily read the RAW in a way that allows for him, despite my gross differences of opinion with the RAW on what constitutes Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc.





> I don't think that's fair, either. "The people that agree with me are staying within the bounds of the exercise, but the people who don't are not."



Hey I didn't say that   I said I'd like to think that *some* of the people who agreed with me did so because of the rules, but I acknowledged that it was possible this was not the case.  I know that I did not pass judgment until I cracked open the Player's Handbook and reread the Paladin's Code, and I made my judgment based solely on the rules, as far as I'm concerned.  I'm willing to accept the argument that I still might have been biased and I acknowledged that, so please, don't build a straw man for me where I've already qualified 

More to the point, though, I find some of the anti-Cedric ideological arguments to be thoughtful and apt, but I have yet to see a convincing rules argument from that side.  They have been more of the line: "I know I'm right, so after begging the question and assuming I'm right, I can paint in the things I want it to say between the lines because the rules are not stopping me from restricting Cedric."


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Hey I didn't say that   I said I'd like to think that *some* of the people who agreed with me did so because of the rules, but I acknowledged that it was possible this was not the case.  I know that I did not pass judgment until I cracked open the Player's Handbook and reread the Paladin's Code, and I made my judgment based solely on the rules, as far as I'm concerned.  I'm willing to accept the argument that I still might have been biased and I acknowledged that, so please, don't build a straw man for me where I've already qualified



Fair enough.    I prefer to think of it as finding the essence of the argument, rather than straw-man building.  And I use whatever materials are available.  Is it my fault there's so much straw lying around on the internet?


> More to the point, though, I find some of the anti-Cedric ideological arguments to be thoughtful and apt, but I have yet to see a convincing rules argument from that side.  They have been more of the line: "I know I'm right, so after begging the question and assuming I'm right, I can paint in the things I want it to say between the lines because the rules are not stopping me from restricting Cedric."



I found a couple of the rules arguments reasonable, but they all require massive DM judgment calls one way or the other on what certain abstract game concepts really mean.  Which makes the rules no help in any case.


----------



## Filby

I voted "no." Not because he patrons a brothel -- if his order allows it, then he's okay. I chose "no" because Cedric seems to do good deeds not because it's the right thing to do, but because he doesn't want to deal with the guilt of not doing them. He also doesn't seem to like his order very much. His motives are impure. To me he looks more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote

*Yes, and at least three more JUST LIKE HIM!*

Duh, I voted yes.  And, no, I don't want three more paladins just like Cedric, but I would be totally awe-struck and grateful if four different players showed up to a new DnD campaign with characters as well developed as this one.

If the game world restricted paladins to such an extent that this character SHOULDN'T be allowed I'd bend/break/stomp on the rules to let this character in the game.


----------



## Ds Da Man

Lawful good=lawful happy


----------



## I'm A Banana

It's a fair cop. Much like a Paladin using Sneak Attack (which probably wouldn't be allowed under any kind of chivalric code of combat...it amounts to "kick them in the junk when they aren't looking"), a paladin using profanity and lacking a certain respect for underlings is just fine. Brothels aren't inherently wicked places, and neither are shady bars. He does good while he's there, and he treats creatures with honor. He's Lawful. He's Good. He doesn't have to be *nice* (as the common trope of the egotistical, domineering paladin proves)


----------



## Mr. Kaze

It's probably been said in the many pages of thread, but this example really highlights the problem with making roleplaying restrictions on an otherwise mechanical core class.  The "Suicide Machine" aspect of the class drives him to behave in certain ways which strike me as no less acceptable and generally more rational than the usual Lawful Goody-Two-Shoes that are frequently at odds with the common "Kill them and take their loot" party philosopy.  So he deals with sinners and tax collectors where they're at -- And?  (To which, the real difficulty is that while he is not having any issues with himself, the common observer that doesn't have the paladin's abilities or self control might think "Good enough for him, good enough for me" when it really isn't -- hence the directive to eschew not only evil but also the appearance of evil and the reminder that, to the sanctified, everything is allowed but not everything is actually beneficial.)

IMG, we don't go into sexuality where it can be avoided and we don't pour a whole lot of eloquence into diplomacy checks to see if a point was made despite intentional brusqueness.  That said, I'd probably be in favor of the character on account of him actually having character -- though I'd not be interested in exploring it in-game.  But I'm also opposed to the "Lawful" restriction on the Paladin (compared to the "Any Evil" Blackguard) and not happy with the Paladin being a base class (compared to the PrC Blackguard or Holy Liberator).

So there you have it.
::Kaze


----------



## DrNilesCrane

From the first story post (I haven't read them all), I think the character concept is interesting and fits well enough within the mold of a paladin to work.  I've run a similiar character type before and it's worked well.


----------



## lgburton

i'd allow it for a couple of reasons:

1) nothing intrinsicly wrong about sexuality. period.
1a) cedric did not "pay" for the privalege - he KNOWS that he doesn't have to, and yet goes out of his way to support the establishment he frequents. that is VERY consistant with the concept of tithe and the paladin's code. he had it, so he gave it. the financial transaction occurs seperate from the sexual encounter.

2) the three musketeers - athos is lawful good, and it's hard to debate that - but he is just as much, if not more, of a cynic than cedric here is.

it's a fun concept. it's definetly one that i wouldn't want to play outside an established, mature, and open-minded gaming group, though. so, as a dm? yep. allowed.


----------



## Particle_Man

I am not sure if this has been said before, as I am too lazy to read the whole thread.  But isn't part of the Paladin deal a spiffy afterlife in some equivalent of the Seven Heavens?  Would that not make the "gonna die real soon" part easier to bear?  Anyhow, going against the grain, I would not allow this character in my campaign as a paladin, but would as a fighter or ranger or barbarian that happens to be devoted to the cause of good.  Also, a Holy Liberator, perhaps.


----------



## Baragos

I'd probably allow it, if it fitted within the campaign.

Remember not all societies view sex as something "bad". In some cultures (Inuit for instance) you are offered to sleep with the wife of the man you are visiting, or his daughter if the wife is too old. Sex = Bad is largely a Christian concept and thus need not apply to every Paladin out there.

And on the STD: Paladins are immune to Diseases. That should also imply that they cannot carry diseases. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc there's no danger of STDs being carried over.

But I can understand if some DMs have created a world in which Paladins should not do stuff like that.


----------



## Sigg

As others have said, my only real problem with this paladin concept is his extreme cynicism coupled with his severe lack of humility. Why would a god choose as his/her champion a man who has no faith in their patronage? Then, not only does he display an appalling lack of faith, but then he gives the patron no credit for his successes and accompishments. He sounds more like Conan than Paksenarrion.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Seeten said:
			
		

> I do not believe women should be objectified, at least, not more than they want to be. This last part is relevant in my opinion.  I have a friend who was a stripper in university. It is how she chose to pay her way through university. She went to law school.  She only stripped for 2 years, as after the initial 2 years, she was on scholarship, but she still dropped in occasionally for a little money, or to see old friends.  She told me between stripping for hundreds an hour and Subway for 60 a day, she'd take stripping any day. Plus, as something of an exhibitionist, she found it fun, and exciting.  She wasnt abused, raped, or beaten, she made good money, and people saw her naked.  If she was demeaned, it was no more demeaning than she chose it to be. She wasnt touched in ways she didnt want. She made good money. People like you, of course, insult her, and all she stands for, in the interest of "The betterment of society."



This is kind of a sticky situation, and is rather part of this discussion.  IMHO, people who demean themselves shouldn't be insulted, they should be helped, pitied.  This is because I believe that people can be "enslaved" internally as well as externally.  People who objectify themselves, no matter how much they will argue otherwise, see themselves as an object.  This isn't a very healthy image as it tends to devalue your place in the world.

I don't want to live in a society where a portion of its members don't even care about themselves (yes, I'm aware I already DO live in such a society).

How this relates to this discussion?  It has to do with Honor, which is one of the tennents of the Paladin's code.  Honor is about doing what is "right", even if there are easier ways, even if ways that might not be evil or chaotic are available, if the act is in question, it should be done.

For instance, in a society, it might be considered commonplace to ask a woman's father for her hand in marriage before marrying her.  It might not be illegal not to, it certainly isn't evil not to.  However, it shows a lack of honor, which a Paladin must display.  This means honoring themselves, honoring traditions, and honouring the people around them.  Treating tham all with respect, dignity, and valuing them all as people.  Staring at someone's naked body isn't valuing them as a person, it is valuing them as an object.  It is removing half of the person (their mind/soul).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

I actually do have another problem with the Paladin, that is his cynism.  In a mod, by Monte Cook, there is a Paladin who has almost lost his powers because he doesn't believe that his god will lead him to victory and since he believes he is doomed, he spends most of his time sitting around in a tavern, drinking.  He has heard there is evil around, and he makes some basic inquiries, but he knows that he's just going to die one day eventually, so why try too hard to find his death.  His god believes this is a lack of trust in him, so has almost removed his powers.

Basically, I see a Paladin needs to have faith that his god will bring him through anything.  There was a good D&D novel about this.  Just imagine how you would feel if you went through life knowing that you were a chosen of a god, and that the god followed you around wherever you went, answering your call for power whenever you asked for it.  You just need to put your hands on people and your god heals them.  A few choice words and your sword is filled with the righteous fury of a GOD.  You feel his calming influence in your mind at all times.  He protects you from spells and diseases.  Now, if you could walk around 24 hours a day with these powers at your disposal and knowing that your god watches your every move and if you do the wrong thing, you may lose them forever.  Would you doubt your god?  Would you think even for a second he'd let you fall?  You are an example for others, they look up to you, would you let them down?

This is what being a Paladin is about.


----------



## ThoughtfulOwl

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I actually do have another problem with the Paladin, that is his cynism.
> 
> ...
> 
> Basically, I see a Paladin needs to have faith that his god will bring him through anything.




There is a far cry between cynism and realism.
Cedric is realistic: he doesn't step down from his duty at all; he is just smart enough to realize that said duty is an uphill battle and that at some point he won't manage to beat the odds. That said, there is nothing in the initial writeup suggesting that he is trying to take less risks to prolong his life; to the contrary, he keeps up the fight _despite_ the risks involved, because he believes that it's the right thing to do.

Frankly, if I were a LG deity in a D&D world I would trust much more a champion like Cedric that is willing to do the right thing no matter how desperate or hopeless it looks, than one who needs a naive belief that 'good always wins in the end and my god will always save my back' to keep going. The latter's self confidence will shatter at the first major defeat, leaving a road open for temptation and fall; Cedric would just grit his teeth and redouble his efforts.


----------



## Voadam

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Now, if you could walk around 24 hours a day with these powers at your disposal and knowing that your god watches your every move and if you do the wrong thing, you may lose them forever.  Would you doubt your god?  *Would you think even for a second he'd let you fall?*




Paladins fall in battle all the time.

Paladins can fall from grace with one action.

Why would a paladin think his god wouldn't let him fall? It is his job to enter battles where he could fall. With one misstep he knows he will be stripped of his powers and be fallen. Sounds to me that it is reasonable to think the god will let him fall.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I am not sure if this has been said before, as I am too lazy to read the whole thread.  But isn't part of the Paladin deal a spiffy afterlife in some equivalent of the Seven Heavens?  Would that not make the "gonna die real soon" part easier to bear?



Depends on the game world, doesn't it?  In my languishing homebrew, the dead go to a place where they slowly fade away as they are forgotten in the world, including the paladin dead... unless they were very memorable people, who have a different fate.

Of course, even in a world where there is such a guarantee for the paladin who dies with a free soul, but there's also the possibilty that in the course of his duty a paladin could be soul trapped or somesuch by some demonic minion of the god of awkward conversation and unpleasant chairs.

That makes for a less idyllic afterlife, no?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> ...This is what being a Paladin is about.



Sounds like you're offering up a much more omnipotent sort of god than D&D typically posits.  In a D&D world, Cedric's god is most definitely NOT the only game in town.  There are numerous entities just as powerful as Cedric's god (and probably several more powerful) who would quite enjoy eating Cedric's liver for breakfast.  And very often, Cedric's god isn't going to be able to do anything about it.

Being a paladin in such a world is not about believing really, really hard in nonsense.  It's about knowing exactly how bad the evil outside the door is, and charging out at it anyway.

And if a paladin finds some cash out there smiting evil, and decides to spread it around among the poorer side of the community directly, rather than giving it to the church, which will take 80% of it and go buy a really impressive hat for Archbishop Jerkwater before maybe getting around to giving a pittance to the poor... more power to him.  He's acting compassionately, and with a nice Lawful efficiency.

And if a paladin manages to crawl home of sound body after smiting that evil, and he doesn't have a marriage bed to crawl into, let him crawl into whatever bed is most comfortable, with these two caveats: 1) it's not someone else's marriage bed, 2) he jumps back out of it right quick if another evil comes around the door.

That completely fits the RAW of both the paladin's code AND the definition of Lawful Good.  If someone has rewritten those definitions for their game, that's a different story.  And generally a good idea, anyway, IMO.  The RAW defintions of those make my hands twitch.

And to address the objectification thing again.... load of pop psychology claptrap.  And I know from psychological claptrap.  Sometime in the next few years I'm going to have a doctorate labeled "Behavioral and Evolutionary Neuroscience."

Yes, yes, I know the validity of credentials on the internet.  I'm also an astronaut, you know.  And I make the world's best pina coladas.

This might lead outside the boundaries of the board rules, but can anyone who believes in it give me a decent operational definition of objectification?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Canis said:
			
		

> This might lead outside the boundaries of the board rules, but can anyone who believes in it give me a decent operational definition of objectification?



As an aside, I've always defined it as treating someone as an object.  For instance, you understand that a pen is for writing and you are more than willing to pick it up and use it to do so whenever you want because it doesn't have feelings or desires.  If you need to write something, you find the nearest pen and use it to write.

A similar thing with people.  If you objectify them, you don't care about THEM as a person, you could care less about their feelings or desires.  If you need sex, you find the nearest woman that you are willing to tolerate and use them to have sex.  Obviously, they have to at least somewhat agree.  However, since, in my experience, people with low self esteem are good at fooling themselves into believing they are in love with people in order to get around their own morals.

This is off topic slightly, but I'd like to say that in my (limited) experience that women who have low self esteem and feel bad with their own self image turn to sex as a form of making themselves feel needed.  If a man wants them, it makes them feel special.  I assume it works the same with low self esteem men, although I don't have experience with that.

So far my experience is with a couple of women who felt they should wait until marriage to have sex, or at least for someone they really, really loved.  Then, things happened in their life to make them depressed, and then they tried to commit suicide, then after they "recovered", they felt that sex should be with as many people as possible.  It may be that since I've managed to have...a couple of these experiences that it may be colouring my view.


----------



## The Sigil

IN this sense, I think the first definition of "Objectification" from dictionary.com works just fine: "To present or regard as an object."

We do not (usually) get into relationships with objects (when we do, a "personification" has developed - we treat that old car or the dearly loved teddy bear as a person with whom we have a relationship).  In other words, objects are easily replaced with no remorse or emotional attachment provided the function is the same - if I need to write something down, I will pick any pen & paper provided they provide enough function (i.e., the paper is big enough to contain what I need to write and the pen lets ink flow freely).  

When Person A regards Person B as an object, the relationship (in the eyes of Person A) is all about "does this person satisfy the function I desire" and nothing else - in the example at hand (women), "objectifying women" would be (to use a fark-ism) to look at a woman and say, "I'd hit it!"  Any sufficiently attractive woman can easily be interchanged for the present partner because it's not about HER so much as it is about the functionality you desire - the sex.

I'd post a longer explanation because I know everyone's going to nit-pick and parse every word of this, but I don't have time.  But basically, objectification boils down to, "do you care about HER" or do you only care about "what she can do for/to you?"  If it's the latter, and she can easily be replaced by any other female of similar physical specifications willing to do the same things for/to you, you've objectified her.  An easy example, IMO, is porn - my guess is that the appeal of the centerfolds is the titillation of the images (in which case one centerfold is as good as the next), and not in the discovery that "hey, she likes sunsets, dark chocolate, and listening to Mozart's Requiem just like I do!  I wonder what I can do to make her life more enjoyable."

--The Sigil


----------



## ZuulMoG

The only way this character is a paladin in my game is as a CG or CE paladin of the god or goddess of love/hedonism.

A Lawful Good paladin is Lawful AND Good.  Legalising prostitution doesn't make it right.


----------



## theodinheadbasher

DonaldRumsfeldsTofu said:
			
		

> Assumably if he ever visited a house of prostitution like that, he not only would make not make his patronage there, but would do his best to dismantle it, same as if he visited a store where the workers were "abused, exploited, and trapped in a cycle of dependency if not actually enslaved" *coughWal-Martcough* or anywhere where the workers are "abused, exploited , and trapped in a cycle of dependency, if not actually enslaved", not because their trade involves sexual intercourse, but because they're being abused, exploited, and trapped in a circle of dependency if not actually enslaved. (Which is often a very common byproduct of the wage system that really has nothing to do with the trade you're in. But I'm starting to boarder on getting into politics) But that's not what the piece of fiction said. It said it was a nice brothel with happy prostitutes and a happy madam. Therefore, he committed no violation of his good alignment.




excellently put good sir.

He is still a paladin, so it is assumed that if he is visiting a brothel he would look into its ownership/running.  He's not going to go to just any brothel, and as DonaldRumsfeld said, if he did find a brothel that enslaves and forces its prostitutes into servitude, then he would have to do his best to free said prostitutes, and if he didn't, then yes he would lose his palidinhood.  But simply visiting a brothel does not constitute an unlawful act.  As has been mentioned time and again, what is his specific code of behavior?  What are the local laws like?

Now I don't really agree with the swearing and excessive drinking, but drinking itself isn't necissarily bad, once again leading to his specific Ethos.  Now the swearing I don't agree with at all.  Paladins are supposed to be pillars of virtue yes, and yes I just condoned going to a brothel, but swearing is disrespectful to those you are swearing at.  And however you look at it, swearing is not virtuous.  It may not be evil, but it is not virtuous.


----------



## theodinheadbasher

Turanil said:
			
		

> I must second this. All of this assumption that the paladin going to the brothel is okay, is because the depicted brothel is a clean place where the women do a job like any other. But as said Elder Basilisk the truth is that prostitution has never been a choice / activity that was good for the women who performed it (with maybe the sole exception of courtesans who make it for extremely high prices, and even there not sure its the best of activity...). In a realistic setting, brothels are bad places where girls are almost enslaved.




In a realistic setting? 

In a "realistic" setting, there are no paladins that can channel the power of their god.  There are no wizards flinging fireballs.  There are no fighters going out and killing dragons.  So many people are taking a Paladin in a fantasy game, and then conviniently changing the senario to a real life senario, simply to prove that he wouldn't work.

Be consistent here people.  D&D allows for a certain amount of creative license.  If the DM says it is a good clean brothel, where the women are paid, and not slaves, than that's the way it is.


----------



## DM-Rocco

Well, in my campiagn, I would have to say no, in fact that is what I voted on, but it is an interesting story.  I would consider the merit of it and perhaps come up with a different class that was like the paladin, like a low level prestiege class or something and let you do that.  While I don't think paladins have to not swear and all that, I think they should lead by example and this guys attituide is more comparable to a chaotic good ranger if anything.  


I don't think a paladin needs to be a goodie two-shoes, but this guy is very rough around the edges.  It would be comparible to having the school stoner enroll in a police program and then get hired as a cop, it just doesn't fit.


----------



## Sigg

I agree...it seems to me that most of the acceptance for this guy as a paladin is because people just don't like the "goody-goody" paladins, and are enamored with this NYPD Blue version of a paladin simply because he goes against the formula. IMO he just doesn't cut the mustard. Willingness to fight and die for a cause do not alone a paladin make, plenty of plain 'ole fighters fit that bill as well. A paladin is the chosen servant and champion of a LG god and those chosen to serve are the elite of the god's faithful, blessed with much more than a strong sword arm and big cohones. They represent their patron to the public, as well as fighting for his causes. When I read the story I didn't get "realistic" from this guy, I got "arrogant, self-righteous, and fatalistic". Where's his hope? Where's his faith? How can he bolster the faith of his people and give them hope for the future if he has none?


----------



## Thundering_Dragon

A Paladin is not an anti-hero.  A Paladin is a Heroes Hero.  I would not allow this character as a Paladin.  He doesn't have faith, and he doesn't inspire.


----------



## shilsen

Some of the posters on this thread complained that the additional fictional pieces I added after the first one are only a manipulation on my part to make readers more likely to view Cedric as a paladin. Others said that they enjoyed the fiction and would like more. If you’re one of the former, please skip the following post. If you’re one of the latter, enjoy! If you’re neither, then pick a side, darn you! This is a paladin thread after all. We only want black-and-white thinking here  !


----------



## shilsen

*The Siege*

“…can take our lives, but they’ll never take … our FREEDOOOOOMMM!!!”

Sir Orion raised his mailed fist in defiance of the enemy beyond his walls as his cry reverberated off the battlements. After a dramatic pause, he lowered his arm and looked down at the gathered soldiers, hoping for (and half expecting) a resounding cheer. He did get a cheer and a round of applause to boot, but it only came from Sir Gahon and the other young hotheads standing to the side, puffed up with pride with their dreams of chivalry and glory. The soldiers simply stood there stolidly, with expressions ranging from boredom to sheer, barely controlled, fear of the hordes without. Old Horstein, in the front row, leaned forward and carefully spat a stream of tobacco onto the ground before straightening up to lean on his pike again. Feet shuffled behind him, though naturally nobody had the temerity to leave. 

Orion’s face did not show it, but his heart fell. _We are doomed_, he thought, _and for all my brave words, they all know it. We’re outnumbered ten to one, and this keep isn’t strong enough to keep them out for more than a day. After that, it’ll be a slaughter. And from the looks on their faces, they’ll be surrendering as soon as the wall goes down – for all the good it’ll do them._

His face showed none of the thoughts as he turned away and headed down the steps to the small podium he’d been standing on. At the bottom, he looked at the young knights, drawing another unwonted cheer from them. But it was the laconic, “Good talk,” from the man standing some distance away from them that momentarily cheered him. Cedric nodded as the commander looked at him and then asked, “Mind if I say a few words?” 

“Not at all,” said Orion. _Come on, old friend – let’s see some of that magic. Please._

“Thanks.”

Cedric hitched his belt a little higher and trotted up the steps, before making a jaunty little jump onto the podium that drew a couple of chuckles from the crowd. His battered armor made him stand in sharp contrast to the commander in his shining mail, and the comparison was heightened as he plopped down on the platform’s edge, dangling his legs, and then raised a bottle to the crowd, before taking a hearty swig. The chuckles spread into a little ripple, and a couple of whispers started up.

“Ahhh!” said Cedric, after swallowing, “Now that really hit the spot!” He shook the bottle in a mock-threatening manner at the crowd and said, “If any of you bastards let bloody Kurgash’s horde get our booze, I’m really going to be pissed off!” Orion winced inwardly, but noticed that the chuckles were beginning to take on a regular tone. Even old Horstein’s lips were twisting in amusement.

Cedric waved an arm in Orion’s general direction and said, “If our commander doesn’t mind me saying so, I’ve got a little beef to pick with him. He gave you some erroneous information just now. They actually CAN take your freedom. In fact, considering what I know about Kurgash and his need for slaves for his mines up north, I’d say he’s positively looking forward to it.” 

Orion’s eyes went a little wide, and he heard angry whispers from Gahon and his men. _What the hell are you doing, Cedric?_ he thought, even as he noticed that the original chuckles had ceased completely.

“Of course,” continued Cedric, without skipping a beat, “Depending on how … er, cute you are, you might find that slavery doesn’t involve dying in the mines. Let’s just say that Kurgash’s ogres like man-flesh. And not just to eat, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.” Despite the claim, Cedric made a crude gesture to illustrate his point. There were a couple more chuckles from the crowd, but they sounded forced. Orion noticed that some of the younger men, including among the knights, had turned a pale shade of green.

Cedric took a quick swig, giving the idea time to percolate. _Now think about that before you consider surrendering_, he thought, before going on, “Of course – you could easily make sure that you don’t end up as a slave or as Big Harga’s boy-toy. Just get yourself killed tomorrow. Shouldn’t be too difficult to do, actually. Just don’t defend yourself well enough and some hobgoblin will be bloody happy to cut you in half. Sure, it’ll be painful and all for a bit, but then you’ll be dead and won’t have to worry about slavery or freedom or anything like that. Peachy!”

Orion barely managed to restrain himself from rushing onto the platform. _What in heaven’s name are you doing Cedric?_ he thought frantically. _If they weren’t panicking before, they definitely will be now!_ Glaring back and forth at the assembled soldiers, he saw them exchange fearful glances, and ripples of uneasy mutterings began to spread.

The sound of Cedric’s bottle shattering on the stones drew Orion’s attention, and he saw that Cedric was back on his feet. “Unless you’re like me,” said Cedric, looking down at the scared men. “You see – I am a servant of the High Lord. And I’ve got a lot more important things to do than be killed by Kurgash’s trash. Or be a slave. Or, for that matter, get an ogre boyfriend.” 

The last comment still drew a couple of chuckles, but Cedric spoke right over them. “I’m guessing that you’re like me. You walk like me, you talk like me, you drink like me – so I’m guessing you think like me. And I think there’s only one thing for us to do. We’re going to kill those bastards.” He continued without a pause, “You see, it’s quite simple. I don’t want to die. And if I’m alive and they’ve got me, I’m better off dead. So I’m just going to have to kill enough of them to make them think I’m not worth the effort. And the same goes for all of you. We’ve got to beat them so bad that they say, ‘Unholy crap – these sons-of-bitches aren’t worth dying for.’ You guys ain’t got to die for the king. You’ve just got to make those guys die for Kurgash.” 

To his disbelief, Orion noticed a few nods in the crowd, followed by a couple of rumbles of agreement. One or two weapons were shaken. _I don’t believe it! It’s working._

Cedric, meanwhile, had leaned over and beckoned the crowd closer. With puzzled expressions, they shuffled forward until they stood all around the podium. He leaned over with a conspiratorial grin and said, “Plus we’ve got the power. They’re just coming here to get our asses – metaphorically, well mostly, speaking. But we own our asses. And the one who owns the ass has a whole lot more power than the one who wants it.” He waved at the gathered people and said, “Ask any married man here.” And winked.

There was a split second of silence and then guffaws rang through the crowd, followed by a couple of cheers. Orion couldn’t help laughing himself, even as he noticed that Horstein was laughing and nodding his head so hard that tobacco juice was rolling out his mouth.

“So,” said Cedric, “Here’s what we do tomorrow. When Kurgash’s people get here, we give them the finger. And then when they get to our walls, we give them the finger again, only this time we give it to them with the rest of the fist and an arm’s-length of steel with it. And we’re doing that all day, and the next day, and the next … until they go home crying and tell stories about how we’re all such lousy dates.” More laughs and cheers rang out.

“Now I’m going to get off this podium and we’re all going to go get ready to kick some ass tomorrow. Because they may try to take our lives and they may try to take our freedom, but the one thing they’ll never, ever take are our asses! I own my ass, dammit! Who owns your ass?”

Orion almost choked at the rousing cry of “I OWN MY ASS!” that rang out.

Cedric somersaulted to his feet, drawing more cheers. “And are you giving an ogre your ass?”

“HELL, NO!”

“So what are we going to make Kurgash kiss tomorrow?”

“WE’RE GOING TO MAKE HIM KISS OUR ASS!!”

Cedric laughed joyfully and leaped down from the podium, landing on his feet amidst the men, armor ringing out upon him. As he made his way through them, soldiers clapped him on the back and cheered. He reached the edge of the crowd and clapped Horstein on the rear, causing the old soldier to scowl theatrically and wave his pike, drawing another loud laugh from the men around. 

Stepping out of the crowd, he walked towards Orion as the cheering soldiers began to disband. “I think they’re ready,” he said with a grin, looking at the commander’s expression. “And don’t worry – the historians will never remember that ‘Kiss my ass, Kurgash’ will be our battle-cry tomorrow. Well, probably not.”

Orion laughed as Cedric clapped him on the shoulder and said, “Now we better go do some planning. I really do want to make that bastard seriously regret ever ing with us.” He threw another look at Orion and added, “Metaphorically, of course.” As the grinning paladin turned away, Orion headed after him, feeling hope spring in his breast for the first time in days.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Thundering_Dragon said:
			
		

> A Paladin is not an anti-hero.  A Paladin is a Heroes Hero.  I would not allow this character as a Paladin.  He doesn't have faith, and he doesn't inspire.



He inspired me.  And that was BEFORE Shilsen's latest installment 

But then, naive chuckleheads have never inspired me, whereas self-aware, intelligent warriors with a good grasp of their situation generally do.


----------



## Vendetta

I read the first page, wont read all of this... good lord that's a lot of posts 

So, answering the first page.  Yes, I'd allow it with one minor change.  Upon meeting the young lad, I would expect the paladin to be more respectful.  Cussing at his does not show honor toward that man.  At that point, he's done nothing to have earned the contempt of the paladin and does not yet deserve to be treated thusly.  (now later on, who knows)

This, of course, depends on the laws of the area.  If brothels are legal, of course (and I think this story establishes that they are, even if not considered appropriate by the general populace.)  If prostitution is considered immoral and illegal in the world I was going to be running, then obviously, you'd have to say no.

And no if there were opportunities for youngsters to be involved IRL.


----------



## kanithardm

Frukathka said:
			
		

> I would not allow this in any of my games. It is a subject that is too mature for the people that I run my games for.



Well I said yes anyway.


----------



## kanithardm

Paladin of Sune!!!!!!!!!!!  (Special Rules apply)
Paladin of Sharess!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mallus

Again, nicely done Shilsen... the old "Once more into their breaches --not!" speech. Truly stirring...

Do some spare time coming up? Enough to write Cedric's novel?


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> Again, nicely done Shilsen... the old "Once more into their breaches --not!" speech. Truly stirring...




Thanks. I had the yen for a little writing and actually thought of your comment (months ago) that you'd like to see a little more on Cedric and that I hadn't added any more to this thread in a while, so I knocked off the above at one go in about half an hour. Maybe I should get worried about how easy it's becoming for me to write Cedric.

As for the speech, it just occurred to me that it would be fun to do an example of Cedric inspiring the troops while simultaneously doing a send-up of the whole "die for your country" sort of speechifying. Hence the little passing swipe at "Braveheart" (a movie I actually really like) to start with. When I started writing I did not, I must admit, plan for the crux of the speech to be about saving one's ass from ogres. But it just seemed so appropriate  



> Do some spare time coming up? Enough to write Cedric's novel?




I wish! Right now I'm on summer break but am preparing for preliminary exams as well. Still, I'd like to squeeze out a couple more instalments before the break ends. Maybe a scene with the follow-up battle against Kurgash's army.

Hey, here's an idea (for you and others who are enjoying Cedric's continuing adventures) - how about making a couple of suggestions for scenarios/situations you would be interested to see him in?


----------



## Furby076

shilsen said:
			
		

> Reaching the bar, Cedric quickly said to the waiting barkeep, "I'm off. Be seeing you." The two men shook hands before the paladin headed for the door, a bemused Magnus following him.




Just to nitpick (because Shil is my friend and DM in real life)...He never paid --- WHOOPS!


----------



## shilsen

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Just to nitpick (because Shil is my friend and DM in real life)...He never paid --- WHOOPS!



 Come on - you know he's got to have a permanent tab there, right?


----------



## Rystil Arden

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Just to nitpick (because Shil is my friend and DM in real life)...He never paid --- WHOOPS!



 He probably paid a lump sum in advance because he was so regular--like he did for the brothel


----------



## Rystil Arden

shilsen said:
			
		

> Come on - you know he's got to have a permanent tab there, right?



Ouch, beaten to the punch in the same minute!


----------



## shilsen

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Ouch, beaten to the punch in the same minute!



 Divine Grace, baybee


----------



## Rystil Arden

shilsen said:
			
		

> Divine Grace, baybee



 Bah, I'll make up for this slip today with sheer volume of posts


----------



## Furby076

You know I read this thread months ago and never realized it was the Shil I knew (just didn't pay enough attention to the poster name).  I just did tonight when he e-mailed me with another story update.  So here is my take, based on arguments:

Drinking - There is nothing in the rules saying a paladin could not drink or even get drunk.  If you want to go by the RAW, the only place I can find this mentioned in official WoTC material is Defenders of the faith Side bar: "Paladins should avoid drinking too much since it impairs their readiness to combat evil"  First things first, it says "should" it does not describe an absolute.  Second it says "since it impairs...." - if the person knows how to drink and handle their liquor they have no concerns. 
Some might say "what if the paladin starts a brawl."  Well that is a different issue.  I can say, from experience, that drinking does not mean I am going to start a fight.  Trust me I am willing to fight (I used to box in college).  When I am drunk I am still willing to fight - but I know how to control myself even when blasted drunk.

Cursing - Yea everyone curses and that is a personal choice.  Maybe, and i emphasize maybe, if the paladin curses his god there would be some reprocussions, but in all honesty I would treat is as "The god looks down, shakes his head, sighs and thinks 'i really gotta raise my paladins to be a bit less abrassive, well as long as the job gets done and they are not doing anything really bad'"

Prostitution - You guys realize that up until about one hundred years ago (really less) prostitution was perfectly OK and legal in the US? It is only not legal because of religious institution influence - and that is not all religions.  Prostitution is a state law, not federal law.  Yes there are the places in this world that have slaves - but Shil did not write about such a place.  He wrote about an acceptable brothal (just like those you can find in Nevada, though there are other happy brothels).  Also, you really shouldn't compare our modern day beliefs to beliefs in (around) the dark ages.  Brothels were perfectly acceptable.  They were established institutions that provided a service.  Not all prostitutes are rude or evil, some are very nice women who are happy to make thousands of dollars every week, if not every night!!!  Shil's story did not mention children, did not mention forced servitude.

So would I allow this yes, would I try playing this yes - though I might not do as good a job as Shil. I currently have a paladin in his game, but he is a goody good paladin - but that is because my last character was a slick salesman 

If I had kids in my game I would not play this, luckily I do not, and luckily the people in my game can handle sexual content.

Anyhow, my three bits 

-A
P.S. I will harp on Shil to write more stories, I almost had a tear come to my eye when the high cleric told Magnus the heroic stories (namely when the village was pillaged).  I laughed when Cedric was "too pissed" at his god while carrying his comrade


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Funny that you should mention slavery in a post asserting that something is OK because it was legal a little over a hundred years ago....

Considering other things that were legal at the time, one might question the implied judgement that legal=ok, good and acceptable.



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> Prostitution - You guys realize that up until about one hundred years ago (really less) prostitution was perfectly OK and legal in the US? It is only not legal because of religious institution influence - and that is not all religions.  Prostitution is a state law, not federal law.  Yes there are the places in this world that have slaves - but Shil did not write about such a place.


----------



## Thundering_Dragon

Canis said:
			
		

> He inspired me. And that was BEFORE Shilsen's latest installment
> 
> But then, naive chuckleheads have never inspired me, whereas self-aware, intelligent warriors with a good grasp of their situation generally do.




You think a man who holds himself above vices, however petty they may be, is a "naive chucklehead"?  A Paladin should always have dignity and honor, as well as courage and righteousness, and this character falls woefully short in the former regards.

The issue here seems to be whether or not Paladins should be exemplars of moral actions and *attitudes*.  If you think Paladins should be held to a higher standard than others, this character should not be a Paladin.  If you don't think that, why even have a code in the first place for the class?  As long as they're generally doing the right thing and fighting evil, they're Paladins.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Thundering_Dragon said:
			
		

> You think a man who holds himself above vices, however petty they may be, is a "naive chucklehead"?  A Paladin should always have dignity and honor, as well as courage and righteousness, and this character falls woefully short in the former regards.
> 
> The issue here seems to be whether or not Paladins should be exemplars of moral actions and *attitudes*.  If you think Paladins should be held to a higher standard than others, this character should not be a Paladin.  If you don't think that, why even have a code in the first place for the class?  As long as they're generally doing the right thing and fighting evil, they're Paladins.



No, I think that people who don't understand the gravity of their calling are "naive chuckleheads."

As for standards, I do, in fact, hold paladins to a VERY HIGH standard, because I want them to UNDERSTAND rather than parrot.  Any dink can follow a Celestial Rulebook for no better reason than "It says so."  It takes a truly good person, and a fairly impressive one, to do good because he actually _knows_ what is right and wrong.  There is a difference between knowing the trappings of right and wrong and seeing past those trappings to what your true impact will be.  There's also a tremendous difference between doing right and giving the appearance of doing right.  Which brings me to vice and "moral *attitudes*," I have a different opinion than most on what constitutes a vice and what constitutes a virtue, and most people who are "holding themselves above vice" are among the most despicable people on the planet, in my experience.  And they are generally responsible for more suffering and death than any dozen flawed human beings who nevertheless actually try to do right.  If all these cats are exemplars of "moral attitudes" then the heavens must be a really unpleasant place.

Dignity and honor is in the eye of the beholder, but in my estimation the kind of dignity and honor everyone wants out of paladins is hollow.  It is actually a form of pride and self-aggrandizement.  Paladins shouldn't ride out around with a trumpet announcing to the world what wonderful people they are.  It's people like that which cause us to NEED paladins.

Oh, and while I'm dealing with falsehoods... I believe the second highest calling for a paladin (or anyone for that matter) is the service of Truth.  Politeness and its associated trivialities are nonsense and lies.  There's a difference between respect for the legitimate and feigning respect to that which has not earned it for reason of "civility."  The first is a virtue, the second is the lowest form of dishonesty, the subversion of truth for expediency.

The highest calling is to Love, but that's harder.  Very few people in D&D worlds or the real world have managed to pull that one off consistently, and if we were making it a requisite for playing a paladin, we wouldn't have any.  Still, Cedric does a better job of it than most.


----------



## iwatt

Shilsen, I don't know what foul rituals and sacrifices you made to bestow eternal life to this thread........... please share


----------



## Furby076

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Funny that you should mention slavery in a post asserting that something is OK because it was legal a little over a hundred years ago....
> 
> Considering other things that were legal at the time, one might question the implied judgement that legal=ok, good and acceptable.




Then by that notion we can't ever have paladins or anyone good.  Let's see a paladain kills, with a sword....today if you killed someone with a sword (even a /murderer drug dealer) you would probably get the death penalty (or life in prison depending on your locale).  So again, we cannot compare our reality to a game based on the dark ages.

Also, you totally took my statement out of context.  Not all prostitution establishments are based on slavery or coersion.  Many are based on "Hey I want to make a few hundred bucks a night, and I can easily do it here."  You may not agree with it, but nobody is forcing you to sell yourself... Also, if you would read my statement again, you would realize I said that Shil did not write anything about slavery in his initial post - so given that, your first sentence is totally erroneous,  and I will assume it was an accident.


----------



## Furby076

Thundering_Dragon said:
			
		

> A Paladin should always have dignity and honor, as well as courage and righteousness, and this character falls woefully short in the former regards.
> 
> The issue here seems to be whether or not Paladins should be exemplars of moral actions and *attitudes*. If you think Paladins should be held to a higher standard than others, this character should not be a Paladin. If you don't think that, why even have a code in the first place for the class? As long as they're generally doing the right thing and fighting evil, they're Paladins.




I think Cedric has a lot of dignity and honor...maybe not the stereotypical kind, but he has it.  He is proud of what he does - without regret - he does not hide it or shy from it.  He is definitly honorable...he keeps his word, helps those in need, and pays when asked not to pay.  To be honest, he didn't even have to pay...services such as protection and healing are MORE then enough for him to be considered paying...what does Remove Disease cost in the DnD world?  What does a DnD prostititue cost (5 gold MAYBE).

I don't think a paladin has to be the leader - they typically are, but they don't have to be imho.  There can be paladins who do not want to have anything to do with society other then "Yes ma'am who is the evil demon harassing your family...he will be dealt with, goodbye" and she never hears from him again, except she knows the local demon was slain.  

I think the biggest problem people have here is the paladin who goes to a prostitute.  The morality of prosititution is subjective to a persons culture/religion.  Again, to say "well what if they are forced" is incorrect because according to Shil's story and intentions, they are not forced...they are doing it to get a better way of life.


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> IN this sense, I think the first definition of "Objectification" from dictionary.com works just fine: "To present or regard as an object."
> 
> We do not (usually) get into relationships with objects (when we do, a "personification" has developed - we treat that old car or the dearly loved teddy bear as a person with whom we have a relationship).  In other words, objects are easily replaced with no remorse or emotional attachment provided the function is the same - if I need to write something down, I will pick any pen & paper provided they provide enough function (i.e., the paper is big enough to contain what I need to write and the pen lets ink flow freely).
> 
> When Person A regards Person B as an object, the relationship (in the eyes of Person A) is all about "does this person satisfy the function I desire" and nothing else - in the example at hand (women), "objectifying women" would be (to use a fark-ism) to look at a woman and say, "I'd hit it!"  Any sufficiently attractive woman can easily be interchanged for the present partner because it's not about HER so much as it is about the functionality you desire - the sex.
> 
> I'd post a longer explanation because I know everyone's going to nit-pick and parse every word of this, but I don't have time.  But basically, objectification boils down to, "do you care about HER" or do you only care about "what she can do for/to you?"  If it's the latter, and she can easily be replaced by any other female of similar physical specifications willing to do the same things for/to you, you've objectified her.  An easy example, IMO, is porn - my guess is that the appeal of the centerfolds is the titillation of the images (in which case one centerfold is as good as the next), and not in the discovery that "hey, she likes sunsets, dark chocolate, and listening to Mozart's Requiem just like I do!  I wonder what I can do to make her life more enjoyable."
> 
> --The Sigil




But isn't this objectification fine in transactions between non friends? When you want an apple from the store you don't necessarily care about the individual vendor's personhood, it is ok to just want to buy an apple.


----------



## shilsen

iwatt said:
			
		

> Shilsen, I don't know what foul rituals and sacrifices you made to bestow eternal life to this thread........... please share



 It's quite easy, actually - fricasee a few power-gamers, top up with the paladin's code, sprinkle with a little alignment for flavor, and there you go !


----------



## Dirigible

Wow. I'm surprised this debate is still going on; I remember seeing it _months_ ago.

I wouldn't approve of Cedric in a game I was GMing, because he is both a 'debauched paladin' and a 'pessimistic paladin'. Either of those is fine on their own, but together, I think they're a bit much.


----------



## Belgarath

OK, here goes. Let me just preface this by saying i have only read the first 5 pages or. Someone else may chimed in with this.

There is a lot of talk about his defeatist attitude and I for one would personally agree with it. I as a DM would look at the storyline and suggest an alternative that would be more acceptable to me.

Instead of the whole thing of I will die fighting and it won't mean a thing, I would suggest it something along the lines of "Listen. I can die tomorrow and it wont mean much because I havent accomplished half of what i would like. This is a dangerous way of life, and if i want to take some enjoyment out of it, then I should be able to. <Insert god's name> doesnt have a problem with it, so why the **** should you?"

This would fit in well with the cursing. He still has all the same traits and a bit of a defeatist attitude. This fits more with the one that knows exactly what being a Paladin would cost him, but is going to do it anyway. I personally cannot see somebody who thinks that he cannot make a difference having the faith it would require to be a paladin.


----------



## iwatt

shilsen said:
			
		

> It's quite easy, actually - fricasee a few power-gamers, top up with the paladin's code, sprinkle with a little alignment for flavor, and there you go !




I always thought it involved eyes of a munchkin, a drop of blood of a rules-lawyer, and a hair of a Larper....


----------



## Horizon

I just have to say: Great thread. There's still an interesting discussion going on, though I think the most important points have been brought up by now.

As for me? I'd allow this without a thought, BUT I would expect the player to keep it mature. The way Shilsen describes Sir Cedric I would just love to have him in my campaign. I wouldn't be so sure though if all of the people that I play with would be able to run a difficult character like Cedric well.

I think this a very good example, for those of us who've grown bored with paladins over the years, to give us some new ideas for paladins to play. I'll even have to think again whether I'm still gonna play my planned archer for the next game coming up...

As for the stories: Shilsen, PLEASE give us some more! One moment I almost have to wipe away a tear and the next I fall off my chair laughing.


----------



## Rackhir

Sure you can run him Shil, he can't possibly be worse than Avi's Frenzied Berzerker. Though I thought you said that you were going to run a Mage. Avi was interested in seeing your paladin build that did more damage than his FB in any case.

Well if you change your mind, you can even bump him up to match the other characters.


----------



## Baron Opal

iwatt said:
			
		

> Shilsen, I don't know what foul rituals and sacrifices you made to bestow eternal life to this thread........... please share




Damn, this thread is _still_ alive?

Well, we're not allowed to argue about politics or religion, so it seems that arguing over the paladin's code, having paladins in the party, and other such threads gives us the release we need. 

 

Here's a question for Cedric / Shilsen: "If you find what you do to be so worthless, or pointless, why do you continue?" The answer to that question would decide whether or not the character would be a valid paladin. What he has listed as his "off-the-clock" amusements don't really amount to much to me.

Probably answered in the bowels of the thread, but I've missed it.

Baron Opal


----------



## shilsen

Horizon said:
			
		

> As for the stories: Shilsen, PLEASE give us some more! One moment I almost have to wipe away a tear and the next I fall off my chair laughing.




Thanks. I've got a couple more ideas, and should start working on them as soon as I can shake off this damn flu that I'm down with (fever and cough, to be precise).



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Sure you can run him Shil, he can't possibly be worse than Avi's Frenzied Berzerker. Though I thought you said that you were going to run a Mage. Avi was interested in seeing your paladin build that did more damage than his FB in any case.
> 
> Well if you change your mind, you can even bump him up to match the other characters.




I wasn't planning to run him. Cedric would be way too much fun to run just once and the interesting thing where the character is concerned, for me, is the personality, not the effectiveness.  I'll stick with the archmage. As for Avi's FB, all you have to do is find a way to make him rage and attack my PC 



			
				Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Here's a question for Cedric / Shilsen: "If you find what you do to be so worthless, or pointless, why do you continue?" The answer to that question would decide whether or not the character would be a valid paladin. What he has listed as his "off-the-clock" amusements don't really amount to much to me.
> 
> Probably answered in the bowels of the thread, but I've missed it.




Good question. I may answer this in more detail in a future piece of fiction, but here's the short answer: Cedric is very aware of temporality and realizes that his actions will have no effect in the long run. He can never eradicate evil completely, and in all likelihood, the reverses it suffers through his actions will be reversed again. But since his actions are based on whether the action is intrinsically worthwhile, and not upon their eventual success, he continues to act as he should. To quote from the opening story, he says, "Yes, I fight the good fight. And I fight it not because I can win or because I hope to do some lasting good, but simply because it should be fought." It's not about success or failure for him. So while he's a cynic in one sense, he's an idealist in another, and is so simultaneously.

To use an illustrative example from myself, I never lie. Ever. I just decided some dozen years ago that it doesn't make sense to do so (I'll omit the long philosophical rambling reasons), so I don't. There are many times when someone asks me a question and I know that telling the truth may not help me in anyw ay. There are also times when my telling the truth will clearly harm me, but I go ahead and do so anyway. Why? Because I think telling the truth is a good thing (and because I'm too lazy to come up with a lie ). Success and failure, as with Cedric, is immaterial in my choice. And yes, I am at least somewhat certifiably nuts 

I'm not sure if that helps or not, but I really should go to bed now before I keel over.


----------



## The Druid Merlin

shilsen said:
			
		

> “…can take our lives, but they’ll never take … our FREEDOOOOOMMM!!!”
> 
> Sir Orion raised his mailed fist in defiance of the enemy beyond his walls as his cry reverberated off the battlements. After a dramatic pause, he lowered his arm and looked down at the gathered soldiers, hoping for (and half expecting) a resounding cheer. He did get a cheer and a round of applause to boot, but it only came from Sir Gahon and the other young hotheads standing to the side, puffed up with pride with their dreams of chivalry and glory. The soldiers simply stood there stolidly, with expressions ranging from boredom to sheer, barely controlled, fear of the hordes without. Old Horstein, in the front row, leaned forward and carefully spat a stream of tobacco onto the ground before straightening up to lean on his pike again. Feet shuffled behind him, though naturally nobody had the temerity to leave.
> 
> Orion’s face did not show it, but his heart fell. _We are doomed_, he thought, _and for all my brave words, they all know it. We’re outnumbered ten to one, and this keep isn’t strong enough to keep them out for more than a day. After that, it’ll be a slaughter. And from the looks on their faces, they’ll be surrendering as soon as the wall goes down – for all the good it’ll do them._
> 
> His face showed none of the thoughts as he turned away and headed down the steps to the small podium he’d been standing on. At the bottom, he looked at the young knights, drawing another unwonted cheer from them. But it was the laconic, “Good talk,” from the man standing some distance away from them that momentarily cheered him. Cedric nodded as the commander looked at him and then asked, “Mind if I say a few words?”
> 
> “Not at all,” said Orion. _Come on, old friend – let’s see some of that magic. Please._
> 
> “Thanks.”
> 
> Cedric hitched his belt a little higher and trotted up the steps, before making a jaunty little jump onto the podium that drew a couple of chuckles from the crowd. His battered armor made him stand in sharp contrast to the commander in his shining mail, and the comparison was heightened as he plopped down on the platform’s edge, dangling his legs, and then raised a bottle to the crowd, before taking a hearty swig. The chuckles spread into a little ripple, and a couple of whispers started up.
> 
> “Ahhh!” said Cedric, after swallowing, “Now that really hit the spot!” He shook the bottle in a mock-threatening manner at the crowd and said, “If any of you bastards let bloody Kurgash’s horde get our booze, I’m really going to be pissed off!” Orion winced inwardly, but noticed that the chuckles were beginning to take on a regular tone. Even old Horstein’s lips were twisting in amusement.
> 
> Cedric waved an arm in Orion’s general direction and said, “If our commander doesn’t mind me saying so, I’ve got a little beef to pick with him. He gave you some erroneous information just now. They actually CAN take your freedom. In fact, considering what I know about Kurgash and his need for slaves for his mines up north, I’d say he’s positively looking forward to it.”
> 
> Orion’s eyes went a little wide, and he heard angry whispers from Gahon and his men. _What the hell are you doing, Cedric?_ he thought, even as he noticed that the original chuckles had ceased completely.
> 
> “Of course,” continued Cedric, without skipping a beat, “Depending on how … er, cute you are, you might find that slavery doesn’t involve dying in the mines. Let’s just say that Kurgash’s ogres like man-flesh. And not just to eat, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.” Despite the claim, Cedric made a crude gesture to illustrate his point. There were a couple more chuckles from the crowd, but they sounded forced. Orion noticed that some of the younger men, including among the knights, had turned a pale shade of green.
> 
> Cedric took a quick swig, giving the idea time to percolate. _Now think about that before you consider surrendering_, he thought, before going on, “Of course – you could easily make sure that you don’t end up as a slave or as Big Harga’s boy-toy. Just get yourself killed tomorrow. Shouldn’t be too difficult to do, actually. Just don’t defend yourself well enough and some hobgoblin will be bloody happy to cut you in half. Sure, it’ll be painful and all for a bit, but then you’ll be dead and won’t have to worry about slavery or freedom or anything like that. Peachy!”
> 
> Orion barely managed to restrain himself from rushing onto the platform. _What in heaven’s name are you doing Cedric?_ he thought frantically. _If they weren’t panicking before, they definitely will be now!_ Glaring back and forth at the assembled soldiers, he saw them exchange fearful glances, and ripples of uneasy mutterings began to spread.
> 
> The sound of Cedric’s bottle shattering on the stones drew Orion’s attention, and he saw that Cedric was back on his feet. “Unless you’re like me,” said Cedric, looking down at the scared men. “You see – I am a servant of the High Lord. And I’ve got a lot more important things to do than be killed by Kurgash’s trash. Or be a slave. Or, for that matter, get an ogre boyfriend.”
> 
> The last comment still drew a couple of chuckles, but Cedric spoke right over them. “I’m guessing that you’re like me. You walk like me, you talk like me, you drink like me – so I’m guessing you think like me. And I think there’s only one thing for us to do. We’re going to kill those bastards.” He continued without a pause, “You see, it’s quite simple. I don’t want to die. And if I’m alive and they’ve got me, I’m better off dead. So I’m just going to have to kill enough of them to make them think I’m not worth the effort. And the same goes for all of you. We’ve got to beat them so bad that they say, ‘Unholy crap – these sons-of-bitches aren’t worth dying for.’ You guys ain’t got to die for the king. You’ve just got to make those guys die for Kurgash.”
> 
> To his disbelief, Orion noticed a few nods in the crowd, followed by a couple of rumbles of agreement. One or two weapons were shaken. _I don’t believe it! It’s working._
> 
> Cedric, meanwhile, had leaned over and beckoned the crowd closer. With puzzled expressions, they shuffled forward until they stood all around the podium. He leaned over with a conspiratorial grin and said, “Plus we’ve got the power. They’re just coming here to get our asses – metaphorically, well mostly, speaking. But we own our asses. And the one who owns the ass has a whole lot more power than the one who wants it.” He waved at the gathered people and said, “Ask any married man here.” And winked.
> 
> There was a split second of silence and then guffaws rang through the crowd, followed by a couple of cheers. Orion couldn’t help laughing himself, even as he noticed that Horstein was laughing and nodding his head so hard that tobacco juice was rolling out his mouth.
> 
> “So,” said Cedric, “Here’s what we do tomorrow. When Kurgash’s people get here, we give them the finger. And then when they get to our walls, we give them the finger again, only this time we give it to them with the rest of the fist and an arm’s-length of steel with it. And we’re doing that all day, and the next day, and the next … until they go home crying and tell stories about how we’re all such lousy dates.” More laughs and cheers rang out.
> 
> “Now I’m going to get off this podium and we’re all going to go get ready to kick some ass tomorrow. Because they may try to take our lives and they may try to take our freedom, but the one thing they’ll never, ever take are our asses! I own my ass, dammit! Who owns your ass?”
> 
> Orion almost choked at the rousing cry of “I OWN MY ASS!” that rang out.
> 
> Cedric somersaulted to his feet, drawing more cheers. “And are you giving an ogre your ass?”
> 
> “HELL, NO!”
> 
> “So what are we going to make Kurgash kiss tomorrow?”
> 
> “WE’RE GOING TO MAKE HIM KISS OUR ASS!!”
> 
> Cedric laughed joyfully and leaped down from the podium, landing on his feet amidst the men, armor ringing out upon him. As he made his way through them, soldiers clapped him on the back and cheered. He reached the edge of the crowd and clapped Horstein on the rear, causing the old soldier to scowl theatrically and wave his pike, drawing another loud laugh from the men around.
> 
> Stepping out of the crowd, he walked towards Orion as the cheering soldiers began to disband. “I think they’re ready,” he said with a grin, looking at the commander’s expression. “And don’t worry – the historians will never remember that ‘Kiss my ass, Kurgash’ will be our battle-cry tomorrow. Well, probably not.”
> 
> Orion laughed as Cedric clapped him on the shoulder and said, “Now we better go do some planning. I really do want to make that bastard seriously regret ever ing with us.” He threw another look at Orion and added, “Metaphorically, of course.” As the grinning paladin turned away, Orion headed after him, feeling hope spring in his breast for the first time in days.




Who does this guy think he is? Patton?


----------



## Gynsala

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Drinking - There is nothing in the rules saying a paladin could not drink or even get drunk.  If you want to go by the RAW, the only place I can find this mentioned in official WoTC material is Defenders of the faith Side bar: "Paladins should avoid drinking too much since it impairs their readiness to combat evil"  First things first, it says "should" it does not describe an absolute.  Second it says "since it impairs...." - if the person knows how to drink and handle their liquor they have no concerns.
> Some might say "what if the paladin starts a brawl."  Well that is a different issue.  I can say, from experience, that drinking does not mean I am going to start a fight.  Trust me I am willing to fight (I used to box in college).  When I am drunk I am still willing to fight - but I know how to control myself even when blasted drunk.
> 
> Cursing - Yea everyone curses and that is a personal choice.  Maybe, and i emphasize maybe, if the paladin curses his god there would be some reprocussions, but in all honesty I would treat is as "The god looks down, shakes his head, sighs and thinks 'i really gotta raise my paladins to be a bit less abrassive, well as long as the job gets done and they are not doing anything really bad'"
> 
> Prostitution - You guys realize that up until about one hundred years ago (really less) prostitution was perfectly OK and legal in the US? It is only not legal because of religious institution influence - and that is not all religions.  Prostitution is a state law, not federal law.  Yes there are the places in this world that have slaves - but Shil did not write about such a place.  He wrote about an acceptable brothal (just like those you can find in Nevada, though there are other happy brothels).  Also, you really shouldn't compare our modern day beliefs to beliefs in (around) the dark ages.  Brothels were perfectly acceptable.  They were established institutions that provided a service.  Not all prostitutes are rude or evil, some are very nice women who are happy to make thousands of dollars every week, if not every night!!!  Shil's story did not mention children, did not mention forced servitude.
> 
> So would I allow this yes, would I try playing this yes - though I might not do as good a job as Shil. I currently have a paladin in his game, but he is a goody good paladin - but that is because my last character was a slick salesman
> 
> If I had kids in my game I would not play this, luckily I do not, and luckily the people in my game can handle sexual content.
> 
> Anyhow, my three bits
> 
> -A





I agree with everything here, just wanted to chime in on one thing.

The whole CONSTANT VIGILANCE thing is to ward against allowing any non-holy elements to enter into their persona.  It's harder to be a Paladin of Cedric's type, because you walk so much closer to that line, that you could cross it at any moment without realizing it.

DMing a campaign with Cedric in it, I'd let the character know that certain activities or inactions will definitely lead to losing their paladinhood, and give them an idea of what those would be.  Have a list of those kinda things on the side, and should he/she do any such thing, they immediately fall.  Personally, I really don't think it would last all that long, most Paladin's I've played with have major problems as soon as they deviate from the "stick in the mud" type character.  Then the character can stick around, just as a fallen paladin who has to figure out what they want to do now (or seek atonement).  But if it's played JUST right... the game would benefit for having such a player involved.


----------



## shilsen

The Druid Merlin said:
			
		

> Who does this guy think he is? Patton?



 By George S., I think he's got it


----------



## Sigg

Canis said:
			
		

> As for standards, I do, in fact, hold paladins to a VERY HIGH standard, because I want them to UNDERSTAND rather than parrot. Any dink can follow a Celestial Rulebook for no better reason than "It says so." It takes a truly good person, and a fairly impressive one, to do good because he actually _knows_ what is right and wrong. There is a difference between knowing the trappings of right and wrong and seeing past those trappings to what your true impact will be. There's also a tremendous difference between doing right and giving the appearance of doing right. Which brings me to vice and "moral *attitudes*," I have a different opinion than most on what constitutes a vice and what constitutes a virtue, and most people who are "holding themselves above vice" are among the most despicable people on the planet, in my experience. And they are generally responsible for more suffering and death than any dozen flawed human beings who nevertheless actually try to do right. If all these cats are exemplars of "moral attitudes" then the heavens must be a really unpleasant place.
> 
> Dignity and honor is in the eye of the beholder, but in my estimation the kind of dignity and honor everyone wants out of paladins is hollow. It is actually a form of pride and self-aggrandizement. Paladins shouldn't ride out around with a trumpet announcing to the world what wonderful people they are. It's people like that which cause us to NEED paladins.
> 
> Oh, and while I'm dealing with falsehoods... I believe the second highest calling for a paladin (or anyone for that matter) is the service of Truth. Politeness and its associated trivialities are nonsense and lies. There's a difference between respect for the legitimate and feigning respect to that which has not earned it for reason of "civility." The first is a virtue, the second is the lowest form of dishonesty, the subversion of truth for expediency.
> 
> The highest calling is to Love, but that's harder. Very few people in D&D worlds or the real world have managed to pull that one off consistently, and if we were making it a requisite for playing a paladin, we wouldn't have any. Still, Cedric does a better job of it than most.




Although I agree with you on several details (such as many people who seem moral or good aren't really), it's in the overall idea you're presenting where I disagree. First, you seem to be confusing the player of a paladin with the character. Because many players might play paladins as "naive chuckleheads" doesn't mean they don't intend for their characters to good and true....it's just that the PLAYER might not have the same depth of insight as maybe their character would. Also, I strongly disagree that "Politeness and its associated trivialities are nonsense and lies". Showing courtesy to another person is showing respect (which all being deserve) for their feelings and humanity. That you might not agree with that person about the inherent value of their standards of morality or civility is not sufficient reason to dismiss their ideas and feelings. Feigned respect is never good, but neither is not having respect at all. Not respecting others is a sign that you lack understanding, compassion, and love for others. If you truely love other people, despite their flaws and ignorances, then courtesy and respect come naturally and without effort. To relate to the fictional character presented, his lack of respect reveals a lack of faith, love, compassion, and understanding in and for his patron and his fellow sentient beings. If Cedric had only shown a bit of gruffness or rough edges socially speaking I would have no trouble with him. It's that combined with his self-pitying diatribe about how rough a life paladins have and his condescending attitude towards the knight sent to find him that would be a deal-killer for this character in my game. This attitude he displayed in this fictional piece would have me (playing the part of his patron) removing his gifts and sending him dreams. I might even send the senior priest in the area a dream/vision directing the church to recall this wayward son so he can be counselled and healed of his obvious emotional pain.


----------



## Orius

shilsen said:
			
		

> “So,” said Cedric, “Here’s what we do tomorrow. When Kurgash’s people get here, we give them the finger. And then when they get to our walls, we give them the finger again, only this time we give it to them with the rest of the fist and an arm’s-length of steel with it. And we’re doing that all day, and the next day, and the next … until they go home crying and tell stories about how we’re all such lousy dates.”




This speech rocked.


----------



## shilsen

*Philosophy*

“So, Cedric,” said Orion, “What do you think of our chances?” Before his companion could reply, he shook an admonishing finger and added, “And no lying to make me feel better!”

Cedric grinned. “Come on – you know I never lie. Sure, I may not share some information, but I won’t lie.” His grin broadened. “Plus it’s too much hard work to come up with a lie, and any time you do, you’ve got to remember who you lied to, what the truth is, worry about whether they’ll find out about it, and so on. Too bloody complicated for me.”

Seeing the look in his friend’s eyes, he waved a hand in apology and said, “Yes, yes – I’ll quit rambling. So, what do I think of our chances?” His grin didn’t falter, but his tone softened slightly – “I think we’re dead.”

“Truly?” _You are not kidding, are you, Cedric?_ thought Orion.

“Truly. This fort was never as strong as the sodding bureaucrats made it out to be and we have maybe two-thirds the men we need to hold it. Kurgash’s hordes are well-equipped and drastically outnumber us. We stand no chance of being reinforced, unless Gareth not only decides to ignore the king and break his leaguer, but pulls off a forced march that I’d have a bloody hard time making alone, leave alone with an army. Kurgash may not have anything in the way of siege engines – other than ogres hurling rocks, that is – but we’ve got no real way to keep his forces from the wall either. Let the wall be breached and we’ll last maybe a day or two. I expect we’ll sell our lives very dearly, but at the end, I expect we _will_ sell them.”

Orion’s expression had grown steadily gloomier as Cedric calmly described the situation. As he considered that there was really no basis for argument, a thought struck him. “On a related note, then – why are you here?”

“Huh?”

Orion grinned mirthlessly at seeing Cedric taken off-guard for a moment. “Just what I said. Why are you here? You’re pretty sure we’re going to die and you’re probably right. I’ve got to be here, because I am the commander. This is my duty. But you decided to ride poor old Bo… Beobarius all the way here. Why? You couldn’t be missing me that much!”

Cedric threw back his head and laughed raucously, drawing curious looks from the pair of guards down at the far end of the otherwise empty hall. “You know, Orion, sometimes you can be a bit thick. Have you not _met_ me?” The mirth disappeared from his face, but his eyes still twinkled, as if he was privy to an intensely private joke, as he added, “It’s quite simple, actually. You needed help. And since I couldn’t bring an army, I came alone. That’s it.”

“Yes, I get that, but what I don’t get is the rest of it. You came to help, right?”

“Yes.”

“But you expect that your help will very likely not change the fact that I will be killed here.”

“Also, yes.”

“And, in fact, you fully expect to die by my side.”

“God, you’re good. Go on – you’re giving me goosebumps.”

Orion ignored the comment and continued, “So you’re here to ‘help’ even though you expect that this help will be of no avail and will lead to your death. That makes absolutely no sense, even for you, Cedric. If our state is so completely hopeless, why choose to be part of it?”

Cedric held Orion’s gaze steadily for a moment, for speaking. His voice was dry but, for once, lacking the undertone of irony it usually held. “Because I should. My nation and its people are under attack, and a friend of mine stands alone … well, relatively alone … before the onslaught. So I think I should help him. Whether my help will save him or not, whether success of failure are in the offing, whether I will garner fame and glory beside him or die in the mud on a hobgoblin’s pike, are immaterial. What matters is that the action is right. And at this moment, there is no place more right for me to be – my friend – than by your side.”

His voice was almost embarrassing in its sincerity and for a moment Orion could not meet his gaze, feeling a lump in his throat and a sting behind his eyes. Fighting off the reaction for a moment, he continued, speaking a little thickly, “Believe me, there are few people I would rather have by my side than you, but I still do not completely understand. Doesn’t the possibility of success or failure matter to you?”

“Not really. I am aware of them, and I will act to maximize the chances of success where possible, but at a fundamental level, they do not matter. What matters for me is to do what I should do, as well as I can, every moment of every day. Once I do that, I have a satisfaction in my actions that neither success nor failure can touch. And believe me, I know. I have plumbed the depths of failure before and will again – though this time it might be terminal. In the short term, can I help save you and your men’s lives? I certainly hope so, but I just as strongly expect that I will not. And in the long term, it is quite likely that my actions here cannot prevent the eventual fall of our nation. Even if we fight off a hundred invasions, some day, long after you and I are gone, a force may come forth that cannot be stopped, and it will wipe our land from the world. In the material sense, at that moment, everything you and I have done to protect it will be meaningless and futile. But that does not – and never will – impact our actions in this moment. Right here and now, in this moment, all that matters is that we should stand against the foe, even if it is a foe we cannot hope to defeat. And so, I do.”

“You know, Cedric, I don’t know if that makes you an incredible hero or a complete and utter fool.”

“Both. And neither. I’m just a man. But I am exactly the man I choose to be, doing exactly what I choose to do, in exactly the place that I choose to be. And I have been, for many years now. That is a joy worth dying for.”

“If you say so,” said Orion, looking unconvinced.

Cedric grinned. “Or maybe I’m just talking out my ass. What the  do I know?” He winked and then jumped to his feet, “Time to stop talking philosophy and go check on the preparations, don’t you think? I have a couple of ideas to make things harder for Kurgash.”

As Orion rose to his feet too, Cedric looked inwards within himself, testing the truth of his words and himself, as he constantly did. Just as he had mentioned to Orion, he found the very real belief that he would be dead in a couple of days. There was a muted sense of sorrow at the impending loss of a life he truly loved and enjoyed, mingled with a greater sorrow at the place of eternal loss, sorrow and pain in the world. There was a complete and utter lack of fear, and a mild amusement at the lack thereof. And overlying it all was the never-ending joy he felt every day of his life at the fascinating beauty of the world, with all its facets and its mutability, and the utter adamantine certainty of his place within it. _Yes,_ he thought, as he followed Orion towards the door, _It will be a pity to leave this world. But I could not choose otherwise and remain what I am._


----------



## iwatt

shilsen said:
			
		

> There was a complete and utter lack of fear, and a mild amusement at the lack thereof.




As I was reading this , which was very nice by the way, I was struck specially by this. As a paladin, he doesn't feel fear. 

SRD:


> Aura of Courage (Su): Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions while the paladin is conscious, but not if she is unconscious or dead.




This is huge. I'm no psychologist or biologist, but from what I understand fear is a very useful survival trait. What would the real world effect of this inability to feel fear really have on an individual? First thing that come to mind is that there, aren't any Lev 3 paladins who are adrenalin junkies.    Any other ideas on this subject. How would this affect Cedric, since you're trying to round him out as a more "human" paladin (or that is mat kleast my impression from your posts).

By the way, I guess the above depends on how you read the aura of courage ability: (1) unable to feel fear. (2) feels fear, but is unnafected by it.


witrhnrespect to your post: It allays (sp?) my doubts that Cedric wasn't a beacon of hope. He ast least now represents in my mind the kind of guy who will do the right thing regardless of circumstances. It is right for him to help his friend. It's still hopeles, and he can feel sad about that, but he's vindicated in the fact that he's doing the right thing.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

iwatt said:
			
		

> This is huge. I'm no psychologist or biologist, but from what I understand fear is a very useful survival trait. What would the real world effect of this inability to feel fear really have on an individual?



As a biologist (and someone who spends every day with psychologists), I can safely say that I haven't a clue.   

Fear is central to our lives as they are lived.  Fear is a HUGE motivator for so many of our behaviors.  Removing it completely might well create something entirely inhuman.  But here are some guesses...

1) He'd be incredibly attractive to women (and that's without his Charisma bonus)
2) He'd live a lot longer, provided he managed to die of natural causes (for similar reasons, he would have better spatial memory than people of similar age and would process toxins more efficiently.  If anyone wants the bio on this, I can go into detail, but it primarily has to do with the fact that I'm assuming many of his fight or flight responses would be drastically decreased.  He also would probably have a lower overall metabolism unless he kept very active, though again... paladin.)
3) He would generally be the first one to act in any surprising or dangerous situation.  People tend to freeze up momentarily when their amygdala wants them to get out of Dodge but their personal inclinations are to stand and fight.
4) If he was in the habit of being a good person (we can assume 3rd level paladins are) he would be insanely heroic.  He has nothing inhibiting him from many kinds of rash action.
5) If someone who was not a third level paladin acquired this ability, they would probably start sliding towards what D&D calls "Chaotic Evil" right quick.  It is generally accepted (and is even central to some religions and some theories of altruistic behavior among psychologists) that fear of the consequences of their actions is the only thing that keeps people from behaving in entirely selfish ways all the time.  I personally don't believe that is the case for all people, but there is definitely a category of people for which this is true.


----------



## The Sigil

Voadam said:
			
		

> But isn't this objectification fine in transactions between non friends? When you want an apple from the store you don't necessarily care about the individual vendor's personhood, it is ok to just want to buy an apple.



Not a good example - the *apple* is the object of your desire (to satisfy your hunger) in this case, not the vendor.  The vendor is merely that which is required to facilitate you getting you the object you want.  Thus, you have not objectified a person.

In the case of prostitution, the body of the other person - which is an integral part of that person - is the object of your desire (to satisfy your sex drive).  In this case you *have* objectified a person (and the pimp - or the time the person spent negotiating with you - would be analagous to the vendor - that which is required to facilitate you receiving the object of your desire).  In the case of a self-employed prostitute, the vendor IS the apple.

(Hope that makes sense.)

--The Sigil


----------



## iwatt

> 1) He'd be incredibly attractive to women (and that's without his Charisma bonus)




why?



> 2) He'd live a lot longer, provided he managed to die of natural causes (for similar reasons, he would have better spatial memory than people of similar age and would process toxins more efficiently. If anyone wants the bio on this, I can go into detail, but it primarily has to do with the fact that I'm assuming many of his fight or flight responses would be drastically decreased. He also would probably have a lower overall metabolism unless he kept very active, though again... paladin.)




Ah, places less stress on his health, since he enver get's these wild surges...cool.




> 3) He would generally be the first one to act in any surprising or dangerous situation. People tend to freeze up momentarily when their amygdala wants them to get out of Dodge but their personal inclinations are to stand and fight.




I get this. But he also wouldn't have the boost from a sudden adrenalin rush... so just say they cancel each other (he isn't shocked, but he doesn't get teh faster  reaction time?).



> 4) If he was in the habit of being a good person (we can assume 3rd level paladins are) he would be insanely heroic. He has nothing inhibiting him from many kinds of rash action.




This was my first though as well. So you would actually have the effect that pladins always charge!! I've been playing my dwarf pally perfectly then   



> 5) If someone who was not a third level paladin acquired this ability, they would probably start sliding towards what D&D calls "Chaotic Evil" right quick. It is generally accepted (and is even central to some religions and some theories of altruistic behavior among psychologists) that fear of the consequences of their actions is the only thing that keeps people from behaving in entirely selfish ways all the time. I personally don't believe that is the case for all people, but there is definitely a category of people for which this is true.




And gives another reason why the paladin code is so important. The pally needs the rules not to go into a psychotic (sp?) break....


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not a good example - the *apple* is the object of your desire (to satisfy your hunger) in this case, not the vendor.  The vendor is merely that which is required to facilitate you getting you the object you want.  Thus, you have not objectified a person.
> 
> In the case of prostitution, the body of the other person - which is an integral part of that person - is the object of your desire (to satisfy your sex drive).  In this case you *have* objectified a person (and the pimp - or the time the person spent negotiating with you - would be analagous to the vendor - that which is required to facilitate you receiving the object of your desire).  In the case of a self-employed prostitute, the vendor IS the apple.
> 
> (Hope that makes sense.)
> 
> --The Sigil




Well then how about switching the example to getting a professional (nonsexual) massage for a closer analogy to prostitution. Getting a physical service from another using their body. 

Or hiring somebody to pose as a model.

Neither of these professional uses of others bodies without particular care for them as individual people seem to be evil or even negative objectification to me. It seems to be morally neutral objectification.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Canis said:
			
		

> 1) He'd be incredibly attractive to women (and that's without his Charisma bonus)





			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> why?



 Well, this one isn't very biological, unlike the rest.  It came from two things.  First, I honestly believe women are attracted to confidence (it's a defensible position and it would explain why my attractiveness has varied the way it has throughout my life).  Fearlessness would breed confidence, and if it didn't, it would fake it real well.  Second, women ARE attracted to social status (a fact that I can back up with about a dozen psychology studies if anyone disputes it).  That part is solid, but here's the total opinion part: Fear is the primary determinant of male social status.  The less fearful of the other males you are (whether said fear is of getting beat up or of being socially disgraced) the higher you end up in the hierarchy.  This is my theory of male human social hierarchies, but it's a work in progress, so I readily accept that it might be total crap.  If there's any truth to it.  The paladin will instantly own any room he walks into.

Of course, the whole "no fear of social disgrace" thing doesn't line up with the literature paladins are based on.  Those knights were _deathly_ afraid of social discomfiture.



> Ah, places less stress on his health, since he enver get's these wild surges...cool.



Basically, yeah.  Stress hormones (and testosterone, which is also released in higher ammounts under stress) are actually really, REALLY bad for some parts of your body.  Especially the kidneys, arteries, immune system, and hippocampus (a brain region that primarily has to do with spatial memory).  Higher testosterone levels and stronger stress responses are considered the primary reasons why male life expectancy is so much shorter than female life expectancy.  Partially because it makes us stupid, but also because some of our systems simply suffer more wear and tear.

High testosterone levels are actually the human equivalent of a peacock's tail.  Females dig them (at least part of every month), but they require the male to have an incredible immune system.  If you can put out that much testosterone, but you're still pretty symmetrical and not dying of disease, you must have _rockin'_ genes.



> I get this. But he also wouldn't have the boost from a sudden adrenalin rush... so just say they cancel each other (he isn't shocked, but he doesn't get teh faster  reaction time?).



Possibly.  I didn't really think deeply on this.  It's actually really hard to model, not least because we don't know everything going on in the brain that relates to all this.  Immediate reaction time is really neurally mediated, though, not hormonally, so I haven't a clue.

However, that makes me realize that if the fight or flight response really is turned down, that would be really, really bad for him in a protracted fight.  He wouldn't have all the peripheral blood vessel constriction that slows bleeding, he wouldn't stop wasting energy on digestion, he wouldn't mobilze sugar as effectively.  Without a fear response, I think he might actually react BETTER in the first few seconds, but his body wouldn't be preparing itself properly for what it had to do.

Given that, I have to assume that immunity to fear is a mystic/psychological effect that leave all the normal biological responses functioning.  Otherwise, very few paladins would make it to level 4.


----------



## Furby076

iwatt said:
			
		

> 1)why?
> 2)Ah, places less stress on his health, since he enver get's these wild surges...cool.
> 3)I get this. But he also wouldn't have the boost from a sudden adrenalin rush... so just say they cancel each other (he isn't shocked, but he doesn't get teh faster reaction time?).
> 4)This was my first though as well. So you would actually have the effect that pladins always charge!! I've been playing my dwarf pally perfectly then
> 5)And gives another reason why the paladin code is so important. The pally needs the rules not to go into a psychotic (sp?) break....




To respond in number

1) I agree being w/o fear does not necessarily make you attractive to women. In fact someone would say that is a "stereotypical male-bravado bullcrap" and the woman would tell him he is foolish.
2)Yes less stress from being fearful. Sometimes fear is a good indicater that you are overmatched (especially to a trained fighter)
3)Adrenaline does not just come from fear, it comes also from excitement.  Though DnD does not account for adrenaline (you could say Rage is an adrenaline boost)
4)He would be insanely heroic (i guess to be a paladin you have to be).  Remember, in 2nd Ed paladins had to have a minimum wisdom score....while we are in 3.x, they do not, most paladins will have a 10 or so wisdom.  Given that, they will be knowledgable enough to realize that running in head first can be unwise.
5)Thats the thing. A paladin is already the picture perfection of goodness and they get this ability to help them out.  Realizing that every action has a possible reaction that is negative is not fear, it is smart.  I may not fear anything, but I realize that robbing the bank may get me killed, lose my paladinhood, etc.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

AviLazar said:
			
		

> 1) I agree being w/o fear does not necessarily make you attractive to women. In fact someone would say that is a "stereotypical male-bravado bullcrap" and the woman would tell him he is foolish.



And yet, males who are guilty of "stereotypical male-bravado bullcrap" are the exact males females are more attracted to during the most fertile part of their cycle.  Women are essentially bipolar when it comes to what they find attractive.  Disclaimer: this is statistically speaking.  There are large numbers of women who are more consistent.  But on average, 3 weeks out of 4, women prefer men who have lower testosterone and men who are more genetically similar to themselves, but 1 week out of 4, they prefer high testosterone men and men that are genetically different from themselves.  This is true across multiple methods of determining attractiveness.

EDIT: Also, I know this appears inconsistent with my statement above that women are attracted to social status.  It's like saying that men are attracted to both great smiles AND a 2:3 waist-to-hip ratio.  They'll take one or the other, but prefer both.

This is increasingly off-topic, but there's an entire psychobiological literature on female mate choice and "cads" vs "dads."  Interesting reading, though it often makes me a little ill.  In some countries, 15% or more of births have different fathers than expected (12% in the U.S. iirc).  And women are the gender that is substantially more faithful.  Males who cheat are actually in the majority by most reasonable counts.  Of course, we're relying at least partly on self-report for that, so it's always subject to a LARGE margin of error.



> 3)Adrenaline does not just come from fear, it comes also from excitement.  Though DnD does not account for adrenaline (you could say Rage is an adrenaline boost)



As I said in my last post, 3 is more about neural response than hormonal.  2 is the primarily hormonal point, which is, admittedly, not 100% sound.



> 4)He would be insanely heroic (i guess to be a paladin you have to be).  Remember, in 2nd Ed paladins had to have a minimum wisdom score....while we are in 3.x, they do not, most paladins will have a 10 or so wisdom.  Given that, they will be knowledgable enough to realize that running in head first can be unwise.



Sure, but if it's still the best thing to do for others, they will do it without hesitation that a fearful (read: normal) person will have by their very nature.

Besides, rationalization of what was a good idea or not usually comes AFTER the fact.  I'm increasingly in the camp that believes people usually act first and decide after.  Much of our vaunted intellect and decision-making is really just making up _post-hoc_ reasons for actions we've already done.

Dammit.  It was less than a week ago that I swore not to bring my work into my gaming (and the boards).  I am a weak, weak man.


----------



## iwatt

AviLazar said:
			
		

> 1) I agree being w/o fear does not necessarily make you attractive to women. In fact someone would say that is a "stereotypical male-bravado bullcrap" and the woman would tell him he is foolish.




Actually, I asked "why" because I wanted a more in depth reason to Cannis' response. I have read about the studies about "cads" v/s "dads" and also the female bipolar argument. It hasn't been proved either way yet (I think), but it does have some pretty sound studies behind it (once again, this is stuff I'v read/heard thanks to my sis who "is" a bio-chemist and is at least more familiar with this stuff tha I'll ever be).



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Well, this one isn't very biological, unlike the rest. It came from two things. First, I honestly believe women are attracted to confidence (it's a defensible position and it would explain why my attractiveness has varied the way it has throughout my life). Fearlessness would breed confidence, and if it didn't, it would fake it real well.




Ah, I see were you're coming from: Confident----> it's a signal that you'll be a good supplier of protein/defender of the lair.    I do agree whith this.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Second, women ARE attracted to social status (a fact that I can back up with about a dozen psychology studies if anyone disputes it).




I'll take your word for it. This is one of those areas were some people don't like the conclusions drawn from scientific studies.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> That part is solid, but here's the total opinion part: Fear is the primary determinant of male social status. The less fearful of the other males you are (whether said fear is of getting beat up or of being socially disgraced) the higher you end up in the hierarchy. This is my theory of male human social hierarchies, but it's a work in progress, so I readily accept that it might be total crap. If there's any truth to it. The paladin will instantly own any room he walks into.




I can see somewhat what you imply here, but I don't think it's got to do so much with the: "fear is of getting beat up or of being socially disgraced" as much as with the whole confidence thing you stated first. It's always easier to follow a confident idiot than a self-doubting genius.

By the way, I haven't followed the current debate on what constitutes attractiveness to closely, but from what I understand it is not solely based on biological/built in factors, but also based on societal imprint (sp?). You also "learn" what is attractive.


----------



## Furby076

iwatt said:
			
		

> By the way, I haven't followed the current debate on what constitutes attractiveness to closely, but from what I understand it is not solely based on biological/built in factors, but also based on societal imprint (sp?). You also "learn" what is attractive.




There is a LOT of nature into what is attractive.  They have done (repeated many many times over the past few decades) a baby gaze test.  They take babies from a 2-6 months old (still too young to be taught what is attractive) and they show them images of stereotypical attractive and unattractive images (simultaneously, two at a time).  The test showed that babies stare more (gaze) at the stereotypical attractive people.

Some signs of attractiveness:
Symmetrical features
Smooth skin
Healthy color skin
Large
Chiseled features
Slender appearance

So while some will say "hey that is not the case, attractiveness is taught." In reality, attractiveness is in our genes (and other animals).  Don't doubt, animals also go for looks.  Look at peacocks for example...the male peacock with the biggest brightest (and most colorful) tail gets the female peacock.  Fish (i think salmon) attract their mate by reflecting light off their scales.

Like it or not, looks play a great deal.

Our higher intelligence (as humans) actually inhibits (in some ways) this aspect of nature.


----------



## iwatt

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Like it or not, looks play a great deal.




I know this is true. Your example is very good, since it takes the closest thing to a clean slate (the infant).

But this doesn't discount that you are also "taught" to find things attractive. This "teaching" consists of subconsious conditioning, societal pressure, any many other factors. I base this on the fact that the ideals of beauty change over time: plumpy "prehistorical venuses" to "skinny waifs" strutting their stuff on catwalks.

 In my experience, the whole concept of nature v/s nurture is incorrect. It should be called anture AND nurture. Sometime they're in direct opposition, and other times they reinforce each other. Nothing is really that simple.



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> Our higher intelligence (as humans) actually inhibits (in some ways) this aspect of nature.




I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

iwatt said:
			
		

> I...I base this on the fact that the ideals of beauty change over time: plumpy "prehistorical venuses" to "skinny waifs" strutting their stuff on catwalks....




And yet the "models" in all cultures over all times tend to have a 2:3 waist-hip ratio.  Some things ARE constant.

To clarify what I meant by social status, an example:

One study, for example, used pictures of men and women in various types of clothing that indicated their profession and/or financial/social status.  i.e. suit, tuxedo, medical scrubs, burger king uniform, etc.  Men found the same women attractive regardless of what they were wearing (at least, personal differences in attractiveness accounted for most of the variance).  Women found men in professional/expensive clothing most attractive, with only minor effects of the actual physical characteristics of the men.  This was even tighter when they accounted for the woman's reproductive state in follow-up studies.


----------



## iwatt

Canis said:
			
		

> And yet the "models" in all cultures over all times tend to have a 2:3 waist-hip ratio.  Some things ARE constant.




This I didn't know.

So the ratio remians constant, not the absolute measurements. Any biological reason for the 2:3 ratio?


----------



## Furby076

iwatt said:
			
		

> 1)But this doesn't discount that you are also "taught" to find things attractive. This "teaching" consists of subconsious conditioning, societal pressure, any many other factors. I base this on the fact that the ideals of beauty change over time: plumpy "prehistorical venuses" to "skinny waifs" strutting their stuff on catwalks.
> 
> 2)In my experience, the whole concept of nature v/s nurture is incorrect. It should be called anture AND nurture. Sometime they're in direct opposition, and other times they reinforce each other. Nothing is really that simple.
> 
> 3)I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify?




You know I had a really nice post, tried to subit it, and it didn't work. So to retype (i added numbers to your paragraph, makes it easier for me):

1) While there are things that we "teach" to find attractive, there are certain basic premises that are static.  For example, as someone mentioned the 2:3 ratio.  I forget the exact numbers, but the streotypical hour-glass figure for a woman, and upside down pyramid for a man is not stereotypical.  This represents a woman in good health.  The larger chest represents larger breasts (for feeding babies), the smaller waist represents a good diet, and the larger hips represent the bones have spread wide enough to allow easy child birthing.  For a man, the upside pyramid shows a strong shoulder base (capable of doing manual labor) while slim waist representing a good diet.  All in all, mother nature intended for us to be breeding machines.

2)We know it is Nature and Nurture...but we say VS because we are trying to figure out which is more dominate, and which controls what aspect

3) See point 3.  But another example of what humans have created that mother nature did not intend.  Some people select a mate because their mate makes them laugh.  Mother nature does not care if your chosen mate makes you laugh - mother nature just wants you and your mate to make babies.

We are all baby making machines as far as mother nature goes


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

iwatt said:
			
		

> This I didn't know.
> 
> So the ratio remians constant, not the absolute measurements. Any biological reason for the 2:3 ratio?



Theoretically, it's the ratio a nice, fertile woman with appropriate child-bearin' hips and a healthy diet would have.  There's an absolute measurement component to that (rail-thin women will never do a good job of birthin' babies, after all), as well, but we chose to fixate on the ratio.  Probably because it's closest to being reliable, i.e. not dependent on the height of the woman or other characteristics.


----------



## shilsen

iwatt said:
			
		

> As I was reading this , which was very nice by the way, I was struck specially by this. As a paladin, he doesn't feel fear.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is huge. I'm no psychologist or biologist, but from what I understand fear is a very useful survival trait. What would the real world effect of this inability to feel fear really have on an individual? First thing that come to mind is that there, aren't any Lev 3 paladins who are adrenalin junkies.    Any other ideas on this subject. How would this affect Cedric, since you're trying to round him out as a more "human" paladin (or that is mat kleast my impression from your posts).




I'd say rather that I'm trying to flesh Cedric out more as a multifaceted paladin than simply a more "human" one. After all, if "human" is based on qualities shared by the majority of the species, then Cedric's qualities and personality would make him count as non-human in many ways. Incidentally, where the lack of fear is concerned, I have to confess that I wasn't evern referring to the paladin's immunity to it. The closing paragraph, where Cedric looks within himself and finds certain thoughts and emotions, actually arose out of a discussion I had with a friend over lunch on Thursday. We were talking about personal philosophies and self-awareness (which she knows I'm big on) and she asked me something like, "So what emotions do you see when you look within?" I gave her a description much like the last paragraph, and later thought of using it in the story, with a couple of tweaks. So the lack of fear I was referring to for Cedric was actually based on my idea of his personality rather than the paladin ability.

As for how I would consider the paladin immunity affecting the personality, in Cedric's case I would see him as encountering situations where he might otherwise feel fear and being aware that it is only his paladin ability that prevents it. Thus, while the physical reactions of fear wouldn't actually be present, his self-awareness would allow him to intellectually respond to a technically fearful situation. So I don't think a lack of actual fear would make him any more (or less) reckless in his actions. I'm not sure if that answers your question about my take on it. 



> witrhnrespect to your post: It allays (sp?) my doubts that Cedric wasn't a beacon of hope. He ast least now represents in my mind the kind of guy who will do the right thing regardless of circumstances. It is right for him to help his friend. It's still hopeles, and he can feel sad about that, but he's vindicated in the fact that he's doing the right thing.




Thanks. Though I've obviously fleshed out the character a lot more over time than in my first post on this thread, this is a quality I saw the character as possessing all along.


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not a good example - the *apple* is the object of your desire (to satisfy your hunger) in this case, not the vendor.  The vendor is merely that which is required to facilitate you getting you the object you want.  Thus, you have not objectified a person.
> 
> In the case of prostitution, the body of the other person - which is an integral part of that person - is the object of your desire (to satisfy your sex drive).  In this case you *have* objectified a person (and the pimp - or the time the person spent negotiating with you - would be analagous to the vendor - that which is required to facilitate you receiving the object of your desire).  In the case of a self-employed prostitute, the vendor IS the apple.
> 
> (Hope that makes sense.)
> 
> --The Sigil




Another couple of examples.

Professional sports or dance. Both the professionals are using their bodies to perform for the entertainment of the audience.

When I go to the ballet I watch to apreciate the performance. I don't know the ballerinas. I don't know if they are happy or sad or fulfilled by their being dancers. I have no ill will or animus towards them, I'm just appreciating the performance they create with their bodies. In fact I'm paying for their performance with their bodies without consideration of them as individuals. Is going to the ballet evil objectification of the dancers?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Voadam said:
			
		

> ...Is going to the ballet evil objectification of the dancers?



Depends on who you ask.  Some people would actually say "yes."

I'd say no.  But then, I'm the guy who thinks prostitution does _not necessarily_ involve "evil" objectification of women, so maybe I'm just nuts.


----------



## Crass

To answer your base question, yes I would allow the character - subject to campaign setting. For instance, a campaign set in (actual) ancient Babylon c. 500-600 BC - the character would fit in as women were expected to fill certain roles in society - including that of a whore who had to sleep with a specified number of men (7, I believe) prior to marriage, commonly working in whorehouses to fulfill their societal obligations. So, to reiterate - subect to campaign setting the characer as written would be accepatable.


----------



## howandwhy99

Okay, admittedly I didn't read all the posts. But I did skim most. Actually I wanted to see what all the hubbub was about.

Skipping the initial poster's question I think what is being asked is "What is a paladin to you?" (not just "does this one fit?") It seems pretty obvious there is plenty to talk about in that regard. There are so many opinions here as well as knowledge about the class and its history.

In my view, paladin's are the embodiment of Lawfulness and Goodness (in D&D). Plenty of Gods can have champions, but paladins must always be lawful and good. Leaving that alignment means losing one's powers. Now these can also be lost by ticking off one's patron God, but that is going to vary widely depending on the particular God. For all paladins however, I think LG works as a simple litmus test.

This isn't the case for other LG characters. Nothing is lost to any other class if they stop being LG. Sure some have alignment requirements, but paladins are far more restrictive and are unique to LG. (IMO, LG-only prestige classes are tantamount to being a paladin anyways)

So back to my original statement. Paladins are the embodiment of Lawfulness and Goodness. This means they are some pretty conflicted characters. I don't know everyone's personal experiences, but the law and the good do not always intersect in my opinion. I doubt they would in any sort of realistic fantasy world either. So a paladin, at times, has to determine when to do the lawful act and when to do the good act. 

Notice: if they can't do both they are caught in a moral quandry. Does this mean they are "on trial" every time they face a moral division like this? I would think not. There is some amount of wiggle room depending on the patron God. The religion likely has some codes on what to do in certain situations like these to make life easier. But I think being on the leading edge of that moral understanding, a near constant battleground of ethical testing, is what attacts some to play the paladin class.


I think it's also why threads about paladins tend to be so long. The morality. The politics. The religion. All are tied to the class concept. 



Oh yeah. Would I allow it? Depends on a lot of factors. But I prefer to say yes when I can. So yes. (but be prepared for the consequences)


----------



## Mista Collins

Worlds worst paladin thread? In my opinion this is the best paladin thread I have seen yet. Very well written fiction the Cedric. I voted "yes" as I can not see any reason why he wouldn't be a paladin. I liked all the writting so much that I am going to use this guy as an NPC. My question is this though (didn't read all the posts). What is his CHA? By the sounds of it he isn't very attractive and seems to be a very rude person (at least to some people). But he does have a "force of personaility". 

I would like to see a book written solely based on this character. I think the first time I play a paladin character, I will see if my DM will allow this.

...you are a perfect example of someone who likes thinking outside the box when it comes to character creation, and I admire that! Wish I was in the Philly area and could drop by one of your games.

Keep the updates coming. BTW, I voted yes.


----------



## shilsen

Mista Collins said:
			
		

> Worlds worst paladin thread? In my opinion this is the best paladin thread I have seen yet.




Thanks. If size does matter ... 



> Very well written fiction the Cedric. I voted "yes" as I can not see any reason why he wouldn't be a paladin. I liked all the writting so much that I am going to use this guy as an NPC. My question is this though (didn't read all the posts). What is his CHA? By the sounds of it he isn't very attractive and seems to be a very rude person (at least to some people). But he does have a "force of personaility".




Since this is a concept rather than a PC/NPC I've actually run, I haven't made any mechanical decisions. If I had to make a judgement call, I'd either (depending on the DM's preferences) give him a decent Cha and put only a couple of ranks in Diplomacy, or have a decent Cha and a good Diplomacy score, but not have him actually use Diplomacy as a skill unless he wanted to. I conceptualized him more as someone who chooses to ignore social niceties than as someone incapable of using them. 

One of my players has been telling me that I should bring Cedric in as an NPC, esp. since it should lead to some interesting interactions with his PC, who's a far more conventional paladin. If I do introduce Cedric, I'll take the second of the two routes I mentioned above. And if you do use Cedric as an NPC, I'd be interested to hear how it went and how the players/PCs reacted to him.


----------



## Furby076

shilsen said:
			
		

> One of my players has been telling me that I should bring Cedric in as an NPC, esp. since it should lead to some interesting interactions with his PC, who's a far more conventional paladin. If I do introduce Cedric, I'll take the second of the two routes I mentioned above. And if you do use Cedric as an NPC, I'd be interested to hear how it went and how the players/PCs reacted to him.




I definitly think Cedric would have a high charisma (at least 14).  From the writings, I didn't take a hint that he is unattractive, and we all know (or at least should) that Charisma is just not all looks.  Probably one of the best things in Skills and Powers from second edition was the breakdown of each skill into two sets.  As such, I could swing either way with Cedric (he could be ruggedly handsom? A diamond in the rough so to say?).

He definitly has a force of personality, and he has diplomacy ranks.  Not all diplomacy has to be about pomp and posture...diplomacy is just a name for a skill to try and convince people to do things your way without either 1) lying to them (bluff) or 2) scare them (intimidate).  Though I am sure Cedric has a few ranks in intimidate. Probably a couple of ranks in Perform (comedian) as he likes to make the jokes 

Cedric could easily pass for a 32 point build - especially since he is a loner and most loners need that extra "umph" to survive in DnD.

But a war horse? Come on Shil, Dire Lion man - DIRE LION!!!!!


----------



## Mista Collins

shilsen said:
			
		

> Since this is a concept rather than a PC/NPC I've actually run, I haven't made any mechanical decisions.




Well I was under the assumption that you made your concept reality and did create him. But in either case, it is a very well fleshed out character. One I would like to see in any game.


----------



## Drunken Master

I had to vote "No" because paladins are not allowed to do anything fun... unless you classify killing evil guys as "fun", and then they've got that one thing at least.
Also, being a such fatalistic downer would likely irritate his god enough to strip him of paladinhood. I know if I were the deity in question, I'd smite him with cirrhosis at the very least, just for having such a bummer attitude!

However, if we were talking Forgotten Realms here, I'd be inclined to say okay if he was a paladin of Sune, but I really think Tyr, Torm, Ilmater, etc. would frown on Cedric's behavior.


----------



## Furby076

Drunken Master said:
			
		

> I had to vote "No" because paladins are not allowed to do anything fun... unless you classify killing evil guys as "fun", and then they've got that one thing at least.
> Also, being a such fatalistic downer would likely irritate his god enough to strip him of paladinhood. I know if I were the deity in question, I'd smite him with cirrhosis at the very least, just for having such a bummer attitude!




Well you are the party pooper aren't you.  Well here is a counter to your "cirrhosis of the liver" idea...It's a disease, so a paladin is immune to all diseases, natural or magical. 

But why can't paladins do anything fun? Other then true fatalists, why must a person live in somber misery?


----------



## Funeris

I voted yes.  If I ever see characters of such depth in my campaigns, I think I'd s a brick.  I prefer the darker, more realistic paladin.  That whole 2-dimensional, happy, happy sunshiny persona doesn't work well with me.  I hate lawful stupid...and that's what the majority of people that disagree with Cedric seem to be advocating, IMHO.

Realism, realism, realism (of personality).  Its the way to go.


----------



## Patryn

Hi all, 
Yes.
Haven't quite finished reading the thread so I'm still up to be persuaded but I think that Cedric shows the kind of nobility seen in Sam Vimes in Pratchett's disc-world novels (particularly the early ones and I wouldn't be surprised if old Sam was part of the inspiration for Cedric). Coincidentally the closest thing that they have to a paladin is Carrot who lives with a collection of 'seamstresses'.
Anyway this decision is obviously going to depend a lot on the cosmology that you use. I personally think that Cedric would fit right in to a more planar setting where his type of cynicism is relatively common and well grounded and even shared by a significant number of celestials (It's hard to believe in the ultimate victory of good when the Abyss has an infinite number of layers).


----------



## Thunderfoot

My two cents

Firstly - Bravo, it is very well written, too few people give characters depth now a days.

However, no I would not let this character stand AS IS, with a minor tweek or two, I would be fine.  I feel the drinking is fine, but to excess has a problem, it dulls the senses therefore making the imbiber less "fit for duty" - so drinking is ok, drunkeness, not so much.

The prostitution is a chaotic act - wheather or not it is leagal isn't the issue, it is the randomness of the laison (even as a "regular"), it isn't the actual sex I would say no to, just the random "boinking" of whomever.  What happens in the event of pregnancy? (I will stop with this thread as it borders to close to religion and politics (especially here in the states))  But the consequences of any action should be weighed and I don't see that here.

As to the cynical view of his mission - right out!  Though a realization of his fate is refreshing, the carrying on in the face of danger FOR A PURPOSE at the risk of his own life whould be key - the meat and drink of his existance.  The futility and cynasism would be enough for most gods to strip him of power right then and there. (Of course penance would be needed to get them back.)

But the character still works, but not as a Paladin, but as a fallen paladin (not a blackguard) just one who is no longer quite so lofty.  Maybe a Paladin X/Fighter X who may not beleive in the fight anymore but does so simply because it's all he's ever known (ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die), which is quite a clever PC background.   

I think the character plan is great and if you don't mind, I would like to use this template as an NPC in my campaign for a "fallen" hero the party is destined to run into.


----------



## shilsen

Funny, I was just wondering yesterday when this thread would resurface 



			
				Patryn said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> Yes.
> Haven't quite finished reading the thread so I'm still up to be persuaded but I think that Cedric shows the kind of nobility seen in Sam Vimes in Pratchett's disc-world novels (particularly the early ones and I wouldn't be surprised if old Sam was part of the inspiration for Cedric). Coincidentally the closest thing that they have to a paladin is Carrot who lives with a collection of 'seamstresses'.




I'm a huge Pratchett fan, actually, and Sam is one of my favorite characters, but I wasn't really thinking of him when I came up with the character concept. But he definitely has some things in common with Cedric. Cedric = Sam with Klatchian Coffee 



			
				Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> I think the character plan is great and if you don't mind, I would like to use this template as an NPC in my campaign for a "fallen" hero the party is destined to run into.




Not at all. Have fun with it.


----------



## Furby076

*Bump It Real Good*

Don't you think it's time for Shil to update his story. For all those that want an update say YAY. For all those that don't want an update say YAY!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

I can't help myself...   YAY!

A little bit of Cedric would be a good thing


----------



## Funeris

a LOT of Cedric would be even better 

YAY!

~Fune


----------



## Thia Halmades

Ironically, I made this same argument without the fanfic.  You can be a womanizing carouser and still uphold your code of honor.  Assume that 'Paladin' does NOT necessarily mean attached to an order; it can simply be a calling.  What, no Lawful Good person ever patronized a whore house?  Shoot, he paid for it.  The girls know how to deal with pregnancy, guaranteed.

Not only would this be legal for me, I'd encourage it to be played to the hilt.  Both hilts.

LCpt. Thia Halmades (a Paladin, amusingly enough)


----------



## shilsen

Canis said:
			
		

> I can't help myself...   YAY!
> 
> A little bit of Cedric would be a good thing



 Cedric's pickup line: "Do you have a little paladin in you? Would you like to?"

Alas, with the combination of reading for my Ph.D. exams, working for a literary magazine (just got done proofreading a 300 page manuscript), and DMing two weekly campaigns (and playing in a biweekly one), writing more fiction on Cedric is very low on the list of priorities right now. I wouldn't go expecting anything till the winter break. By which time this thread will have surfaced three or four more times, I'm sure


----------



## Agback

shilsen said:
			
		

> I know only one paladin who died of old age. Bodel the Shining, worshipper of Pelor. Oh, he was an inspiration to paladins everywhere! As long as you knew only of his deeds and never met him, sitting upright on a bed in a corner of a Peloran temple, gruel dribbling down his chin as an acolyte fed him. You see, Bodel once met a demon terrorizing a town and he unhesitatingly attacked. It didn't go as planned. The demon was much more powerful, and both clever and cruel. It ripped Bodel's arms and legs off, intentionally using its flaming body to cauterize the wounds so he would not bleed to death. Bodel spent the rest of his life, sixty years of it, sitting in that temple as an unmoving lump of flesh.




The temple of Pelor couldn't ever get the moxie together to organise a _Regenerate_ spell effect? I would have thought it was a cheap price for getting a paladin back on the warpath. Probably cheaper than 60 years of board and nursing.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Agback said:
			
		

> The temple of Pelor couldn't ever get the moxie together to organise a _Regenerate_ spell effect? I would have thought it was a cheap price for getting a paladin back on the warpath. Probably cheaper than 60 years of board and nursing.



 Maybe the demon did Vile damage and they couldn't figure out that they needed to heal him in a Hallowed area


----------



## Agback

The Sigil said:
			
		

> However, I'm genuinely curious... if frequenting brothels, swearing, and drinking is not seen as dishonorable, what IS seen as dishonorable?




Lying, cheating, stealing, abuse of trust, betrayal, embezzlement, perhaps victimisation of the weak (though that might be seen as evil rather than dishonorable), perjjury, false witness, …


----------



## Agback

maddman75 said:
			
		

> The answer depends on many variables.  One of the most important, its clear to me as this debate goes on, is whether your world features are modern or medieval outlook.



 I'd like to add a suggestion that your campaign might feature something else again, such as a pre-Mediaeval outlook. You know, with paganism and all that.

The Julio-Claudian dynasty, the one that established the Roman Empire, claimed descent from the goddess of whores.


----------



## Agback

fusangite said:
			
		

> Two problems here: (a) this rests on the supposition of a monolithic priesthood; (b) why can't they also originate from ascetics, lay leaders and holy warriors? In medieval Europe, often the teachings of mendicant friars were more respected and received with greater authority than those of secular clergy whose job it actually was to communicate the beliefs to the people.




Hyperfine nit-pick, here. The job of the secular clergy was primarily to dispense the sacraments and to exercise jurisdiction (it was this latter that allowed them to absolve sins). They were also supposed to teach, but it was a tertiary role for the,

As for the wandering friars (Franciscans and Dominicans), they were invented specifically to preach to the ordinary people, to make good the doctrinal weakness of the secular clergy (specifically, in Southern France about 1200 AD, when the sermons fo the secular clergy were perceived in Rome as having been ineffective against the Albigensian 'heresy'). The very intent of the foundation of the orders of mendicant friars was that their teachings should be more respected and received with greater authority than those of the secular clergy.


----------



## Agback

Mallus said:
			
		

> If I'm going to be candid, I'm not sure I can fully imagine what's its like to be, say, _Canadian_ --wait, you all like something called back-bacon, right?-- let alone a citizen of some quasi-Medieval feudal state.




Don't you think it might be fun to _try_?


----------



## Gronin

I voted yes, I like to see backgrounds that take the traditional classes out of the box.  I would have certain reservations about some aspects but nothing major.

As an aside... have you read a novel by John Steakley called VAMPIRE$, I think you will see a great deal of Cedric in Jack Crow.... especially the fatalistic, cynical attitude.

Edit: just in case any of you have seen the movie that this book spawned, don't hold that against it.  The movie was absolute garbage... the book is worth a read.


----------



## Agback

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> paladins must always be lawful and good. Leaving that alignment means losing one's powers. Now these can also be lost by ticking off one's patron God,





Can they? By the core rulebooks? I know they can by 'campaign rules' in Greyhawk (though not for all paladins) and in Faerûn, but Sir Cedric is not necessarily from one of those settings.

I have launched a thread in the _D&D Rules_ forum for this digression.


----------



## Agback

Voadam said:
			
		

> Under RAW a paladin does not need a god. However godless paladins still lose their paladin powers immediately if they commit an evil act.
> 
> A good way to think about it is that paladin powers require a certain kind of spiritual purity that can be disrupted by the paladin doing an evil act.
> 
> No micromanagement required whether they have patron gods they serve or not.




True, but by the same token the gods have no power either to define the paladin's code or to take away the paladin's powers. By the rules, the paladin's powers go away by themselves if he or she ever ceases to qualify as a paladin, wilfully does an evil act, or grossly violates the code of conduct. The god has no power to take them away under any other circumstance, nor does the god have any power to waive the suspension of abilities. Sure, the paladin's god can provide an _Atonement_ spell through one of his or her clerics (or otherwise). _But so can any other god_.


----------



## Agback

Sigg said:
			
		

> Why would a god choose as his/her champion a man who has no faith in their patronage?




Perhaps no god did.

In Greyhawk there is a whole category of 'paladins by choice', distinct from teh paladins called by gods. The core rules allude to paladin's 'answering a call' and 'accepting a destiny', ut make no mention of their receiving their powers from a god. Cedric could well be a paladin in spite of a god, not because of it. Paladins have to be lawful and good and follow the code. They do _not_ require divine patronage. This is explicit in the _PHB_.


----------



## Agback

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Legalising prostitution doesn't make it right.




Outlawing it doesn't make it wrong, either.


----------



## Agback

shilsen said:
			
		

> Hey, here's an idea (for you and others who are enjoying Cedric's continuing adventures) - how about making a couple of suggestions for scenarios/situations you would be interested to see him in?




Well, supposing he loses that unwinnable battle. And gets killed. And his body is  dismembered, mutilated, and destroyed. So of course he goes to Heaven.

But his name is not forgotten, and in a decade or two  someone tries to get him back with _True Resurrection_. Does he go back to the unending fight? Or enjoy his eternal reward? His choice.


----------



## Agback

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> As an aside, I've always defined it as treating someone as an object.  For instance, you understand that a pen is for writing and you are more than willing to pick it up and use it to do so whenever you want because it doesn't have feelings or desires.  If you need to write something, you find the nearest pen and use it to write.
> 
> A similar thing with people.  If you objectify them, you don't care about THEM as a person, you could care less about their feelings or desires.  If you need sex, you find the nearest woman that you are willing to tolerate and use them to have sex.




So you think that I objectify my doctor? I don't know her, or really care much about her as a person. But if I need medical treatment I find the nearest doctor whose skills I trust and use them to get well. Same with my chiropractor, plumbers….


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Agback said:
			
		

> The temple of Pelor couldn't ever get the moxie together to organise a _Regenerate_ spell effect? I would have thought it was a cheap price for getting a paladin back on the warpath. Probably cheaper than 60 years of board and nursing.



See... this is one of the many instances where the D&D rules make storytelling unnecessarily hard.

I think it takes a LOT away from the story when you have _Regenerate_ and _Raise Dead_ and what not treated as parts of the story rather than as the gamist constructs they actually are.

Part of the problem is that they insist upon reagents and gold piece costs (tangible in the story) for what should be a purely abstract benefit to the gaming construct that is your character.

Sorry for yet another digression  :\


----------



## Mallus

Agback said:
			
		

> Don't you think it might be fun to _try_?



It might, rabbit, it might...

I think the point I was trying to make when I posted that was (and that was _long_ time ago) was that I don't treat historical simulation lightly. It's _extraordinarily_ difficult to unlearn all your cultural learning and attempt to see things from a different point of view. In fact, its more or less impossible. Too much goes into the shaping of a person's worldview. The best we can hope for is a kind of faux objectivity; a neutral space in which we promise to play nice and put away our more blatant prejudices.

So while I think it would be fun to try and immerse oneself in a radically different worldview, I also think that its a fool's errand. More trouble than its worth. 

I think that the occasional nod towards the trapping of a given historical period works just fine...


----------



## ZuulMoG

Agback said:
			
		

> Outlawing it doesn't make it wrong, either.



It's already wrong, don't need a law to make it so.  Coercing sex out of someone by any means, be it force, finance, or blackmail, is wrong.  I don't need a law to tell me that, it's as obvious as night and day; or, dare I say it (Oh Dare!  Dare!!), black and white?

Paladins are the champions not merely of law, but of goodness.  Both at once.  Unjust laws they throw down and defeat the tyrants that seek to uphold them.  Chaotic rampagers claiming to act on behalf of goodness are brought in to face the law (and meanwhile the paladin goes back out and smites the you-know-what out of whoever it was that inspired all that vigilantiism in the first place).

It's not an easy life, and it's not supposed to be.  Paladins are modelled after the Knights Templar and Hospitaller, groups that were exterminated to a man by tyrants, IIRC.


----------



## Mallus

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Coercing sex out of someone by any means, be it force, finance, or blackmail, is wrong.



.
Since when is a financial transaction automatically coercive? And I ask this as a Socialist... 



> Unjust laws they throw down and defeat the tyrants that seek to uphold them.



I've said this before in this thread, but hey, I'll say it again... Feudal aristocracies are fundementally unjust (it has something to do with the practice of giving a small percentage of their populations more rights than the rest based on their bloodlines). So why aren't paladins under the onus to overthrow every kingdom they run across?

Whoring is bad, but tacit approval of the brutal injustices found in Medieval fuedalism is okay?


----------



## ZuulMoG

Put the kettle on ma, this could go awhile...


> Since when is a financial transaction automatically coercive? And I ask this as a Socialist...



Girls do not tell their guidance counsellors that they want to be hos when they grow up.  Prostitution is a last resort caused by desperation, not a career choice.  Making it a profitable enterprise is a form of coercion, as it erodes resistance to the concept by dangling money (a neccessity in most economies) as an enticement.


> Feudal aristocracies are fundementally unjust (it has something to do with the practice of giving a small percentage of their populations more rights than the rest based on their bloodlines). So why aren't paladins under the onus to overthrow every kingdom they run across?



Firstly, your point about feudalism being inherently unjust applies equally to every form of government.  There is no just human government, someone always gets left holding the short straw.

That said, paladins are under the onus to overthrow tyrants (IE the Lawful Evil who use law as a weapon against the people), but a just and wise ruler who nonetheless labors under the same unfair system as other rulers can still manage to rule in peace and mercy.  Why overthrow a good king or lord?  Because the system made them king or lord without input from the ruled?  How does that affect their goodness and wisdom?

A paladin must perform a delicate balancing act every day: he must serve the common good without destroying law and order, and uphold the law without allowing evil to hide behind its letters.  A whoring, hard-drinking, ass-kicker is not cut out for the role of paladin.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

I can't believe how contentious this thread still manages to become.

Nice monster you created, Shilsen   



			
				ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> It's not an easy life, and it's not supposed to be.  Paladins are modelled after the Knights Templar and Hospitaller, groups that were exterminated to a man by tyrants, IIRC.



They were also exceedingly mystic groups, with rituals that broke far enough from the Christian faith to make them easily demonized.

They were also hoarding priceless treasures and artifacts that they lawlessly looted and then refused to turn over to the Church, which theoretically had authority over the knightly orders. 

Some things may be, as you contend, black & white, but the Templars and Hospitalers are NOT among them.



			
				ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Girls do not tell their guidance counsellors that they want to be hos when they grow up.  Prostitution is a last resort caused by desperation, not a career choice.  Making it a profitable enterprise is a form of coercion, as it erodes resistance to the concept by dangling money (a neccessity in most economies) as an enticement.



It has been said before in this thread, and will probably be said again.

Your point here is false.  For some women, it IS a choice.  These may be in the minority, but they certainly exist.

What is more demeaning to them, their chosen profession or your insistence that they must be desperate, broken people to choose it?


----------



## Agback

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Girls do not tell their guidance counsellors that they want to be hos when they grow up.




No. But then, I never told any careers guidance counsellor that I want to be an economist. I was financially coerced into it.



> Prostitution is a last resort caused by desperation, not a career choice.




So is picking fruit or washing dishes. They aren't morally wrong either.


----------



## shilsen

Canis said:
			
		

> I can't believe how contentious this thread still manages to become.
> 
> Nice monster you created, Shilsen




I know. Owlbears are easy. Monster paladin threads that are undead and have regeneration - now _that_ takes some doing


----------



## Mulengro

An interesting concept should never be barred due to rules.  The "Rules" are in place to help tell a story, not bog it down in debate.
Besides, Paladin's are always good targets.
- Looks at the mob on his left
- Looks at the mob on his right
- Throws the rock, and prepares a hasty escape.


----------



## iwatt

And it rises from it's grave once again.   

Your mojo is powerful, Shilsen


----------



## Falkus

> Girls do not tell their guidance counsellors that they want to be hos when they grow up. Prostitution is a last resort caused by desperation, not a career choice. Making it a profitable enterprise is a form of coercion, as it erodes resistance to the concept by dangling money (a neccessity in most economies) as an enticement.




Ever watch Firefly?


----------



## Look_a_Unicorn

I don't know so much about the finer points of D&D paladanism- nor do I care too- My vote says 'aye!' on the basis of the character. It obviously fits into the gods view of how a paladin *edit* May */edit* behave or he wouldn't have a paladin's powers.

But the main point I wanted to make... I really enjoyed the mini-stories that portrayed this character. Would love to read about him in a campaign (that I am sure would ultimately end in his messy, violent and accepted death).

Thanks for the read Shilsen! Love your work.


----------



## fnork de sporg

I would like to point out that the paladin is not coercing anyone. Indeed he politely refused to have sex with four girls at once. They wanted to have sex with him. The pnly reason he payed at all was because it was the right and lawful thing to do.


----------



## shilsen

iwatt said:
			
		

> And it rises from it's grave once again.
> 
> Your mojo is powerful, Shilsen




Who knew?

*goes back to poking dolls of ENWorld members with pins to make them post here*




			
				Look_a_unicorn said:
			
		

> But the main point I wanted to make... I really enjoyed the mini-stories that portrayed this character. Would love to read about him in a campaign (that I am sure would ultimately end in his messy, violent and accepted death).
> 
> Thanks for the read Shilsen! Love your work.




Thanks. 

I'd like to play the character as a PC someday, but right now I'm too busy DMing two campaigns to do that. I'm considering having Cedric show up as an NPC in one of my games.


----------



## RigaMortus2

I would allow it.  Is this character a hero?  I would say Yes.  Is he a role-model?  No.  Do Paladins have to be heroes, or role-models (or both)?

Also why are people trying to psycho-analyze prostitution based on the real world?  Do people not realize this is a FANTASY game?  OMG, a prostitute that actually likes sex and wants to get paid for it...  Unheard of!  C'mon people, lighten up.  It is a fantasy world, so if the DM (ie creator of the world) says all prostitutes work in a happy environment, are clean, respected, and are not enslaved or abused and it is legal, then that is that.  No reason to bring real-world aspects into it.


----------



## Torm

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I would allow it.  Is this character a hero?  I would say Yes.  Is he a role-model?  No.  Do Paladins have to be heroes, or role-models (or both)?



*Both.*

However, in my opinion, a good role-model is NOT necessarily someone who is perfect; _perfect_ role-models can actually be discouraging to those who would follow their example and fail to live up to them. A good role-model is someone who legitimately tries (rather than just paying lip service) and sincerely repents their failings. Cedric may be blurring the lines a bit - you get the feeling that once upon a time, he failed and repented, but after a while he grew cynical enough for his feelings about it to become a little hollow.

I'd allow him, though. In my opinion, he's a Good guy, and he fills a more important niche in gaming than being a role-model - he's an _interesting character_. And, after all, isn't the reason we play, in part, to sit around later bs-ing about cool things about characters we've played?  

I'd be disappointed, though, if any potential DM of this character didn't have a story arc going that means the reason Cedric hasn't lost his powers is that he's needed by his deity for some specific purpose. Which ends with Cedric cleaning up his act, or becoming something other than Paladin (in a way that doesn't screw the player).


----------



## Torm

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Also why are people trying to psycho-analyze prostitution based on the real world? ....



I think it is because there are certain ideas that people don't even want implied because they are worried the effects would carry over into the real world in the behavior of people exposed to them. Like that prostitution can be a good thing for all parties. Or that selective breeding might be good for humanity as a whole. Things that people think would negatively impact the status quo, and that in some cases there is a prominent BAD precedent (or several bad ones) that shapes their opinion. Not that they are necessarily wrong, but (IMHO) anything that causes people to have a kneejerk reaction rather than examining things on a case-by-case basis is bad.


----------



## genshou

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> That's a false dilemma. Cedric does not need to patronize the prostitutes in order to look out for them, help them out of financial trouble, or keep them healthy. Nor does he need to do all or even any of those in order to do good to them. Cedric's nighttime romps and his protection/assistance are not inseparable activities. It's quite possible to do one without the other. It's possible for one to be bad and the other good. And it's also possible (IMO, quite likely) that patronizing the prostitutes would actually interfere with helping them.



Bingo.  I had thought no one else had figured this out.

I once had a character who frequented a brothel.  Let's talk about him for a moment.

He was a handsome traveller who always arrived like a thief in the night and left the same way.  There was something strange and mystical about him, but he never spoke with anyone in the city.  He never requested a room at the inn or any meals, and most assumed he was some sort of adventurer who could easily survive in the wild with the help of magic.  Once a week, he would enter the local brothel, and eight hours later he would exit.  He never spoke to the management after his first time; they knew what he would request if he were to deem it necessary to speak.  He liked virgins.  And he paid well for the privilege.

Every week, he took four virgins into his room, one at a time.  Every last one of them exited his room with a 1-lb. bar of platinum, and quit the next day.  Naturally, this encouraged many a girl thinking of entering the business to keep herself pure until the stranger arrived, as he could somehow sense the purity of those sent to him, and would not open the door for them to enter.

So, this mysterious stranger gave great wealth as a thanks for a service rendered.  Or did he?

The truth is, every girl that entered his room a virgin exited the same way.  He spent the two hours with each girl teaching them the dogma of Pelor, and giving them a contact who was a priestess of said deity, as well as being a former successful merchant who enjoyed teaching her trade to others.  The mysterious traveller then gave them a bar of platinum worth a staggering 500 gp, told them to speak of what had actually happened to no one, and bring the next girl in.

He could have just given them the bar of platinum and the name of the priestess and spent the 2 hours taking what they were so willing to give... but he was a servant of [Good].  And that meant he would do what he could to aid them without asking for anything in return.


----------



## Squire James

I think I've expressed my opinion about this before, but let's not keep that from commenting on it again, eh?  This Cedric fellow is something, a real character.  That something is NOT a standard D&D paladin.  At best, he is a member of some DM-created "exalted order" that have the mechanical statistics of paladins and might even be called "paladin".  But he isn't a paladin.

Such a character would, at the very least, be an "attention hog" in my game, and detract from the fun the other players are having because his problems pretty much draw the whole party in and make other PC's problems trivial in comparison.  I'd ask the player to have a little mercy on my limited storytelling ability, especially since I really don't feel like creating an Atonement quest every time he enjoys the ladies...


----------



## Funeris

Squire James said:
			
		

> Such a character would, at the very least, be an "attention hog" in my game, and detract from the fun the other players are having because his problems pretty much draw the whole party in and make other PC's problems trivial in comparison...*snip*




Good thing that we were just asked if we would allow him in a game and not would you allow him in a game with the standard number of four players (or more).  

That being said, I'd say I'd still allow him in a game.  And I think that for some DM's (Sep pops into my head), this one character's issues would not override all of the other character's issues...and actually, this one character's issues would help to create situations where actual ROLE-playing would need to occur...and then you have all the other PCs growing dynamically with depth....all-in-all not such a bad occurence, IMHO.

Also, whether or not the character is an attention hog depends not just on the character or player but also upon the DM and what he or she is willing to tolerate at the risk of alienating the others.  But...maybe that argument belongs in some other thread.


----------



## Furby076

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'd like to play the character as a PC someday, but right now I'm too busy DMing two campaigns to do that. I'm considering having Cedric show up as an NPC in one of my games.




Yes, I think Shilsen wants to have Cedric pimp slap my paladin, who believes in the goodness of everyone and has hope in those who show no signs of hope.


----------



## genshou

Oh, since I haven't answered the original question:

No.
I don't care how you wheedle and try to rationalize it, or put up strawman arguments about cultural bias.  Prostitution is wrong as far as I'll ever be concerned.

Let's look at some of the rationalizations I've seen.
1) Some prostitution rings are... er, something gumdrop-related.  Can't remember the exact term.

Well, I can understand this, to some extent.  Slavery is an evil thing, but bondage is something some couples freely choose to explore in their consentual sexual relations.  Does that make BDSM evil?  Certainly not, not in any sense of the word.  So, I'll give you that one.  However, how many of these institutions TRULY exist?  There might be a fairly "civilized" prostitution ring, but the fact is that those in it aren't all going to be idyllic.  The majority of them will still be in prostitution simply because they are desperate for cash.

2) There is no support in the RAW for prohibition of paladins being Johns.

This one is subject to interpretation, and I'm with *The Sigil*.  It can be argued either way _ad infinitum_, but my view goes beyond the RAW and into the concept of moral objectivity.  As if RAW matters to a tinkerer like me.

3) Prostitution is not evil because objectifying women is no less wrong than objectifying a dancer.

What percentage of dancers entered the career because they had no other choice besides selling drugs or other criminal activities?  What percentage of prostitutes entered the career because they believe it to be an enjoyable career which allows them to express themselves artistically?

4) Prostitution is actually good for society, because it allows for the destitute to have a source of income and/or allows for people to ease off their sexual frustration.

There are plenty of other ways for the destitute to make money.  The only reason we have 'destitute' in the first place is because a free market allows few to be wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  There wouldn't be a financial need for prostitution in a socialism or communism, ergo that argument is not applicable except in certain circumstances.  As to the idea that it allows for sexual mores to be let out in a constructive manner, let me toss out a wrench.  What if legalized prostitution, instead of making a safe outlet for such aberrant behavior, acts as a positive reinforcement for it?  Discuss.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive after all this time 

Good job, shilsen


----------



## genshou

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive after all this time
> 
> Good job, shilsen



Not too much longer, and it'll have a birthday!


----------



## shilsen

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Yes, I think Shilsen wants to have Cedric pimp slap my paladin, who believes in the goodness of everyone and has hope in those who show no signs of hope.



 Nope - just give him an idea of a teensy-weensy different perspective 




			
				genshou said:
			
		

> Not too much longer, and it'll have a birthday!




By George, you're right!


----------



## Furby076

If I may respond.

First, it is your opinion you are speaking of, and the "strawman" argument doesn't qualify here.  Many many countries legalized prostitution and I am not talking about forced/slave prostitution.  Not to mention, our own country allow prostitution on wholesale until the 20th century.  Now it is governed on a state level.

1) I am not folloing the first sentence at all. 
Nobody said prostitution was idyllic. It isn't a halo profession.  Not many women want to have sex with random, strange men who might be disgusting.  That doesn't mean every prostitute is doing this job because she is a slave.  There are many women who choose to do this on their own, and in the course of a short night make thousands of dollars - if not more (some of the higher ends make anywhere from 10-50k/night).

2)When we are talking RAW we are talking Rules as Written, not Rules as Interpreted.  Where in the RAW does it flat out say "Prostitution is wrong" or some such words.  In fact, the only topic it came close to brooch is with regards to drugs. Defenders of the Faith, page 9, "The Code and the DM" sidebar says paladins should do things in moderation - EVEN substances that alter perceptions aka DRUGS!  The RAW says a paladin can do drugs!

That is fine if you don't care about the RAW, but you cited the RAW a number of times so it must matter somewhat.  As for your views of morality...well a d100 does have enough facets to cover the full spectrum of people's morality.  You may consider prostitution evil - but not everyone does...in fact, i'd wager the majority of the world disagrees with you.

3) You don't know why each and every woman decided to become a prostitute.  Maybe one specific girl is dumb as doornails and realizes that is the only way she will make good money.  Maybe another girl wants to have sex with many men and get the benefit of pay.  Maybe another is paying her way through college. Maybe another wants to make 25k/night.  Then there are those who are looking to live on the streets because they can't find a job - but nobody forced them to be prostitutes.  There are MANY homeless men/women who are not prostitutes.  There are many homeless people who got off the streets without resorting to crime.  You cannot generalize for every prostitute.

4) As far as destitute - I disagree with you, and I disagree with the person who said "destitute" and relating it to prostitution as if to be a prositute you have to be destitute.  Again, we cannot speak for each and every woman - but I am pretty sure the girl making 25k/night (for ONE guy) is not destitute...in fact, she is going to retire after one year's worth of work -we are going to be working for the next 30-40!

Prostitution is all about opinions.  Your morals may say it is wrong - and that is fine.  Don't tell me however that prostitution is wrong and evil because I frankly don't buy it.  Don't come to me and say "yea but these girls are slaves" because not all prositutes are slaves (or indentured servants, etc) - some - MANY - do it on their own free will and can leave whenever they want.  And as for the game rules...find me a pssage in WoTC's books that say prostitution is evil and then my paladin will start smiting the hookers in Sharn.




			
				genshou said:
			
		

> Oh, since I haven't answered the original question:
> 
> No.
> I don't care how you wheedle and try to rationalize it, or put up strawman arguments about cultural bias.  Prostitution is wrong as far as I'll ever be concerned.
> 
> Let's look at some of the rationalizations I've seen.
> 1) Some prostitution rings are... er, something gumdrop-related.  Can't remember the exact term.
> 
> Well, I can understand this, to some extent.  Slavery is an evil thing, but bondage is something some couples freely choose to explore in their consentual sexual relations.  Does that make BDSM evil?  Certainly not, not in any sense of the word.  So, I'll give you that one.  However, how many of these institutions TRULY exist?  There might be a fairly "civilized" prostitution ring, but the fact is that those in it aren't all going to be idyllic.  The majority of them will still be in prostitution simply because they are desperate for cash.
> 
> 2) There is no support in the RAW for prohibition of paladins being Johns.
> 
> This one is subject to interpretation, and I'm with *The Sigil*.  It can be argued either way _ad infinitum_, but my view goes beyond the RAW and into the concept of moral objectivity.  As if RAW matters to a tinkerer like me.
> 
> 3) Prostitution is not evil because objectifying women is no less wrong than objectifying a dancer.
> 
> What percentage of dancers entered the career because they had no other choice besides selling drugs or other criminal activities?  What percentage of prostitutes entered the career because they believe it to be an enjoyable career which allows them to express themselves artistically?
> 
> 4) Prostitution is actually good for society, because it allows for the destitute to have a source of income and/or allows for people to ease off their sexual frustration.
> 
> There are plenty of other ways for the destitute to make money.  The only reason we have 'destitute' in the first place is because a free market allows few to be wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  There wouldn't be a financial need for prostitution in a socialism or communism, ergo that argument is not applicable except in certain circumstances.  As to the idea that it allows for sexual mores to be let out in a constructive manner, let me toss out a wrench.  What if legalized prostitution, instead of making a safe outlet for such aberrant behavior, acts as a positive reinforcement for it?  Discuss.


----------



## laughingbuhda

shilsen said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go expecting anything till the winter break. By which time this thread will have surfaced three or four more times, I'm sure




Is it winter break yet?

as an aside to the actual thread, would there be any objection to pulling out the story of Cedric and having it as it's own thread in it's entirety? It's an excellent story on it's own.


----------



## Furby076

laughingbuhda said:
			
		

> Is it winter break yet?
> 
> as an aside to the actual thread, would there be any objection to pulling out the story of Cedric and having it as it's own thread in it's entirety? It's an excellent story on it's own.




It would make it easier to find the stories. leave this threadfor the debate, but have the other thread for the story alone. And the usual bumps.


----------



## shilsen

laughingbuhda said:
			
		

> Is it winter break yet?




Just a couple more days. I'm technically on break already, since I'm not teaching this semester, but I have the little matter of helping to produce a literary magazine (which, sadly, I'll be doing through the break), helping a colleague wrap up the semester whose dad just died, doing prep work for my Ph.D. prospectus, and trying to make life miserable for my players in the group AviLazar is in. 

But I definitely want to do a little more writing on Cedric soon.




> as an aside to the actual thread, would there be any objection to pulling out the story of Cedric and having it as it's own thread in it's entirety? It's an excellent story on it's own.




I'd considered doing that, but I don't write enough on it to make it worthwhile, it seems. Maybe at some point instead I should start a story hour using one of my campaigns, as one of my players suggested.


----------



## Fighter1

This is awesome! I love it! Do you mind if someday I use a likeness for one of my characters?


----------



## The Sigil

AviLazar said:
			
		

> If I may respond.
> 
> 2)When we are talking RAW we are talking Rules as Written, not Rules as Interpreted.  Where in the RAW does it flat out say "Prostitution is wrong" or some such words.



I'll point you back towards one of my posts earlier in this thread.  In a nutshell, the debate can be reduced to a single point:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, *and so forth*), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.



The "and so forth" phrase in the rules as written implies that the list of forbidden activities is *exemplary*, not *exhaustive* - i.e., just because a given activity is *not* specifically written out as forbidden in the rules, that does *not* automatically make it okay (kind of like if I tell my kids they can't do heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana, or LSD ... I'm not going to accept as a defense when they come home stoned on PCP that PCP happened not to be on my forbidden list so I obviously intended for them to use it - my intent was obvious in proscribing drugs entirely, and they're just trying to loophole their way out of it).

Note that The Rules As Written themselves *require* the paladin's code to be played as the Rules As Interpreted!  Unless you would like to suggest that the phrase "and so forth" should be read as not adding any activities to the list of those specifically prohibited.

And of course, once you get started on creating that list, it becomes a matter of philosophical interpretation, whether you like it or not.

If we truly wish to nitpick and slavishly bind ourselves to RAW, without concern of interpretation...


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.



Hurting, oppressing and killing others is Evil.  A paladin is forbidden to commit an evil act.  Therefore, the moment a paladin hurts another creature - does one hit point of damage to any creature any time, anywhere, ever - he automatically loses his paladinhood.  Except, of course, when they use their "Smite Evil" ability, because that is specifically allowed by the rules... so a paladin can attack once or twice a day (or a few times a day at high levels).  Sure hope he hits on that attack!

Do you believe in this view of the paladin?  A holy warrior who is forbidden to unsheath his sword except to attempt to Sunder weapons and fight defensively the entire time, never able to actually attack?  It's based on a strict reading of the rules as written!

Of course not... you INTERPRET the rules to allow a paladin to attack - and destroy - the agents of evil.  But that's not what the Rules as Written allow, is it? 



> 2)When we are talking RAW we are talking Rules as Written, not Rules as Interpreted. Where in the RAW does it flat out say "Prostitution is wrong" or some such words. In fact, the only topic it came close to brooch is with regards to drugs. Defenders of the Faith, page 9, "The Code and the DM" sidebar says paladins should do things in moderation - EVEN substances that alter perceptions aka DRUGS! The RAW says a paladin can do drugs!



As I mentioned before, the Rules As Written themselves require (by the phrase "and so forth") that the paladin code contain AT LEAST one more item on the "forbidden list" and possibly more... and determining the remainder of that list can only be done by Interpretation, so the Rules as Written ARE the Rules as Interpreted. 

In addition, Defenders of the Faith is not a core book (which, IIRC, was the stipulation at the start of the thread).   But it brings up an interesting question... I don't have a copy of the Book of Vile Darkness, but I seem to remember on my brief pass through it that it mentioned certain activities (torture, murder, mutilation, etc.) as "Evil" as defined by D&D.  Would someone who has a copy of the book care to check to see if "prostitution" or "visiting prostitutes" or "fornication" or "adultery" or some other activity that could directly be applied to Cedric's brothel visits is on that list?

(Takes off devil's advocate hat).

--The Sigil


----------



## Fighter1

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I'll point you back towards one of my posts earlier in this thread.  In a nutshell, the debate can be reduced to a single point:
> 
> The "and so forth" phrase in the rules as written implies that the list of forbidden activities is *exemplary*, not *exhaustive* - i.e., just because a given activity is *not* specifically written out as forbidden in the rules, that does *not* automatically make it okay (kind of like if I tell my kids they can't do heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana, or LSD ... I'm not going to accept as a defense when they come home stoned on PCP that PCP happened not to be on my forbidden list so I obviously intended for them to use it - my intent was obvious in proscribing drugs entirely, and they're just trying to loophole their way out of it).
> 
> Note that The Rules As Written themselves *require* the paladin's code to be played as the Rules As Interpreted!  Unless you would like to suggest that the phrase "and so forth" should be read as not adding any activities to the list of those specifically prohibited.
> 
> And of course, once you get started on creating that list, it becomes a matter of philosophical interpretation, whether you like it or not.
> 
> If we truly wish to nitpick and slavishly bind ourselves to RAW, without concern of interpretation...
> 
> Hurting, oppressing and killing others is Evil.  A paladin is forbidden to commit an evil act.  Therefore, the moment a paladin hurts another creature - does one hit point of damage to any creature any time, anywhere, ever - he automatically loses his paladinhood.  Except, of course, when they use their "Smite Evil" ability, because that is specifically allowed by the rules... so a paladin can attack once or twice a day (or a few times a day at high levels).  Sure hope he hits on that attack!
> 
> Do you believe in this view of the paladin?  A holy warrior who is forbidden to unsheath his sword except to attempt to Sunder weapons and fight defensively the entire time, never able to actually attack?  It's based on a strict reading of the rules as written!
> 
> Of course not... you INTERPRET the rules to allow a paladin to attack - and destroy - the agents of evil.  But that's not what the Rules as Written allow, is it?
> 
> As I mentioned before, the Rules As Written themselves require (by the phrase "and so forth") that the paladin code contain AT LEAST one more item on the "forbidden list" and possibly more... and determining the remainder of that list can only be done by Interpretation, so the Rules as Written ARE the Rules as Interpreted.
> 
> In addition, Defenders of the Faith is not a core book (which, IIRC, was the stipulation at the start of the thread).   But it brings up an interesting question... I don't have a copy of the Book of Vile Darkness, but I seem to remember on my brief pass through it that it mentioned certain activities (torture, murder, mutilation, etc.) as "Evil" as defined by D&D.  Would someone who has a copy of the book care to check to see if "prostitution" or "visiting prostitutes" or "fornication" or "adultery" or some other activity that could directly be applied to Cedric's brothel visits is on that list?
> 
> (Takes off devil's advocate hat).
> 
> --The Sigil





Two words: Shadowbane Inquisitor

From CA

This is a Pladin variant per se' (even says it in the description). Read up on it...interesting twist. Essentially a Paladin that WILL do ANYTHING to fight evil - including killing innocents.

If that is in the WoTC menu then why not a pessemistic Paladin that may be self destructive but still adheres to defending law, the weak, etc? The guy outlined here harms no one (but himself) and he is still a champion of good; just a pessimisitc and troubled one like many heros in many stories.

I love the idea - I think its great!


----------



## shilsen

Fighter1 said:
			
		

> This is awesome! I love it! Do you mind if someday I use a likeness for one of my characters?




Glad you liked it. And feel free to use him. One of my primary intentions when starting the thread was to inspire (irritate?) people into pushing the boundaries of the character class.


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> If we truly wish to nitpick and slavishly bind ourselves to RAW, without concern of interpretation...
> 
> Hurting, oppressing and killing others _*is*_ Evil.  A paladin is forbidden to commit an evil act.  Therefore, the moment a paladin hurts another creature - does one hit point of damage to any creature any time, anywhere, ever - he automatically loses his paladinhood.  Except, of course, when they use their "Smite Evil" ability, because that is specifically allowed by the rules... so a paladin can attack once or twice a day (or a few times a day at high levels).  Sure hope he hits on that attack!






The RAW say "“Evil” _implies_ hurting, oppressing, and killing others."  

"implies" is not the same as "is."


----------



## Fighter1

shilsen said:
			
		

> Glad you liked it. And feel free to use him. One of my primary intentions when starting the thread was to inspire (irritate?) people into pushing the boundaries of the character class.




After seeing this thread and thinking about it - I think that the paladin is the most pigeon holed class out there - he is the target of discrimination everywhere in the gaming world! We gotta get him a lawyer! Where is the EEOCDAP (Equal Opportunity Commission for the discrimination against Paladins)? Jonny Cochran where are ya!?

If I have a LG fighter he can still do most anything he wants as long as it does not involve harming innocents. Why should the pali be and different? Why should he be pigeon holed into being the "super good guy " in each and every aspect of his life. Heroes in so many stories are troubled, bothered and self destructive at times. 

I don't see where the Paladin did anything wrong - he took on some ladies but did he hurt them? Where they to young? Slaves? NO! Your Paladin is an actual person with wants, needs and desires of his own.

And think about this: in pre-christian times things such as sex were looked upon VERY differently then they are now. Look at the Romans & Greeks. A paladin in ancient Rome might even be looked upons strangly for not indulging...he would have "earned it".

Now if your Paladin was of a god that forbid certain things or he had taken an oath of sobreity and celebacy then that would be different (as he would eb breaking trust or an oath). It appears he has not - thus he is a normal guy who fights evil and defends the weak and law where ever he goes; he just likes to have a little party afterwards.


----------



## The Sigil

Voadam said:
			
		

> The RAW say "“Evil” _implies_ hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
> 
> "implies" is not the same as "is."



The grandparent would call this "interpreting the rules" - you're interpreting what the word "implies" means.  I'm looking at the list of actions they actually wrote, which is the only list of actions associated with the word "Evil" in the RAW... since paladins are forbidden from committing Evil actions, and this is a list of actions that are associated with Evil, they are forbidden, QED.



I'm just trying to point out that parsing every single word and trying to come up with some sort of list of every single action that is/is not Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic is nigh unto impossible by the RAW, because so few actions are enumerated.  Therefore, the RAW must be subject to some interpretation.

--The Sigil


----------



## Voadam

The Sigil said:
			
		

> The grandparent would call this "interpreting the rules" - you're interpreting what the word "implies" means.  I'm looking at the list of actions they actually wrote, which is the only list of actions associated with the word "Evil" in the RAW... since paladins are forbidden from committing Evil actions, and this is a list of actions that are associated with Evil, they are forbidden, QED.




Under the RAW Paladins can't associate with evil people, not concepts associated with evil.  

I'm just taking up your argument about how clear the RAW are on hurting, oppressing, and killing being evil actions as written.

Ice cream is associated with children's birthday parties, summer vacations, and whipped cream.

Just because you can't eat ice cream does not mean you can't go to a birthday party. 

Ice cream implies a cone or a dish that it is served in. A dish or a cone are not ice cream. An ice cream cone though associated with ice cream, is not itself ice cream.



> I'm just trying to point out that parsing every single word and trying to come up with some sort of list of every single action that is/is not Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic is nigh unto impossible by the RAW, because so few actions are enumerated.  Therefore, the RAW must be subject to some interpretation.
> 
> --The Sigil




I think you can't do it because the definitions given are vague, ambiguous, and internally inconsistent and can reasonably be interpreted multiple ways. I agree this requires interpretation to apply them.

My disagreement is only with your QED.


----------



## The Sigil

Fighter1 said:
			
		

> I don't see where the Paladin did anything wrong - he took on some ladies but did he hurt them? Where they to young? Slaves? NO! Your Paladin is an actual person with wants, needs and desires of his own.



To repeat the gist of a post I made earlier in the thread, one key to the discussion is not found in the paladin himself; rather, it is found in the reaction of the acolyte sent to find him.

By the RAW, a paladin's code states that "a paladin’s code requires that she ... act with honor."  The acolyte's reaction to Cedric's brothel activities shows us that Cedric is *not* in fact acting with honor - visiting a brothel is clearly a dishonorable act.

This point will again raise the sturm and drang of moral relativism versus moral absolutism, but your justification - that a Paladin is an actual person with wants, needs, and desires of his own is not sufficient to overcome the requirement that he act with honor.  He has them, yes, but he is not permitted (by the paladin's code) to satisfy those wants, needs, and desires in a dishonorable way.  Even if you wish to take up the argument that there might exist a culture where temple prostitution is honorable and encouraged, the simple fact of the matter is that Cedric's culture is not that culture (based on the acolyte's reaction to his exploits), so taking that position is a straw man.

A paladin is hungry.  This is a basic human need.  Is he permitted to order a meal from an innkeeper and then not pay him?  No.  That would be cheating (expressly forbidden under the paladin's code).  Is he permitted to lie to get a meal?  No.  Is he permitted to steal a loaf of bread for himself?  Not specifically forbidden, but I submit to you that this is not an honorable act; he ought instead to labor for his food.  The fact that the paladin has to eat does not excuse him from the paladin's code allow him to get a meal any way he pleases.

A paladin has sexual appetites, too (like all of us).  This is actually a tricky one to adjudicate.  Is marriage honorable?  Probably.  But is it honorable to take a wife, knowing full well that the wife (and any children she might bear) might be exposed to danger because Evil forces will know that the best way to hurt him is to attack them?  Or to go off on an (unnecessary) adventure once married, knowing that he might die and leave his wife a widow and his children fatherless?  Maybe not.  Is it then honorable to have a series of one-night stands, even though he may leave a string of fatherless children?  Probably not.  Satisfying sexual appetites in an honorable fashion is a very tough call.  It seems to me that the paladin probably has only a couple of choices that don't result in moral quandries later on down the road... (a) celibacy or (b) retirement from active adventuring upon marriage - at least until the kids are grown, and possibly if his wife is an adventurer, she can go with him.

However, I'm getting off the subject.  My point is that "need" does not override "code" - a paladin is not permitted to lie or cheat merely because he "needs" to... the code doesn't make convenient exceptions.  So claiming that a paladin has needs and wants and desires is a straw man.  If he cannot satisfy those in an honorable fashion - within the strictures of the code - he must go without or lose his paladinhood.

Tough?  Yes.  But then, living a life of virtue (as a paladin is expected to) never was easy.

--The Sigil


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Fighter1 said:
			
		

> If I have a LG fighter he can still do most anything he wants as long as it does not involve harming innocents. Why should the pali be and different? Why should he be pigeon holed into being the "super good guy " in each and every aspect of his life. Heroes in so many stories are troubled, bothered and self destructive at times.




well, because "super good guy" is pretty much the stated role of the paladin class in D&D, backed up by the mechanics and flavor text of the PHB? Not to say that you can't change *your* game to make paladins different, but asking why others might like to play paladins as they were designed seems a little over the top.  



> And think about this: in pre-christian times things such as sex were looked upon VERY differently then they are now. Look at the Romans & Greeks. A paladin in ancient Rome might even be looked upons strangly for not indulging...he would have "earned it".
> 
> Now if your Paladin was of a god that forbid certain things or he had taken an oath of sobreity and celebacy then that would be different (as he would eb breaking trust or an oath). It appears he has not - thus he is a normal guy who fights evil and defends the weak and law where ever he goes; he just likes to have a little party afterwards.



well, I haven't read all of it, but didn't the very first fiction involving this paladin have a member of his church looking askance at his actions? Not a PC with a different idea of what the world should be, but a character created by the same mind as this one and thus operating from a reasonable clear view of what church/diety this fellows supposedly follows? So, questioning our assumptions about the game world doesn't work in this instance.

I voted "no" when I first saw this thread, mostly because the character plays as a bit of an attetion whore PC who tries to DM by roleplayed assertions.   And overall, self destructive and doomed fate isn't what I look for in PCs.


----------



## genshou

AviLazar said:
			
		

> If I may respond.



Please do; that's why I posted.  I'm just glad someone has enough energy left to contest.


> First, it is your opinion you are speaking of, and the "strawman" argument doesn't qualify here.



(emphasis added below)


			
				genshou said:
			
		

> Prostitution is wrong *as far as I'll ever be concerned*.



It should be obvious that this is my opinion and nothing else.  Did you think I was inferring otherwise?  And the whole "cultural bias" argument is a straw man simply because it is a sham argument being used to divert attention from other arguments against the original debate.


			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> 1) I am not folloing the first sentence at all.
> Nobody said prostitution was idyllic. It isn't a halo profession.  Not many women want to have sex with random, strange men who might be disgusting.  That doesn't mean every prostitute is doing this job because she is a slave.  There are many women who choose to do this on their own, and in the course of a short night make thousands of dollars - if not more (some of the higher ends make anywhere from 10-50k/night).



By idyllic I am referring to the picturesque brothel which came up in the initial post, as well as the "perfect situations" people keep bringing up.  Sure there are those who simply choose to do it because they want to make a lot of money per night and don't care about what they're doing.  But are they the majority?  I'd imagine that they are far from it.


> 2)That is fine if you don't care about the RAW, but you cited the RAW a number of times so it must matter somewhat.



When have I ever cited the RAW?  I think you are confusing me with someone else. :\ What I did say that I'm more in favor of ignoring or adding to the RAW.


> As for your views of morality...well a d100 does have enough facets to cover the full spectrum of people's morality.  You may consider prostitution evil - but not everyone does...in fact, i'd wager the majority of the world disagrees with you.



I'm confused about what you're getting at by referring to a d%.  And to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less what the majority of the world thinks, because we as a species have proven time and time again that the majority is usually wrong.  The majority of people in this world are morally, ethically, and philosophically uneducated, if not downright ignorant.  There's a reason why societies ruled by a benevolent, cultural elite have usually fared better than those ruled by the majority.  


> 3) You don't know why each and every woman decided to become a prostitute.  Maybe one specific girl is dumb as doornails and realizes that is the only way she will make good money.  Maybe another girl wants to have sex with many men and get the benefit of pay.  Maybe another is paying her way through college. Maybe another wants to make 25k/night.  Then there are those who are looking to live on the streets because they can't find a job - but nobody forced them to be prostitutes.  There are MANY homeless men/women who are not prostitutes.  There are many homeless people who got off the streets without resorting to crime.  You cannot generalize for every prostitute.



That's an awful strong reaction based on what I actually said.  All I did was point out the fact that arguing about objectifying a prostitute vs. objectifying a dancer is a ridiculous way to try to prove a point.  Sure there are lots of reasons women get into such careers.  I've never disagreed with that and perfectly understand what you're getting at.  I never considered the people behind the business to be "evil", because as you pointed out there are a great deal of circumstances which could apply to any given prostitute.


> 4) As far as destitute - I disagree with you, and I disagree with the person who said "destitute" and relating it to prostitution as if to be a prositute you have to be destitute.  Again, we cannot speak for each and every woman - but I am pretty sure the girl making 25k/night (for ONE guy) is not destitute...in fact, she is going to retire after one year's worth of work -we are going to be working for the next 30-40!



I'd be interesting in hearing a statistic of the average income per night of a prostitute.  I'm getting sick of seeing these high numbers being tossed around without anything to back them up.  When I say "destitute" I don't mean they'll necessarily be there after they get into prostitution, only that so many turn to it because they already are.  What percentage of prostitutes do you think are making 25k a night on only one John, anyway?!?!?!


> Prostitution is all about opinions.  Your morals may say it is wrong - and that is fine.  Don't tell me however that prostitution is wrong and evil because I frankly don't buy it.  Don't come to me and say "yea but these girls are slaves" because not all prositutes are slaves (or indentured servants, etc) - some - MANY - do it on their own free will and can leave whenever they want.  And as for the game rules...find me a pssage in WoTC's books that say prostitution is evil and then my paladin will start smiting the hookers in Sharn.



Would it be better, perhaps, if instead of saying that prostitutes are evil or immoral, we were simply to say that prostitution itself and the support thereof is evil or immoral?  It is a possibility which we will leave open to debate.  And as part of that debate, I will throw this out.  If prostitution is such a lucrative career, then why aren't all you "prostitution is not evil/immoral/wrong" proponents out there doing it instead of arguing moral philosophy on a messageboard?  Honestly answer that, please.


----------



## FireLance

genshou said:
			
		

> Would it be better, perhaps, if instead of saying that prostitutes are evil or immoral, we were simply to say that prostitution itself and the support thereof is evil or immoral?  It is a possibility which we will leave open to debate.  And as part of that debate, I will throw this out.  If prostitution is such a lucrative career, then why aren't all you "prostitution is not evil/immoral/wrong" proponents out there doing it instead of arguing moral philosophy on a messageboard?  Honestly answer that, please.



I'm going to address the issue indirectly, using the example of slavery, in case my daughter manages to google this thread and decides to take my remarks out of context at some future date.

There are institutions in the real world that almost always result in evil. Prostitution and slavery are perhaps the two most often cited examples.

However, in the make-believe world of D&D, the DM can put in all kinds of circumstances and conditions, so much so that a paladin could involve himself with either of these institutions without losing his powers.

For example, a DM could create a society that practises an idealized form of slavery that is no different from any other economic transaction. The potential slave commits to providing services to an owner for an upfront payment (to pay off a debt, for example). There are ways to ensure that both parties enter into the transaction of their own free will. There are ways to ensure that the owner treats the slave well, and does not abuse him in any way. There may even be ways for a slave to buy himself out of slavery and regain his freedom.  Under such circumstances, a paladin may not find anything wrong with the institution and may even own slaves himself.

Just because it never works in the real world, doesn't mean that it can never work in the worlds we imagine.


----------



## Aus_Snow

With bells on.

Um, that's in answer to the actual thread title, by the way.

And ah, only if the bells fitted the character concept and. . .

Don't mind me.


----------



## shilsen

genshou said:
			
		

> Would it be better, perhaps, if instead of saying that prostitutes are evil or immoral, we were simply to say that prostitution itself and the support thereof is evil or immoral?  It is a possibility which we will leave open to debate.




I think this thread's already proved that the subject is very open to debate. My point is simply that prostitution is not always evil or immoral. Would you grant that? Also, if it's not obvious yet, I think that any evil/immoral aspects of prostitution have to do with people being forced to do something, rather than the fact that it involves selling sex. As far as I'm concerned, selling sex isn't any more immoral than selling sandwiches. 

I was going to make a point about fictionality and the importance of making a distinction between a fantasy setting and the real world, but FireLance has already made that point very nicely above.




> And as part of that debate, I will throw this out.  If prostitution is such a lucrative career, then why aren't all you "prostitution is not evil/immoral/wrong" proponents out there doing it instead of arguing moral philosophy on a messageboard?  Honestly answer that, please.




I'll bite, especially since it's been a long time since someone asked me why I'm not a prostitute  The reason I'm not out there doing it is because it would bore me to death. Sex is fun, but I'd hate to have it as a job, since it just doesn't give me the intellectual satisfaction I need in a career. Now if I couldn't find an intellectually satisfying job and had to settle for something else, prostitution would be as good a career as any. And frankly, if I had to choose either prostitution or retail, I'd choose prostitution. Luckily or unluckily, I don't think I'm going to have to make that choice any time soon


----------



## Fighter1

The Sigil said:
			
		

> To repeat the gist of a post I made earlier in the thread, one key to the discussion is not found in the paladin himself; rather, it is found in the reaction of the acolyte sent to find him.




I see the logic – now I can see your point of view here…the acolyte; by his reaction; clearly defined in that world’s society (or at least local society in that region, nation, whatever) some of the moral codes and social norms – now that makes sense. My own logic is based upon these same moral codes and social norms being different than say medieval Europe…clearly I now see that they are not.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> By the RAW, a paladin's code states that "a paladin’s code requires that she ... act with honor."  The acolyte's reaction to Cedric's brothel activities shows us that Cedric is *not* in fact acting with honor - visiting a brothel is clearly a dishonorable act.




Ignoring Mr. Acolyte: And to my own point; I argue that perhaps visiting a brothel is NOT a dishonorable act. In my own home-brewed world (which one could say is Romanish/greekish) this is not an issue.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> This point will again raise the sturm and drang of moral relativism versus moral absolutism, but your justification - that a Paladin is an actual person with wants, needs, and desires of his own is not sufficient to overcome the requirement that he act with honor.  He has them, yes, but he is not permitted (by the paladin's code) to satisfy those wants, needs, and desires in a dishonorable way.  Even if you wish to take up the argument that there might exist a culture where temple prostitution is honorable and encouraged, the simple fact of the matter is that Cedric's culture is not that culture (based on the acolyte's reaction to his exploits), so taking that position is a straw man.
> 
> A paladin is hungry.  This is a basic human need.  Is he permitted to order a meal from an innkeeper and then not pay him?  No.  That would be cheating (expressly forbidden under the paladin's code).  Is he permitted to lie to get a meal?  No.  Is he permitted to steal a loaf of bread for himself?  Not specifically forbidden, but I submit to you that this is not an honorable act; he ought instead to labor for his food.  The fact that the paladin has to eat does not excuse him from the paladin's code allow him to get a meal any way he pleases.
> 
> A paladin has sexual appetites, too (like all of us).  This is actually a tricky one to adjudicate.  Is marriage honorable?  Probably.  But is it honorable to take a wife, knowing full well that the wife (and any children she might bear) might be exposed to danger because Evil forces will know that the best way to hurt him is to attack them?  Or to go off on an (unnecessary) adventure once married, knowing that he might die and leave his wife a widow and his children fatherless?  Maybe not.  Is it then honorable to have a series of one-night stands, even though he may leave a string of fatherless children?  Probably not.  Satisfying sexual appetites in an honorable fashion is a very tough call.  It seems to me that the paladin probably has only a couple of choices that don't result in moral quandries later on down the road... (a) celibacy or (b) retirement from active adventuring upon marriage - at least until the kids are grown, and possibly if his wife is an adventurer, she can go with him.
> 
> However, I'm getting off the subject.  My point is that "need" does not override "code" - a paladin is not permitted to lie or cheat merely because he "needs" to... the code doesn't make convenient exceptions.  So claiming that a paladin has needs and wants and desires is a straw man.  If he cannot satisfy those in an honorable fashion - within the strictures of the code - he must go without or lose his paladinhood.
> 
> Tough?  Yes.  But then, living a life of virtue (as a paladin is expected to) never was easy.
> 
> --The Sigil




And I agree here; as your basis using the Acolyte’s reaction makes your argument correct IMO. Take the Acolyte out…then there is room for discussion.

Well said Sigal.



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> well, because "super good guy" is pretty much the stated role of the paladin class in D&D, backed up by the mechanics and flavor text of the PHB? Not to say that you can't change *your* game to make paladins different, but asking why others might like to play paladins as they were designed seems a little over the top.




That depends on the social norms in your world. As Sigal outlined above; in this case your point here and his hold true. In another society they may very well not; medieval Europe is not the basis for all moral norms in history. 



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> well, I haven't read all of it, but didn't the very first fiction involving this paladin have a member of his church looking askance at his actions? Not a PC with a different idea of what the world should be, but a character created by the same mind as this one and thus operating from a reasonable clear view of what church/diety this fellows supposedly follows? So, questioning our assumptions about the game world doesn't work in this instance.





Sigal outlined that above as well and I agree.



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I voted "no" when I first saw this thread, mostly because the character plays as a bit of an attetion whore PC who tries to DM by roleplayed assertions.   And overall, self destructive and doomed fate isn't what I look for in PCs.




Role Playing to me is up to the player; he wants to be that way then fine – it adds more reality to the game IMO.


----------



## Fighter1

AviLazar said:
			
		

> If I may respond.







			
				genshou said:
			
		

> Please do; that's why I posted. I'm just glad someone has enough energy left to contest.







			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> First, it is your opinion you are speaking of, and the "strawman" argument doesn't qualify here.







			
				genshou said:
			
		

> (emphasis added below)
> 
> Quote:
> Prostitution is wrong as far as I'll ever be concerned.
> 
> It should be obvious that this is my opinion and nothing else. Did you think I was inferring otherwise? And the whole "cultural bias" argument is a straw man simply because it is a sham argument being used to divert attention from other arguments against the original debate.




But this forum is about the original debute…no?



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> 1) I am not folloing the first sentence at all.
> Nobody said prostitution was idyllic. It isn't a halo profession. Not many women want to have sex with random, strange men who might be disgusting. That doesn't mean every prostitute is doing this job because she is a slave. There are many women who choose to do this on their own, and in the course of a short night make thousands of dollars - if not more (some of the higher ends make anywhere from 10-50k/night).







			
				genshou said:
			
		

> By idyllic I am referring to the picturesque brothel which came up in the initial post, as well as the "perfect situations" people keep bringing up. Sure there are those who simply choose to do it because they want to make a lot of money per night and don't care about what they're doing. But are they the majority? I'd imagine that they are far from it.




But your interjecting reality into a discussion regarding the situation within the game; its like applying 21st century morality to people 4,000 years ago – it don’t hold water.

As far as prostitution these days; get HBO and watch some documentaries on the subject. Many women get into the “street hooker” bit because of drugs and such and others because they need money – but in the end; addicts or not; mentally messed up or not; they all say they can’t make that kind of cash doing anything else. So what drives them there maybe a problem; what keeps them there is the cash.

The “high end” women; which I agree are not the majority; do it for the money AND because they like it…and most men with some serious cash are not all that disgusting (usually because they have something akin to class).



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> 2)That is fine if you don't care about the RAW, but you cited the RAW a number of times so it must matter somewhat.







			
				genshou said:
			
		

> When have I ever cited the RAW? I think you are confusing me with someone else.  What I did say that I'm more in favor of ignoring or adding to the RAW.




This argument involves the real world and the game; the RAW is sort of caught in the middle; almost irrelevant for this particular argument.



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> As for your views of morality...well a d100 does have enough facets to cover the full spectrum of people's morality. You may consider prostitution evil - but not everyone does...in fact, i'd wager the majority of the world disagrees with you.




PRotitution being a-moral is a Christian (catholic) concept; stemming from a very small group who took power and felt that the body kept men separate from god…coupling was evil based on that – I’ll stop there and I  won’t get into the history for various reasons but read them ‘ole history books well and you’ll see where all this “anti sexuality” stuff comes from. 




			
				genshou said:
			
		

> I'm confused about what you're getting at by referring to a d%. And to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less what the majority of the world thinks, because we as a species have proven time and time again that the majority is usually wrong. The majority of people in this world are morally, ethically, and philosophically uneducated, if not downright ignorant. There's a reason why societies ruled by a benevolent, cultural elite have usually fared better than those ruled by the majority.




Excuse me – but I would LOVE for you to prove some of those statements! Just flat out love it! Are you forgetting the volume of gamers that are history buffs, highly educated and intelligent? And such – before you start tossing out statements like that be sure you can prove them – in this case you flat out cannot. Why? One very simple reason is that your version of morality is different than another’s; your claiming yours is better…does European colonialism ring a bell here? Let’s not get into the wonderful things that they left behind in South East Asia and Africa…all good right? All in the name or Morality right??? Bah.




			
				AviLazar  said:
			
		

> 3) You don't know why each and every woman decided to become a prostitute. Maybe one specific girl is dumb as doornails and realizes that is the only way she will make good money. Maybe another girl wants to have sex with many men and get the benefit of pay. Maybe another is paying her way through college. Maybe another wants to make 25k/night. Then there are those who are looking to live on the streets because they can't find a job - but nobody forced them to be prostitutes. There are MANY homeless men/women who are not prostitutes. There are many homeless people who got off the streets without resorting to crime. You cannot generalize for every prostitute.




A word of common sense here! Finally!



			
				genshou said:
			
		

> That's an awful strong reaction based on what I actually said. All I did was point out the fact that arguing about objectifying a prostitute vs. objectifying a dancer is a ridiculous way to try to prove a point. Sure there are lots of reasons women get into such careers. I've never disagreed with that and perfectly understand what you're getting at. I never considered the people behind the business to be "evil", because as you pointed out there are a great deal of circumstances which could apply to any given prostitute.




Your other statements do not elude to that.



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> 4) As far as destitute - I disagree with you, and I disagree with the person who said "destitute" and relating it to prostitution as if to be a prositute you have to be destitute. Again, we cannot speak for each and every woman - but I am pretty sure the girl making 25k/night (for ONE guy) is not destitute...in fact, she is going to retire after one year's worth of work -we are going to be working for the next 30-40!






			
				genshou said:
			
		

> I'd be interesting in hearing a statistic of the average income per night of a prostitute. I'm getting sick of seeing these high numbers being tossed around without anything to back them up. When I say "destitute" I don't mean they'll necessarily be there after they get into prostitution, only that so many turn to it because they already are. What percentage of prostitutes do you think are making 25k a night on only one John, anyway?!?!?!




You can find these on the Internet.




			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> Prostitution is all about opinions. Your morals may say it is wrong - and that is fine. Don't tell me however that prostitution is wrong and evil because I frankly don't buy it. Don't come to me and say "yea but these girls are slaves" because not all prositutes are slaves (or indentured servants, etc) - some - MANY - do it on their own free will and can leave whenever they want. And as for the game rules...find me a pssage in WoTC's books that say prostitution is evil and then my paladin will start smiting the hookers in Sharn.







			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> Would it be better, perhaps, if instead of saying that prostitutes are evil or immoral, we were simply to say that prostitution itself and the support thereof is evil or immoral? It is a possibility which we will leave open to debate. And as part of that debate, I will throw this out. If prostitution is such a lucrative career, then why aren't all you "prostitution is not evil/immoral/wrong" proponents out there doing it instead of arguing moral philosophy on a messageboard? Honestly answer that, please.




Honestly – because as I got older I got fat and lazy. I discovered that I lacked the stamina of other  (and younger) men and could never satisfy enough women in one night to make any real money at it. I would venture to guess many men would have the same sort of a response. However; please note; were I gifted in bodily appearance and stamina as some men are there would be no doubt I would be in the “valley” making movies as often as possible!!! 

I would venture to guess that many women may have the same answer or simply that they, personally, don’t want to do it. Perhaps they like computers better?


----------



## krunchyfrogg

At first I wasn't really into the character idea, and I don't think Cedric would fly as a Paladin.  But after reading many follow up posts, especially how his character develops I can totally see a Paladin like this.  

Very cool concept!


----------



## krunchyfrogg

Hey Shilsen, would you ever consider posting a character sheet of this highly unusual Paladin?  I think that would be really cool!


----------



## shilsen

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> Hey Shilsen, would you ever consider posting a character sheet of this highly unusual Paladin?  I think that would be really cool!



 Actually I've never really tried to stat Cedric out. Considering the way I've written him, I don't think the mechanics would be particularly unusual. Maybe I should do it sometime just to give people more to argue about 

Any suggestions for level and/or anything else, folks? He wouldn't be too low-level, since he took out a succubus (albeit while using enchanted teeth ) and a buffed up evil cleric on his own.


----------



## Fighter1

shilsen said:
			
		

> Actually I've never really tried to stat Cedric out. Considering the way I've written him, I don't think the mechanics would be particularly unusual. Maybe I should do it sometime just to give people more to argue about
> 
> Any suggestions for level and/or anything else, folks? He wouldn't be too low-level, since he took out a succubus (albeit while using enchanted teeth ) and a buffed up evil cleric on his own.




Well...How 'bouts a medium armor wearing Paladin (say Breastplate with +3 Dex mod): they all wear heavy stuff - this guy is different obviously. Maybe even make him a TWF (though that sucks up feats like a vacum for anybody including fighters! 

And it would mean you need yet another ability score to be higher (for a paly: Str, Cha, some Wis and now Dex as well!)) 

So maybe sticking with a shield is best (as there are plenty of greatsword weilding paladins as well!) but Maybe using an unusual weapon then; flail, maul, warhammer - something like that.


----------



## shilsen

Fighter1 said:
			
		

> Well...How 'bouts a medium armor wearing Paladin (say Breastplate with +3 Dex mod): they all wear heavy stuff - this guy is different obviously. Maybe even make him a TWF (though that sucks up feats like a vacum for anybody including fighters!
> 
> And it would mean you need yet another ability score to be higher (for a paly: Str, Cha, some Wis and now Dex as well!))
> 
> So maybe sticking with a shield is best (as there are plenty of greatsword weilding paladins as well!) but Maybe using an unusual weapon then; flail, maul, warhammer - something like that.



 I'll have to go back and check on the little elements in how I'd written him up which tend towards certain mechanics. I definitely hadn't set him up as a TWF guy in the fight with the succubus and the cleric, but he does strike me as a lightly armored type. Maybe using a one-handed weapon with no shield (oh, the horror!) or even a rapier with Weapon Finesse. I'm also thinking a couple of levels of rogue would fit Cedric fine and give him the varied skillset I have in mind.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne

I'd allow him.

As long as you made him a Paladin of Lust.

Personally, I don't care about RAW, or whatever.

It's an interesting background and character, the Goddess of Lust needs Paladins to protect her temples and worshippers and holy places.

So yeah, you'd be in.


----------



## Fighter1

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'll have to go back and check on the little elements in how I'd written him up which tend towards certain mechanics. I definitely hadn't set him up as a TWF guy in the fight with the succubus and the cleric, but he does strike me as a lightly armored type. Maybe using a one-handed weapon with no shield (oh, the horror!) or even a rapier with Weapon Finesse. I'm also thinking a couple of levels of rogue would fit Cedric fine and give him the varied skillset I have in mind.




I think there are some feats out there that might go with the Paly abilities and sneak attack? In CA - also in there is the PrC "Shadowbane Inquisitor" from CA; that might be a good long term path for this guy...


----------



## Fighter1

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'll have to go back and check on the little elements in how I'd written him up which tend towards certain mechanics. I definitely hadn't set him up as a TWF guy in the fight with the succubus and the cleric, but he does strike me as a lightly armored type. Maybe using a one-handed weapon with no shield (oh, the horror!) or even a rapier with Weapon Finesse. I'm also thinking a couple of levels of rogue would fit Cedric fine and give him the varied skillset I have in mind.




I think there are some feats out there that might go with the Paly abilities and sneak attack? In CA - also in there is the PrC "Shadowbane Inquisitor" from CA; that might be a good long term path for this guy...


----------



## krunchyfrogg

shilsen said:
			
		

> Actually I've never really tried to stat Cedric out. Considering the way I've written him, I don't think the mechanics would be particularly unusual. Maybe I should do it sometime just to give people more to argue about



My intent exactly! 


			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Any suggestions for level and/or anything else, folks? He wouldn't be too low-level, since he took out a succubus (albeit while using enchanted teeth ) and a buffed up evil cleric on his own.



I'd say he's about CL 6-9, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he "recieved the calling" to become a Paladin after he had started his career as a Fighter (2-4 levels).  

I picture him something like this, statwise:

STR 15-18 (He's very strong)
DEX 10-15 (Seems nimble as well)
CON 14-17 (He sure takes a beating, and I know I can't have 7 drinks without it impairing me)
INT 12-14 (I get the impression he's smart, and doesn't get stumped by many)
WIS 10-12 (His judgement can be a little questionable, however.  I'm really not sure what to give him)
CHA 14-17 (He's got a powerful personality, and relates to the common man very well)


----------



## shilsen

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> My intent exactly!




I knew I liked you for some reason 



> I'd say he's about CL 6-9, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he "recieved the calling" to become a Paladin after he had started his career as a Fighter (2-4 levels).
> 
> I picture him something like this, statwise:
> 
> STR 15-18 (He's very strong)
> DEX 10-15 (Seems nimble as well)
> CON 14-17 (He sure takes a beating, and I know I can't have 7 drinks without it impairing me)
> INT 12-14 (I get the impression he's smart, and doesn't get stumped by many)
> WIS 10-12 (His judgement can be a little questionable, however.  I'm really not sure what to give him)
> CHA 14-17 (He's got a powerful personality, and relates to the common man very well)




Aaaah, you made Cedric a munchkin! Actually, that's a pretty good set of judgement calls. I see him in D&D terms as not having any stats maxed out but all of them above average.


----------



## krunchyfrogg

shilsen said:
			
		

> I knew I liked you for some reason
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaah, you made Cedric a munchkin! Actually, that's a pretty good set of judgement calls. I see him in D&D terms as not having any stats maxed out but all of them above average.



Munchkin?  No way!  He just doesn't seem to have any low stats.  Heck, if anything his wisdom could go down even more for being foolhardy, but that's part of being a Paladin.


----------



## Lord Ravinous

One of the coolest pallys ive seen, kudos!


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Fighter1 said:
			
		

> PRotitution being a-moral is a Christian (catholic) concept; stemming from a very small group who took power and felt that the body kept men separate from god…coupling was evil based on that – I’ll stop there and I  won’t get into the history for various reasons but read them ‘ole history books well and you’ll see where all this “anti sexuality” stuff comes from.



wow, religion, politics and telling people their opinions all in one neat little package!   I gotta admit, I'm impressed.

Prostitution being amoral or immoral is an opinion that many people hold for many reasons. Telling someone what theirs is is pretty poor form. I'm uncomfortable with broad acceptance of prostitution for reasons that have zilch to do with the catholic church or "anti-sexuality". (which I acknowlege are political, so I'm gonna hold off.)


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> wow, religion, politics and telling people their opinions all in one neat little package!   I gotta admit, I'm impressed.
> 
> Prostitution being amoral or immoral is an opinion that many people hold for many reasons. Telling someone what theirs is is pretty poor form. I'm uncomfortable with broad acceptance of prostitution for reasons that have zilch to do with the catholic church or "anti-sexuality". (which I acknowlege are political, so I'm gonna hold off.)



And this relates to the above Paladin suggestion how?

In a world where Gods are real, show up before thier congregations, battle with one another, and bestow thier divine favor and grace, it's pretty positive that there would be little or no murky areas. You would know for a FACT whether or not your god approved of prostitution.

Like I said before: He'd make an excellent Paladin of Lust.

Even the Paladin in the Village of Hommlet from Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is a boozing, wenching Paladin.

I think it'd be a particularly fun Paladin to play, as you'd have to walk a careful line to avoid becoming one of the Fallen.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> wow, religion, politics and telling people their opinions all in one neat little package!   I gotta admit, I'm impressed.
> 
> Prostitution being amoral or immoral is an opinion that many people hold for many reasons. Telling someone what theirs is is pretty poor form. I'm uncomfortable with broad acceptance of prostitution for reasons that have zilch to do with the catholic church or "anti-sexuality". (which I acknowlege are political, so I'm gonna hold off.)



 I think what he is saying is that the notions of today's general society were shaped by those early influences, even if those influences are not the reasons people would state today.  In some sense, this is true.  It is quite surprising how many ideas that many people find to be common today (or at least some that one would think came earlier) originated in 10th-12th century that the church, as a political force in the middle ages, created for reasons that were often quite interesting (no divorces and crackdowns on 'legitimate' children versus bastards (as well as primogeniture)?  12th century reforms hoping to crack down on wars caused by angry fathers of the first wife that was thrown away for the second and succession wars, respectively.  Complicated incest prohibitions that keep you from marrying third cousins?  That's the escape clause for the no divorces thing for royals--you could pretty much always prove incest and have it annulled, like Eleanor of Aquitane did with her first husband before marrying Henry II, who was even *more* closesly related).


----------



## IcyCool

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Where in the RAW does it flat out say "Prostitution is wrong" or some such words.






			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> And as for the game rules...find me a pssage in WoTC's books that say prostitution is evil and then my paladin will start smiting the hookers in Sharn.




Actually, I'm almost positive that the Book of Exalted Deeds says this.

*shrug*  But take that with a grain of salt.  I have developed an intense dislike of that book.  And I was disappointed in the Book of Vile Deeds.  So many opportunities for quality stuff in those books, but instead we are left with so many wasted, dead trees.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I think what he is saying is that the notions of today's general society were shaped by those early influences, even if those influences are not the reasons people would state today.




And I am saying that it is very much possible for someone to deliberately put aside that background for a moment and consider what prostitution means to a society and what it means about the role and value of sex, women, etc and come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with those early influences, even if it ends up somewhat agreeing with them. You might be suprized at the number of people who engage in just that sort of consideration, especially when they find that they cannot accept some of the other notions that came from the same influences.    (then again, hey, you might not.   )

I think that telling people what they believe or why they hold the beliefs they do is not only rude but often leads to making a fool of onesself.  :\


----------



## Rystil Arden

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> And I am saying that it is very much possible for someone to deliberately put aside that background for a moment and consider what prostitution means to a society and what it means about the role and value of sex, women, etc and come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with those early influences, even if it ends up somewhat agreeing with them. You might be suprized at the number of people who engage in just that sort of consideration, especially when they find that they cannot accept some of the other notions that came from the same influences.    (then again, hey, you might not.   )
> 
> I think that telling people what they believe or why they hold the beliefs they do is not only rude but often leads to making a fool of onesself.  :\





> And I am saying that it is very much possible for someone to deliberately put aside that background for a moment and consider what prostitution means to a society and what it means about the role and value of sex, women, etc and come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with those early influences, even if it ends up somewhat agreeing with them.




You're absolutely right.  And I'm certainly not disagreeing with you.  I don't think he is either (from reading the part of his post you quoted).  But what he is saying (I think, anyway) is that it is also very much possible for someone to deliberately put aside that background for a moment and consider what prostitution means to a society and what it means about the role and value of sex, women, etc and come to a conclusion that ends up completely disagreeing with them.  

So therefore, unless you want to accept the early sources and just say something like 'It's Evil, end of story,' you rather need to say 'I have come to my own conclusions on this matter, and I think it is wrong.  However, that doesn't mean that other people who are also not evil people cannot hold valid contradictory opinions.'


----------



## Fighter1

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> wow, religion, politics and telling people their opinions all in one neat little package!   I gotta admit, I'm impressed.
> 
> Prostitution being amoral or immoral is an opinion that many people hold for many reasons. Telling someone what theirs is is pretty poor form. I'm uncomfortable with broad acceptance of prostitution for reasons that have zilch to do with the catholic church or "anti-sexuality". (which I acknowlege are political, so I'm gonna hold off.)





If anyone found this insulting in some way manner or form you have my humblest apologies.


----------



## Fighter1

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I think what he is saying is that the notions of today's general society were shaped by those early influences, even if those influences are not the reasons people would state today.  In some sense, this is true.  It is quite surprising how many ideas that many people find to be common today (or at least some that one would think came earlier) originated in 10th-12th century that the church, as a political force in the middle ages, created for reasons that were often quite interesting (no divorces and crackdowns on 'legitimate' children versus bastards (as well as primogeniture)?  12th century reforms hoping to crack down on wars caused by angry fathers of the first wife that was thrown away for the second and succession wars, respectively.  Complicated incest prohibitions that keep you from marrying third cousins?  That's the escape clause for the no divorces thing for royals--you could pretty much always prove incest and have it annulled, like Eleanor of Aquitane did with her first husband before marrying Henry II, who was even *more* closesly related).




You hit it on the nose - thanks.

And to add, again, that applying anyone's moralities of today to an ancient setting does not hold water - people had a very different life for a wide variety of reaons (necessary , political, or otherwise) and a very different way of thinking.


----------



## Fighter1

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> And I am saying that it is very much possible for someone to deliberately put aside that background for a moment and consider what prostitution means to a society and what it means about the role and value of sex, women, etc and come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with those early influences, even if it ends up somewhat agreeing with them. You might be suprized at the number of people who engage in just that sort of consideration, especially when they find that they cannot accept some of the other notions that came from the same influences.    (then again, hey, you might not.   )
> 
> I think that telling people what they believe or why they hold the beliefs they do is not only rude but often leads to making a fool of onesself.  :\






			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right.  And I'm certainly not disagreeing with you.  I don't think he is either (from reading the part of his post you quoted).  But what he is saying (I think, anyway) is that it is also very much possible for someone to deliberately put aside that background for a moment and consider what prostitution means to a society and what it means about the role and value of sex, women, etc and come to a conclusion that ends up completely disagreeing with them.





Rystil is correct about what I am saying – to add – the whole idea of sex in general as being “wrong”, “taboo”, or “evil” spurns from a specific ideology of a VERY small group (I cannot recall the specific name of them) within the Catholic Church, which essentially ran Europe. There were thigns "taboo" already in place but not with the extremeism that one sees even today. 

Regardless - without them society may very well be exactly as it is now. 

But a point to be made is that from the Greeks to today; as pointed out directly or otherwise; many moralities that are politically motivated or the belief of a very, very small group may have formed significant portions of western society today. That being said; to bring it back to the original subject; as my original comments were intended to; is why, IMO, it is quite believable to have a lusty Paladin as his morality would not necessarily fall under the modern (or even post 12th century) Judeo/Christian belief system. 




			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So therefore, unless you want to accept the early sources and just say something like 'It's Evil, end of story,' you rather need to say 'I have come to my own conclusions on this matter, and I think it is wrong.  However, that doesn't mean that other people who are also not evil people cannot hold valid contradictory opinions.'




So very, very true


----------



## Plane Sailing

*Fighter1*, thanks for putting in the apology to any who may have misconstrued your remarks.

*Kahuna Burger*, I suggest you graciously accept Fighter1's apology and move back to discussions more directly related to the thread.

Remember all, that sharing our views and opinions on a topic is cool; if you think that someone is overstepping the line please report it to the moderators whose round-the-clock monitoring system should kick in quickly (we don't have moderators based all around the world for nothing!)

Cheers


----------



## The Sigil

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I'd allow him.
> 
> As long as you made him a Paladin of Lust.
> 
> Personally, I don't care about RAW, or whatever.
> 
> It's an interesting background and character, the Goddess of Lust needs Paladins to protect her temples and worshippers and holy places.
> 
> So yeah, you'd be in.



Not to threadjack this thread, but IIRC, a paladin's God must be within one step of LG, no?  In other words, LG, LN, or NG.

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to see "Lust" as more of a Chaotic trait - one that is about "personal freedom" rather than "order" - thus disqualifying said goddess from having paladins... anyone care to tackle a LG Goddess of Lust? 

(And to further run on a tangent, why is it always a *Goddess* of Lust?  Why not a *God* of Lust?  Is it our own social norms which have "straight" men somewhat approving of female bi-/homosexuality ... but still a bit put off by male bi-/homosexuality, thus making the ultimate incarnation of Lust a bisexual female (but NOT a male) in their minds?)

--The Sigil


----------



## Plane Sailing

The Sigil said:
			
		

> And to further run on a tangent, why is it always a *Goddess* of Lust? Why not a *God* of Lust?




Indeed, considering Eros, Pan, possibly even Baal (and Ishtar?) the Caananite gods which had formalised temple prostitution... Plenty of historical beliefs to choose from to model gods of lust.

Cheers


----------



## shilsen

The Sigil said:
			
		

> (And to further run on a tangent, why is it always a *Goddess* of Lust?  Why not a *God* of Lust?  Is it our own social norms which have "straight" men somewhat approving of female bi-/homosexuality ... but still a bit put off by male bi-/homosexuality, thus making the ultimate incarnation of Lust a bisexual female (but NOT a male) in their minds?)




Interesting question. Are you talking about deities from real-world or fantasy religions? Off-hand, the first deity of lust who comes to mind for me is Aphrodite/Venus, followed closely by Eros (who is often somewhat feminized). I was going to mention Priapus, but his endowment is almost wholly a symbol of fertility and not really sexual.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not to threadjack this thread, but IIRC, a paladin's God must be within one step of LG, no?  In other words, LG, LN, or NG.
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but I tend to see "Lust" as more of a Chaotic trait - one that is about "personal freedom" rather than "order" - thus disqualifying said goddess from having paladins... anyone care to tackle a LG Goddess of Lust?



I could probably write up a LG god or goddess of fertility in a moment.  It would almost certainly require virile males to do their "job" as regularly as possible (though perhaps seasonally, thanks to inherited rules from ancient times).

I'm not certain there every WERE gods specifically of lust.  It's too narrow a concept, I think.  Love, yes, but Love generally included lust in non-Christian cultures, without it being a problem (Although, I suppose one could make a case that several deities of "Love" were really sex/fertility gods that were "romanced up" by Christian historians hundreds of years later).  There were also plenty of hysteria/debauchery-deities that _included_ lust, yes, but they weren't specifically dedicated to it, and included many other appetites along with it.

The Occidental religions mostly threw all that stuff out in favor of heavy-duty wife-protection.  But you see lots of that in all severely patriarchal social systems, across primates.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Indeed, considering Eros, Pan, possibly even Baal (and Ishtar?) the Caananite gods which had formalised temple prostitution... Plenty of historical beliefs to choose from to model gods of lust.
> 
> Cheers



 Catal Huyuk's goddess (~6500 BC): name unknown, female

Sumerian (~2000 BC): Inanna, female

Babylonian (~1750 BC): Ishtar, female

Phoenician/Canaanite (~1200 BC): Astarte (an Ishtar clone) and Anath, sometimes combined to form Atargatis, all female

But we do have some males later--

Greek: Aphrodite (love/beauty, female), Eros the Protogonos (ancient deity of love and natural procreation, male), Eros the younger(god of love and inducing love, male), Himeros (god of sexual desire, male), Pothos (god of passionate longing, male)  

Norse: Freya, female

Celtic: Morrigan (magic, lust, war, female), Aonghus (sensual love, male), Aine (Irish--love, fertility, passionate rites in spring, female)

Egyptian: Hathor (love, fertility, female), Bast (sensual pleasure, female, and hey, she's FR's goddess of pleasure too!)

Voodoo: Erzuli (Fertility, Love, Sex, Beauty, and somehow Virginity too, female)

Aztec: Ichpuchtli (lust, pleasure, female), Xochiquetzal (fertility, love, sensual pleasure, sex, female), Chalchiuhtlicue (love, beauty, female), Eueucoyotl  (fertility, sex, male), Tlazolteotl (sex, licentiousness, female)

Mayan: Backlum Chaam (sex, particularly male sexuality, male), Ix Chel (sex, female), Xtabay (seduction, female)


----------



## The Sigil

Canis said:
			
		

> I could probably write up a LG god or goddess of fertility in a moment.  It would almost certainly require virile males to do their "job" as regularly as possible (though perhaps seasonally, thanks to inherited rules from ancient times).
> 
> I'm not certain there every WERE gods specifically of lust.  It's too narrow a concept, I think.  Love, yes, but Love generally included lust in non-Christian cultures, without it being a problem (Although, I suppose one could make a case that several deities of "Love" were really sex/fertility gods that were "romanced up" by Christian historians hundreds of years later).  There were also plenty of hysteria/debauchery-deities that _included_ lust, yes, but they weren't specifically dedicated to it, and included many other appetites along with it.
> 
> The Occidental religions mostly threw all that stuff out in favor of heavy-duty wife-protection.  But you see lots of that in all severely patriarchal social systems, across primates.



Fertility != Lust. 

As to the point that there may not have been gods of lust due to the concept being too narrow, I think that's an interesting one to explore.

Also, not saying that historically, all deific incarnations of lust were female, it just seems that every time the topic comes up in modern RPG circles, the default seems to be Lust = female.

--The Sigil


----------



## Rystil Arden

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Fertility != Lust.
> 
> As to the point that there may not have been gods of lust due to the concept being too narrow, I think that's an interesting one to explore.
> 
> Also, not saying that historically, all deific incarnations of lust were female, it just seems that every time the topic comes up in modern RPG circles, the default seems to be Lust = female.
> 
> --The Sigil



 The narrowness didn't really stop them--see above   I left out deities that were fertility and not lust, since Aztecs (for instance), have a whole bunch of those.


----------



## Voadam

Wasn't Pan (and Satyrs) a male god of lust and Nature? And Priapus from Roman times was also a lust one IIRC.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Voadam said:
			
		

> Wasn't Pan (and Satyrs) a male god of lust and Nature? And Priapus from Roman times was also a lust one IIRC.



 Pan was the god of shepherds, hunting, and rustic music, not lust.  Priapus (who was Greek as well, though also identified with the similarly 'endowed' Egyptian god Min in some works and findings that I saw in archaeological museums in Turkey) was a very lusty fellow, known for his lust for the Nymph Lotis that almost led to a successful rape but was discovered and thwarted due to a donkey braying, but he was a god of the fertility of vegetable crops (His statue was set-up in vegetable plots to promote garden fertility but doubled as a "scarecrow" to keep away birds).  All the male Greek gods were lusty at some time or another, but that does not make them gods of lust


----------



## Shazman

This guy might work as a paladin of SUne Firehair in the Forgotten Realms, but even that is pushing it.  He might make a good holy liberator or palading of freedom (variant chaotic good paladin.  I guess the answer is no, because if this guy is lawful good then I'm a 10th level half-orc barbarian.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Kahuna Burger*, I suggest you graciously accept Fighter1's apology and move back to discussions more directly related to the thread.



Normally, I would consider it better to let contention drop than come back to it, but if Mod-dom would prefer not to let the issue linger,    certainly I thank Fighter1 for clarifying his comments, and I'm sorry if my initial reaction was too snarky.


----------



## Fighter1

The Sigil said:
			
		

> (And to further run on a tangent, why is it always a *Goddess* of Lust?  Why not a *God* of Lust?
> 
> Is it our own social norms which have "straight" men somewhat approving of female bi-/homosexuality ... but still a bit put off by male bi-/homosexuality, thus making the ultimate incarnation of Lust a bisexual female (but NOT a male) in their minds?)
> 
> --The Sigil




You perhaps have hit it on the nose. However also consider something simpler; most folks who watch, read or play fantasy/medieval/ancient worlds types of things tend to be mostly male. As such; would one wish to see a male god on the screen or in a book or Aphrodite barely clad?

With that - I would think the 2nd for the majority; simply given that the majority is heterosexual. Thus I don’t think that it is a complicated as you indicated; it is simply that the majority, when thinking about “sex” or “lust” would picture a female; as that is what they desire within those two contexts. If you toss in “vitality” “creating male offspring” or a similar concept (that to heterosexuals apply to males more so than females) to that mix most would think of male I would think; however it would take away that “lust/sex” feeling the person would have felt were the divine one female. 

The things you point out I think are valid; but perhaps do not apply here. Anyone publishing anything these days would market to the majority most of the time (except special interest; of which gaming is not as the companies actively seek to grow economicly).


----------



## Fighter1

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Normally, I would consider it better to let contention drop than come back to it, but if Mod-dom would prefer not to let the issue linger,    certainly I thank Fighter1 for clarifying his comments, and I'm sorry if my initial reaction was too snarky.




No probglem on my end - I don't know what "snarky" is (but it is a cool sounding word) - but I aplologized as I was more concerned with having offended someone unintentionally than the tone of any statements. I seem to have forgotten that when certain subjects come up one should not be so "clinical/analytical" about the statements they make.

BTW can I use "snarky" myself?


----------



## krunchyfrogg

Hey, howcome nobody else took a stab at his stats?


----------



## shilsen

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> Hey, howcome nobody else took a stab at his stats?



 Dude - we're like talking about lust and all that good stuff!

Jokes aside, I'll post a basic stat block (or two) tomorrow and see what people think.


----------



## shilsen

As promised, here's a very basic and incomplete stat block I threw together for Cedric. I put him at 9th lvl for this one and did it in a jiffy, so pardon the errors, if any. 


Rog2/Ftr1/Pal6; medium humanoid; HD 2d6+7d10+18; hp 81; Init +3; Spd 30 ft; AC 19 (+3 Dex, +5 armor, +1 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 16; Base Atk/Grapple +8/+11; Attk Longsword +12/7 melee (1d8+5/17-20) and Comp. Longbow +11/8 ranged (1d8+3/x3); AL LG; SV Fort +14, Ref +13, Will +10; Str 16 (+3), Dex 14 (+2), Con 14 (+2), Int 14 (+2), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 16 (+3) [Dex 16 (+3), Cha 18 (+4) w. items] 

Languages: Common, Elven, Gnome

Skills (90 skill pts): Bluff +9 (5 ranks), Diplomacy +20 (12 ranks), Intimidate +10 (6 ranks), perform (oratory) +9 (5 ranks) + 62 skill pts

Feats (4 Normal, 1 Human): Action Surge, Divine Might, Heroic Spirit, Iron Will, Power Attack

Special abilities: Sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding, evasion,  aura of good, detect evil, smite evil 2/day (+4 hit, +6 dmg), divine grace, lay on hands (24 hp), aura of courage, divine health, turn undead (7/day, as Clr3 at +2), special mount, remove disease 1/week

Spells per day (DC 11+spell lvl, at caster lvl3): 2

Equipment (36k): +1 Holy Longsword (18.3k), +1 Chain Shirt (2.65k), Cloak of Charisma +2 (4k), Gloves of Dexterity +2 (4k), Vest of Resistance +1 (1k), Heward’s Handy Haversack (2k), Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2k), Comp. Longbow [+3 Str] (0.4k) + 1.5k

Besides the stats being quite high, nothing's unusual about the other aspects of the PC. The Heroic Spirit feat is from the Eberron Campaign setting, and provides an extra 3 action pts per level. He's using his longsword two-handed and will switch to one-handed any time he needs the other hand free, perhaps to grab a flagon or give someone the finger, albeit in an appropriately paladinish (paladinly? paladinic?) way


----------



## FireLance

Just one nitpick: if he took his rogue and fighter levels first, before he started taking paladin levels, he gets Turn Undead at character level 7 (Rog 2/Ftr 1/Pal 4).  This means he can only take Divine Might with his 9th-level feat slot, and so he won't be able to take Improved Critical as well. Improved Critical doesn't seem vital to the character concept, so I suggest replacing it with Action Surge, also from the Eberron Campaign Setting. An extra standard action at the right time can really give Evil a bad day.


----------



## shilsen

FireLance said:
			
		

> Just one nitpick: if he took his rogue and fighter levels first, before he started taking paladin levels, he gets Turn Undead at character level 7 (Rog 2/Ftr 1/Pal 4).  This means he can only take Divine Might with his 9th-level feat slot, and so he won't be able to take Improved Critical as well.




Thanks. When putting together a PC/NPC at higher than 1st lvl, I'm usually anal enough to work out what level each feat was taken at and see if it works out, but I didn't do so in this case. 



> Improved Critical doesn't seem vital to the character concept, so I suggest replacing it with Action Surge, also from the Eberron Campaign Setting. An extra standard action at the right time can really give Evil a bad day.




Good point. And the gossip down in Firelight in Sharn says the ladies love it too 

I've made the changes you suggested.


----------



## genshou

Just popping back in to add my happy birthday wishes to this thread.  It really was active at the time that it passed the one-year mark; we just lost the posts to prove it.


----------



## shilsen

genshou said:
			
		

> Just popping back in to add my happy birthday wishes to this thread.  It really was active at the time that it passed the one-year mark; we just lost the posts to prove it.




Yeah, it's a pity those got lost. We had some more interesting comments and discussion, which is a little surprising considering how many very divergent opinions we've already had on the subject.

As some people may remember, among the posts that were lost were a couple from me mentioning certain problems with my academic situation. In short, my Ph.D. committee (or parts thereof) had problems with my preliminary exams, mainly because I'd decided to make a point about what I think are huge weaknesses in the system by doing what I think should be done rather than what was being asked for. At that point, I was effectively out of the program and looking at a permanent departure from the US (I'm originally from India) in May.

My situation's a lot better now. I appealed the decision and it's been overturned. I'm in the process of reforming my committee and even though there are some academic hurdles to cross, I'm not leaving any time soon. Also, and this is what really makes me happy, because of my appeal and the thngs I brought up, the department has already made some changes to the preliminary exam system and the entire system is up for academic review for the first time in over a decade. Smite Academic Inertia, baby!

And on a gaming front, not only do I have Cedric functioning as an NPC in my campaign (story hour below), but I may get to play the character concept as a PC soon. I'm thinking of joining the group run by Rolzup (see sig) and we've been discussing me playing a version of Cedric that fits his homebrew campaign setting. And over the last couple of months I've got emails from a couple of people asking to use him as a PC or NPC in their games. Apparently Cedric is kicking and chasing ass for goodness in a lot of games out there.


----------



## genshou

Yeah, there has been some pretty good discussion on Cedric.  And I'm glad to hear the update on the PhD committee and everything that was going on with that.

While I'm still on the austere side of things regarding my opinion on Cedric and allowing him in my game, I've mellowed out a lot toward those of differing opinions.  It's a real shame we lost all those posts from before, but at least we still remember them.  That's what really matters.


----------



## Seeten

I love Cedric.


----------



## shilsen

Seeten said:
			
		

> I love Cedric.




I'm fairly fond of the bum myself 

Here's a little Cedric moment from my campaign (set in the city of Sharn in Eberron). The situation was that the PCs were after four people who'd mugged a pair of PCs and stolen something very important to them. Cedric was helping the PCs. After fighting a pair of the NPCs and capturing one, the PCs found out where the other two were hiding out. They went there, were detected and a fight broke out, ending in the death of both NPCs. The PCs also ended up fighting and killing a group of malformed humans called ravers. Afterwards, the PCs did what PCs do, i.e. took their stuff and left the bodies. 

Later, in the evening, while they were elsewhere, this happens (note: Gareth is the PC paladin played by AviLazar and Mazin Tana is a priest and friend of Cedric's):

******************
Meanwhile, in Coldflame Keep...

Mazin Tana looks up as Cedric walks in. "What happened? You look like something the cat refused to drag in."

Cedric chuckles. "Yes, Mazin - you look pretty too." Then he stretches and yawns, "I'm just tired. It's been a bloody long night - and day."

"Something to do with Gareth? He was in a great hurry when you left last night."

"Yes. Can't discuss most of it with you, I'm afraid, because it's private to him and his friends. Let's just say they've been getting into trouble, and from what I've heard, are liable to get into some more." Cedric beckons for Mazin to follow him. "For example..."

A curious Mazin follows him out into one of the emptier chambers, where he finds four husky-looking men standing around a large cart covered by a cloth. Cedric walks up to it and lifts the cover, to reveal over a dozen corpses. Most of them are twisted and malformed, except for two, of a dwarven woman and a human male. All of them seem to have been slain violently.

"By the Flame!"

"Don't worry," reassures Cedric. "They earned it - unfortunately. Still, we need to give them a proper cremation."

"Yes, yes, of course," says a still shocked Mazin. "Did he ... they ... I mean, did Gareth and his companions ..."

"And I," says Cedric quietly. "There was little choice in the matter. I'll tell you about it later. I'd have been back earlier, but Gareth and the others weren't really interested in disposing of them once they were done, so I had to go back down to Fallen and get the bodies."

"So they killed some people and just left the corpses lying there?" asks Mazin, a tinge of surprise in his tone.

"Adventurers," says Cedric succinctly.

"But Gareth?" persists Mazin, "He should know better."

"Yeah. And I should be sober. What are you gonna do?" Cedric takes a look at Mazin's face and adds, more reassuringly, "Don't worry. He's got potential. He'll learn." _And if he doesn't, well ... he won't be the first._ 

Mazin doesn't reply, and after a few seconds Cedric says, "Um, Mazin? You know ... arrangements?"

"Yes, yes," says the elderly priest. "I'll go take care of it." As he heads for the door, a call of "Hold on," stops him and he awkwardly catches the jingling bag tossed in his direction. "What is this?"

"A hundred and ninety-nine galifars. Use what you need for the cremation and use the rest for this place."

"Oh! Thank you, Cedric." Mazin's brow contracts. "One hundred and ninety-nine?"

Cedric grins and opens his backpack to show a couple of bottles inside. "Let's just say the cost of good hooch in this place is criminal!"

Mazin smiles and leaves, still looking faintly concerned. Once he's gone, Cedric kneels beside the cart and begins to pray for the departed souls of the slain.

******************


----------



## recentcoin

*Possibly Permissable*

I'd allow it.  How about a Paladin devoted to a fertility goddess?  While I agree that it might not be suitable for a game with children, since when the the whole dang world have to be "child-proofed"?  

I'm going to clue you folks in on a basic tenet of human nature.  Everyone has vices.  No one is perfect - I don't care what oath you took.  The man who doesn't admit his vices is the priest who molests children, the nurse who murders her patients, the serial killer who keeps tasty tokens in his freezer.  I'd much rather trust a man who admits he drinks, plays poker, and chases the girls around the brothel.  I'd certianly trust him before I'd trust the young self-riteous pip that came to find him.  

Point one - he's not forced the girls in any way and in fact the statement was made that he need not pay.  He's chosen to pay since that is their profession.  

Point two - He doesn't appear to be married so he's probably not doing anything that would be termed a technical violation of his vows since chastity doesn't seem to be a requirement.

Point three - His final statement is something that can easily be echoed, in more modern times, by any police man or soldier.  I've heard very similar words come from a Marine I know.  Next time you see one, you might try saying "Thanks" instead of calling them names.

Point four  - The sterotype of paladins as goody-two shoes who lack depth is only fueled by narrowminded DM's who only want to let players do what "everyone else does".  You've taken something that is supposed to be imaginative and turned it into a conformists club.  DULL!!!  B-O-R-I-N-G.    

Point five - Since when did sexual absitence become a requirement for a paladin?  I would think that this might vary based on the order.  Many of the pantheons have gods and goddesses that are devoted to aspects of fertility, childbirth, etc.  One might suspect that procreation might be encouraged amongst some of these orders - if nothing else as a way to increase the sheer number of worshipers.  

Point six - Basing your understading of paladins on the Knights Templar is dubious at best.  They may have been chaste but they were some greedy sons of b's otherwise.  They amassed a huge fortune in short order.  In short, they don't quite measure up in reality to the medeval ideal of the chivalrous knight.  

That's my bit on the whole thing.  It sounds more like the difference between the green recruit who's all gung-ho and the middle-aged Sergant who's been in combat before reacting to their orders.

My 2 cents,

RecentCoin


----------



## Jhulae

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But one night stands or promiscuity seem non-lawful, if not downright chaotic, to me. Drinking to excess and partying hard would also be chaotic IMO.




I completely disagree.

If a Lawful Good character expressly explains the situation (like "it's a one night stand and there's going to be no commitment"), there's no reason it's chaotic in any way.

And, there's nothing necessarily unlawful with drinking or even partying, provided that no laws are being broken.


----------



## genshou

It's the thread that never dies 


			
				Jhulae said:
			
		

> I completely disagree.
> 
> If a Lawful Good character expressly explains the situation (like "it's a one night stand and there's going to be no commitment"), there's no reason it's chaotic in any way.
> 
> And, there's nothing necessarily unlawful with drinking or even partying, provided that no laws are being broken.



Read up on the difference between Law and Chaos in the PHB.  Chaotic characters are less likely to think of the consequences or commit themselves to anything.  Drinking and partying can be done in moderation, but in general that is not the way it happens.  However it is not the act of drinking and partying that is chaotic, it is doing so too much or being reckless or irresponsible about it.

I do agree with you that a Lawful character could engage in a one night stand provided they were upfront about it.  They're definitely more likely to desire a committed relationship, but that doesn't mean they can't do otherwise.


----------



## shilsen

genshou said:
			
		

> It's the thread that never dies




Tell me about it  I wonder whether people find it through my sig or just happen to dig it up every once in a while.



> Read up on the difference between Law and Chaos in the PHB.  Chaotic characters are less likely to think of the consequences or commit themselves to anything.  Drinking and partying can be done in moderation, but in general that is not the way it happens.  However it is not the act of drinking and partying that is chaotic, it is doing so too much or being reckless or irresponsible about it.
> 
> I do agree with you that a Lawful character could engage in a one night stand provided they were upfront about it.  They're definitely more likely to desire a committed relationship, but that doesn't mean they can't do otherwise.




I agree with the above, but I'd also add that a fairly important aspect (and in my experience, relatively neglected in comparison to other aspects) of the Law/Chaos axis of alignment in D&D is consistency or the lack thereof. Someone who does something on a regular basis is generally acting lawfully. Someone who does exactly the same thing simply because he felt like it at that moment and is unlikely to do so again is generally acting chaotically. Emphasis on "generally", since it doesn't mean that being a drug addict and getting your fix daily means you're highly lawful


----------



## genshou

shilsen said:
			
		

> Tell me about it  I wonder whether people find it through my sig or just happen to dig it up every once in a while.



I don't think people are digging that far underground.  It's probably through your sig.  But as long as people don't start anything that would get the thread closed, it's nice to have it stay alive. 


> I agree with the above, but I'd also add that a fairly important aspect (and in my experience, relatively neglected in comparison to other aspects) of the Law/Chaos axis of alignment in D&D is consistency or the lack thereof. Someone who does something on a regular basis is generally acting lawfully. Someone who does exactly the same thing simply because he felt like it at that moment and is unlikely to do so again is generally acting chaotically. Emphasis on "generally", since it doesn't mean that being a drug addict and getting your fix daily means you're highly lawful



Yeah, consistency's a big part of it.  A married man suddenly having a fling with a gal he met at the bar one night would be performing a highly chaotic act, as would someone who was consistently having one night stands (three or four different women per week, for example).  It's all about the moderation.

I like to say that moderation gives monks something to think about besides sects.


----------



## shilsen

genshou said:
			
		

> I don't think people are digging that far underground.  It's probably through your sig.  But as long as people don't start anything that would get the thread closed, it's nice to have it stay alive.




True. There was a time shortly after I started it when it got closed (and reopened due to a few people mailing the moderators, which pleasantly surprised me), and I'd rather it not happen again.



> I like to say that moderation gives monks something to think about besides sects.




Ouch !

Anyway, since the thread keeps getting raised, and I am relatively freer for a few days, I thought I'd revisit Cedric a bit. So I wrote a little something, picking up where I left him (in the fiction, not in my campaign), helping his friend Orion defend a castle against an invading horde. Enjoy!

*The Siege*

Sir Orion wiped away the sweat from his brow, as well as the blood leaking from beneath the bandage hastily applied to the spot where an eager bugbear had almost given him a tonsure. Turning to his companion, he asked, “So, how does it look to you?”

Cedric stood back from where he had been leaning over the battlements and turned a grimy, bloody face to Orion. He grinned and said, “Me? It looks like we’re ed.”

Orion shook his head. Something was slightly different about Cedric, but he couldn’t place it, and it had been bothering him all day. But nobody else seemed to notice anything and there wasn’t time for worrying about it anyway. “Stop joking. What do you mean?” 

Cedric’s grin broadened. “All right, Mr. Happy Commander. It looks to me like we’re in worse trouble than I’d feared.” He lifted his sword and pointed at the enemy horde less than a bowshot from the walls, as the desultory flights of arrows flying to and from their ranks evidenced. “I hadn’t figured that Kurgash was actually sending quite so many troops.”

“Nevertheless,” said Orion, nodding at the dead goblinoids and ogres littering the space between the walls and the horde, some piled in heaps against the battlements, “We’ve inflicted some heavy losses. The men have stood to their task well.” He pointed at a couple of spots where blackened corpses lay in wide spirals around a central hole in the ground. “Your mines were brilliant.”

“Not brilliant enough, Orion. If they lose five to our one they’re still coming out ahead, and though we’ve done better than that so far, it’s not going to last when the breach occurs.”

“Are you sure that’s inevitable? The walls have stood so far.”

“They’d stand a lot longer if it wasn’t for those bloody rams. I should have considered that bastard Grond might throw in with Kurgash and start providing him with siege engines.”

“You can’t think of everything, Cedric.” Orion smiled, despite himself. “After all, you’re not perfect.”

Cedric chuckled, looked upwards theatrically and spread his arms. “See? I tell you that all the time, but do you listen? Nooooo!” Then he looked back at Orion and said, “Anyway, let’s get down there. The western corner is weak and I’ll bet they know it too. That’s where they’ll hit hardest next time, and I doubt it’ll stand another assault. Time to get Gahon and his shiny friends there and let them show what they can do when it gives.”

A peal of war-drums marked the end of his speech, followed immediately by the thunder of hundreds of marching feet. “Looks like next time is here,” said Orion grimly, as he grabbed up his helm and headed for the stairs.

“Ah well,” called back Cedric, already a few steps ahead of him, “Time to do our best anvil impersonations.”

As he looked back at Orion, the latter stopped dead for a moment. As Orion gathered himself and hurried on, though his ears told him of the advance of the horde, his mind was focused elsewhere. He’d realized what was different about his friend. Though his smile and words were the same, since the morning Cedric’s eyes had been cold, gray and humorless, the eyes of someone who had only one aim and expectation - to kill and be killed. Orion shivered slightly as he followed his friend down to the battle.

***
“Thank you, mas...,” gasped Horstein, before a flood of blood choked his last words. Cedric quickly, but gently, lowered the old soldier's corpse to the ground and then leaped to his feet, sword lashing out even as he rose to disembowel a charging hobgoblin.

“Hold them!” Cedric shouted, as he strode into the melee, “Do not let them pass!” Another goblinoid locked blades with him, snarling into his face, before Cedric's swiftly rising boot took it in the crotch and turned the snarl into a whimper that was cut off by his descending blade. 

All around Cedric, soldiers were struggling to hold back the tide of foemen pouring through the breach. Though the limited space and the fact that the humans had marginally upper ground was helping them hold their own, the sheer weight of numbers was likely to soon prove decisive.

“Cedric!”

Cedric paused to throw a quick glance back, to see Orion standing beside the contingent of mounted knights waiting impatiently. Sir Gahon was at their head, heron banner flapping beside him, a look of combined excitement, pride and eager anticipation on his face. 

“Now!” yelled Orion.

Cedric spun around to cut down another foeman and then yelled in his turn, waving his arms to make sure everyone heard. “Back! Back and to the sides!”

The relieved men broke from the melee as best they could, swinging wildly as they did to force their momentarily surprised foes back. The goblinoids and ogres paused for a moment in bewilderment as their enemies fell back and away, and then raised bloodthirsty howls of triumph as they came surging into and through the breach.

And right into the spears of the knights as they came hurtling down with all of their momentum. Lances split hobgoblin skulls and ogre chests, while the bulk of the heavy horses knocked others down beneath the trampling hooves. Screams of fear and anger replaced the momentary shouts of triumph as the column of knights slammed through those who had entered the breach and into those clambering up the small slope to it. Surprised and not expecting to reach the foemen yet, many of these latter troops were cut down before they could raise a weapon.

Meanwhile, Cedric and his men had leaped back into the melee, joined by other soldiers, to dispatch those that had survived the charge. After a couple minutes of bloody extermination, Cedric looked up at Orion’s anguished shout of “No, NO! Come back, you fools!” 

Rushing to the breach, Cedric looked down at a scene of complete carnage. Caught at a disadvantage, the troops immediately beyond the breach had been mowed down by the cavalry. Though not without loss, as the corpses of horse and rider attested. Nevertheless, the tactic had worked even better than hoped for, with a large space cleared before the wall and the large force that had concentrated on the breach scattered and fleeing back to the body of the horde. Even better, the three rams lay unattended nearby, left behind in flight.

But what wasn’t nearby was Gahon's force. They were halfway across the field, slaying as they went. 

“Damn you, Gahon!” yelled Orion fruitlessly, almost crying in frustration. Turning to the second, smaller group of reserve horsemen, he quickly began, “Thalin! Take your troop after Ga...”, when he was cut off by Cedric. “No! You can’t send them after Gahon.” 

“But they’ll be killed!”

“They’re already dead. Look!”

Orion turned to see Gahon's troop, still inflicting heavy losses, but now seeming diminished and much closer to the horde, the bulk of which was racing forward to swallow them. And on their flank, not engaging but rushing past so as to cut off a retreat, was a flying column of small figures on loping mounts. 

“Worg-riders,” said Cedric. “They’ll never make it back, and anyone who goes to them is dead.”

“But we have to try! We can’t just leave them and watch them die!”

“We have to,” said Cedric calmly, but with finality. Looking up at Thalin he added, “I’m sending troops out to destroy the rams. If anyone approaches, ride them down. And return immediately.”

Thalin looked at Orion. “Commander?”

Orion swallowed and then nodded, “Yes. Yes, do as Cedric says.” 

As Cedric spun away and began yelling orders, and Thalin and his troop moved forward, Orion headed towards a set of stairs near the breach, leading up to the battlements. Climbing up there, he joined the archers and other soldiers, standing in horrified fascination and looking down at the scene outside.

To Orion’s momentary surprise, Gahon’s riders were actually at a standstill. They’d cut down the foes immediately surrounding them and had evidently realized their predicament. The body of the horde was almost upon them, and two wings of light infantry had rushed out to flank them. Even if they could have fought past those, the wolf-riders were now in their rear, moving in to close the trap.

Orion saw tiny heads swing back and forth and thanked his stars that he couldn’t see their expressions. And then the riders began to move again. Instead of making a futile attempt to flee, they were heading into the main horde. There were gasps and cries from all around Orion, as the gleaming column crashed into the dark tide seeking to envelop it. As it did so, the infantry wings closed behind it. 

The riders drove forward, cutting deeper and deeper as their numbers dwindled. Finally, there was only a tiny remnant, with nothing more than an eddy and a ripple in the ranks of their enemies to mark their presence, until gradually that too faded away. By then, however, neither Orion nor the people around him could bear to look any longer.

But as Orion headed slowly down the stairs, he saw Cedric standing silently in the breach, gazing expressionlessly out at the field where the riders were dying. As Orion neared him, Cedric turned to his friend. His face might as well have been carved out of stone, with neither sorrow nor pity nor any human emotion marking it. 

In a voice that matched the face, Cedric said, “There’s a very thin line dividing heroism and idiocy.” _I should know._


----------



## Krelios

When I first started reading it, I thought, "No, not a chance." However, by the time I finished I was thinking of all of the great potential this character had and that he really still seems lawful good to me.

Wow. After reading the rest of the fiction I will be using him (or someone very near him) in the next game I run. My PCs should get a real blast out of figuring him out.


----------



## shilsen

Krelios said:
			
		

> When I first started reading it, I thought, "No, not a chance." However, by the time I finished I was thinking of all of the great potential this character had and that he really still seems lawful good to me.




Aha - a conversion on the thread's post 666! Coincidence?



> Wow. After reading the rest of the fiction I will be using him (or someone very near him) in the next game I run. My PCs should get a real blast out of figuring him out.




Cool. I've had a surprisingly large number of people tell me that they're using Cedric as an NPC or PC.

And it looks like I'm going to get to finally run him, in a new game run by Rolzup (who writes the Burne story hour in my sig) that I'm joining in a month's time. Woohoo!


----------



## Mallus

shilsen said:
			
		

> And it looks like I'm going to get to finally run him, in a new game run by Rolzup (who writes the Burne story hour in my sig) that I'm joining in a month's time. Woohoo!



Shil, from the bottom of my heart... damn you! (now _that_ should have been Post 666)

I'd love to create some kind of foil/friend for Cedric, in fact, I am doing so as I type these letters... but I'm fairly certain I don't have the time to commit to another game.

How often is Rolzup running this glorious fiasco-in-the-making?


----------



## Krelios

shilsen said:
			
		

> Aha - a conversion on the thread's post 666! Coincidence?



Wow, I had no idea I was post 666; that's fantastic! On a Paladin thread to boot! I'll revel in my evil post for the rest of the afternoon while I stat out a version of Sir Cedric for my next campaign...


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> Shil, from the bottom of my heart... damn you! (now _that_ should have been Post 666)




  



> I'd love to create some kind of foil/friend for Cedric, in fact, I am doing so as I type these letters... but I'm fairly certain I don't have the time to commit to another game.




If you think of one, why don't you send it to Rolzup? In my character background I'm giving him a long list of openings for screwing with Cedric, so I'm sure your idea could slot in somewhere.



> How often is Rolzup running this glorious fiasco-in-the-making?




Once a month.


----------



## Rolzup

Mallus said:
			
		

> How often is Rolzup running this glorious fiasco-in-the-making?




How well you have me pegged!

'twill be a monthly affair, taking the place of my current Eberron campaign.  Which, in turn, will end with a bang (or a least a disquieting squelching noise) this very weekend.


----------



## Mallus

I really would like to play in this new campaign. As I was fondly recalling the whole Sir Cedric debate, a character popped into my head; the sauve, handsome, opera-singing ex-bard paladin, Largo Al(berto) Factotum. And his shining white stallion, Triggaro, which he summons by humming a few bars of his favorite aria...

(there isn't a piece of cultural product I won't reduce to a joke)

He's 1/2 St. George, 1/4 Il Divo, and 1/4 neighborhood fixer. With monstrous social skills. And a louche, mumbly, yet immensely charming bad Italian accent... 

"I am Largo.... Laarhgo...say it with me, is it not a lovely name? No it is not, is it? But a lovely voice, yes? And the man himself not so bad, eh? They say I was raised by angels."


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> I really would like to play in this new campaign. As I was fondly recalling the whole Sir Cedric debate, a character popped into my head; the sauve, handsome, opera-singing ex-bard paladin, Largo Al(berto) Factotum. And his shining white stallion, Triggaro, which he summons by humming a few bars of his favorite aria...




O ... M ... F ... G!



> (there isn't a piece of cultural product I won't reduce to a joke)




Which is why we all love you. 

And sometimes have an overriding urge to hit you over the head with a blunt object.

Often simultaneously.



> He's 1/2 St. George, 1/4 Il Divo, and 1/4 neighborhood fixer. With monstrous social skills. And a louche, mumbly, yet immensely charming bad Italian accent...
> 
> "I am Largo.... Laarhgo...say it with me, is it not a lovely name? No it is not, is it? But a lovely voice, yes? And the man himself not so bad, eh? They say I was raised by angels."




I'm imagining Cedric and him entering a room from opposite sides. The universe would probably close up shop and leave.


----------



## Jhulae

shilsen said:
			
		

> Tell me about it  I wonder whether people find it through my sig or just happen to dig it up every once in a while.




Sig for me.


----------



## Montague68

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Sig for me.




Sig as well.

I'm notoriously hard on paladins, simply because they are my favorite class. That being said, I would allow this character and probably give you extra xp for an original and refreshing viewpoint. I may even shamelessly steal the idea when I play next 

The reason I love this concept so much is because it embodies a core belief of mine - that allegiance to social norms != holiness. The epitome of this line of thought was St. Symeon the Fool, an Orthodox Christian saint from Syria who did such things as attended church in the nude, relieved himself in public, and other hijinks. The whole point of his behavior was to illustrate that social etiquette and rules are imposed by man, and not God. Thus do not judge harshly those who are different. Sorry to bring real religion into it but I figure the comparison was too strong not to make


----------



## William Ronald

Depending on the campaign and the paladin's deity, I could see this as a viable character.  Mind you, I think that there are multiple ways to interpret a paladin character.  A large part of this depends on the character's faith and culture.  For example, there are some people who believe that a lie is wrong under any circumstances.  Others would argue that lying is permissible in some cases, for example to protect innocent life.  (Similar arguments exist over misdirection.  Again, I think this really depends on the character concept.  Perhaps the best thing for paladin players and their DMs to do is to discuss character concepts, the campaign, and a code of conduct.)

This can lead to a situation where paladins following different deities from different cultures may find themselves disagreeing or even in open conflict.  So, there may be some paladins whom Cedric might find difficult to understand, although he may well respect them.


----------



## riprock

recentcoin said:
			
		

> I'd allow it.  How about a Paladin devoted to a fertility goddess?  While I agree that it might not be suitable for a game with children, since when the the whole dang world have to be "child-proofed"?
> 
> I'm going to clue you folks in on a basic tenet of human nature.  Everyone has vices.  No one is perfect - I don't care what oath you took.  The man who doesn't admit his vices is the priest who molests children, the nurse who murders her patients, the serial killer who keeps tasty tokens in his freezer.  I'd much rather trust a man who admits he drinks, plays poker, and chases the girls around the brothel.  I'd certianly trust him before I'd trust the young self-riteous pip that came to find him.
> 
> Point one - he's not forced the girls in any way and in fact the statement was made that he need not pay.  He's chosen to pay since that is their profession.
> 
> Point two - He doesn't appear to be married so he's probably not doing anything that would be termed a technical violation of his vows since chastity doesn't seem to be a requirement.




Ancient cults of fertility promoted sex because they were interested in all aspects of expanded life for the tribe -- particularly children and crops.

I would rule that if a fertility goddess was sponsoring a priest, that priest had better have at least twenty viable children, expected to live to adulthood, and at least one hundred children who miscarried, were stillborn, or died as infants.

Of course, once you bring children into it, huge problems arise.  Obviously it would be harder to play a fertility priestess with numerous children and frequent pregnancies, and issues like infant mortality rate become relevant.

Of course, there were also numerous heresies and small cults in the ancient and medieval eras, which does not square well with D&D's gods, who could use their supernatural powers to wipe out or gently correct heresies.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Pan was the god of shepherds, hunting, and rustic music, not lust.  Priapus (who was Greek as well, though also identified with the similarly 'endowed' Egyptian god Min in some works and findings that I saw in archaeological museums in Turkey) was a very lusty fellow, known for his lust for the Nymph Lotis that almost led to a successful rape but was discovered and thwarted due to a donkey braying, but he was a god of the fertility of vegetable crops (His statue was set-up in vegetable plots to promote garden fertility but doubled as a "scarecrow" to keep away birds).  All the male Greek gods were lusty at some time or another, but that does not make them gods of lust




Also social class and rural/urban position affected sexual mores strongly in the classical world.  City-dwellers and the rich were more likely to see sex as an avenue for individual pleasure, whereas the rural  and the lower classes were more likely to criticize sex as means of fun.  Of course, it was the rich who got to write the books, so the surviving literature is easy to misinterpret.  

According to Hubbard's Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome (p.14):



> There was, in fact, no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today. ... sexual dissidence was a flash point of ideological contention.  In Greece, suspicion of homosexual relations of any sort seems most pronounced in those genres of discourse that are designed to appeal to the masses' resentment of sociopolitical elites...




The rich were typically the only ancients who could afford an exotic sex life.  The poor did not have time or resources, so they could not have justified indulgence even if they had been inclined to do so.  In societies so close to tribalism, considerable justification would have been necessary.  These were essentially tribal civilizations, one step advanced from the taboos of a truly primitive tribe.


----------



## Taraxia

My issue with this guy has nothing to do with the idea that paladins must be celibate, or that they're not allowed to partake of pleasures of the flesh, or any of those things. My issue with him is his little spiel about how doing good is a useless endeavor, and therefore he's driven to *compensate* for his life of do-gooding with indulgences and how it wouldn't be worth it to him otherwise.

That, to me, grates against the point of a paladin, someone who explicitly is supposed to do good for its own reward, and to understand that as part of his connection to a deity. For him to make the statements he does about the meaninglessness of his struggle against evil is for him to be suffering from a severe lack of faith, and lack of faith is what makes a paladin fall.


----------



## shilsen

Taraxia said:
			
		

> My issue with this guy has nothing to do with the idea that paladins must be celibate, or that they're not allowed to partake of pleasures of the flesh, or any of those things. My issue with him is his little spiel about how doing good is a useless endeavor, and therefore he's driven to *compensate* for his life of do-gooding with indulgences and how it wouldn't be worth it to him otherwise.
> 
> That, to me, grates against the point of a paladin, someone who explicitly is supposed to do good for its own reward, and to understand that as part of his connection to a deity. For him to make the statements he does about the meaninglessness of his struggle against evil is for him to be suffering from a severe lack of faith, and lack of faith is what makes a paladin fall.



 This is a critique that was brought up on the first page of the thread. I think I expanded on the subject enough in the other fiction pieces besides the first one exactly how Cedric can do/believe what he does and still have a very substantial amount of faith, but of course, that's my personal take on it. Tastes and personal opinion differ - and nowhere more than on paladin threads


----------



## genshou

shilsen said:
			
		

> This is a critique that was brought up on the first page of the thread. I think I expanded on the subject enough in the other fiction pieces besides the first one exactly how Cedric can do/believe what he does and still have a very substantial amount of faith, but of course, that's my personal take on it. Tastes and personal opinion differ - and nowhere more than on paladin threads



I think they're right, though.  Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but everyone I've ever seen with that kind of attitude on religion fell to what their religion defines as a life of sin and never returned to the morals they'd been taught their entire lives.  It's a slippery slope, and not one I see the most devoted servants of a Lawful Good ideal sliding down without repurcussions.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Drinking to excess and partying hard would also be chaotic IMO.




So basically.........what you're saying is..........Dwarves are chaotic!

* Runs and hides before Axehelm Stonebeard, generic Dwarven Fighter/Cleric comes running out to smash some heads in with his warhammer*  Well, you know, it's running at base speed 20 so I guess there isn't that much of a rush to do so.


----------



## Palskane

Shilsen I would really like to tell you how much I have enjoyed this thread.


----------



## shilsen

And she rises from the ashes 



			
				Palskane said:
			
		

> Shilsen I would really like to tell you how much I have enjoyed this thread.




Thanks, Palskane.

I'm actually getting to play a version of Cedric now, in a campaign run by Rolzup (the author of the Burne storyhour in my sig), and having a damn good time with it. We started with him pre-paladin, and Burne has just completely raked him over the coals and made him have a meltdown, which he's going to come out of as a paladin.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great

I would take Sir Cedric in both my OD&D campaign and in my OAD&D campaign. This is the kind of character that makes fun for everyone in the game, players and DM. Of course I view Robert E Howards Solomon Kane as one of the models of a paladin.


----------



## LoneWolf23

Would I allow such a Paladin in my game?

Hell yeah!  In fact, I think I'll play a Paladin like Sir Cedric in the future..


----------



## Aaron L

Dyne said:
			
		

> One of the big things about the Paladin class is its alignment requirement and its Code of Conduct requirement. The Paladin class has such restrictions on it because, otherwise, it would be a much more powerful class. The game designers decided to give the class wonderful powers but strict restrictions to balance it out.
> .





I just had to say that I really hope no one actually believes this.


----------



## shilsen

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I just had to say that I really hope no one actually believes this.




The funny thing is that I think a fair number (probably not the majority, however) do. Of course, there really isn't much mechanical evidence to back it up. Paladins do get some good powers and might be one of the better defensive classes (potentially best saves in the game, heavy armor, self-healing ability, disease and fear immunity), but it's hardly one of the most powerful. By the argument Dyne used, druids and clerics and wizards should have significant alignment and RPing restrictions. 



			
				LoneWolf23 said:
			
		

> Would I allow such a Paladin in my game?
> 
> Hell yeah! In fact, I think I'll play a Paladin like Sir Cedric in the future..




Nice! Considering how many people have told me, in this thread and via email, that they're planning to use a Cedricesque PC or NPC, I'm having visions of dozens of little Cedrics running around out there, kicking stereotypes and taking names


----------



## Scarbonac

Me likee this Paladin very much; makes me think of my cigar-smoking, whiskey-drinking Fist Of Horus (Paladin/Monk) Ardan.

I'd be happy to have Cedric in one of my games.


----------



## Aaron L

shilsen said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that I think a fair number (probably not the majority, however) do. Of course, there really isn't much mechanical evidence to back it up.:





Thats unfortunate 

One of the primary mantras of 3E was that there wouldn't be any mechanical benefits balanced by RP penalties, like there were in so many 2E kits and such.  

"You get these 2 free weapon specializations, but you get a -2 reaction check penalty."


----------



## Mallus

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'm having visions of dozens of little Cedrics running around out there, kicking stereotypes and taking names



Can we find someone to run this Shil, the all Bad Paladin campaign? Like the Ale and Whores version of the Peers of Charlemagne.

I've got a few ideas for characters...


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

i would also aloow him in a game i run ..most folk see the LG and code of coduct and think theres only one way to play one ever ....thats like saying only one way to play a fighter or mage or anything else for that matter.  not everyone is the same ..i see nothing wrong with how u play him he breaks no laws and defends folks as long as his god is not aginst any of his actions i see no prob.. i love chars like this .. i mayself back in 2e played a pal with the barbarian kit on him. he didnt fit with what the other pc's thought he should be but he was way fun to play


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> Can we find someone to run this Shil, the all Bad Paladin campaign? Like the Ale and Whores version of the Peers of Charlemagne.




Actually, from what I remember of the Peers of Charlemagne, the "Ale and Whores" bit is redundant. That Roland was one mean so-&-so.



> I've got a few ideas for characters...




Oh lord - I bet you have!

And for those not getting the context, Mallus is in an M&M game with me, where he runs Joseirus, the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling.

P.S. Do NOT ask!


----------



## LoneWolf23

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> So basically.........what you're saying is..........Dwarves are chaotic!
> 
> * Runs and hides before Axehelm Stonebeard, generic Dwarven Fighter/Cleric comes running out to smash some heads in with his warhammer*  Well, you know, it's running at base speed 20 so I guess there isn't that much of a rush to do so.





Nah, Dwarves may enjoy a stout drink with friends now and then, but only at the end of a busy workday or after a worthy battle, when they've _earned_ it.


----------



## Darklone

Nice dude. I like him and would like to empty some dungeons with him. Reminds me of that old drunken paladin ... RttoEE?

Played such a paladin with a bunch of friends in LARPs. It's much more fun to be a cool paladin than being your run of the mill savage barbarian.


----------



## Seeten

shilsen said:
			
		

> Actually, from what I remember of the Peers of Charlemagne, the "Ale and Whores" bit is redundant. That Roland was one mean so-&-so.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lord - I bet you have!
> 
> And for those not getting the context, Mallus is in an M&M game with me, where he runs Joseirus, the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling.
> 
> P.S. Do NOT ask!




If you find someone to run it, I'll be sure to find at least 1 player to join in


----------



## Ivellious

I know my two cents are alittle late all things considering, but I would defenitly allow this type of paladin in my campaign.  Not only that I would push for the player to become the PCR The Gray Hand or something close to that.  It's out of the complete scoundrels, and it pretty much allows a paladin to be exactly like you portray your concept.


----------



## PallidPatience

I just have to say that Superman would make a terrible paladin.


----------



## Need_A_Life

It seems that the poll is closed for some reason, but I'd have voted "yes"

Not only does he uphold his code of conduct, but he does so with a breath of fresh air.

Besides, I am an amateur author and I prefer believable personalities rather than the ones usually portrayed by those who play paladins.


----------



## Palskane

Boy, it sure would be swell to see some more fiction involving Cedric. At least to see how things fare with the seige. 

Golly.


----------



## shilsen

Palskane said:
			
		

> Boy, it sure would be swell to see some more fiction involving Cedric. At least to see how things fare with the seige.
> 
> Golly.



 Unfortunately, with my campaign story hour taking all my D&D-based writing time, I haven't been doing anything more with Cedric and the siege. However, I did write the following, which is about Cedric's actual moment of becoming a paladin. This story is not purely fictional but is part of an actual campaign. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm currently running Cedric as a PC in a game run by Rolzup, author of the Chronicle of Burne in my sig. The game began before he achieved paladinhood and the moment just arrived. Since it's happening off-camera, with nobody else present, I did the following writeup for it.

A little context is required for it, since some people and events are mentioned, so here goes: Cedric, the son of a shopkeeper, was mentored by Pavane, a reformed assassin, and taught to be a warrior and a worshipper of Shar. The city-state they are in has a monotheistic religion, worshipping Shar, a solar deity. Though Cedric didn't work for the Church, he knew many people there, including Adara, one of the holy warriors of the Church (mechanically duskblades, called Dawnblades). Shortly after Cedric became an adventurer, working with the other PCs, he obtained a sentient sword called Ashad, which is actually the spirit of a worshipper of Shar who died a century ago. Only days after that, Pavane was kidnapped, tortured and brutally killed by one of Cedric's enemies. Cedric had a serious meltdown, killing the murderer and burning his gang's headquarters, and repudiating the worship of Shar. A couple of weeks after that, Adara's fiance Cadath (another Dawnblade) was also murdered. The PCs had got involved with a job which they might not survive, and so Cedric had decided to try and have a face-to-face discussion with his (former) deity, in case he never got a chance to do that again. And that's where the story begins.

Confused yet? Anyway, hope you still enjoy the story anyway. And if you recognize any touches from Terry Pratchett in there, as have been in some of the earlier pieces of fiction too, don't be surprised.


* * * * * *
*The Making of a Paladin*

Cedric looked around the room one more time. The door was locked and barred, and the others had been told not to disturb him. It was time. 

He sat down, cross-legged, and then blew out the candle. For a moment, darkness enveloped him. Then he picked up the sword he had placed by his side, and concentrated. Instantly, orange flames ran up and down the blade, driving the shadows back into the corners. The specter of Ashad also appeared by Cedric’s side, the eternal wound on his chest looking black in the sword’s light. He looked around, puzzled, and then asked, “What are you doing, boy?”

“Quiet, Ashad.” The tone was calm, but deathly serious. The specter turned sword raised an eyebrow, opened his mouth, and then closed it.

Ignoring him, Cedric took a deep breath, looked up, and said in a loud voice, “Shar! I need answers from you.”

“What?” Ashad broke in. “Are you addled?”

Cedric didn’t answer, but continued to speak. “I am waiting, Shar. And here I will stay till you answer.”

“Whatever this is, you know it’s stupid,” insisted Ashad. “Now get up and stop making a fool of yourself.”

Cedric didn’t answer, ignoring the sword’s continuing remonstrations. He continued to sit, looking out at the darkness lit by the flames of the sword. With their upcoming visit to the House of Onyx, this was possibly the last opportunity he would have to address Shar face to face (though even he didn’t expect that would really occur, and wasn’t even sure what would). This was where he would stay. Shar would come to him, or he would go to Shar. He would wait till death, if he needed to. He would not eat, nor sleep…

* * * * *
Cedric came awake with a start, the sunlight bright on the side of his face. With a muttered groan he sat up, and then realized what had happened. Damn! Sometime during the night, after hours of sitting, he had dozed off after all. And now it was morning.

It took a couple of seconds for him to realize something was wrong. His bedroom was in the basement, with no windows. And the small fireplace, in front of him, was unlit. But he could feel the sun, behind him, on the inside of the room. Or, if not the sun, a fire of some kind. Though there was no flickering of the light as a fire would normally have, waves of heat were radiating against his back. Reflexively, Cedric began to turn, when …

*“No!”*

The word froze him on the spot, and it took a second to realize that he hadn’t actually heard it. Or, at least, his ears had not. It had gone straight into his mind, but as sure as he was alive, he knew someone … or some thing … behind him had spoken.

*“Do not turn. You cannot look at me. No mere mortal may look at me at live.”*

“Shar?”

*“In a manner of speaking … yes.” * The shocked Cedric didn’t realize it till a little later, but the voice had an undertone of amusement to it. *“You had something to say to me.”*

Cedric’s befuddled mind raced. It couldn’t actually be true. Yes, knowing that he was going to a place that might kill him, angry and desperate for the answers he had been wanting for weeks now, he had called on Shar the previous night. But it couldn’t really be that He had answered. Could it?

*“I am waiting.”* 

Cedric’s mind tried to formulate something approximating to an intelligent response or a question, but all he could come up with was “Why?” A small voice in his head said, _You realize you sound like a child, right?_ A moment later, a smaller voice said, _It’s fascinating how the smallest children and the greatest philosophers ask that question._

*“Why?”* echoed what Cedric was already beginning to call the Voice. To his exceeding surprise, and mild horror, there was a deep chuckle. *“Is that all?”*

“Yes,” said Cedric thickly, his bewilderment slowly beginning to be joined by the anger and sense of wrongdoing that had driven him to call on Shar in the first place. “Why? Why did Pavane have to die? Why did Cadath have to be murdered? Your priests teach that Shar watches over all who worship him, and few gave their lives to you as those two did. As Adara, who was suffering now, still does. Why did these things happen?”

*“Very well! I shall answer if you answer me one question too.”*

“What?” _Huh?_

*“You think you know enough to question me. But let us be certain of that. Look down, Cedric Marne, and tell me – what do you know?”*

Cedric looked down, into the large, sharply-etched shadow that he cast, silhouetted as he was by the blazing brightness behind him. His eyes roved back and forth, uncertain what the Voice meant. Wait! There was movement in the shadow. Somehow, though it did not turn any the less dark, something was forming within. 

As he watched, a face swam into view. Pavane. He smiled up at Cedric, who was smiling back before he knew it. And then there was more movement in the shadow behind Pavane, whose mouth opened in a silent scream, as hands held him down and a jagged blade cut his remaining arm from his shoulder. And then, as Pavane thrashed like a newly caught fish, another blade cut his throat from ear to ear.

The shocked scream had barely begun to bubble up in Cedric’s throat as more scenes flashed into view. Cadath, slumping backwards, as blades bit into him again and again. Ashad, refusing to yield to impossible odds on a stricken field – and then going down under his foes as the kingdom he fought for fell into ruins behind him. Cedric’s father, now old and withered, weeping alone at the bedside of his dying wife. His adventuring companions – Davmorn, Beard, Quellen and Audhild – each going down to a grisly death.

As Cedric watched in uncomprehending horror, more such scenes flitted across the shadow before him. People he didn’t know, scores of them, dying in myriad painful ways. And it was not only death. Poverty, disease, every possible kind of crime, the ravages of old age, the destruction of empires, the petty cruelties and weaknesses of humankind – every possible image of the transience and vanity of human joy and hope flashed before Cedric’s eyes in the matter of moments.

The Voice speaks again, its tone now cold and hard, *“What do you know?”*

This time, the words struck like hammer blows inside Cedric’s already reeling mind, and that, coupled with the strain of trying to grasp and understand all he was seeing, drove him over the edge. With a despairing gasp, Cedric’s mind retreated and fell back into itself, even as his body fell forward into the shadow.

* * * * *
The retreat into himself seemed endless, a flailing descent into a bottomless abyss, accompanied only by an endless, wordless scream. 

Cedric fell, and as he did, everything that he knew or thought he could ever count on seemed to fly by him. The teachings of his mentor, the worship of Shar, the love of family, the company of friends, the belief that good must somehow prevail over evil – none of it had existence any more. He had already told himself about it, multiple times, but somewhere deep within, he had hoped that he might be wrong. But, as the Voice had just shown him, there was nothing of value, of goodness and purity, in all of human life, which would not finally come to corruption, death and nothingness. In the long run, there was only the abyss, and Cedric fell through it for what seemed to be centuries.

When he hit bottom, it was with a force that drove all the breath from his body, made the harder by the sudden return of physical life where there had been none. Cedric groaned and shook his head, as he tried to pull himself painfully to his feet.

“No,” said a voice, a strangely familiar one, “That’s not how you do it. You wait, gather your breath, and then stand up all at a go.”

Still groggy, but back on his feet, Cedric looked around. He was in what he first took to be a small pillared room, but somehow the walls always seemed a little further away than the point he looked at. Not that he really focused on them, since his attention was on the speaker, leaning against a nearby pillar. Maybe he was just past surprise at this point, but it didn’t really amaze him to be looking at himself. More precisely, an almost identical version of himself, who seemed to have a fixed smirk on his face.

“Who are you?” asked Cedric.

The other’s smirk widened. “I’m you, stupid. Specifically your Second Thoughts.”

“Second Thoughts?”

“Sure. You know whenever you’re thinking or doing something and there’s a little voice that corrects you? That’s me. Second Thoughts – to check that your First Thoughts are thinking right.” He grins. “I also create those rude quips you make.”

“Of course, he’s not really separate to you this way,” said a third voice, just like the previous two, but slightly older and more precise.

Cedric turned to see another image of himself, this one looking about thirty years older and wearing spectacles. The latter waved a hand to indicate the area around him, and continued speaking. “Just like this entire place doesn’t exist. It’s all a metaphor.”

“Third,” said Second Thoughts, shaking his head, “You always talk too much.”

“Third?”

“Yes. I’m your Third Thoughts. We don’t talk much, you and I, but I’m the bit of you that sees through things all the way. Not based on first impressions, not based on what’s smart or expedient – which was where Second comes in – but simply based on what they are. Like this was a metaphor. One that allows your mind, which doesn’t do as well with this as I think it should, to deal with this moment of self-awareness and clarity more easily.” He sniffed, a little dismissively. “Must come from reading too much of those fantasies Pavane had on the third shelf.”

“Can’t disagree with that,” said Second, who had evidently produced two flagons of beer from somewhere and was now seated at a table. “Want a drink?”

“No good,” said Third quickly. “That’s just a metaphor too.”

“And,” said Cedric slowly, “You are both inside my mind? So I’m inside my mind too?”

“No!” said Third quickly, “You’re imagining this entire process as a way of understanding the process you’re going through.”

Second, having taken a large swig of beer, nodded happily. “On a simpler and more positive side, you were just thinking ‘I’m all alone in the universe’ and ‘What can I count on’, right?”

“Err … yes.”

“Us.” Chorused both of the figures. “You can count on us. Wherever you go, there we are.” 

They fell silent for a moment, but there was no response. Cedric was watching the two silently, a thoughtful look on his face. Third shrugged and continued.

“As long as you let yourself be aware of us, that is,” he said, “As well as….” Third stops, cast a look over his shoulder, yelled, “Crap!” and dived out of the way as a figure charged out of the darkness behind him.

The shape was only partly humanoid, supported mostly by its rear legs, but with front legs – or rather, long apelike arms – sometimes supporting its weight as it charged. Huge muscles covered its form, with a light coating of fur. The head was apelike and squat, pushed down between massive shoulders.

The creature rushed past Third and right up to Cedric, who backpedaled reflexively, before it came to a stop. Then it raised its head to gaze into his face. Cedric found himself looking into a visage that resembled his own, but twisted almost beyond recognition with fury. The two eyes were actually open flames, and as it opened its mouth and howled, he could see into a furnace within.

“That,” said Second conversationally, while he smirked at a slightly embarrassed looking Third, “is…”

“…the Beast,” completed another, almost identical voice, but with a steely quality to it. 

Cedric looked past the Beast into the face of the figure that had stepped up behind it. This version of himself wore battered armor and had a sword strapped to his back, and one end of a long chain was held in his right hand. The other end, Cedric now noticed, ended in a large metal collar that encircled the Beast’s throat. 

The armored figure nodded at Cedric, gazing at him with cold gray eyes set in a face that could be his, if carved from granite. “I am the Watchman. Where it,” he indicated the Beast, “goes, I go.”

“Though sometimes,” chuckled Second, “He arrives a little late.”

The Watchman turned to look coldly at Second, who quickly busied himself with another drink. Third, ignoring the two, said to Cedric, “The Beast was that part…”

“I know.” Third stopped and looked at him curiously. Cedric’s tone had been identical to the Watchman’s. He walked up to the Beast, to gaze directly into its face. The creature snarled, flecks of burning drool dripping from its mouth. Cedric held its flaming gaze levelly, and continued, half to himself, “I have met it before.”

Cedric felt the waves of hate and fury coming off the creature, and he thought back to the time when he walked into the lair of the Dock Blades, caring not whether he lived or died, wanting only to kill whatever stood between him and Pavane. He recalled the moment when he stood over Pavane’s corpse, and when he gazed at the flame enveloping his hand, which he could withstand only because it seemed cooler than the rage that consumed him from within. “Yes,” he said again, “I have met it.”

“Right,” said the Watchman, calmly coiling the chain around his arm.

Cedric stepped back and looked around the room. “I understand. All of you are part of me. And this was all I need to count on. And all I need to know.”

Third looked across at Second and smiled. “See – I told you he’d get it.” Second shrugged and took a sip of his drink, before asking, “So, Cedric – you sound like a man with a plan. What’s next?”

“Now I have to leave, but I’ll be taking you all with me. Always.” Cedric tapped his forehead. “Everybody get back in.” He stopped to grin at Third. “Metaphorically, of course.”

Third shook his head but walked up to Cedric, followed by a grinning Second, and then both of them seemed to merge into him. Cedric turned to the Beast. “You. I will not need you often, but sometimes I will call on your strength. And when I call, you will come to me for a time, and then you will be locked away until needed again. And you will never, ever, be completely free again. Is that understood?” 

The Beast snarled in return and stepped closer, gnarled fingers flexing, but Cedric held its fiery gaze. It stopped, and after a couple of seconds, lowered its head and nodded slowly. Behind it, the Watchman’s stony face evinced mild respect, as he said, “And whenever it comes, I will be there, watching over it.” 

Cedric nodded, and the two figures stepped forward together, passing into him too. He breathed deeply for a moment, and then said aloud, “The rest of you might as well come out too. I can feel you. And I need you all.”

And the various figures began to emerge from the darkness one by one…

* * * * *
Cedric opened his eyes and rose to his feet. As he did, he noticed the pain in his jaw and the taste of blood in his mouth. _Cut yourself when you fell_, said a voice in his head. _Damn stupid way to have an epiphany! _ Cedric smiled slightly, recognizing the voices. 

And then he said aloud, “Me.”

The Voice replied, *“What do you mean?”*

“Me. That was your question, was it not? What do I know? I know – me.”

There was a pause, and then the Voice said, sounding slightly amused, *“That is a bold claim. Nevertheless, I will accept it. Do you want me to answer your question now?”*

“No.”

This time, the Voice actually sounded curious, and even more amused. *“No? Is that not why you wished to speak to me?”*

“Yes,” said Cedric calmly, “But I know the answer now. Or rather, that there is no answer you could give me.”

*“Really?”* The tone was dry. *“So – what will you do now?”*

Cedric looked down at the shadow at his feet, within the inky depths of which scenes of horror still play back and forth. “I will do what I must.”

There was a pause and then the Voice said, *“Ah, you wish to be a hero. You think to stand against the dark. But you cannot win.”* The Voice turns forbidding and stern. *“There is no victory against the dark. However glorious your deeds, in the moment of their doing they are doomed to eventual nothingness. Not a single action of yours will have lasting effect. You will lose. Finally, you will lose, and will come to darkness and death.”*

Cedric shrugged. “Everybody dies.” And then he smiled. “And you’re wrong on a few counts.”

*“Really?”* Again, there was a hint of curiosity.

“I don’t wish to be a hero. I don’t expect to win. And I don’t expect my deeds to have a lasting effect. I simply intend to do what needs doing, here and now. Whether I’m successful – or have any chance of being successful – or not, is irrelevant.”

*“So you will try to do what needs to be done, even if it cannot actually be done? Is that not … stupid?”*

The response was out of Cedric’s mouth even before he consciously formulated it, “Have you _met_ me?” The grinning face of his Second Thoughts popped into his mind, as he continued, “It’s about what needs to be done, not whether I can win or lose.”

The Voice sounded singularly unconvinced. *“And why you?”*

“Why not? Somebody needs to do it. And who should I count on other than myself?”

*“So that is your decision? You will face the dark for the rest of your life, until it consumes you?”*

“If need be. And I will not simply face the dark.” Cedric looked down at the shadow for a long moment, and then stepped forward. As he had expected, the shadow did not move, and a second later, his feet were inside it. “I shall stand within the dark.”

There was an even longer moment of silence, and then the Voice spoke. It was quieter, but there seemed a sense of genuine surprise to it, as well as a tinge of amusement, and perhaps … approbation? *“Within the dark? Did I not just show you that all things are consumed by the dark? Why would you stand within the dark?”*

“Because now I know that the dark is also within me. And everyone else. How can I stand against the dark if I do not understand it? So I must stand within it.” 

*“In-teresting,”* said the voice, now with a distinct tone of curiosity. *“And what do you expect of me?”*

“Expect? Nothing.”

*“Nothing? But you think to be a hero, to stand against – and within – the darkness. Would not the favor of Shar help you greatly? If you were a paladin of Shar, you could stand against the darkness in a way few can.”*

_A paladin? Damn! I hadn’t even considered that_, thought Cedric, before another small – and precise – voice reminded him, _Perhaps not now, but reading the books in Pavane’s library, you did think of that at one time_. Cedric nodded to himself and for a moment, silently searched his soul. And right now, there was neither desire, nor expectation – only certainty. Aloud, he said, “I’m sure it would. But that would be your decision now, wouldn’t it? And no, I do not expect it. I shall never again expect anything of you. But I will worship you.”

Again, there was a pause, and then a deep, rumbling chuckle. *“You call this worship?”*

Cedric chuckled too. “Well, I didn’t say that I’d worship you like everyone else does, did I? But I will. Now I understand why we need you. It’s not because of what you can give us, though your bounty does make life easier. It’s because we need to know that there is a light which shines beyond the darkness, whether we can reach it or not, even if its existence in some ways helps create the darkness, and …,” he paused and chuckled again, “… all of that other fun stuff the theologians argue about. For me, I understand your Road now. And I shall walk it till I die, irrespective of what you do or do not – to, or for, me. This I promise. How you take that is … well, in your hands, my Lord.”

There was a longer pause this time, and then the voice said dryly, though it still sounded amused. *“Your form of reverence is positively breathtaking.”* And there was an undertone of surprise again. *“Is there anything else you wish to tell me?”*

A slow grin spread across Cedric’s face. _Whatever you are, whether Shar or a messenger or some figment of my imagination, you can be surprised. And I must do this, whether it kill me or no_. He took a deep breath. “Nothing more, I think. But there is one thing more I must do.”

*“What?” *

And Cedric turned and faced into the light….


----------



## ajanders

Not Terry Pratchett, TH White.

"If I were to be made a knight...I should insist on doing my vigil by myself, as Hob does with his hawks, and I should pray to God to allow me to encounter all the evil in the world in my own person, so that if I conquered there should be none left, and, if I were defeated, I should be the one to suffer for it."
"That would be extremely presumptuous of you, and you would be conquered, and you would suffer for it."
"I shouldn't mind."


----------



## shilsen

ajanders said:
			
		

> Not Terry Pratchett, TH White.
> 
> "If I were to be made a knight...I should insist on doing my vigil by myself, as Hob does with his hawks, and I should pray to God to allow me to encounter all the evil in the world in my own person, so that if I conquered there should be none left, and, if I were defeated, I should be the one to suffer for it."
> "That would be extremely presumptuous of you, and you would be conquered, and you would suffer for it."
> "I shouldn't mind."



 Nice. That sounds about right. Unfortunately, I've never read TH White. It's on my long list of things to check out once I'm old and retired.


----------



## Torm

A very enjoyable read, Shilsen. Excellent.


----------



## ajanders

I'll be so deeply interested to see what Cedric's thoughts are on justice versus revenge


----------



## shilsen

Torm said:
			
		

> A very enjoyable read, Shilsen. Excellent.




Thanks. As long as I've got the god of paladins happy with my work, I figure Cedric's doing okay 



			
				ajanders said:
			
		

> I'll be so deeply interested to see what Cedric's thoughts are on justice versus revenge




I guess we'll get a chance to find out in-game at some point or the other. Considering the way that I've written him, and the slightly divergent ways I'm playing him as a PC in John's game and as an NPC in my Eberron game, I'd have to say that Cedric would pick justice over revenge every time. Having gone through a seriously bad patch where revenge figured a fair bit, he'd understand the emotional impetus toward revenge well enough, but he still wouldn't consider it an appropriate aim. And even where justice is concerned, I'd see him tempering it to some degree with mercy, but being fairly pragmatic about it. In some cases, if possible, he'd extend more mercy than someone might have earned. And if it wasn't possible or was just a bad idea, he'd - if possible - explain to the person(s) involved that it was a little unfortunate but he did have to deliver justice. And then he would. To use Pratchett again, think of Carrot with a lot more humor and a strong splash of Vimes.


----------



## DM-Rocco

So what is the deal?  Why are you bringing back a 2 year old thread?  Are you going to dig up the "My paladin is a child molester, does he lose his powers?" thread next?

Seriously, if you only brought this back so you can write fiction, why not just put it in the story hour, or start a new story hour and place a link to this thread?  Otherwise, didn't you get enough answers for your thread already?

In spite of my nature, I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am really trying to understand.


----------



## Furby076

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> So what is the deal?  Why are you bringing back a 2 year old thread?  Are you going to dig up the "My paladin is a child molester, does he lose his powers?" thread next?
> 
> Seriously, if you only brought this back so you can write fiction, why not just put it in the story hour, or start a new story hour and place a link to this thread?  Otherwise, didn't you get enough answers for your thread already?
> 
> In spite of my nature, I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am really trying to understand.





So young, so angry.....damn that rap music.


----------



## shilsen

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> So what is the deal?  Why are you bringing back a 2 year old thread?  Are you going to dig up the "My paladin is a child molester, does he lose his powers?" thread next?
> 
> Seriously, if you only brought this back so you can write fiction, why not just put it in the story hour, or start a new story hour and place a link to this thread?  Otherwise, didn't you get enough answers for your thread already?
> 
> In spite of my nature, I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am really trying to understand.



 Good thing too, since that did sound strangely upset rather than sarcastic. And I'm mostly just doing (and using) this because the thread already exists and a few people apparently enjoy the little pieces of fiction on Cedric. I don't like to bother to keep track of a bunch of threads and I don't write anything on Cedric often enough to justify a new thread (and this really has no place in my Eberron story hour, which is about my PCs, not him). Obviously we've had more than enough discussion on this thread, but I still get the odd comment from someone whom it gave at least a slightly different perspective on the subject, and I think that's a bonus, though not the aim for the update.

If someone isn't interested, as it seems you're not, then I presume you'll ignore this one extra thread out here, just as I ignore all the threads about subjects I'm not interested in. If people on a messageboard discuss or post things I have no interest in, I don't see how it should affect me. But then, apparently your approach is a little different.



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> So young, so angry.....damn that rap music.


----------



## Furby076

shilsen said:
			
		

>





QQ PvP Server


----------



## DM-Rocco

shilsen said:
			
		

> Good thing too, since that did sound strangely upset rather than sarcastic. And I'm mostly just doing (and using) this because the thread already exists and a few people apparently enjoy the little pieces of fiction on Cedric. I don't like to bother to keep track of a bunch of threads and I don't write anything on Cedric often enough to justify a new thread (and this really has no place in my Eberron story hour, which is about my PCs, not him). Obviously we've had more than enough discussion on this thread, but I still get the odd comment from someone whom it gave at least a slightly different perspective on the subject, and I think that's a bonus, though not the aim for the update.
> 
> If someone isn't interested, as it seems you're not, then I presume you'll ignore this one extra thread out here, just as I ignore all the threads about subjects I'm not interested in. If people on a messageboard discuss or post things I have no interest in, I don't see how it should affect me. But then, apparently your approach is a little different.




Well, I have a few story hour threads that I write, none of which are very long or that I update all that much, but I still keep them on the story hour rather than writing in an existing thread that touches a sore subject for some people.  A simple link in your signature gets interested parties to your writing rather than people who reply to a thread link like this.  I guess IMO I think you got your answer about this thread and I would have stopped it a long time ago.  At the least, I would rewrite the title of the thread.  Something like "Cedric's Story so far - Formerly would you allow this Paladin?  UPDATED 00-00-0000"

I am all about freedom of speech/writing, but why don't you do your fans and fans of Cedric a favor, gather up the narrative and start a story hour with it.  It avoids the confusion.



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> So young, so angry.....damn that rap music.



Actually, older than you think and I despise rap music.  You got it wrong again.


----------



## robberbaron

I would have no problem with him in my game; I enjoy it when my players come up with interesting characters.
Then again, I have always had some difficulty with Gaxy Gygar's blinkered notions and my current game has paladins of any alignment (though chaotics wouldn't be able to stop themselves transgressing, so would not be paladins for too long) - they are the warriors of their gods and not all gods are LG.


----------



## Furby076

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I am all about freedom of speech/writing, but why don't you do your fans and fans of Cedric a favor, gather up the narrative and start a story hour with it.  It avoids the confusion.




Why do you care so much?



			
				DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Actually, older than you think and I despise rap music.  You got it wrong again.




I actually didn't have an opinion about your age (never even entered my head). I was quoting a line from Dr. Doolittle.  When was I wrong the first time to be wrong again?   Also, l2takesarcism.


----------



## DM-Rocco

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Why do you care so much?
> 
> 
> 
> I actually didn't have an opinion about your age (never even entered my head). I was quoting a line from Dr. Doolittle.  When was I wrong the first time to be wrong again?   Also, l2takesarcism.



Because it is a topic that causes a lot of ferver and be continuing to add on a line of fiction on a thread like this leads people to believe that the thread is still active and people, after two years, are still talking about Paladins and ethics when it is really now just a story thread.

It should be moved to the story hour, that is what the story hour is for, unless he wants to fan the flame on an old topic again.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith

Are paladins and ethic, really old topics? Seems to me, that topic is always being discussed. 
Ken


----------



## Furby076

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Because it is a topic that causes a lot of ferver and be continuing to add on a line of fiction on a thread like this leads people to believe that the thread is still active and people, after two years, are still talking about Paladins and ethics when it is really now just a story thread.
> 
> It should be moved to the story hour, that is what the story hour is for, unless he wants to fan the flame on an old topic again.




People are still discussing this issue, in this thread and others.  Shilsen just tends to also throw in some of his characters updates in here to give different perspective to the debate.  Where it first started "here is a paladin who drinks and uses prostitute services" it now became a more complex debate because shilsen added new features to it (in the form of a story, well because it gives context).

So far there is only one person flaming, and it's you....isn't flaming against forum rules?  If you do not like this thread, don't post to it.

-Avi

P.S. Paladin ethics are always being discussed and contested. It's like the abortion debate - it won't end because not everyone agrees.


----------



## shilsen

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Well, I have a few story hour threads that I write, none of which are very long or that I update all that much, but I still keep them on the story hour rather than writing in an existing thread that touches a sore subject for some people.




A sore subject? I think it's a subject that got some interesting discussion, but if someone is getting sore about it, that means someone's getting sore about the morality of an imaginary character I made up because it doesn't fit with some imaginary code in a game book. In which case, I'm way too busy being amused about said soreness than caring the least bit about it.



> A simple link in your signature gets interested parties to your writing rather than people who reply to a thread link like this.  I guess IMO I think you got your answer about this thread and I would have stopped it a long time ago. At the least, I would rewrite the title of the thread.  Something like "Cedric's Story so far - Formerly would you allow this Paladin?  UPDATED 00-00-0000"




The thread still gets the odd answer to that question, and the fiction provides more context to answering that question. And even if it didn't, does it really matter that much if one thread here doesn't fit your preferences for a matching of title and content?



> I am all about freedom of speech/writing, but why don't you do your fans and fans of Cedric a favor, gather up the narrative and start a story hour with it.  It avoids the confusion.




I haven't had a single fan of Cedric, or anyone else for that matter, complain about the fiction here. And you really do seem to be the only person who's confused about it. Why do you mind so much if I post some fiction in this thread? It really does sound like you don't like the subject so you're complaining, which is far from being are all about freedom of speech/writing. I do make that claim myself, but that means I don't get to complain about people saying/writing things that I don't care for in places I don't want them to. I fully support their right to do so, even if I may not bother to read/hear what they are propagating.



> Because it is a topic that causes a lot of ferver and be continuing to add on a line of fiction on a thread like this leads people to believe that the thread is still active and people, after two years, are still talking about Paladins and ethics when it is really now just a story thread.




As pointed out by a couple of other people already, people here will always be discussing paladins and ethics. 



> It should be moved to the story hour, that is what the story hour is for, unless he wants to fan the flame on an old topic again.




I never fanned the flames. One thing I made clear from the start was that I wanted this to be a thread where we could intelligently discuss a subject that often leads to acrimony, without descending into flame wars and name-calling. And for the most part, that's precisely what was achieved. If you follow some of my posts on these boards, you'd see that I firmly believe that getting upset about the opinion of a random stranger on a messageboard is really, really silly, which is why I never get into flame wars. So, since you clearly disagree with me, I will be polite and explain my position and suggest we agree to disagree. 

Is that okay?


----------



## DreadArchon

Hmm, I thought I voted in this the first time around....



> The thread still gets the odd answer to that question, and the fiction provides more context to answering that question. And even if it didn't, does it really matter that much if one thread here doesn't fit your preferences for a matching of title and content?



Plus, it's not like threads never drift...   Hmm, we need an eye-rolling smiley.

More on topic, I've always considered that almost all classes could work with just about any alignment, so I dropped the alignment (and most of the fluffier) restrictions in my game.  Interesting and thought-out characters like yours are ideal.

Though I doubt that many people here would consider my opinion very relevant.  My game contains a Neutral Good Assassin and one of the NPC's (who would be legal under the rules I've set up for PC's) is a Chaotic Evil (core) Paladin who slaughters anyone *not* detecting as evil and uses his smite to get an edge on the competition against other evils.


----------



## Mallus

shilsen said:
			
		

> ...that means someone's getting sore about the morality of an imaginary character...



In other news... Magneto was right.

And long live Cedric, Sir Loin of... well... loins.


----------



## Need_A_Life

Amazing story!
I've read the story earlier and read about 1/3rd of the entire thread before going 'dead' on the morality debate.

Shilsen, you're positively brilliant!

Could one perhaps sneak an update out of ya?


----------



## shilsen

Need_A_Life said:
			
		

> Amazing story!
> I've read the story earlier and read about 1/3rd of the entire thread before going 'dead' on the morality debate.
> 
> Shilsen, you're positively brilliant!




Thanks. That's what I keep trying to tell people 



> Could one perhaps sneak an update out of ya?




Since I'm going back to India to start my summer break tomorrow, I may be able to do a little more writing about Cedric soon, but I won't make any promises. My story hour gets first priority, but hopefully I'll be able to come up with something for this one too. I'd like to finish writing about that siege situation I started on in a couple of earlier updates.


----------



## Aleolus

Yeah, I'd allow Sir Cedric in my campaigns.  He's a Paladin who knows the truth and isn't afraid to admit it.  He's got no delusions of grandeur, something that is hard to find in most Paladins.  Or Clerics, for that matter.


----------



## Fusilliban

I've spent free time over the past week or so reading this thread.  I don't remember how I found it at this point, but...   shilsen, you've created two wonderful things, my new favorite paladin character, and a great thread.

This is a hell of a character and almost certainly a paladin by my reckoning.  I don't know if I'd allow him as a PC - he needs a hell of a lot of foils, and I've become extremely wary of paladins over time, since they seem to be more willing than any other character class to say "my character requires of me that I go do something the rest of the party has no interest in," which causes some unfortunate table conflict. 

I'm afraid of Cedric as much as I am of any paladin in this regard - perhaps more so, since his only moral compass is himself.  In this last, Cedric does not even appear to particularly serve his patron deity, but rather the cause he thinks his patron deity represents.  I'm reminded of the Corporate Knights in that Cedric seems like someone who is sworn to his cause more than his leader, and if he thought it necessary, would kill his leader for the good of the cause - god or no.  It's a scary level of devotion, but fun to read about.  He also reminds me a little of Wheel of Time's al'Lan Mandragoran, especially how he appears in New Spring.

I'm currently running a Dragonlance game, since I grew up with the fiction and have the setting memorized.  Dragonlance has no Paladins, but does have an order or three of Knights.  Cedric isn't really suited to being a knight, because being a knight is more about being a member of an order than about being the chosen of your god.  That said, Paladine is one of the most established Lawful Good deities in D&D history, and there's no doubt in my mind that if paladins existed in that world, Paladine would accept him with love and gladness.  (There's a speech in there somewhere - "You walk a fine line, boy.  You've chosen the hardest path for yourself of any man since the Cataclysm.  I love you for it, and always will but know that if you slip past that line...  I'll come down and deal with you myself.  And don't think I'll miss because of the tears.")  I've met Fizban, as I have met Cedric, and that's absolutely the kind of guy he is.

Cedric fits my definition of lawful, and my definition of good.  He does not fit the PHB example of Lawful Good w/r/t expectations.  I mean, putting aside for a bit the fact that, as the first ten pages of this thread show, expectations vary even within a culture - he sure as hell doesn't reach Magnus' expectations.  (I'm assuming here that Magnus' expectations are vaguely reasonable for the setting.  Wrong, perhaps, but still reasonable.)

My personal problem with him is here:

_He walked up to the table and asked in a trembling voice, "Sir Cedric?!"

The man at the table looked up irritatedly and said, "Yeah! Who the **** wants to know?"_

A young man he doesn't know comes up to him and timidly asks for him by both name and title.  And Cedric gets rude.  Now...  after this, Magnus gets real mad about things Cedric considers stupid, and Cedric gets his own brand of righteous on him.  And that was beautiful.  But before that... before Magnus gets angry...  someone comes to him timidly, trembling, with all the signs of needing help, and he's rude.  That's a huge no, for a Paladin.

Some other stuff that got raised in the thread I think is worth talking about:  

There was a lot of discussion about Aragorn at the Black Gate, and how he didn't really go to win.  This...  isn't true.  He was marching for victory.  Sure, it was the jaws of certain death for him and the thousands of Men who followed him.  But if it worked, it was freedom and hope for the entire world in a way that they hadn't seen since before Melkor went bad.  And that was worth certain death for.  Knowing sacrifice for a shot at a greater good isn't defeatism or nihilism.

Somewhere, at least one person has accused Cedric of not paying attention to his appearance, of not caring how others percieve him.  This is, if you'll forgive the pun, a dirty lie.  First, note that Cedric is unfailingly polite and gallant to the whores and the madam.  His conduct could even be considered chivalrous, but for the part where he pays them for sex.  Second - note the description when Magnus sees him.  Face stubble, uncombed hair, clothes in poor condition, boozin' and scratchin' - and his holy symbol is polished to a shine.  That's a man who's very particular about what he cares about.

I don't buy that prostitution is evil.  I mean, intentionally giving someone syphilis is evil, and the brutal-beating style of pimping is evil, but...  "sex is legal, selling is legal...  why is selling sex not legal?"  This horse has been beaten a lot and there's not much I can say what hasn't been said already.  That said, the "I wouldn't allow this sex in my game, I've got kids at the table" is weird to me in the context of a game that's about killing things.  I'd rather someone be exposed to consensual sex for money than to rampant bloodshed for glory and reward.  I'd rather be friends with a hooker than a mercenary.

Heh, heh.  The guy who brought the ram is named "Grond." Shilsen's hat is tipping more than a college sophomore trying to score with his waitress.

Seriously, though, this fiction is a lot of fun to read.  More than once it's made me laugh out loud or read a section to someone else in the room, and I've linked the first post to a handful of my gaming friends.  I dunno what all this "I thought it was kinda pedestrian" crap is - this is good and fun to read.  Sure, he's a bit of a Mary Sue, but I think it's impossible to have a paladin who isn't.  I look forward to reading the story of how he dies in the siege.  Alternatively, while I can't imagine the story would be better if he survived - maybe you'll pull another rabbit out of your hat and make it such anyway.


Reading all 18 pages of this thread has actually been a lot of fun.  Thanks to shilsen, fusangite, Elder-Basilisk, Canis, and all the other posters who did more than their fair share of the heavy lifting with the awesome posts.  Seriously guys, that was great.


----------



## Blackrat

ARISE. I'm a shameless Threadromancer. But this was the thread that originally brought me to EN World and I want more of this goodness.  Shilsen, Got anything new for us?


----------



## CleverNickName

What you have described, good sir, is a Fighter who calls himself a Paladin.  Remember, not all who serve the church need be clerics or paladins.  I would allow such a character to play in my game, even allow such a character to call himself whatever he likes to be called, but he would receive bonus feats instead of divine power.


----------



## shilsen

Blackrat said:
			
		

> ARISE. I'm a shameless Threadromancer. But this was the thread that originally brought me to EN World and I want more of this goodness.  Shilsen, Got anything new for us?



 Sadly, no. I actually got started on an update on the siege story, but then got sidetracked with the updates for my story hour. Running my game and doing regular story hour updates tends to take up all my gaming-related writing now, so Cedric goes by the wayside. I'd considered doing writeups for the monthly game he's a PC in (doing well and up to 9th lvl now), but couldn't make extra time for that either. So I'll hold off on making promises and just add to this if and when I come up with something.

P.S. You might want to check out my Story Hour. It's a different kind of writing, of course, but it has its own entertainment value, I think, and Cedric does make a couple of small cameos in there.



			
				CleverNickName said:
			
		

> What you have described, good sir, is a Fighter who calls himself a Paladin. Remember, not all who serve the church need be clerics or paladins. I would allow such a character to play in my game, even allow such a character to call himself whatever he likes to be called, but he would receive bonus feats instead of divine power.




Fair enough, though obviously I beg to differ. Interestingly, it sounds like 4e might render such disagreements a thing of the past, since there are (I believe) going to be paladins of all the alignments. I'm quite curious to see how they present the mechanics and flavor for that.


----------



## Blackrat

shilsen said:
			
		

> P.S. You might want to check out my Story Hour. It's a different kind of writing, of course, but it has its own entertainment value, I think, and Cedric does make a couple of small cameos in there.




Yeah. I actually keep following it. And to give props on you, Cedric made a small cameo appearance in one of my game couple of years ago  . And I played a dwarven paladin once who was a bit from between Cedric and traditional pally. Cedric is definetly my favourite paladin ever.


----------



## shilsen

Blackrat said:
			
		

> Yeah. I actually keep following it.




Cool. Pop in and say hello there sometime. 



> And to give props on you, Cedric made a small cameo appearance in one of my game couple of years ago  . And I played a dwarven paladin once who was a bit from between Cedric and traditional pally. Cedric is definetly my favourite paladin ever.




Hah! I should make a list sometime of all the people whose games Cedric has shown up in.


----------



## CleverNickName

shilsen said:
			
		

> Interestingly, it sounds like 4e might render such disagreements a thing of the past, since there are (I believe) going to be paladins of all the alignments. I'm quite curious to see how they present the mechanics and flavor for that.



True, all true.  I'm very interested in the paladins of 4E because of the alignment overhaul, because it will definitely affect my game.  Religion is kind of a big deal for us...

In my homebrew, the church of St. Cuthbert is the dominant religion of the realm, and the king (a high-level paladin) has instated a theocratic government.  So long story short, everyone in the party...from the stately cleric and flashy sorcerer, to the unsavory rogue and the crude fighter, serves the church.  They go on missions to fight evil, destroy demons, thwart the schemes of the Church of Vecna, and all that jazz in the name of their king (and by extension, in the name of St. Cuthbert.).  This often puts them at odds with St. Cuthbert's dogma, but they are loyal to their king and are careful not to tarnish his good name.

Cedric would fit right in, hanging out with Indrid and Everlind in pubs trying to pick up women and score some opium, while Clarion and Drexin rolled their eyes and prayed for their immortal souls.  But in my world, St. Cuthbert is a bit too lawful to endorse such undisciplined and disorderly behavior in his formal representatives (clerics and paladins)...I'm afraid Cedric would end up taking levels of fighter until he behaved a little more orderly and civilized (more Lawful, in other words.)

But I mean him no disrespect!  His lack of paladin-ness is not tarnish; it is what makes him shine.  There is nothing wrong with a fighter who serves the church, even one who serves with the utmost devotion.  Too many people assume that a character needs to be either a cleric or a paladin to be a "faithful" character, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Cedric can game with us _anytime._


----------



## Quartz

Le bump.


----------



## eamon

I'd read the original character exposition a long time ago (before joining enworld and being able to post), but never the subsequent fiction.

It's great!  I wish we all could have such intriguing, lively characters.  Unlike so many D&D characters, cedric seems _alive_.  I suppose no character can be truly interesting without exploring some boundary.  I'd definitely allow cedric in my campaign (after the appropriate minor adjustments to find a matching deity and church).


----------



## Furby076

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> What you have described, good sir, is a Fighter who calls himself a Paladin.  Remember, not all who serve the church need be clerics or paladins.  I would allow such a character to play in my game, even allow such a character to call himself whatever he likes to be called, but he would receive bonus feats instead of divine power.





Well titles don't matter.  You can be a mage and call yourself a paladin - whether someone believes you or not depends on your bluff and their sense motive 

The thing about Cedric - he is a paladin because the creator of him (Shil) made him a paladin - there is no question.

To note - in Shil's game having the appearance of abilities of a paladin is not the same as being a paladin - since most abilities can be mimicked with spells - though shil has yet to prove to me all of them.


----------



## Orius

I think it less than coincidence that this thread gets bumped the same day I drop Cedric's name in another thread.  Man, NOTHING can keep him down.


----------



## Furby076

Orius said:
			
		

> I think it less than coincidence that this thread gets bumped the same day I drop Cedric's name in another thread.  Man, NOTHING can keep him down.





Actually - Jesabelle and Renee keep Cedric down for quite a bit of time, well 99% of him.


----------



## Slife

Never.  To become a paladin is to forsake yourself, to make your body your slave and no longer be controlled by it, to keep yourself untarnished by the darkness you fight, to show not what a human is, but what a human could be.  

Is it a high standard?  Definitely.  That's the point.  If it were easily obtainable by humans it would be worthless.  The problem isn't that Cedric is too weak.  It's that he doesn't even try.


Besides, I'd peg Cedric as CG with CN tendencies.


----------



## Furby076

Slife said:
			
		

> Never.  To become a paladin is to forsake yourself, to make your body your slave and no longer be controlled by it, to keep yourself untarnished by the darkness you fight, to show not what a human is, but what a human could be.
> 
> Is it a high standard?  Definitely.  That's the point.  If it were easily obtainable by humans it would be worthless.  The problem isn't that Cedric is too weak.  It's that he doesn't even try.
> 
> 
> Besides, I'd peg Cedric as CG with CN tendencies.




Where does it say you have to do all of those things to become a paladin?  It's a pretty grim view - something I would associate with a very dark campaign setting - deadlands comes to mind.

As for Cedric - I don't see him as CN.  He obeys the laws (assuming they are not evil laws).  He performs good acts all the time - helps those who need help.  You are assigning him CN because he curses, is rude, and sleeps with prostitutes.  Cursing is not illegal and not an evil act.  Being rude is not illegal, and is not an evil act.  Prostitution in eberron (and most dnd settings) is not illegal.  Now is it an evil act - that depends on the morality of the campaign and the DM/players.  In US society prostitution is illegal in most places, and there are as many opinions about it's morality as there are people on this planet.

So please justify your CN association with Cedric.


----------



## Falkus

> Never. To become a paladin is to forsake yourself, to make your body your slave and no longer be controlled by it, to keep yourself untarnished by the darkness you fight, to show not what a human is, but what a human could be.




Since when? To become a Paladin is to fight evil and injustice. You can give up worldly pleasures if you want, but it's certainly not mandatory.

To me, personally, your view of the Paladin is not the ideal. A Paladin should be good and just in all things, but should not divorce himself from humanity (or dwarf or elf or whatever) in the process.


----------



## shilsen

Slife said:
			
		

> Never.  To become a paladin is to forsake yourself, to make your body your slave and no longer be controlled by it, to keep yourself untarnished by the darkness you fight, to show not what a human is, but what a human could be.
> 
> Is it a high standard?  Definitely.  That's the point.




We're getting into issues of personal morality here (but then, that's what half this thread and most alignment discussions, are), but I actually don't think that's a high standard at all. I personally believe that forsaking the self (which, for me, would mean things like not standing up for what you personally believe) is horribly easy and people do it on a daily basis. Similarly, I believe it's much easier (if significantly unhealthy) to make your body your slave and much more difficult and significantly more laudable to make mind and body work in perfect cohesion (though, admittedly, if they do have to diverge about anything my vote goes to the mind every time). And, to make it a trifecta, I think keeping oneself untarnished by the darkness one fights is easy, because all it requires is a little absence of thought and a belief that one is somehow better than and separate from the darkness. What takes real class, IMNSHO, is to truly understand the darkness, to see into the very heart and soul of it, to realize that it is as naturally a part of you as the light is, and to then choose the light.

Fighting evil and darkness without understanding is easy and not much more creditable than a dog fighting a cat, as far as I'm concerned. But to do it with complete and full understanding, now that's a high standard.


----------



## Mallus

Slife said:
			
		

> ...to keep yourself untarnished by the darkness you fight...



I always assumed the point behind Cedric was that he's untarnished. And that his Church's orthodoxy was in the wrong, as evidenced by the fact he still receives his deity's support.

So Cedric's vulgar. Use of vulgar language isn't evil. In fact, considering vulgar language 'evil' trivializes the notion of evil, particularly in a setting where incarnate devils gad about with alarming frequency. 

So he's cynical at times, and that can construed as either doubt or nihilism or both. So what? Every person of faith experiences doubt and despair at some point. Doubt isn't sin. Not if the doubter finds the faith to more past it.

And he consorts with prostitutes. He treats them well and with respect. Since Cedric's under no divine onus to liberate the peasants in the fields, to reorganize his society as a whole along more equitable and just lines, and yet he's free to participate in it's economy to satisfy his needs (say, like by any other good produced under questionable labor practices), I don't see why his trips to the brothel are problematic.   

(this thread is like an addcition...)


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:
			
		

> (this thread is like an addcition...)




In the interests of handing out a little more crack (which, come to think of it, is a good analogy for paladin threads), I bit the bullet and started writing the conclusion to the siege. So here is the first part. Random swipes/stealing at/from _Henry V_ and _The Two Towers_ may not be completely and utterly accidental. 

* * * * *

“Spare a drink?” 

The soldiers, tired and dirty and nearly all wounded from the long day’s battle, look up in surprise at the speaker from the campfire where some awful mixture brews in a battered cauldron. The figure’s features or shape are indiscernible under his hooded cloak, only a pair of battered boots visible in the flickering light. Just behind him stand two women in ragged clothing, from the looks of them a pair of the few camp followers who failed to flee before Kurgash’s army arrived.

“We’ve got no booze here,” growls a veteran, a bandage attached to what remains of his right cheek. “If you want some, try begging it from the lords up at the palace!” 

Another man leers past the hooded figure at the women. “But you can leave those two behind when you go.”

As the women respond with expletives and rude gestures, the figure quickly steps forward towards the fire and leans over the cauldron. A couple of the soldiers begin to shout, but he ignores them and takes a deep sniff. Then he pushes back the hood to reveal Cedric’s grinning face. “Firstly,” he says, “Stay away from my dates. And secondly, you lying sons-of-bitches have at least a bottle of brandy in there.” He sniffs again. “And you’ve put some … wait … rashaki in it? Rashaki? For cooking? All right – that’s blasphemy!”

The stunned silence around him finally ends as one of the soldiers – now all on their feet – points at the veteran. “Ced…Sir, it was his – Arja’s – idea!”

The man identified as Arja glares around and begins to stammer an apology, but Cedric waves him into silence, turning the gesture into an invitation for the women to join them. While the two drop into seats vacated by the soldiers, Cedric picks up a ladle and one from a pile of battered helmets near the fire and spoons some of the concoction into it. He takes a careful sip, looks surprised and takes another. “Damn! That’s not bad, actually. Mind if we have a bit?”

Heads nod vigorously and Cedric smiles. “Thanks. I’ll even add a bit.” Producing a small sack from under his voluminous cloak, he reaches in and drops a few things into the cauldron. The men’s eyes light up as they see vegetables and a couple of pieces of meat. Seconds later, a significantly improved scent wafts from it. “Excellent! Give it a couple of minutes.” Cedric rises and takes a seat, adding in explanation, “They’re serving tripe up at the palace, as you called it, so I thought I’d take a walk and see if anyone was doing better.” Cedric winks at the two women. “And I picked up a little company along the way.” As they giggle, he indicates that the soldiers should sit down. After some hesitation, they do so.

Once they are all seated, Cedric places an arm around the waist of each of the woman now seated beside him, and says, “You guys are among Saren’s crossbowmen, right?” As the men nod, he continues, “You did some really nice work taking out the ogres pushing the makeshift rams in the evening. I was pretty impressed.” Smiles spread across men’s faces and eyes light up at the words. Arja grunts, “Thank you, sir.” He hesitates and then says, almost questioningly, “I didn’t think any of the commanders really noticed.”

Cedric just smiles and points at his battered boots as he crosses one leg comfortably over another, “Do I look like I’m being paid enough to be a bloody commander?” There are a few chuckles, and he continues, “I did notice, but I was a little busy to tell you at the time. That ogre commander was trying to kiss me at the time, and we’d only just met! Disgusting!” He looks down at his legs again, this time mournfully. “Bastard had better boots than me too. Anyway,” he smiles around, “Have you heard the one about the ogre and the elven debutante? No? Well…”

Fifteen minutes later, Cedric is walking away with his two companions in tow, leaving behind a group of men who are now talking animatedly, laughing and tucking happily into bowls of soup. As he glances back, a flash of sorrow crosses his eyes. _I can’t make sure you’ll be alive tomorrow, but I can bring you some soup._ Then he turns, raises his hood again and walks towards the next of the fires. 

* * * * *

The next night…

The triple-barred door and the barricade behind it shudder at the constant pounding but hold for now. Even so, there is no hope in Orion’s gaze as he looks at them, with eyes like hollows in a face streaked with dirt, sweat and blood. The expressions on his men’s faces are no better. They have fought through the day and the night, performing acts of incredible bravery, and all to no avail. Now, penned in the last surviving tower of the fortress, with Kurgash’s troops battering at the door, whatever little hope had once existed is now extinct.

Then someone laughs behind Orion. He turns to see Cedric looking up at the faint light of the dawn coming through one of the high windows above, his head cocked to the side as if listening to someone whispering in his ear. “What the f*ck are you laughing for?” growls Orion.

Cedric turns, the laugh fading, and smiles. “Language, Orion! And I just received a message from … well, elsewhere. And I have a plan.”

“A plan? For what? We have nowhere to go and nothing we can do but wait till they break in. And then we will die.” The watching men stare at their commander, but he says nothing that they have not already thought, and they go back to looking wearily at the door. 

“Perhaps,” shrugs Cedric, “But nevertheless I have a plan. We still have some of the mages, don’t we?”

“Three. They’re upstairs. But they’re completely out of spells, haven’t had a chance to rest, and are down to what scrolls and wands are left. Why?”

Cedric just winks. “Let me talk to them first.” He turns and heads for the stairs leading up, trotting up them as if he had freshly woken up.

He returns a few minutes later and, without a word to Orion, bellows, “Everyone, gather in here!” Surprised soldiers stand up and those in the adjoining rooms walk in. “I’ll make this simple,” says Cedric. “We’re going to attack!” 

“WHAT?!” 

Cedric just glances at Orion, gestures for silence, and continues, “That bastard Kurgash has moved into the courtyard below to watch his troops kill us. The only way any of us are getting out of here alive – and the only way the kingdom will be safe – is if he’s dead. So that’s what we’re going to be doing. We don’t have enough options to take him from a distance and if we stay here, they’ll break in eventually and we’ll die. So I say we take it to them. Now! They’ve killed our friends. They’ve killed our brothers. And now they expect us to die like rats in a hole. I say – No! Are you with me?”

There is a second of silence and then a grizzled armsman lifts his sword. “I am.” Immediately, more weapons rise and voices answer. “And me.” “Me too.” The cries of affirmation rise to a crescendo, momentarily drowning out the pounding at the door. Cedric nods and smiles fiercely, but just for a second Orion catches the flash of what he thinks are tears in his eyes. “Make ready,” says the paladin. “Ten minutes.”

Then he turns and walks over to Orion, gesturing to a secluded corner. As the befuddled commander follows him, Cedric says quietly, “Like I said, I have a plan. And for it to work, I need a small group to stay here and hold the stairs leading up. I want you in charge.”

“But … you’re insane! If you’re doing this, I’m coming with you.”

Cedric smiles grimly. “I’d love to get you killed along with me, but I need someone here who I know will hold the line. And I can’t stay. You have to.”

Orion growls angrily. “Fine. Fine! You know you can talk me into anything. Just tell me – what’s this damn plan?!”

“Okay. I’m going to kill Kurgash. And here’s how…”

* * *

The ogre in the front pulls back his greatclub and then pauses, a confused look on its face. His hearing might not be the most acute, but even over the sound of the cheering goblinoids behind him, he’s quite sure that he heard thick bolts slamming back. He turns to mention what he heard and then the great doors swing back, revealing a charging mass of men. 

In the lead is a man on a horse, albeit a fairly sickly one. The ogre barely has time to think, _How did they get horses up here?_. A split second after the thought passes through his head, so does a gleaming sword. 

The goblinoids behind him, most of whom had not been expecting to get through the doors any time soon, scream in surprise and terror as a storm of cursing and stabbing men breaks over them. The soldiers, driven beyond tiredness by hate and a blind desire for revenge, rip into and through their enemy’s ranks. 

The initial assault drops goblinoids in droves, and the surprise and close quarters aids the small group of attackers as they push forward, fleeing enemies running into others and confusing them. Nevertheless, the numbers opposing them take a toll, man after man dropping as they battle through the corridors and halls littered with the bodies of their comrades. Only the example of Cedric, driving constantly forward, foes falling at every second beneath his sword and Beobarius’ hooves, keeps them moving.

And finally, they emerge through the tower’s shattered outer doorway onto the ramp beyond, to find an army awaiting them. Hobgoblins form a thick semicircle around the ramp’s bottom, spears raised in readiness. Ogres stand among them, straining forward in brutish eagerness. Goblin archers stand around them, and others circle the area on their worgs. Thousands of figures are crowded into what remains of the fortress. And right in the center of them, surrounded by a score of ogre bodyguards, leaning back at his ease in a makeshift throne, is the huge armored form of Kurgash. The mighty warlord smiles in amusement as the small force halts for a moment, and then raises his hand. Then he pauses in surprise, as all of them turn and run back into the tower, leaving only a single man on a horse. Who then charges his army.

The goblinoids and ogres watch, unable to believe what they are seeing, as Beobarius races down the ramp. Cedric bends low in the saddle, whispering, “Sorry, old friend. This is going to hurt – a lot. But I have to get as close as I can.” Beobarius neighs back and Cedric feels a warm mental touch of affirmation and acceptance. The warhorse lengthens its stride and then, just as it is about to reach the end of the ramp, hurls itself forward and upward. It is an incredible leap and for just a second, as he rises into the air, the watchers imagine that the horse can fly. But then he reaches the apex of his leap and comes down, right into the spears of the outer rank of hobgoblins.

Celestial flesh rips and tears as half a dozen spearheads rip into the horse and Cedric feels something go cold inside him as Beobarius screams. In his mind, through the empathic link, he feels his mount’s agony, but he restrains himself as the horse’s dying bulk smashes a dozen hobgoblins to the ground. Then, in the last split second, Cedric wishes Beobarius away, sending him back to the celestial realms to recuperate.

Cedric lands heavily on the fallen hobgoblins and then leaps forward, sword slashing left and right. Beobarius’ sacrifice has taken him almost all the way through the hobgoblin ranks, and as the last two drop beneath his sword he leaps into the space beyond. Only to find hundreds of the enemy swarming in to block his way. _Close enough – I hope!_ Cedric stops, raises his sword in the air and shouts, “Kurgash! I challenge you!” 

Less than ten seconds later, Cedric stands before Kurgash, blood running down his face from where an overeager hobgoblin landed a hit before the warlord could call them off. Kurgash, eyes bright with amusement and curiosity, looks him up and down. “Why should I accept your challenge, manling? I have won here! I am Kurgash! You are nothing!”

Cedric grins. _As long as you’re talking, I have you!_ “Yes, you are Kurgash. And yes, you have won here. But your victory is not complete till you kill me. And should not Kurgash do that? Or are you Kurgash the coward? Maybe you fear me because I am a paladin of the High Lord.”

This time there is no amusement in Kurgash’s face as he leans forward, growling, “I am Kurgash Giantslayer. I fear nothing. Paladin? I have slain your kind before.”

“Words!” laughs Cedric. “Words like a woman hides behind. Just as you hid from the battle today, letting your followers fall before my people’s swords. Face me and show your army that you are truly Kurgash! Or let them all see that you feared to face a single human!” By the time he finishes, Cedric is shouting, and he notes with pleasure a low rumble that runs through the ranks beside him. 

So does Kurgash. He growls angrily and then raises a gigantic arm, causing silence to fall. “Yes! I will fight! And today I will eat you for dinner.” The warlord rises ponderously, spreads both his arms and roars. Thousands of voices rise in response. 

Cedric looks up at Kurgash’s mountainous form, nearly twice his height and four times as broad. Apelike arms as thick around as Cedric’s waist stretch to fists bigger than his head. The warlord’s gigantic form is covered in shining ebony armor, his breastplate of a size and thickness that Cedric would rather expect on a war elephant. There is a grating metal sound and the paladin’s eyes quickly focus on the weapon Kurgash has picked up. It looks like a small battering ram, a ten feet long cylinder which is slightly thinner at one end, made of darkwood studded with metal spikes the size of daggers. _Yeah – I’m f*cked!_

To be concluded...


----------



## Rackhir

shilsen said:
			
		

> Cedric looks up at Kurgash’s mountainous form, nearly twice his height and four times as broad. Apelike arms as thick around as Cedric’s waist stretch to fists bigger than his head. The warlord’s gigantic form is covered in shining ebony armor, his breastplate of a size and thickness that Cedric would rather expect on a war elephant. There is a grating metal sound and the paladin’s eyes quickly focus on the weapon Kurgash has picked up. It looks like a small battering ram, a ten feet long cylinder which is slightly thinner at one end, made of darkwood studded with metal spikes the size of daggers. _Yeah – I’m f*cked!_
> 
> To be concluded...




You know I'm pretty sure that the Guardian Angels (The PCs in Shil's campaign in which Cedric is also an NPC) would be willing to give Cedric a hand in a situation like this.


----------



## shilsen

Rackhir said:
			
		

> You know I'm pretty sure that the Guardian Angels (Shil's campaign in which Cedric is also an NPC) would be willing to give Cedric a hand in a situation like this.



 Considering what your guys can do nowadays, there wouldn't be an army to worry about if you blokes were on the scene.


----------



## Palskane

So... did Kurgash smash Cedric like a ripe melon? Or did Cedric carve Kurgash up like a turkey?

Mmmmmmm...... turkey.


----------



## moritheil

So he's brave.


----------



## shilsen

Palskane said:
			
		

> So... did Kurgash smash Cedric like a ripe melon? Or did Cedric carve Kurgash up like a turkey?
> 
> Mmmmmmm...... turkey.



 Ah yes, I'll have to get around to writing the next bit up. I'm not making any predictions how soon it'll be up, however.



			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> So he's brave.




He's Mr Mary Sue. He's everything


----------



## moritheil

shilsen said:
			
		

> He's Mr Mary Sue. He's everything




Heh.  I'm used to this being the World's Worst Paladin thread, with its attendant furor over what moral and ethical alignments mean.


----------



## Blackrat

shilsen said:
			
		

> Ah yes, I'll have to get around to writing the next bit up...



Yes, you do. I can't wait to see what happens  .


----------



## shilsen

Blackrat said:
			
		

> Yes, you do. I can't wait to see what happens  .



 Me too  When I write these things I don't have any more than a very vague idea at most of what might happen next (and sometimes not even that), so right now even I don't know for sure what'll happen. But here's a little hint - Cedric can't beat Kurgash.



			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> Heh. I'm used to this being the World's Worst Paladin thread, with its attendant furor over what moral and ethical alignments mean.




I'll have to throw something into the next writeup which raises a few questions on that subject again. Hmm, maybe I need to write one on Cedric vs. baby orcs at some point.


----------



## Furby076

shilsen said:
			
		

> Me too  When I write these things I don't have any more than a very vague idea at most of what might happen next (and sometimes not even that), so right now even I don't know for sure what'll happen. But here's a little hint - Cedric can't beat Kurgash.



Guardian Angels cameo?




			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I'll have to throw something into the next writeup which raises a few questions on that subject again. Hmm, maybe I need to write one on Cedric vs. baby orcs at some point.




Baby orcs grow up to be nasty evil orcs. Kill them while they're young and save us problems later.  The bad side is not letting them live to be adults leaves low level adventurers with less targets


----------



## Quartz

Given the sticky about long threads, even though this thread is nowhere near 1000 posts, can I suggest a compilation and fork?


----------



## Orius

Whatever is best I guess.

In any case, I believe that when this thread does finally reach its end, Cedric will have earned the immortality of the Archives.


----------



## Will

I haven't read the entire thread, but...

I have no problem with the prostitution, assuming it's legal. And drinking? Eh, whatever.

I find his attitude wrong for a paladin; a paladin has faith in what he's doing. The write-up sounds way too defeated and cynical for how I'd see a paladin in my game.

I could see him as a LG fighter, but as a beacon of good and law? No.

Now, SOME cynicism makes for a cool paladin. I play a paladin in a TT game who was the son of a well-off merchant family; he knows how corrupt day-to-day business and people are, he has no illusions about the world. He doesn't think he'll save the world.

But good things are worth doing, and good things are inspiring. And even if he chips a little, he's done something.

The paladin in the OP seems to have given up; he's just going through the motions. He's not inspired, or even resolute -- he's resigned.

I can imagine people allowing him as a paladin, I'm not saying it's clear-cut 'wrong.' But I think it violates the spirit of the thing.


----------



## shilsen

Quartz said:
			
		

> Given the sticky about long threads, even though this thread is nowhere near 1000 posts, can I suggest a compilation and fork?




Thanks for the suggestion. I'll drop one of the moderators a note sometime.



			
				Orius said:
			
		

> Whatever is best I guess.
> 
> In any case, I believe that when this thread does finally reach its end, Cedric will have earned the immortality of the Archives.




Fame at last!



			
				Will said:
			
		

> I haven't read the entire thread, but...
> 
> I have no problem with the prostitution, assuming it's legal. And drinking? Eh, whatever.
> 
> I find his attitude wrong for a paladin; a paladin has faith in what he's doing. The write-up sounds way too defeated and cynical for how I'd see a paladin in my game.
> 
> I could see him as a LG fighter, but as a beacon of good and law? No.
> 
> Now, SOME cynicism makes for a cool paladin. I play a paladin in a TT game who was the son of a well-off merchant family; he knows how corrupt day-to-day business and people are, he has no illusions about the world. He doesn't think he'll save the world.
> 
> But good things are worth doing, and good things are inspiring. And even if he chips a little, he's done something.
> 
> The paladin in the OP seems to have given up; he's just going through the motions. He's not inspired, or even resolute -- he's resigned.
> 
> I can imagine people allowing him as a paladin, I'm not saying it's clear-cut 'wrong.' But I think it violates the spirit of the thing.




Did you read all of the fictional pieces? I think the later ones help flesh out the first one a lot and provide concrete examples of how one can simultaneously be resigned and inspired and resolute, to use your terms. But if there's anything this thread proves, it's that a dozen different people can look at the same thing and have diametrically different opinions, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's how Cedric still came across to you.


----------



## Will

Eh, thread's too big. But I'll take your word for it.


----------



## Mallus

Will said:
			
		

> But I think it violates the spirit of the thing.



Cedric certainly violates the spirit of the paladin class. He's interesting.

(I'll be here until the end of the week. Be kind to your bartender)


----------



## evilbob

I haven't read this entire thread (com'on - 26 pages!) but I just wanted to say:  love the character concept!  Not sure he's a paladin, though (at least by RAW).  Here's why:

As some have already said, I agree that appearances matter.  "Setting an example" is certainly part of acting honorably.  You responded by asking, is the pious-acting paladin walking around town who doesn't actually -do- anything helping any more than this guy?  To which I would have to say:  well, yes, actually.  Sure, he may not do as -much- to help to a small number of certain people, but he's leading a good example that has a minor effect on a very large number of people.  Just knowing he exists is probably enough to help stop minor crimes and inspire others to lead better lives.  So yeah:  this really does count.  Is it enough to strip Cedric of his paladin-hood?  Probably not.  But it's a start.

Next, the whoring.  (How many times do you get to say that in a day?  )  The big thing that jumps out to me here is that it would be easier and more honorable for Cedric to just pay the money without patronizing the whore house.  Sure, he might feel like he deserves it, but I think it's fair to say that this is still far less honorable than NOT taking advantage of these girls in this situation, which he is clearly doing, despite any noble pretext - and I think we can agree on this without jumping into the huge side-discussion about prostitution, hollywood-ization, morals, laws, etc.  Again, is it enough?  Probably - but if not, it's getting a whole lot closer.

I also wanted to point out something that I haven't seen a response to so far:  in the battle with the succubus at the temple, he trapped the building.  Maybe I'm just being a stickler here, but I think that falls pretty squarely into what is covered by "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)."  Now, it has already been said that "and so forth" is a VERY tricky term, but at least to me, "using traps" is certainly not being forthright, fighting with honor, or not being tricky or devious or whatever.  Poison use and trap use are closely associated, and I think the fact that he tricked the enemies here in this way is something that would, according to most games, get him booted.  Or at least, it would reaaally call his class into question - and if you're already teetering on or just past the line (as he is), then it'd be too much.


All that said:  would I allow him in my game?  Absolutely!  I've rarely seen such an interesting character pulled off so well!  He's a great anti-hero.  But I think it would be either due to a house rule about relaxing alignment restrictions on the class, or by allowing any flavor of paladin in the game.  As many have said before:  Cedric is clearly chaotic good.  He darn near _embodies_ the description of the alignment!  Does this mean he can't be a paladin?  RAW, I think it does - but I'd still be happy to have him in my game.


----------



## Furby076

evilbob said:
			
		

> As some have already said, I agree that appearances matter.  "Setting an example"
> 
> NOT taking advantage of these girls in this situation,
> 
> , "using traps" is certainly not being forthright,




If I may respond to these three items
1) Yes I prefer that paladins set an example, not because they should set an example but through their actions this is a byproduct
2) Cedric did not take advantage of these girls. He did not trick them into prostitution, nor did he get them started in the line of work.  If I remember correctly the madam of the place even tries to get the girls out of the job, but doesn't force them out (their life is better then living on the street being homeless, foodless, and raped).
3) This is clearly 2nd edition mentality. The PHB, and other books (the cleric/paladin handbook I forget the name) all state that paladins can use tactics to win.  They do not have to (anymore) knock on the front door, drop the gauntlet to the floor, and let their opponents buff up and get ready.  It is totally acceptable (and smart) of a paladin to use tactics.  Hence why 2nd ed was lawful stupid and 3rd ed is no longer lawful stupid.

Given that, everyone has an opinion.


----------



## evilbob

I dunno - gotta stand by my "taking advantage of them" statement.  He is.  Whether he means to or not, whether the girls think he is or not, he's taking advantage of the situation.  He can always just not sleep with them and pay anyway.

I have to say I find the 2nd edition comment quite funny, since I never played 2nd edition.    All the same:  I think you have characterized my comment as if I said, "only direct, frontal assaults are ok" - which I did not.  (It's strange to me that "direct, frontal assaults" are characterized by some as the only alternatives to devious tactics.)  I think there's a pretty big gap between "using tactics" and "using dishonorable tactics."  Poison use is another good tactic to use:  but paladins are forbidden, a la RAW.  Does that make them stupid?  No.  It just makes them more honorable in their use of tactics.  Traps are pretty much in the same class.  Surely we can agree that there's a big gap between "not knocking before breaking down the door" and "setting up a trap designed to kill people unawares?"


----------



## Will

Well, first, if prostitution is Evil or against the paladin code, it doesn't matter if he set it up or not; paying for it is becoming culpable to a degree.

At issue, though, is that first if. I think it's clear that prostitution very likely isn't Good; it doesn't uphold the dignity or respect of life, though people might even argue that point. It's also clear that prostitution CAN be Evil, when those involved are essentially slaves and suffer in various ways.

But it's D&D. Lots of stuff is glossy and painted over. Dental care is rampant.

So it's easy to imagine the D&D whorehouse that has employees that could be working as servants, but the money is better at the whorehouse and if they get very lucky and work their way up they might be married off. They are never mistreated, at least no moreso than servants anywhere, and never forced to ply their wares (except in so far as a prostitute that doesn't work doesn't get paid and may get fired).

In that sort of vaseline-lens version of a whorehouse? There are no clear violations of the paladin code. (IMO liberally)


----------



## evilbob

Yeah, even in the most idealistic, most trumped-up fantasy-style whorehouses, I still think the girls are being taken advantage of and that his actions are not honorable.

I guess it's just too hard for me to believe that prostitution somehow empowers women.  



			
				will said:
			
		

> Dental care is rampant.



Lol!


----------



## shilsen

Will said:
			
		

> Dental care is rampant.




Now that's just a beautiful line !



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> I have to say I find the 2nd edition comment quite funny, since I never played 2nd edition.




And you are a kinder, gentler and happier man for it.



> All the same: I think you have characterized my comment as if I said, "only direct, frontal assaults are ok" - which I did not. (It's strange to me that "direct, frontal assaults" are characterized by some as the only alternatives to devious tactics.) I think there's a pretty big gap between "using tactics" and "using dishonorable tactics." Poison use is another good tactic to use: but paladins are forbidden, a la RAW. Does that make them stupid? No. It just makes them more honorable in their use of tactics. Traps are pretty much in the same class. Surely we can agree that there's a big gap between "not knocking before breaking down the door" and "setting up a trap designed to kill people unawares?"




I had put in the bit about the trap on purpose because it's another of the things that is not something commonly associated with paladins but which is in enough of a gray area that I think it is usable. You, and I'm sure may others, evidently disagree. As you note, there's a big gap between the extremes and I think it comes down to issues of definition and where one draws the line. Paladins, by the RAW, are evidently able to use some degree of subterfuge, as evidenced by the Undetectable Alignment spell on their spell list. Now the question is what degree and type of subterfuge is acceptable, and that decision will vary between individuals. Do you let a paladin benefit from flanking bonuses? Or attack flatfooted enemies? Can he hit a clearly weaker enemy with a sword during a battle? Can a paladin/rogue use sneak attacks? Can he let his mage buddy cast a displacement spell on him? Can the mage cast Greater Invisibility on him? Can he use a trap? I would say "Yes" in all of the above cases.

I should note also that he was using a trap against a bunch of enemies who were attacking him, which I don't think quite counts as killing people unawares.


----------



## GammaPaladin

I'd allow it.

The Player's Guide doesn't require a Paladin to be religious at all, simply to have strong belief in a cause. I tend to assume the Paladin's powers come from his own conviction.

I would, however, gently suggest to the player in question, that he change his monologue slightly, towards the other knight in the brothel. His irritation at the knight is understandable, as the knight's contempt for the prostitutes and patrons of the establishment is very *un*-paladin-like, in my opinion, but I would suggest to the player that he make more of a point of pointing that out to the other knight, for the sake of clarity, and just because it seems like that would be something Cedric would want to do.


----------



## Furby076

evilbob said:
			
		

> I dunno - gotta stand by my "taking advantage of them" statement.  He is.  Whether he means to or not, whether the girls think he is or not, he's taking advantage of the situation.  He can always just not sleep with them and pay anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can always pay the cab driver and not ride in his vehicle.  Anyhow it is opinion.  Not every country/person believe prostitution is wrong - and I am talking about industrialized countries (e.g. Germany).  Not even every part of America believes prostitution should be illegal (e.g. nevada)
> 
> I have to say I find the 2nd edition comment quite funny, since I never played 2nd edition.    All the same:  I think you have characterized my comment as if I said, "only direct, frontal assaults are ok" - which I did not.  (It's strange to me that "direct, frontal assaults" are characterized by some as the only alternatives to devious tactics.)  I think there's a pretty big gap between "using tactics" and "using dishonorable tactics."  Poison use is another good tactic to use:  but paladins are forbidden, a la RAW.  Does that make them stupid?  No.  It just makes them more honorable in their use of tactics.  Traps are pretty much in the same class.  Surely we can agree that there's a big gap between "not knocking before breaking down the door" and "setting up a trap designed to kill people unawares?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shil never played 2nd ed but is familiar with a lot of it's rules. I never played 1e but am familiar with it.  Also, even if you are not familiar with 2nd ed, you have encountered many of its legacies (e.g. paladins having to act lawful stupid) by people you have encountered who still believe in it.
> Where in the raw does it say paladins may not use poison? Or Traps?
> I can't agree on the trap issue.  What if the trap is used to kill a pitfiend and that is the only way to kill the pitfiend?...the alternative is letting the pitfiend live to go pillage a village.
Click to expand...


----------



## shilsen

AviLazar said:
			
		

> Shil never played 2nd ed but is familiar with a lot of it's rules.




Actually, I played (and DMed) 2e from 1999 until the start of 3e.



> Where in the raw does it say paladins may not use poison? Or Traps?




It (the poison reference) is in the description of the Code of Conduct in the paladin class section of the PHB. It says that the code requires a paladin to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)". There's no mention of traps, so the individual player/DM will have to decide whether that falls under "and so forth" or not.


----------



## evilbob

shilsen said:
			
		

> I had put in the bit about the trap on purpose because it's another of the things that is not something commonly associated with paladins but which is in enough of a gray area that I think it is usable.



Right - and that's totally fair.  It's not called out specifically, so it can't be definitive either way.  Personal opinion abounds.  



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Paladins, by the RAW, are evidently able to use some degree of subterfuge...



Agreed.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Do you let a paladin benefit from flanking bonuses? Or attack flatfooted enemies? Can he hit a clearly weaker enemy with a sword during a battle? Can a paladin/rogue use sneak attacks? Can he let his mage buddy cast a displacement spell on him? Can the mage cast Greater Invisibility on him? Can he use a trap? I would say "Yes" in all of the above cases.



It is interesting that you give this list and then followed it with the sentence about unawares, because it made me think:  all of those actions except using traps involves a personal decision on the paladin's part; he is gaining an advantage, but he is not using the advantage unless he wishes to do so.  All of those seem like good tactics to me (and I would allow the paladin to do them).  The trap use, by contrast, is more like creating a negative situation and unleashing it on the world.  He doesn't have as much control over the situation, or who the trap affects.  Perhaps this is one substantive difference?

All the same, I guess I still see a clear difference between "taking advantage of an opponent's misstep or distraction in battle" (flanking, AoOs, etc.), or "buffing yourself with spells to maximize your advantage" (_greater invisibility_, _displacement_, etc.), and "intentionally tricking someone with something many would consider 'cheating' or 'unfair' in battle, or at the very least disingenuous" (trap use, poison use, etc.).


----------



## evilbob

AviLazar said:
			
		

> I can always pay the cab driver and not ride in his vehicle.



Yeah...  Don't think you can really compare the two.    (Also, the fact that there are a small number of exceptions to whether or not it is illegal doesn't actually challenge my point.)



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> What if the trap is used to kill a pitfiend and that is the only way to kill the pitfiend?



There's always another way - or else your GM might be railroading you.


----------



## evilbob

shilsen said:
			
		

> And you are a kinder, gentler and happier man for it.



But I heard from a _reliable source_ that playing 2nd Ed. gives you a 19 Int and a 20 Wis!  I _need_ those kind of stat boosts!


----------



## Furby076

With regards to poison. If a paladin wants to subdue someone and uses debilitating poison (e.g. Sleep) would that be bad?  What if the paladin decides to use poison that reduces stats with the purpose of knocking someone unconscious (disabling them) would that be considered bad?  Isn't it more merciful to try and subdue someone then to try and kill someone - as with putting a sword through someones head?

That is why the poison verbage is antiquated and poor.  It's OK to smash a mace into someones face, but not OK to put poison on your sword?

I would say a paladin should not use longterm debilitating poison (e.g. something that will cause the person excruciating pain over hours or days).  Look at the book of exalted deeds where they have ravages - which is basically a type of poison - that allows exalted good characters to use.


----------



## Furby076

evilbob said:
			
		

> Yeah...  Don't think you can really compare the two.    (Also, the fact that there are a small number of exceptions to whether or not it is illegal doesn't actually challenge my point.)




There are a large number of exceptions with regards to the legality of prostitution.  Not even including Nevada there are many countries that legalized prostitution a long long time ago.  It even used to be legal (wholesale) in the US.  It does challenge the point.




			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> There's always another way - or else your GM might be railroading you.




Or using poison against an evil creature is ok. Remember things are based on perspective. Hitting an innocent baby with a sword = bad.  Hitting a pitfiend with a sword = good.  Hitting an innocent baby with poison = bad.  Hitting a pitfiend with poison = ???  I say good.  YOu say tomato.


----------



## evilbob

AviLazar said:
			
		

> That is why the poison verbage is antiquated and poor.  It's OK to smash a mace into someones face, but not OK to put poison on your sword?



Oh I know - I agree with you.  It's hard, especially in modern times, to conceive of anything that's not an oxymoron when describing "honorable combat."  That's partially why this question exists:  it's already absurd before you even get started.


----------



## evilbob

AviLazar said:
			
		

> It does challenge the point.



Sorry - not going to go there.


----------



## shilsen

evilbob said:
			
		

> But I heard from a _reliable source_ that playing 2nd Ed. gives you a 19 Int and a 20 Wis!  I _need_ those kind of stat boosts!



 They lied. I had a 19 Int and 20 Wis even before I played 2e 



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> Or using poison against an evil creature is ok. Remember things are based on perspective. Hitting an innocent baby with a sword = bad. Hitting a pitfiend with a sword = good. Hitting an innocent baby with poison = bad. Hitting a pitfiend with poison = ??? I say good.




Ah, but what if it's an innocent baby pit fiend? Inquiring minds want to know. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that your PCs will run into a clutch of innocent baby daelkyr in the next couple of sessions. Really.


----------



## Furby076

shilsen said:
			
		

> Ah, but what if it's an innocent baby pit fiend? Inquiring minds want to know. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that your PCs will run into a clutch of innocent baby daelkyr in the next couple of sessions. Really.





If you know someone is going to grow up to be the next Hitler would you kill him while he was an innocent baby?  My paladin would.

Pregnant Daelkyr mother does get her butt thrown down the stairs - repeatedly


----------



## evilbob

AviLazar said:
			
		

> If you know someone is going to grow up to be the next Hitler would you kill him while he was an innocent baby?



Talk about a potential derailing!    Not touching that one with a 10' pole...


----------



## Furby076

evilbob said:
			
		

> Talk about a potential derailing!    Not touching that one with a 10' pole...




But 10' poles = total safety from any traps


----------



## shilsen

AviLazar said:
			
		

> If you know someone is going to grow up to be the next Hitler would you kill him while he was an innocent baby?  My paladin would.




Clearly he is not going to grow up to be the next Hitler if you're able to kill him. And yeah, in our game, that would likely drop Gareth right on his shapely but non-paladin ass 



> Pregnant Daelkyr mother does get her butt thrown down the stairs - repeatedly




I'm so going to have to put a pregnant Daelkyr in our game now. I wonder if Luna counts?



> But 10' poles = total safety from any traps




Note to self: Clearly I have been spoiling you.


----------



## Will

Why not kidnap the baby Hitler and raise him right? What are you, a lazy psycho?


----------



## Mr. Wilson

Yeah, I'd welcome him into the game.


----------



## calighis

Seems like a lot of people seem to think that Sir Cedric has a defeatist attitude but it's clear to me that he values the cause of his order far more than his own life. This is not the cynicism he is being framed for, it humble acceptance.
I like the idea of a Shrewd Paladin. You can't go off giving every hungry man a fish. Sometimes his refusal to help others is for the greater good. After all, what is a Dudley do Right in shining armor other than an over powered enabler.


----------



## Dlsharrock

Sheez, what a long thread. Sorry, didn't even get past page 1.

Anyway, Cedric seems to be doing for the paladin cliche what Dexter is doing for the modern psycopath, though I must admit I like Dexter better, he's less grumpy and cleaner 



			
				AviLazar said:
			
		

> If you know someone is going to grow up to be the next Hitler would you kill him while he was an innocent baby? My paladin would.




Ha. You should have that as your siggy.


----------



## Blackrat

I sense threadcromancy at work again. And a good chance to poke Shil into writing more. You promised an update. Where is it?


----------



## Furby076

Dlsharrock said:
			
		

> Ha. You should have that as your siggy.





Done


----------



## shilsen

Blackrat said:
			
		

> I sense threadcromancy at work again. And a good chance to poke Shil into writing more. You promised an update. Where is it?



 Damn! Um ... er ... maybe during the summer break? 

Actually, since I'm likely going to be off in India during the summer and getting no tabletop gaming in my system (which also means not spending time on my story hour), this one may get a little more time. May.


----------



## hamishspence

*Cedric: interesting*

Is he a hero? yes. Is a a paladin: mm, hard to say, skirts the edge, but I see no malevolence. Even by Exalted Deeds, the sticking point would only be: is he being exploitative? as it said, being a good guy does not mean being a virgin, and the Vows are based on the idea that giving up something healthy and good is a sacrifice.

Remind me a bit of Sparhawk, who is closer to the middle of the zone between cedric and celibate. Pays for the time, but won't do the acts. Willing to be around them without being insulting. Willing to keep a mistress as part of his cover in Rendor, before start of book 1, but is kind. Kalten is even more Cedric-ish.


----------



## Nightbreeze

Summer break is over, Shilsen


----------



## Orius

Cedric rides again!

And I ain't talking about Bob either, IYKWIM.  

I don't think this tread is ever going to die.  I even nominated it for thread of the week about a month ago, but it looks like that got discontinued.


----------



## cdrcjsn

I always find it strange when fantasy characters have my name.  One of these days I hope to run into a real Elrond or Galadriel.

Cedric


----------



## Nightbreeze

cdrcjsn said:


> I always find it strange when fantasy characters have my name.  One of these days I hope to run into a real Elrond or Galadriel.
> 
> Cedric




I am sure that in sixties there must have been some people naming their babies with such names...but perhaps they changed them later 

And no, I agree, I don't think this thread is ever going to die. We will pester shilsen until he gives us more story


----------



## Darkthorne

I would 100% allow him. None of his actions are evil, nor are they unlawful (if it was why hasn't the local law shut them down?). For all the people that disagree how many times have you changed someone's alignment (non paladin) if they were drinking, vulgar or wenching? Or had them arrested? If you had them arrested why was alcohol or wenching allowed to begin with in your campaign? If you haven't why the double standard? (I understand having young kids in your group and this not being age appropriate, but that is not the main question in point here). The whole "I detect evil/ kill evil" w/o recourse bit is garbage


----------



## jbear

Definitely yes; a clint eastwood type paladin that succeeds when other so called morally correct paladins are brought down, blinded by their own pride and 2 dimensional sense of honour and glory.

You definitely have freedom to build a paladin like this in 4e (where any alignment is acceptable), and certainly with the diverse range of gods in any pantheon of the game and in each of the worlds, I'm sure it is not inconceivable that a knight like this would be  given patronage by the goddess of luck (to whom many a woman of the night has praye Im sure) or a sympathetic god of travel that knows the comfort found in a warm pair of thighs after a long days walk on the lonely road. The paladin shouldnt be shut so tightly in a stereo typical box; its not fair to do so.

And as far as I know no law is broken when a paladin sleeps with a prostitute, gets drunk or speaks crassly. After all the horror, guts, blood, murder and pillage, not to mention close shaves with the embodimient of pure evil, it seems quite plausible that someone that had a deep sense of good and justice could get pretty scarred and cinical about the world, and even so grit his teeth and fight the good fight when he was needed... a divine rambo lets say...

I personally dont imagine all the gods in dnd require their paladins to act as if the were catholic priests.


----------



## BBQLord

I actually registered to answer here. Unbelievable, if you knew how much of a lazy lurker I am.
(Sorry for reviving something so dead but damn, this stuff is Epic Awesome).

I would allow Cedric. 

1) Just for his personality and interesting roleplay potential.
2) Not anything that he does goes against the paladin class.

He frequents prostitutes and pays for their services? That's *lawful* behaviour. More lawful than picking up a girl in a bar, actually (since that's far less formal and both partners' expectations are less clear(ly met)). In Cedric's case, where said prostitutes *want* to sleep with him, it's even *good* behaviour (he makes them feel pleased with him afterwards, which demonstrates his concern for their feelings and that he values them as sentient beings). He must be an honorable customer they have little bad to say about (as the Madam says).

He drinks alcoholic beverages? In the average D&D world, who doesn't consume alcohol? There is no good or evil inherent in the drinking of alcohol. Does it impair his judgment or hinder his abilities? No. Not ever. He drinks an amount he can handle, he never deviates from this amount (which, by way of gradual immunization, should lessen it's effects to the point of it barely affecting him at all) and pays for his drinks. The strict routine screams *lawful*, the alcohol itself says nothing about evil or good (which does *not* make it neutral but N/A).

 He's a bit of a devious bastard with traps but he hung around (probably to make sure no-one but the evildoers set it off) and did it for the greater good (we aren't claiming Cedric is Lawful Exalted Good, some concessions may be made).

There have been those that said Sir Cedric doesn't set a good example? I beg to differ. The godawful stereotypical paladin wearing shining armor, galloping about on his white horse, slaying dragons and saving maidens has actually become 'unreachable'. These paladins set an example *so absurdly out of reach* of the commoners that no one in his right mind would even try to act like them.

Think about a world in which everyone followed the stereotypical paladin's example: a lush green world filled with honest, happy people that always acted with goodness, lawfulness and respectfulness. They've all taken vows of abstinence, chastity, nonviolence and obedience. Imagine all the good it would do them if, after one generation, they'd all gone extinct because of their celibacy.

Sir Cedric on the other hand is an *excellent* example *because* it's easy to picture anyone to become like him. His example is easier to reach and therefore likelier to be set as a goal. You can still drink, just do so with some restraint. You can still sleep with prostitutes but don't exploit them and make them actually *enjoy* being prostitutes. You can still curse, just don't do it with venom or out of spite. Stick to your friends and ideals, no matter what. 

Hell, IMHO, Sir Cedric is a better paladin than the stereotypical paladin.





AviLazar said:


> With regards to poison. If a paladin wants to subdue someone and uses debilitating poison (e.g. Sleep) would that be bad? What if the paladin decides to use poison that reduces stats with the purpose of knocking someone unconscious (disabling them) would that be considered bad? Isn't it more merciful to try and subdue someone then to try and kill someone - as with putting a sword through someones head?
> 
> That is why the poison verbage is antiquated and poor. It's OK to smash a mace into someones face, but not OK to put poison on your sword?
> 
> I would say a paladin should not use longterm debilitating poison (e.g. something that will cause the person excruciating pain over hours or days). Look at the book of exalted deeds where they have ravages - which is basically a type of poison - that allows exalted good characters to use.




You have already reviewed the BoED. In it they quite clearly state (page 34) that the only poison (not ravage) characters can use is drow poison and oil of taggit (DMG) (both only cause unconsciousness).

Ravages 'are different' (don't think so myself but it's what the book says) because it's the evil *within* the opponent that causes the stuff to work. Quite clearly BS but hey, what can a fellow do?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

shilsen said:


> It (the poison reference) is in the description of the Code of Conduct in the paladin class section of the PHB. It says that the code requires a paladin to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)". There's no mention of traps, so the individual player/DM will have to decide whether that falls under "and so forth" or not.




I thought the reason was because the DMG spells out in the poison section that the trade or use of poisons is generally illegal in any community, not because of some sense of honor.
Special Abilities :: d20srd.org
"Price
The cost of one dose (one vial) of the poison. It is not possible to use or apply poison in any quantity smaller than one dose. *The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources.*"




evilbob said:


> I guess it's just too hard for me to believe that prostitution somehow empowers women.
> 
> Lol!




Well, NOW (the National Organization of Women) used to support prostitutes and work with them, several decades ago.  You can do some searches on it, if you like.  I did a bunch of research on the history of prostitution for a human sexuality class and always liked this essay (warning!  adult language and topics): WendyMcElroy.com: Content / Individualist Feminism -- Commentary / Prostitutes, Feminists, and Economic Associates
It's pretty informative, of course i don't know how objective or truthful she is, but everything in there agreed with the other research I did, and she does a good job summing things up.

Here's the most relevant section, if you don't want to read the entire essay:
[sblock]The purpose of my paper is to investigate the conflict between prostitute activists and anti-prostitution feminists in one area -- namely, the treatment of the economic associates of whores,[5] particularly of the men. Most people might assume that this conflict, and others, is the natural state of affairs between willing prostitutes, who sell themselves sexually to men, and most feminists, who decry the sexual exploitation of women by men. This assumption is wrong. Prominent spokeswomen in the '60s, such as Ti Atkinson, referred to prostitutes as the paradigm of a liberated woman. And a brief history of the Prostitutes' Rights Movement illustrates that co-operation, and not conflict, characterized the early years.

*The Early Prostitutes' Rights Movement and Feminism*

The Prostitutes' Rights Movement first appeared through the organization known as COYOTE, an acronym for 'Call Off Your Tired Old Ethics'. In early 1973, COYOTE emerged in San Francisco from a preceding group which was named WHO: Whores, Housewives, and Others. The 'Others' referred to were 'lesbians' -- a word no one even whispered aloud at that political juncture in time. And the willingness of prostitutes to embrace the cause of lesbian rights was one of their early and strongest links with many feminists of that time.

The founder of COYOTE Margo St. James became convinced that a prostitute-based group was necessary because the feminist movement would not take the issue of prostitution seriously until whores themselves spoke out. Earlier, the lesbian community had reached a similar conclusion about the need to speak out for themselves.

The mid-70s were a propitious time for prostitute rights. The '60s had created sympathy toward decriminalizing victimless crimes. The abortion crusade had embedded the principle 'a woman's body, a woman's right' into American society. The Gay Rights Movement in San Francisco had highlighted police abuse of sexual minorities.

Originally COYOTE limited itself to providing services to prostitutes in San Francisco, but a national Prostitutes' Rights Movement soon began to coalesce around the local San Francisco model. By the end of 1974, COYOTE boasted a membership of over ten thousand and three COYOTE affiliates had emerged: Associated Seattle Prostitutes, Prostitutes of New York [PONY], and Seattle Prostitutes Against Rigid Rules over Women [SPARROW].

The feminist movement reacted with applause. In 1973, for example, NOW endorsed the decriminalization of prostitution, and this is still the 'official' policy -- at least, on paper.[6] Ms magazine lauded both the efforts and the personality of Margo St. James. As late as 1979, prostitutes and mainstream feminists were actively co-operating. For example, COYOTE aligned with NOW in what was called a Kiss and Tell campaign to further the ERA effort. A 1979 issue of COYOTE Howls, the organization's newsletter, declared:

"COYOTE has called on all prostitutes to join the international "Kiss and Tell" campaign to convince legislators that it is in their best interest to support...issues of importance to women. The organizers of the campaign are urging that the names of legislators who have consistently voted against those issues, yet are regular patrons of prostitutes, be turned over to feminist organizations for their use."[7]

In the mid-80s, the Prostitutes' Rights Movement was decisively killed by an unexpected assassin: the AIDS virus. In the understandable social backlash that surrounded AIDS, prostitution came to be seen as a source of contagion every bit as virulent as IV needle use. The Prostitutes' Rights Movement could not advance out of the shadow of AIDS. Around this time, mainstream feminism also turned against the Prostitutes' Rights Movement and began publicly to excoriate prostitution as a form of patriarchal abuse of women. In 1985, Margo St. James left the United States to live in France. She cited the sexually conservative swing in the American feminist movement as one of her motives in leaving.[/sblock]

Apologies to the mods if this breaches no politics rules, if so please remove.


----------



## BBQLord

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I thought the reason was because the DMG spells out in the poison section that the trade or use of poisons is generally illegal in any community, not because of some sense of honor.
> Special Abilities :: d20srd.org
> "Price
> The cost of one dose (one vial) of the poison. It is not possible to use or apply poison in any quantity smaller than one dose. *The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources.*"



"Generally illegal" seems viable. This would, however, allow for exceptions where paladins can use poison.

The SRD quote is obviously in error: do they truly expect us to believe that in drow cities (Evil) they would make drow poison (a poison that isn't inherently evil) illegal?


The BoED states, again on page 34, that poison (that deals ability damage) is evil because it causes 'undue suffering' in the process of killing someone. (Yes, I don't agree with this statement either. During combat the most anyone is going to suffer from poison is for like five rounds. And given that the alternative is *more* beatings with a mace I'm none too sure about 'undue suffering' either).


----------



## Orius

BBQLord said:


> The SRD quote is obviously in error: do they truly expect us to believe that in drow cities (Evil) they would make drow poison (a poison that isn't inherently evil) illegal?




The drow sleep poison itself may not be illegal, though I suspect its use is strictly controlled by the matrons who want to see it used for capturing slaves, not coups carried out by ambitious female relatives.  Obviously the matrons don't want to be on the wrong end of it with all the byzantine backstabbing that goes on in their benighted little holes.  

They also would probably outlaw lethal poisons as well, because that's always a popular way to knock off an inconvenient ruler.  Of course, drow society being what it is, the matrons probably still get lethal poisons illegally, and go out of their way to execute a poisoner who's either too clumsy to not get caught, or who is no longer useful.


----------



## Blackrat

Nightbreeze said:


> Summer break is over, Shilsen





Orius said:


> I don't think this tread is ever going to die.  I even nominated it for thread of the week about a month ago, but it looks like that got discontinued.





Nightbreeze said:


> And no, I agree, I don't think this thread is ever going to die. We will pester shilsen until he gives us more story




Yeah... More story Shilsen! We wan't to know what happens with the siege.


----------



## Fusilliban

Dude, Cedric dies in this siege.  There's no question about that - if he lives, it'll just feel like a cop-out.  The question isn't what happens, the question is how it happens.

But I've enjoyed the fiction so far, and who knows?  Maybe Shil will surprise me.

I'm surprised that no one seems to object to Cedric's rudeness to the other knight in the intro - that's the thing that seems most un-Paladin-like to me.


----------



## BBQLord

Orius said:


> The drow sleep poison itself may not be illegal, though I suspect its use is strictly controlled by the matrons who want to see it used for capturing slaves, not coups carried out by ambitious female relatives.  Obviously the matrons don't want to be on the wrong end of it with all the byzantine backstabbing that goes on in their benighted little holes.
> 
> They also would probably outlaw lethal poisons as well, because that's always a popular way to knock off an inconvenient ruler.  Of course, drow society being what it is, the matrons probably still get lethal poisons illegally, and go out of their way to execute a poisoner who's either too clumsy to not get caught, or who is no longer useful.




Ah, but now you're dodging around the issue that truly matters; if a matron found it, for whatever undiscernible reason, okay to allow paladins the use of drow poison, would these paladins be able to use this 'Good/Neutral' poison? As even the BoED states that the use of drow poison isn't inherently bad, I see no problem here. It would, however, conflict with the PHB write-up of the paladin's code of conduct.

Basically one has to make a choice: either agree with the RAW unthinkingly and without looking at the context or go with the RAI and think the paladin's code of conduct through, given whatever situation he finds himself in.



Fusilliban said:


> I'm surprised that no one seems to object to Cedric's rudeness to the other knight in the intro - that's the thing that seems most un-Paladin-like to me.



Plenty of people have already stated they found this unpaladin-like. I don't necessarily agree though. There is nothing about the Lawful Good alignment that makes you inherently courteous. Besides, the knight's intonation and attitude towards Cedric were, IMHO, more inexcusable because he had already formed an opinion of a fellow knight (which he even regarded as a hero, up to that point) without giving said knight the opportunity to explain himself.

'Rudeness', or rather a quasi-emotional response of discontent, seems like a fair response.


----------



## shilsen

Nightbreeze said:


> Summer break is over, Shilsen




Whoops! Busted 



Nightbreeze said:


> And no, I agree, I don't think this thread is ever going to die. We will pester shilsen until he gives us more story






Blackrat said:


> Yeah... More story Shilsen! We wan't to know what happens with the siege.




So be it. I need to stop putting this off, anyway. I'll start writing the conclusion of the siege (and Cedric's fight with Kurgash) this week.



Fusilliban said:


> Dude, Cedric dies in this siege.  There's no question about that - if he lives, it'll just feel like a cop-out.  The question isn't what happens, the question is how it happens.




Hmm, that's exactly what my girlfriend said when she read what I had so far. And told me that Cedric was a Marty Sue and she should kick me in the nuts for writing this 



> But I've enjoyed the fiction so far, and who knows?  Maybe Shil will surprise me.




We'll see. I have a general idea of what'll happen, but it's not set in stone, so I may surprise myself.



			
				BBQLord said:
			
		

> I actually registered to answer here. Unbelievable, if you knew how much of a lazy lurker I am.
> (Sorry for reviving something so dead but damn, this stuff is Epic Awesome).




Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## Rackhir

BBQLord said:


> I actually registered to answer here. Unbelievable, if you knew how much of a lazy lurker I am.
> (Sorry for reviving something so dead but damn, this stuff is Epic Awesome)




If you liked it that much, don't forget Shil has a story hour, linked in his sig and mine. If you enjoyed this, then give it a try.

Not only is it stranger than you imagine. It's probably stranger than you can imagine.

Note: The first couple of write ups are essentially just his notes on what happened. So if you want a story, you might want to skip through some of those.


----------



## Chocobo

Interesting concept.  For some reason I've never seen this before...
I like the story, and the character.  

But I'd have to say no to being a paladin.  It isn't the drinking or the whoring or the cursing.  I was ok with it until the last few paragraphs of the first chapter, but then I saw the dealbreaker.  It's the lack of faith.  He claims to have faith, but he doesn't believe that the good that he does serves any purpose.  He believes that he is doing the right and good thing, but he doesn't believe that it can change anything.  He believes that as an instrument of his god, his actions make no difference whatsoever.  That is certainly a lack of faith.  He might believe that the god exists and that the god is good, but that's not the same thing.  This is a moral man with an absence of faith, and that in my opinion excludes him from being a paladin.  

Feel free to correct me if you think I'm misinterpreting that, but if I got this write-up I would tell you that if you play that character as written he would be a fallen paladin.


----------



## BBQLord

Rackhir said:


> If you liked it that much, don't forget Shil has a story hour, linked in his sig and mine. If you enjoyed this, then give it a try.



I will, thanks for the tip!



Chocobo said:


> It's the lack of faith.  He claims to have faith, but he doesn't believe that the good that he does serves any purpose.  He believes that he is doing the right and good thing, but he doesn't believe that it can change anything.  He believes that as an instrument of his god, his actions make no difference whatsoever.  That is certainly a lack of faith.  He might believe that the god exists and that the god is good, but that's not the same thing.  This is a moral man with an absence of faith, and that in my opinion excludes him from being a paladin.



Seeing as we're talking about Paladins I must disagree about the lack of faith. Sir Cedric might say and think he's lost faith but he actually still has tremendous faith in the righteousness of his actions. He doesn't "go through the motions", he actually does what he does because it's who he is deep inside. Doing the right thing, thinking/knowing it won't change anything, actually makes him a better paladin than other paladins who think their actions register.


However, I can image that it depends on your philosophical bend. Do you have to have faith in what you do or do you have to have faith in what you accomplish?

*Deontology* looks at the inherent rightness of an action (not it's consequence) to determine it's worth. The opposite, *teleology*, states that one must look tot the consequences of one's actions before one can judge it's worth. Killing baby Hitler is okay with teleology while deontology would say that killing an innocent baby is wrong.


----------



## shilsen

Well, here's the conclusion to the siege.

Enjoy!

* * * * * * * * * *

Less than fifteen minutes later, Cedric stands in the middle of a giant ring formed by the goblinoids. Everyone from the army who can fit into the fortress to watch has done so, and the thousands who cannot fit inside are clustered in every vantage point that they can find, whether they be withered trees, the remnants of the broken walls, or a convenient ogre.

Across from Cedric stands Kurgash, looking even more gigantic than before. His massive club makes a thrumming sound as he swings it casually in a wide arc before him. The warlord grins fiercely and then, just to make a point, raises the greatclub in both hands and brings it down on the ground before him. There is a thunderous crack and a puff of dust, as a thick paving stone cracks and disintegrates beneath the blow. _Oh yeah!_ thinks Cedric. _I’m dead. With that bloody log he’s carrying, I’ll never get close enough. Only chance is to piss him off._

The paladin raises his sword and salutes, before assuming a ready stance. Then he shouts, “So, you going to stand over there and pose, or come over and let me kick your ass? Though I’ve got to admit, you look pretty.” He winks and blows Kurgash a kiss.

The warlord stares at the madman for a moment. Then he roars, hefts his weapon above his head in both hands and charges. _Perfect!_ Cedric waits, balanced on his toes, and then as Kurgash looms over him, feints left and darts right. The giant club comes down in an irresistible arc, again smashing a broken furrow in the ground, but its intended target is already a couple of feet away. Leaping inside Kurgash’s guard, Cedric launches a powerful double-handed chop that smashes into the ogre’s wrist. 

And then has to throw himself backwards in a desperate attempt to avoid the arc of the greatclub’s swing. It barely clips his side, but that’s enough to send him tumbling backwards, his hip already going numb. Kurgash flexes his armored wrist, laughs as he realizes no real damage has been done, and laughs as the human regains his feet and extends his little sword. “I would enjoy this more,” he rumbles, “If you were not so small.”

“Hey!” says Cedric, quietly channeling what little healing energy he has left into himself, “Isn’t that what your mama told your daddy?” And then desperately throws himself backwards as the warlord rushes in again. This time Kurgash is smarter, greatclub depicting a huge hemispherical arc before him as he comes in, leaving Cedric little option but to hurriedly fall backwards. As he does so, the paladin keeps an eye out for the boundary to the ring, and just before he is about to reach it he throws himself aside and to the ground. Unfortunately for the hobgoblins in the front row, they don’t have that luxury, and Kurgash’s weapon smashes four of them to the ground before he can stop himself.

More importantly for Cedric, the impact and resultant confusion keeps the warlord’s weapon busy for a couple of seconds, just long enough for him to run within Kurgash’s reach – and behind his back. The paladin calls mentally to the High Lord as he strikes, driving the longsword point-first like a huge dagger, aiming for the thin opening between the collar of Kurgash’s breastplate and the war-helm the ogre donned before the fight.

The sword hits the gap perfectly, sinks half an inch into the gray flesh beyond – and then stops as if it had hit a stone wall. Cedric winces as the impact jars his arm and then again leaps back frantically as Kurgash swings around, the greatclub depicting an irresistible arc before him. Thanks to the quick retreat, the paladin is almost completely out of harm’s way, but the tip of the weapon flicks his side with a force that spins him around. Feeling ribs creak under the blow, Cedric backs up, rubbing his side with one arm. And looking quizzically at his foe. “You have tough skin,” he says. 

Kurgash grins back toothily. “Yes. Especially with a little help from Maunga.” He turns and smiles at a young goblin shaman standing nearby, who bows back at his leader. 

“Wasn’t this supposed to be a personal duel?” asks Cedric, breathing heavily. _Get him talking and buy a few seconds._ “Are others allowed to interfere?”

Kurgash throws back his head and laughs, the spikes on his club ringing off the flagstones as he lowers it to the ground. “Foolish manling! We use whatever we have.”

_Yes, we do!_ Cedric darts forward, trying to take advantage of the momentary lapse in his foe’s attention, but Kurgash is too quick. The greatclub leaps up with a flick of its wielder’s huge wrist, only barely missing Cedric’s face because he skids to a halt. And then Cedric is in full retreat, as Kurgash advances with giant sweeping strokes. 

This time, Kurgash is canny enough to leave no space for the human to leap left or right, and Cedric is driven inexorably back into the first row of troops. The paladin feels his back bump against a hobgoblin’s breastplate, hears a snarl in his ear, and then multiple arms shove him forward. Already expecting this, Cedric throws himself forward and down, using the momentum to slide forward, armor clanging against the stone. 

This at least is not a maneuver Kurgash expected, and he gapes in surprise as the human dives forward at his feet, and then slides between them. Before the warlord can recover, Cedric is through his legs and Kurgash growls as a blade slashes into his ankle. Only the combination of his armor and Maunga’s _barkskin_ prevents Kurgash from a severed hamstring, and he quickly kicks the human away.

Cedric rolls over, stumbles to his feet and backs away, to see Kurgash move after him with a noticeable limp. The paladin draws a ragged breath and grins. “Foot problems?”

The warlord doesn’t smile this time as he charges, greatclub coming down in a huge overhanded chop like it did at the start of the duel. This time he is slower and again, the greatclub smashes into the ground rather than into its intended target, who has leapt back. The leap takes Cedric a little too far to run around the club, so instead he takes the most direct route. And runs right up it.

The metal studs clang against his boots, actually providing greater purchase for the two steps that drive him up the strange incline. Cedric chuckles inwardly at his own audacity and then leaps into the air, bringing down the sword in a two-handed chop. The gleaming blade hums through the air, descending with irresistible force on Kurgash’s upturned face – and then a huge arm blocks the descent. Even giant iron full-plate cannot fully withstand the stroke or the enchanted blade and the sword breaks through the intervening metal to sink into the warlord’s forearm. But it goes no further and Kurgash’s face splits in a triumphant grin, despite the blood flowing out of his left arm. And especially when his balled right hand shoots up to smash Cedric in the face.

The paladin flies backwards and hits the ground with a clang, and when he stumbles up, one eye is closed and the entire left side of his face quickly purpling. _Well, it was a good try_, thinks Cedric, feeling the shattered cheekbone, as he lift his sword. His breath rasps through his lungs, and his arms and legs feel leaden, he knows it’s only a matter of time. With one last prayer, the paladin attempts to both feint and block as Kurgash comes in, but he is too tired and slow. Cedric doesn’t have the breath to scream, so all he can do is moan as he feels his right arm shatter in multiple places and the sword go tumbling out of his useless hand.

Kurgash is breathing heavily too, but he grins triumphantly as the human collapses on the ground and reaches weakly towards his dagger with his one functional hand. “Very well, little human,” chuckles the warlord, “I’ll wait. Draw it, so you can die with weapon in hand. Kurgash is nothing if not generous.” He laughs as the howls of bloodlust from the watchers changes into laughter and waves his greatclub at his admiring army. Then he looks down at his fallen foe, who has pulled out a small potion instead of his dagger, and is raising it to his mouth with a trembling hand. “Really,” asks Kurgash, genuinely amused, “Do you think any healing can save you now?”

Cedric swallows painfully, feeling the warmth of the draught flow through him, and slowly shakes his head. “Not healing. Resistance to fire.”

“Huh?” Kurgash looks his confusion. “Why?”

 “That’s why,” points the paladin, before he rolls over and pulls his cloak over him. 

Kurgash looks behind him, seeing nothing besides his soldiers and, beyond them, the ruined tower where the remnants of the human rabble are hidden. And then he looks up, at the highest window, where he sees motion. Followed by three tiny flaming beads, which shoot towards him at incredible speed.

On any other day, when he was completely healthy and ready for battle, Kurgash would have walked through half a dozen _fireball_s. But now, wounded, tired, and completely surprised, things are different. When the blast clears, leaving a small ring of charred goblinoid bodies, in the center of them lies the warlord, with a still stupefied expression on his scorched, charred and very, very dead face. 

The watching army holds its breath in stunned silence for a second, and then there is a sound. Horns, horns, horns. Great horns of war wildly blowing. Followed by shouts of alarm from those on the walls and those clustered on the fields beyond the broken fortress. “Attack! We’re under attack!” Shouts of “Kurgash! Kurgash is dead!” break out at almost the same time. Orders ring out at the same time from a dozen different sub-commanders, most of them contradictory, and some of the nearest troops to each attempt to obey, moving back and forth and throwing those around them into chaos. And more _fireball_s and other spells descend from the tower, individually weak, but slaying some and adding more generally to the confusion. That is the last straw and the goblinoids break in every direction, running and shouting and trying their best to escape from this accursed fortress.

Cedric throws back his cloak and rises shakily to a knee, staring in near disbelief at the charred and mountainous form lying beside him. _Son of a bitch! We did it!_ The paladin’s broken face twists in a painful grin and he breathes a quick prayer of thanks to the High Lord for letting his plan work out so well. He begins to lever himself back to his feet and then realizes the one fatal flaw in his plan, namely that he would end up in the middle of a panicked mob of goblinoids. _That might be a prob…_ is all he has time to think, before a stampede of terrified goblinoids runs over him.

* * *

Orion shakes Gareth’s hand firmly, though both men look exceedingly weary. “Congratulations, commander! The field is yours. And we thank you for our lives.”

“Thank you, sir. And if your men hadn’t held the fort with their lives this long, and especially kept them busy inside so we could maneuver into the perfect position…,” Gareth shrugs eloquently. As Orion nods, he adds, “Where is Cedric Galan? I’d like to thank him personally for his plan.” 

Orion stares at the man for the moment and then says thickly, “Yes, the plan. I discussed it with him when…” His voice trails off.

“When I contacted him via _sending_ a few hours ago,” says Gareth, looking out of a window over the battlefield at Kurgash’s legions fleeing in the distance, not noticing the other man’s expression, “He told me the enemy would be in a deplorable position and that we should attack when we hear the signal of three _fireball_s. Seems he was right. If so many of them hadn’t been inside the walls when we attacked, we might have been overwhelmed. Cedric and you’ll have to explain to me how you managed that. So, where is he?”

“Here,” says Orion simply, walking across the room to a curtained alcove. He pulls it back to reveal a shape draped across the large table beyond.

Gareth stares in first surprise and then horror as he walks over. “You mean…”

 “Yes.”

Gareth stares at the battered corpse for a few seconds, clearly still trying to come to terms with the sight, and then he frowns slightly. “Why are there so many footprints on his face?”

* * *

Cedric opens his eyes and then immediately closes them again, lifting a hand to veil them. _Bright lights and … no pain?_ Then he opens them again more carefully and, squinting slightly, looks around.

The paladin’s eyes are drawn instantly to the end of the chamber before him, barely noting the high, vaulted ceiling, the strange vistas visible through the long windows, or even the four winged celestials hovering patiently around the strangely carved throne at its end. All he sees is the glowing figure seated on it, an expression of calm expectation in his eyes.

Cedric gapes for a long second and then a slow smile spreads across his face. _So this is it!_ “My Lord,” he says simply, inclining his head and bringing a clenched fist to his chest in salute.

“WELCOME, CEDRIC,” is the response, in accents that the paladin has heard only once before. Accents which, he realizes, sound faintly amused. “I THOUGHT YOU WOULD GET HERE SOONER.”

Cedric waits to see if there is any more, and then chuckles, “I got busy, my Lord. Doing your work – and some of my own.” 

“YES,” the High Lord says, his tone dryer, but still slightly amused. “I SEE. BUT NOW YOU HAVE NO DUTIES, CEDRIC. NOW YOU MAY REST. YOU HAVE EARNED IT. COME NOW WITH ME.”

As the sentence ends, the walls around the chamber begin to fade away, gradually revealing a panoramic vista beyond. Rolling plains decorated with small streams, studded with small forests and a few hills. And in the distance, a giant mountain, its top hidden by the sky. 

Cedric looks around curiously. _So this is heaven._ And then almost laughs aloud as he thinks of something. He hesitates for a second and then grins slowly. _No time like the present._ “My Lord, I believe you have forgotten something.” The paladin’s grin threatens to split his face as the nearest celestial turns to stare at him with an expression akin to horror.

“HAVE I?” The High Lord’s tone is now much more obviously amused.

“Well, perhaps. You see…”


----------



## Blackrat

So the story of Cedric has ended? Though the ending is quite open to a multitude of interpretations....

Anyways. I liked it. Very nice ending to the long story Shil.


----------



## BBQLord

With such an obvious "open end" one can hardly call it an end to the story of Cedric. _If_ there is an end, it's the end of the story as far as we'll know it, from the mouth of *shilsen*. Though I personally hope his wording ("here's the conclusion *to the siege*", emphasis mine) was intentional and implies that Cedric's story has not yet seen it's last online chapter.

If this is an end to the online adventures of Sir Cedric than please don't take the above in the wrong (negative) way, I approve wholeheartedly of the "open end choice" *shilsen* made as it makes readers think about and extrapolate from his story all the more (possibly spawning more stories about Sir Cedric the Paladin in numerous campaigns and stories worldwide).


As for this installment of Sir Cedric: nicely done!
It made me think of something akin to a dilemma. Can a paladin be brave?
I have often heard bravery described not as 'being without fear' (as I assume paladins are because of their _immunity to fear _class feature) but *overcoming* said fear and/or acting *despite* the fear.

After all, can a computer be brave or courageous? Hardly, it doesn't even the capacity for fear. Well, unless I'm mistaken, neither do paladins...

If so, what does this mean for a 'sacrifice' like we've seen in *shilsen*'s latest post? A paladin would most likely be _unable to fear death_. Is dying than still a sacrifice? Probably (you 'sacrifice' all your possible actions by dying). But in this example they were pretty much screwed by the enemies' numbers and the lack of reinforcements. Given that Sir Cedric was going to die if he did nothing; wasn't this an act to increase his chances for survival? I can believe a statement along the lines of it being selfless (if he did it not for his own survival but the survival of his comrades) but that alone doesn't make it a sacrifice (Sir Cedric didn't give anything up, did he? No, this actually was one of the few ways they could survive what was to come).


----------



## Starbuck_II

Chocobo said:


> It's the lack of faith. He claims to have faith, but he doesn't believe that the good that he does serves any purpose. He believes that he is doing the right and good thing, but he doesn't believe that it can change anything. He believes that as an instrument of his god, his actions make no difference whatsoever. That is certainly a lack of faith. He might believe that the god exists and that the god is good, but that's not the same thing. This is a moral man with an absence of faith, and that in my opinion excludes him from being a paladin.



 Actually, unless you are playing FR, A paladin doesn't need faith.

Once they are chosen and called, they have their powers till they break the Code of conduct.

So he can totally lack faith.


----------



## firesnakearies

This is exactly the kind of paladin I'd like to see in my games, actually.  I'd encourage such a character.


----------



## BBQLord

Starbuck_II said:


> Actually, unless you are playing FR, A paladin doesn't need faith.
> 
> Once they are chosen and called, they have their powers till they break the Code of conduct.
> 
> So he can totally lack faith.



Isn't that a bit like dodging the question?

To rephrase the other guy to suit this argument:

"Do you need faith to be chosen and called?"

If so, what kind of faith? Could a paladin lose faith, a prerequisite for being a paladin, without losing himself as a paladin?

RAW or RAI? And why do you think what you think? I'd like to hear something about that, if you'd share it.


----------



## shilsen

Blackrat said:


> So the story of Cedric has ended? Though the ending is quite open to a multitude of interpretations....
> 
> Anyways. I liked it. Very nice ending to the long story Shil.




Thanks. And yes, the ending was very intentionally open-ended.



BBQLord said:


> With such an obvious "open end" one can hardly call it an end to the story of Cedric. _If_ there is an end, it's the end of the story as far as we'll know it, from the mouth of *shilsen*. Though I personally hope his wording ("here's the conclusion *to the siege*", emphasis mine) was intentional and implies that Cedric's story has not yet seen it's last online chapter.
> 
> If this is an end to the online adventures of Sir Cedric than please don't take the above in the wrong (negative) way, I approve wholeheartedly of the "open end choice" *shilsen* made as it makes readers think about and extrapolate from his story all the more (possibly spawning more stories about Sir Cedric the Paladin in numerous campaigns and stories worldwide).




As I mentioned above, I did intentionally leave it open-ended, in case I do want to revisit the character and story at some point. Whether that'll happen or not, of course, I don't know right now. 



> As for this installment of Sir Cedric: nicely done!
> It made me think of something akin to a dilemma. Can a paladin be brave?




Good question. And that reminds me that the immunity to fear is something I thought of exploring further using one of the fiction pieces about Cedric and never got around to doing. Hmm - maybe someday later...



> I have often heard bravery described not as 'being without fear' (as I assume paladins are because of their _immunity to fear _class feature) but *overcoming* said fear and/or acting *despite* the fear.
> 
> After all, can a computer be brave or courageous? Hardly, it doesn't even the capacity for fear. Well, unless I'm mistaken, neither do paladins...




I think the description of the ability implies that paladins feel no fear at all, but I also think there's some wiggle room to argue that paladins can feel fear but are immune to the magical/supernatural variety. And, of course, someone can be aware of the dangers in a certain situation and take them into account, without actually fearing them. 



firesnakearies said:


> This is exactly the kind of paladin I'd like to see in my games, actually.  I'd encourage such a character.




Thanks. One of my primary aims was to come up with a character which breaks the standard paladin mold but is interesting and playable. It's interesting for me to see how many people agree that he fits the bill.


----------



## Starbuck_II

BBQLord said:


> Isn't that a bit like dodging the question?
> 
> To rephrase the other guy to suit this argument:
> 
> "Do you need faith to be chosen and called?"
> 
> If so, what kind of faith? Could a paladin lose faith, a prerequisite for being a paladin, without losing himself as a paladin?
> 
> RAW or RAI? And why do you think what you think? I'd like to hear something about that, if you'd share it.



 You aren't chosen by a diety. You are chosen by goodness.
Read the PHB. Dieties aren't required no faith in them.
First sentence in religion: just devote yourself to righteousness.


----------



## Mallus

shilsen said:


> One of my primary aims was to come up with a character which breaks the standard paladin mold but is interesting and playable.



You're doing better job at it than I am, shil... 

Also, it's nice to see that votes are over 3:1 in favor of Cedric. Shows the good folks at ENWorld are gamers w/good taste and discernment.


----------



## Vorput

Alas, poor Cedric! I knew him, Shilsenio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy...


----------



## FarosKalin

I completely agree with you on the Sir Cedric debate! although i am curious? does it say in the paladine description that they have to be chaste?


----------



## FarosKalin

lets just say hes a fighter, who likes helping ppl and fighting evil. otherwise, hes a normal fighter.


----------



## Rackhir

FarosKalin said:


> I completely agree with you on the Sir Cedric debate! although i am curious? does it say in the paladine description that they have to be chaste?




It doesn't, but Sir Galahad (of King Arthur's tales) who's one of the main sources for the paladin class, was chaste. So that plus the general attitude of "sex is bad" combined with the "lawful uptight" paradigm many people subscribe to leads many people to assume that sex is forbidden.


----------



## BBQLord

Starbuck_II said:


> You aren't chosen by a diety. You are chosen by goodness.
> Read the PHB. Dieties aren't required no faith in them.
> First sentence in religion: just devote yourself to righteousness.



I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant to copy your use of the words 'chosen and called'. So, to clarify:

"Do you need faith to be chosen and called by goodness?"
If so, what kind of faith and does Cedric qualify? Why?
If not, why do you think it is not necessary? What *are* the prerequisites to being chosen and called? Could 'goodness' theoretically call and choose an Evil or Neutral person to become a paladin? I'm not particularly interested in a short answer but more in the reasoning/thinking behind the answer.


----------



## Starbuck_II

BBQLord said:


> I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant to copy your use of the words 'chosen and called'. So, to clarify:
> 
> "Do you need faith to be chosen and called by goodness?"
> If so, what kind of faith and does Cedric qualify? Why?
> If not, why do you think it is not necessary? What *are* the prerequisites to being chosen and called? Could 'goodness' theoretically call and choose an Evil or Neutral person to become a paladin? I'm not particularly interested in a short answer but more in the reasoning/thinking behind the answer.




No, I don't see faith as required. 
It isn't required because faith is believing in something that can't be proven fully but yet you know is true.
Paladins have knowledge that Goodness exists (it did choose them): why should they have to have faith as well.
You can have Faith +knowledge, or just faith, or just Knowledge.

The prerequisites to being called is Goodness needs someone. Anyone so they chose those who they think might make a good hero (no matter how small a hero; even extras are needed).
Every single being has that potential even those evil. But many are unlikely to take the call even good.
Because it is hard being a Paladin (kinda MAD, I joke).
So Goodness chooses those most likely even if they currently are a bad position or alignment (cleans slate clean for this chose; just personality/attitude is considered).

To be chosen is a self thing: you chose to follow the call.
An evil person called will likely not be chosen, but rarely could happen (which would require a change of heart in alignment terms to be LG).

Same for a neutral called: he feels the burning in his bosom that he should do something, but something holds him back from being chosen.
He might have family troubles: sister sick, etc. He feels he must stay at home.

But each might put off the call now and later take it up to be chosen (as PHB mentions).
So Cedric could easily have been a neutral guy that for some reason just decided: "Yeah, heck, yeah I'll do it!"
He still has his old drinking troubles, but he tries and in trying he maintains his Code (though one could argue alcohol is a poison, heh).


----------



## haakon1

Nice job, Shilsen.  If I were in charge of Cedric's country, I'd do a Speak With Dead to see if he's be willing to come back, then have a Raise Dead done to see if his god will permit it.


----------



## Gregg

It all depends on what the Paladin's code is. One of my players is a CE Paladin that has made multiple deals with demons to get powerful weapons to initiate a revenge killing on a CN Ranger. None of these things is against his code of conduct.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Hah!  First poster in this thread for 1.5 YEARS, and the thread icon shows up on my browser as flaming ("hot topic"?).  That's awesome.


----------



## knightofround

Hey, I'm not complaining =) Forgot all about this thread...good stuff


----------



## Orius

And Cedric keeps going, unbelievable.


----------



## Aurondarklord

Well, this thread has been necroed years after the last response before, and it's SUCH A GOOD THREAD, I figure I can throw in my two cents even though I'm late to the party.

Now, I haven't read all 82 pages here, but I've read the first few pages and most of the fiction to form an opinion.

To the stated question, would I personally allow this paladin in a game I was running?  Yes, absolutely I would.  The people I play with are mature and have no trouble with moral grey areas, and I like the character and care a lot more about having a good game than arguing about the rules.

To the IMPLIED question which has been the subject of most of the debate here, is Sir Cedric acceptable as a paladin under the letter and spirit of the 3E rules as written, I would, with a great deal of consideration, say the rules don't technically bar him, but it very much depends on the table and the setting the DM created.

The question is basically, can a paladin drink, swear, frequent prostitutes, have a deeply cynical worldview, and be rude to people?

I think it depends a lot on the setting and the religion of the paladin in question.  A paladin of Saint Cuthbert is not going to behave exactly the same as a paladin of Pelor, who certainly won't behave like a paladin of X DM's custom LG deity, because different Gods will have different expectations and rules.  I think one of the problems in this thread is that the question is being seen through an overly judeo-christian lens when not every religion has to be a carbon copy of that.

Drunkenness: One of the iconic D&D images is the party meeting in a tavern, or returning there to celebrate slaying some monster, the consumption of alcohol seems to be assumed, and in fact complete scoundrel's grey guard paladin prestige class at one point references that their quick and easy atonement bonus only applies to things they do in the name of their religion, using as an example that beating a confession out of a heretic could get quick atonement, but starting a bar brawl couldn't...implying that the paladin's merely drinking in the bar is NOT against the rules by simply assuming it.  And you can't tell me that a dwarven paladin of Moradin or....well a paladin of anybody if you're using the Norse pantheon, is forbidden from alcohol.  As for actually getting well and truly drunk...I think it depends HOW drunk he gets.  A paladin should never become so intoxicated they are unable to do their job or lose control of themselves.  If I were a God, I wouldn't waste my divine power on a guy who's gonna drunkenly smite barstools in half instead of using those smites on evil beings, or be sleeping it off in a ditch while the town is sacked by orcs.  Cedric however does not appear to be that drunk, he is entirely coherent and appears to be of sound mind and body, so he seems fine in that regard.  Obviously, if his religion has a prohibition against alcohol, or he has taken the vow of abstinence feat, he should not imbibe it, but that's a question specific to the individual setting, character, and religion, not the rules of D&D in general.

Can a paladin swear?  Why not?  I know of no religion the prohibits the use of foul language, or that even attempts to define foul language.  What makes one term for excrement inherently more vulgar than another?  must a paladin refrain from discussing the subject entirely?  No matter how holy he is, he can't refrain from DOING it, why must he not talk about it?  This seems silly, the idea that paladins are flowery-talking dandies is entirely a player-created convention, not an actual part of the rules, and as other people have said, many of these words were just the way common people spoke in medieval times, which has, to our modern society, become considered "vulgar" while the words used by nobles came to be considered polite.  If Sir Cedric were a man of humble beginnings in a realistic medieval setting, that's just how he'd talk, and while paladins thematically evoke real world knighthood, or at least an idealized version of it, the rules of D&D never say nor imply that paladins must be knights or otherwise well born.

Can a paladin frequent prostitutes?  This is a much thornier issue.  Here, it really depends on the setting.  Not all religions demonize sex the way Christianity does.  Many ancient cultures had religiously-sponsored prostitution, and we've all heard of ancient greek orgies.  Simply the fact that Cedric is engaging in sex outside marriage or a committed relationship should only be a problem if the specifics of his religion bar it.  As for the prostitution itself...totally a setting question.  Paladins must respect legitimate authority, if prostitution is illegal in the area in which he currently resides, and that rule has been enacted by a just and legitimate government, then he must obey it.  Paladins, being required to protect the weak and fight evil, must also respect human dignity, and taking sexual advantage of helpless women forced into the sex trade would go completely against that.  In fact, Cedric would be obligated by his code to free these women and punish the people who put them in such a situation.  Of course, these things aren't necessarily an issue if the DM doesn't say they are.  In most of the medieval and ancient world, prostitution was perfectly legal, open, and expected.  Most commoners could not afford to feed anymore mouths than they had to, and while excess sons could join the army or the clergy, more daughters than you could marry off and provide dowry for was a huge financial burden, so it was extremely common practice to send them, or outright sell them, to the local brothel.  Sounds pretty bad, yeah, but so's dying of starvation, and the best most common people could do back then was bare subsistence farming, if they were lucky.  Prostitution can simply be one of the many things people do to survive in a very harsh world, no more evil than for Cedric to have a blacksmith shoe his horse, if the DM wants.  Heck, if the DM wants, it can all be glamorous "secret diary of a call girl" prostitution where the girls are all happy nymphos.  That's not very realistic, but if that's the game you want to play, the rules of D&D don't stop you.  In this particular case, Madame Catherine seems to run a clean and respectable establishment and be kind to her girls, and they're fond of Cedric and freely consenting adults.  So long as Cedric only frequents such establishments, and by his words and deeds denounces those that mistreat their girls or force them into such a life, I see no rules problem here so long as his religion has no specific prohibition against prostitution or premarital sex.

Can a paladin be rude?  To a point.  Cedric is not needlessly mean or offputting, he's just very blunt and quick to disillusion people who come to him with what he sees as an unrealistic worldview.  I don't think a paladin is allowed to just be verbally cruel and abusive, but nowhere in the rules does it say they must have limitless patience or indulge idiots with flattery and kind words.  Sometimes, tearing off someone's rose colored glasses is doing them a favor, even saving their life if you live in a particularly harsh world.

And the final point, in my mind the big one...

Can a paladin be a jaded cynic?  Once again, this depends on the setting and the religion.  I absolutely believe a paladin has a responsibility to try to inspire not only moral behavior, but hope and faith.  Just...not unrealistic hope.  I think it's not only crazy, but nowhere said, implied, or suggested by the rules as written, that a paladin has to be divorced from reality or try to convince other people that they should be.  If a paladin is leading an army into an obviously hopeless battle, he has not only the right, but I would say the duty, to tell them that it's a hopeless battle, and that they'll all likely die, even though he believes the cause worth dying for.  He doesn't have to live in cloud cookoo land where he thinks they'll miraculously win in defiance of all logic just because they're the good guys.  I don't believe a paladin has to be don quixote, tilting at windmills and willing to throw their life away on principle even when they know it won't actually accomplish anything, nor should they encourage others to behave that way.  While Christianity may have the notion that the ultimate triumph of God over Satan is inevitable, and that all that matters in the cosmic scheme of things is a person's faith and virtue so they get into Heaven, in most D&D settings, including the default one, the battle between good and evil is not decided ahead of time, and in fact is often dependent on the actions of the player characters.   All the virtue in the world won't help anybody if Asmodeus overruns the cosmos and eats Mount Celestia and the souls of everyone there.  If this game takes place in a grimdark setting, and all Cedric is doing is telling people the truth, I see no problem.  A paladin does not have to believe the world to be better than it actually is, only that it can be, and should be.  He has to believe his cause is worth fighting for, not necessarily that he can win if realistically it doesn't look like he can.  A paladin must have faith, yes, but not blind idiot faith that doesn't correspond to reality.  The rules should never encourage characters to act like idiots.  Obviously, conversely a paladin should never be a downer, telling everybody it's hopeless and they should lay down and die when things aren't nearly that bad, but that doesn't seem to be happening here.

A lot of what I've said above is mostly my own opinions, but I think they're backed up by perhaps the most important statement wizards has ever put out on the subject.  From the book of exalted deeds: "Good is not nice, polite, well mannered, self righteous, or naive".  A paladin very much has to be a great example of good, but those things don't define good, therefore a paladin does not need to be them.  and I think all of the issues above except the prostitution one, fall under questions of whether he's required to be nice, polite and well mannered, or naive.  You could even argue that requiring he avoid prostitution even if it's not inherently evil in the context of the setting, but just a symptom of the fact the setting is not a perfect world, is requiring him to be self-righteous.  And while I also believe a paladin must set a good example, I don't think they're required, or even that it's necessarily a good thing, for them to try to set an unrealistic and unattainable example.  A paladin should be seen by the people as an example to aspire to.  A paladin who's a perfect saint doesn't help, no one can live up to that, and most will despair of trying.  Living in a 24/7 state of constant vigilance and self-denial, measuring every word and gesture to avoid the slightest hint you might not be perfect...that's no kind of life, a world where everyone acted like that would be a world where everyone was miserable, and that isn't what a paladin should stand for.  A paladin should show people that they can live their lives, enjoy themselves, and still stand up when it really matters and reject evil.  And I don't believe a paladin should be held hostage to the idea that someone, anyone, a stupid person or a person looking for an excuse, might misinterpret their behavior, do something totally different, and draw a false equivalency between what they did and what the paladin did to justify themselves.  Cedric gave patronage to a legal brothel where he had sex with well treated and consenting prostitutes.  If someone uses that as an excuse to go to someplace shady and rape women who were beaten and drugged into sexual slavery, that's not Cedric's fault, though woe unto that person if they meet Cedric after doing so.  Paladins are not responsible for the stupid or willfully ignorant behavior of everyone else in the world.  Cedric sets a fine example if you actually bother to pay attention.


----------



## Rackhir

Ah a blast from the past.

This is a question which has come up recently again actually.


----------



## S'mon

I just had a player ask to play a Lawful Evil Paladin in a 1e game. I said no, because in that campaign Paladins are holy warriors of a LG quasi-Christian God.

Otherwise, acceptable Paladin behaviour will depend on the source of the Paladin's power - assuming it can be withdrawn, which is unclear in 4e D&D.
In the OP, it looks like a LG Order disapproves of a probably-CG Falstaffian Paladin. If both serve and are empowered by a NG deity who regards both as acceptable, fair enough. My LG quasi-Christian Deity would disempower him, though.

I'm ok with LG Paladins who buck the system. I'm ok with arguments that Dirty Harry could be a LG Paladin at odds with a NG/CG system, or Batman a LG crime fighter distrusted by a N/CN society. I'm not sure this character falls within that area, though. He could be NG, but probably not LG, in my games.


----------



## Emirikol

Yes, I would too..depending on the player though too.  Our current group has exactly such a paladin and it seems to be working out ok so far.

jh


----------



## Tallifer

Your poll is insufficient.

As a dungeon master I would let the player call his character a paladin and pretend to be a paladin and even work for his god. But he would receive none of the divine magic and holy benefits which accrue to a holy paragon of virtue. He would be a fighter who wears a cross and blasphemes the god whom he pretends to serve.


----------



## Mallus

Tallifer said:


> Your poll is insufficient.
> 
> As a dungeon master I would let the player call his character a paladin and pretend to be a paladin and even work for his god. But he would receive none of the divine magic and holy benefits which accrue to a holy paragon of virtue. He would be a fighter who wears a cross and blasphemes the god whom he pretends to serve.



So, in other words, 'no'. 

It is nice to see Cedric back from the (virtual) grave. He's a wonderful character. I kinda wish shilsen had the time and inclination to write a novel about him.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Isn't this one of the threads the Mods almost closed and had multiple warnings to give?

Maybe it is best left in the grave.


----------



## Greenfield

"Lawful" is an odd term, since there are several usable definitions of the term.

He must keep his word.  That's pretty much a given.

He must abide by the standards of society, which includes the just laws of that society.

Does he have to follow a particular religion?  Oddly, that isn't in the rules anywhere.  If he does, must it be an LG type faith?  Again, not in the rules anyplace.

Also, did you know that, for several centuries, the Roman Catholic church (under the guidance of a number of Bishops, Cardinals etc.) owned a number of brothels? The believed that periodic "release" was necessary for a man's health, and better that he do this in willing company than commit the "Sin of Onnan", or be driven to rape.

So if the law in specific, society in general, and even the most conservative of religions allow prostitution, then he isn't doing anything unlawful in defending and/or utilizing the services of prostitutes.

Defend the weak?  Usually a good policy.  But when Law and Good conflict, Good must prevail.  He must maintain the Lawful part of his alignment, which means that he is predominantly Lawful in his behavior.  But a single Evil act ends his career as a holy warrior.

I'd allow him, but I'd keep an eye on him as well.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

Dice4Hire said:


> Isn't this one of the threads the Mods almost closed and had multiple warnings to give?
> 
> Maybe it is best left in the grave.




It wasn't "almost" closed.  Based on the comments in it, it was definitely closed but the mods opened it up again because they got messaged by several people about it.

Now for my bit about it all:

 Would I allow Cedric to be in one of my games?  Only if the players were mature enough to work not just with the sexual nature of it, but the circumstances and story that might only be possible in a fictional setting.

  Do I think he could still be a Lawful Good Paladin by RAW?  If the powers that be in this setting can allow him to conduct himself as he does, then yes.  It won’t work in every setting, but it is plausible that a setting exists where it would work.  Would I create such a setting as a DM?  Only if I knew the players would (not could, _would_) be mature about it.  I expect there will be very few players who could pull this off, but to those that could I salute.

  One of the contentious points here is the depiction of the prostitutes, their situation, and how Cedric interacts with them.  The first thing that needs to be pointed out is this is a fictional construct.  Even if prostitution was a contribution to several real world civilizations falling (which I have never seen definitive evidence of:  Several people saying they believe it to be and when asked why effectively state “Isn’t it obvious?” do not count as evidence though I’ll admit I haven’t thoroughly researched it myself), it does not have to be so in this setting.  It is possible to imagine circumstances where prostitutes could be accepted and respected members of their community and Cedric could patronize them responsibly without having his paladinhood taken away.  Are such circumstances something I would put into any setting?  No.  Again, I would have to know the players would be mature about it and be able to work with it.  Those who cannot realize real world examples might not apply to this because it is a fictional setting where things can and do work differently are not people I think could play in this setting.  Yes, it can be a rather large suspension of disbelief for some.  I hypothesize a reason people don’t like to suspend disbelief regarding fiction is they are worried it will change how they look at reality, and for some it very well could.  Your mileage may vary.

  A minor tangent regarding how Cedric interacts with the women: In the first part someone noticed the line “Feeling a familiar stirring, he shook his head and muttered, "Down boy!" to himself,” and they took familiar to mean he had actually made Mr. Happy his familiar.  That’s one of the more amusing “out of context” things I’ve seen in quite some time!  Familiar here of course doesn’t mean the sorc/wiz class feature, but simply that he felt a commonly known feeling.  In the context he probably did feel a bit aroused, but he was the master of the urge, not it of him.  To me that means he does not give in to “hedonism” as others have put it.

  Another contentious point is Cedric’s attitude and how others perceive him.  Even before the extra stories where Cedric is directly inspirational, I would say he was inspiring in some different degree.  He still fights the good fight even though he knows damn well what might happen to him without constant vigilance.  He never gets himself compromised such that he wouldn’t be able to watch himself, though he might tread the line far more than many would think is prudent.  Notice how the barkeep said he always had exactly seven ales?  I would expect that’s where Cedric knows he can stay in control but still let himself have some recreation.

  Yet another way he can be thought of as inspirational is in hearing his story like Magnus did.  It’s oddly metagame in this sense since we ourselves are looking at snippets of his story.  However, I don’t think anyone can say Magnus didn’t come away impressed by the tales Father Shikuna told of Cedric.  I know I too was impressed, and I bet several others who have read it were as well.  That’s not to say other people who are not paladins also aren’t impressive or inspirational, but it does say that he fulfills the “requirement” of being inspirational.

  I can definitely say he’s more of a “common man’s hero” than the paladins we typically think of, which is one of the reasons I like him as a character.  To me it’s a shame that characters like him can’t be portrayed more often because of peoples' sensitivity to some of the subject matter in question.

To those saying this thread should be left to die, I say it should be relived time and time again.  It raises many important philosophical ideas that need to be continuously looked at for people in general to understand how not only our own world works, but how other worlds might work in a way that's totally different than ours.  Looking at the things we create can really give us understanding of ourselves after all.

All this philosophy has given me a headache though, and I am glad for it being because of that instead of some flaming comments.  Good night, and thank you Shilsen for your wonderful writing.


----------



## Orius

S'mon said:


> Otherwise, acceptable Paladin behaviour will depend on the source of the Paladin's power - assuming it can be withdrawn, which is unclear in 4e D&D.
> In the OP, it looks like a LG Order disapproves of a probably-CG Falstaffian Paladin. If both serve and are empowered by a NG deity who regards both as acceptable, fair enough.




To be fair though, Cedric predates 4e, so shilsen posted this back when we were having 3e paladin and alignment discussions.



Dice4Hire said:


> Isn't this one of the threads the Mods almost closed and had multiple warnings to give?
> 
> Maybe it is best left in the grave.




No way, this is one of ENWorld's classic threads.  Although some of the points made early in the thread don't necessarily apply to 4e.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Okay, I would've commented sooner, but I just finished reading all 82 pages (83, counting this one).

My answer: he's not a Paladin. I'm not even convinced he's Lawful (he seems more Neutral to me), and he basically lost "act with honor" as of kicking someone in the groin in a fight. Some other acts are pretty much borderline (trapping the temple, setting the ogre up for what is basically assassination), but I'd think about it a lot before stripping someone's powers away (if I was still playing 3.5). He's also not really meeting "respect legitimate authority" enough in my book (how he treats the other Paladin), even if the author did write him as basically infallible within the church's religion. That has no bearing on treating others with respect, in my book.

To sum up: I think he's Neutral, not Lawful; the groin kick certainly isn't honorable; I don't think he shows enough respect to legitimate authority; and he's borderline on other honor issues.

He's a fine character concept to play (though I was greatly turned off by the Mary Sue status he was given in the writing, but probably only because I'm not rooting for him as a working concept). I'd allow him as a Neutral Good Cleric (again, if I still played 3.5). But a Paladin? No. So not only would he not be allowed in my game, he also wouldn't be a Paladin.

Just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, obviously. It's a fun thread, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## Aurondarklord

ummm...excuse me, but....why is kicking someone in the groin dishonorable?

If you're fighting a red dragon, is it dishonorable to cast a cold spell on it?

If Batman is fighting Superman, is it dishonorable for him to use kryptonite?

What about stories about dragons, like Fafnir or the dragon from Beowulf, where the hero, often a paladin-like archetype, slays the dragon by attacking a weak spot in its neck or chest, which mythological dragons are sometimes attributed to have?  Was this dishonorable?

What about any video game where a boss fight involves waiting for an opening in its pattern where you can shoot a little blinking red spot which is the only place you can cause damage, is this dishonorable?

I bet most people would answer no to most or all of the above, even find the notion that those things would be considered dishonorable ridiculous.  Yet what's the difference between any of these and kicking someone in the groin?  The groin is one of the anatomical weak points of most male humanoids.  But that's all it is, a weak point that can be exploited to cause additional damage or debilitation with an attack.  There are numerous others on the human body, yet people give special attention to the groin when they talk about "honor", declaring it as some arbitrary line that must not be crossed or you're "fighting dirty".  But it's exactly that, arbitrary.  As men, we fear getting hit there so we try to declare it "off limits", it's not any different than medieval knights trying to get the church to declare the use of crossbows a sin because a crossbow could pierce armor and therefore they feared that lowly peasant footmen could kill them.  Can anyone think of a game they've been in where paladins were forbidden from using crossbows?

Do you define "honor" as "a paladin must not take advantage of an enemy's weak points"?  If you don't, why is the groin more "dishonorable" than other weak points?  If you do, what constitutes a weak point?  elemental weaknesses?  any spot on the body that causes additional pain or injury?  cuz that would be most vital organs, especially instant kill shots like the throat, heart, and brain.  By that logic, a paladin must not use holy items against fiends and undead, since it's their weakness and deals extra damage.  I'm sure you can see how silly this idea can get if you actually think about it.

I abhor the idea that "act with honor" is taken to mean "paladins must fight with one hand tied behind their back", that they must be lawful stupid, that the expected way for them to fight is to ride up to the enemy forces, plant a big banner in the ground, and stand there yelling challenges at them, expecting that the enemy leader will decide to step forward for a duel Silmarillion style.  Paladins should not be required to refrain from using intelligent tactics, after all, as Sun Tzu said, all war is based on deception, and at least to some degree, that's ALWAYS true, whether you're trying to maneuver an enemy force into a spot where they can be flanked, or you're Obi-Wan Kenobi using mind tricks and manipulation to infiltrate the death star (and you cannot tell me the Jedi are not a lawful good paladin-like order).  Paladins should not be required to make suicidal last stands for no reason when tactical retreat is a valid option.  It's one thing to say a paladin should retreat last to cover his comrades or escaping civilians because he's willing to die for others, it's another to say he shouldn't retreat AT ALL because he's willing to die FOR NOTHING.

No class should be interpreted as encouraging, let alone REQUIRING, stupid behavior on the part of players.  Paladins are not lemmings.

In my mind, fighting dishonorably means doing something like impersonating the red cross, pretending to surrender, or sending a false distress call, acts that break the generally accepted rules of warfare.  Refusing quarter to a defeated enemy who begs for mercy is also dishonorable, at least the first time he does it, I don't believe paladins are required to repeatedly spare someone who then promptly attacks them when their back is turned or otherwise goes right back to their evil ways, nor should this apply to "always evil" beings that are physically incapable of reform.  Of course, if a paladin agrees to a battle by certain rules, such as a duel, they must then abide by those rules...at least as long as their opponent does so.


----------



## Salthorae

Love that this thread and story have continued and generated mostly healthy discussion for  very close to 8 YEARS now...

If Shilsen ever decides to write more of Cedric's story I certainly wouldn't mind!


----------



## Mallus

Aurondarklord said:


> ummm...excuse me, but....why is kicking someone in the groin dishonorable?



As God is my witness, I have no idea.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> ummm...excuse me, but....why is kicking someone in the groin dishonorable?



Honor is, admittedly, a pretty regional thing, but most people have a concept of "dirty fighting". This is generally seen as acceptable by those who think along the lines of "all is fair in love and war." Which is fine, and makes for fun characters.

I think this goes against the Paladin's code of honor, though. Honor in combat is about an honest duel, a show of skill and strength on each side. It's not about skipping the combat early by means of a shortcut (like poison, which a Paladin cannot use). Again, this is an "I think" and it's my take, but when I think of honorable combat, I don't think of "dirty fighting". When I think of honorable combat, it's kind of like sportsmanship. I don't think of sticky residue on gloves as honorable in football, even if it's not explicitly banned (which of course they have been for a while, it's just an example). It's one more way to win, sure, but you're bypassing the point of the competition (from a sportsmanship point of view).


Aurondarklord said:


> If you're fighting a red dragon, is it dishonorable to cast a cold spell on it?
> 
> If Batman is fighting Superman, is it dishonorable for him to use kryptonite?



Depends on the dragon. If it'll simply end the fight, then probably. I wouldn't consider it honorable to, say, kick the crutches out from a guy if he had a broken leg, or hit a guy in the glasses. As for the Batman / Superman thing, yes, I'd say it's not honorable (which is fine; Batman is still my favorite superhero).


Aurondarklord said:


> What about stories about dragons, like Fafnir or the dragon from Beowulf, where the hero, often a paladin-like archetype, slays the dragon by attacking a weak spot in its neck or chest, which mythological dragons are sometimes attributed to have?  Was this dishonorable?



I'd like a concrete example before I comment on it, but possibly.


Aurondarklord said:


> What about any video game where a boss fight involves waiting for an opening in its pattern where you can shoot a little blinking red spot which is the only place you can cause damage, is this dishonorable?



Probably not? I'm not sure, though. I don't think honor comes up much in video game fights like that.


Aurondarklord said:


> But it's exactly that, arbitrary.



I don't think that it is completely. Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system", and I think there's reason for "honor" as it applies to combat. Again, it's about not skipping the combat, or "cheating" somehow. Indiana Jones taking a guy with swords out by just shooting him isn't honorable (even if it's awesome). Again, just my take on it.


Aurondarklord said:


> Can anyone think of a game they've been in where paladins were forbidden from using crossbows?



Duels where both people have guns (or in this case, crossbows) are one thing; killing people at range when they don't have the ability to stop you is another. I could easily see a game where a Paladin wasn't allowed to shoot infantry with bows, but archers were fair game.


Aurondarklord said:


> Do you define "honor" as "a paladin must not take advantage of an enemy's weak points"?



No.


Aurondarklord said:


> If you don't, why is the groin more "dishonorable" than other weak points?



It's a cheap shot. They aren't honorable because they don't test skill and strength. The point of honor is to keep the competition pure, and this is essentially bypassing that. (As an aside, I had a campaign world where the god of honor was basically "any rules that people agree to, including no rules.")


Aurondarklord said:


> I abhor the idea that "act with honor" is taken to mean "paladins must fight with one hand tied behind their back", that they must be lawful stupid, that the expected way for them to fight is to ride up to the enemy forces, plant a big banner in the ground, and stand there yelling challenges at them, expecting that the enemy leader will decide to step forward for a duel Silmarillion style.



Okay.


Aurondarklord said:


> Paladins should not be required to refrain from using intelligent tactics, after all, as Sun Tzu said, all war is based on deception, and at least to some degree, that's ALWAYS true,



I've had Paladins that definitely use intelligent tactics, and I agree about the deception part (though it's the extent that a Paladin will take it to that's in question).


Aurondarklord said:


> or you're Obi-Wan Kenobi using mind tricks and manipulation to infiltrate the death star (and you cannot tell me the Jedi are not a lawful good paladin-like order).



I certainly do not think that he (or most jedi from the movies / books) are Lawful Good Paladin types. Especially Qui-Gon.


Aurondarklord said:


> Paladins should not be required to make suicidal last stands for no reason when tactical retreat is a valid option.



Totally agreed.


Aurondarklord said:


> It's one thing to say a paladin should retreat last to cover his comrades or escaping civilians because he's willing to die for others, it's another to say he shouldn't retreat AT ALL because he's willing to die FOR NOTHING.



And I never said that, and I'm in agreement with you.


Aurondarklord said:


> No class should be interpreted as encouraging, let alone REQUIRING, stupid behavior on the part of players.  Paladins are not lemmings.



I think somewhere along the line you started making a lot of assumptions of views I never expressed my mind on. Sorry about that?


Aurondarklord said:


> In my mind, fighting dishonorably means doing something like impersonating the red cross, pretending to surrender, or sending a false distress call, acts that break the generally accepted rules of warfare.  Refusing quarter to a defeated enemy who begs for mercy is also dishonorable, at least the first time he does it, I don't believe paladins are required to repeatedly spare someone who then promptly attacks them when their back is turned or otherwise goes right back to their evil ways, nor should this apply to "always evil" beings that are physically incapable of reform.  Of course, if a paladin agrees to a battle by certain rules, such as a duel, they must then abide by those rules...at least as long as their opponent does so.



I agree with most of this, I just take it a little further. To me, "justified dirty fighting" and the like doesn't equal "honor." But hey, I'm not going into your game to change it (not that it applies to 4e D&D, and the large amount of people that play it). Heck, I'm not even running 3.5, so I'm not even restricting my players in such a way (our game doesn't even have alignment). So hey, enjoy your game any way you like! As always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon

Aurondarklord said:


> Can anyone think of a game they've been in where paladins were forbidden from using crossbows?




1e AD&D with Unearthed Arcana Cavaliers and Paladin-Cavaliers - no missile weapons at all, and bound by a strict code of honour that seems to exactly match your definition of 'lawful stupid'.


----------



## Aurondarklord

JamesonCourage said:


> Honor is, admittedly, a pretty regional thing, but most people have a concept of "dirty fighting". This is generally seen as acceptable by those who think along the lines of "all is fair in love and war." Which is fine, and makes for fun characters.
> 
> I think this goes against the Paladin's code of honor, though. Honor in combat is about an honest duel, a show of skill and strength on each side. It's not about skipping the combat early by means of a shortcut (like poison, which a Paladin cannot use). Again, this is an "I think" and it's my take, but when I think of honorable combat, I don't think of "dirty fighting". When I think of honorable combat, it's kind of like sportsmanship. I don't think of sticky residue on gloves as honorable in football, even if it's not explicitly banned (which of course they have been for a while, it's just an example). It's one more way to win, sure, but you're bypassing the point of the competition (from a sportsmanship point of view).
> 
> Depends on the dragon. If it'll simply end the fight, then probably. I wouldn't consider it honorable to, say, kick the crutches out from a guy if he had a broken leg, or hit a guy in the glasses. As for the Batman / Superman thing, yes, I'd say it's not honorable (which is fine; Batman is still my favorite superhero).
> 
> I'd like a concrete example before I comment on it, but possibly.
> 
> Probably not? I'm not sure, though. I don't think honor comes up much in video game fights like that.
> 
> I don't think that it is completely. Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system", and I think there's reason for "honor" as it applies to combat. Again, it's about not skipping the combat, or "cheating" somehow. Indiana Jones taking a guy with swords out by just shooting him isn't honorable (even if it's awesome). Again, just my take on it.
> 
> Duels where both people have guns (or in this case, crossbows) are one thing; killing people at range when they don't have the ability to stop you is another. I could easily see a game where a Paladin wasn't allowed to shoot infantry with bows, but archers were fair game.
> 
> No.
> 
> It's a cheap shot. They aren't honorable because they don't test skill and strength. The point of honor is to keep the competition pure, and this is essentially bypassing that. (As an aside, I had a campaign world where the god of honor was basically "any rules that people agree to, including no rules.")
> 
> Okay.
> 
> I've had Paladins that definitely use intelligent tactics, and I agree about the deception part (though it's the extent that a Paladin will take it to that's in question).
> 
> I certainly do not think that he (or most jedi from the movies / books) are Lawful Good Paladin types. Especially Qui-Gon.
> 
> Totally agreed.
> 
> And I never said that, and I'm in agreement with you.
> 
> I think somewhere along the line you started making a lot of assumptions of views I never expressed my mind on. Sorry about that?
> 
> I agree with most of this, I just take it a little further. To me, "justified dirty fighting" and the like doesn't equal "honor." But hey, I'm not going into your game to change it (not that it applies to 4e D&D, and the large amount of people that play it). Heck, I'm not even running 3.5, so I'm not even restricting my players in such a way (our game doesn't even have alignment). So hey, enjoy your game any way you like! As always, play what you like






S'mon said:


> 1e AD&D with Unearthed Arcana Cavaliers and Paladin-Cavaliers - no missile weapons at all, and bound by a strict code of honour that seems to exactly match your definition of 'lawful stupid'.




S'mon, wow, okay, that is waaaay before my time, but I'll take your word for it.  However, I'm curious, was the lack of missile weapons part of a paladin's code of honor, or was it simply a game mechanic that paladins couldn't equip these weapon types, like how in, for example, world of warcraft, a mage can't equip an axe and a warrior can't equip a wand?  However, while you did beat me at my own rhetorical question, we are primarily talking about 3E here, where paladins are allowed ranged weapons, and I believe there are even feats specifically designed to support that.  Zen Archery, I believe the feat is called, lets you add your wisdom modifier to ranged attacks.

JamesonCourage, I'm not so much attributing views to you that you never expressed as the scope of my post became more than a direct response to you and sort of turned into a list of misconceptions about paladin honor I hate.  Not your fault.  Now, a couple of those things I'll give you, there is always a question of degree, in "all war is deception" or anything else, any behavior, even reasonable behavior, can be taken to an unhealthy extreme.  I listed several examples, like impersonating the red cross, of deceptions in war that are considered dishonorable by modern society.  I'll also definitely give you Qui-Gon, but you have to remember that even in-universe, Qui-Gon is considered a maverick who flouts the Jedi Order's rules and routinely disobeys the council.  Jedi (old republic era rules) in general I still consider an exceptional example of LG, an order of noble protectors who live in monastic servitude to their ideals and the people of their setting, following a strict code of behavioral rules.  What could possibly sound more like a paladin?  They're even referred to as knights!

With regards to you asking for a specific example of a dragon with such a weak spot, Smaug from the hobbit, so much treasure had melted into his body that it formed impenetrable armor all around him, except for one small spot over his heart.  Bard ultimately kills him by using his black arrow to target this specific spot.

As for the rest...I definitely like this God of Honor you mentioned, any rules you agreed to, including no rules.  Of course, a paladin must be good in ADDITION to honorable, so he can never fight by "no rules", there will always be certain things a paladin can't do, but if there are no standing agreements in place, and the setting has no generally accepted laws and customs of war, I definitely think a paladin can fight by no rules except not using tactics that are inherently evil, for example torture (I don't want to get into a huge real world philosophy discussion of whether torture is ever justified, I simply list it because the RAW specifically classes torture as an evil act).

The thing about sportsmanship is that sports have rules, clearly defined guidelines for how the game is played, that generally have both a letter and an easily interpreted spirit.  Sports are competition for the sake of competition, and trying to work your way around the skill set that the sport requires is very much a violation of the spirit of the game.

War doesn't work like that.

While perhaps not ALL is fair in war (or love for that matter) it's a very broad pursuit involving coordination between different people with a wide range of skill sets and numerous different advantages and disadvantages against each other being balanced out.  It is not, generally speaking, just a duel or a collection of duels between paired off knights.  If such rules have been agreed upon, then of course the paladin should obey them, but in most cases they have not.

A paladin does not go to war to test his strength and swordsmanship, if he wishes to do that, he may enter a tournament.  A paladin goes to war to defend the innocent and vanquish evil, and if he allows the innocent to die when he could have done something to stop it, because he'd rather lose fighting "properly" than win fighting intelligently, has he not been derelict in another part of his oath?  the part about defending the innocent and punishing evil?  This seems to me a question of law vs good, and the generally accepted wisdom for such situations is that a paladin should choose good when he encounters them.

A lot of your examples just seem to me to boil down to "a paladin must intentionally handicap himself", which would really be pretty suicidal.  You can't use ranged attacks on melee enemies even in a pitched battle where the other side's ranged fighters are taking full advantage of it?  You'll lose, needlessly.  That's like saying that if a paladin is fighting a rogue, he must first take off his heavy armor, because that gives him an unfair advantage...of course the rogue will keep all the advantages HE has, but the paladin must have none.  And that IS arbitrary, it IS a rule that makes no logical sense and exists on an abstract whim.  What if your paladin is only equipped with a ranged weapon and the other guy has a sword?  should he fight bare handed because his code dictates he must not have an advantage, which means in this circumstance he must artificially give himself a DISadvantage?  What if an enemy challenges a paladin to a duel with weapons that the enemy is an expert with but the paladin has never used before?  is the paladin obligated to accept this challenge?  if you say he should not "bypass combat" then yes he is.  This seems ridiculous to me, and extremely exploitable, enemies could simply force a paladin to always fight them only at the thing they're best at, a situation where in every individual aspect of combat, the paladin must always artificially handicap himself in the areas where he's better to be "equal" while retaining the full penalty of all his disadvantages, which will make the paladin in total weaker than his foe every time.  That's obviously unreasonable.  But if you take a broader, more open view of "total combat skill" that allows a paladin to have and use combat advantages over his enemies, then if the ogre were legitimately "more skilled" than Cedric, he could have blocked the shot to his groin or otherwise prevented himself from losing the fight on account of it.  As an example, Aragorn is very paladin-like, a paragon of just and noble kingship.  Was it dishonorable of him to save Minas Tirith by calling the Oathbreakers into battle?  Obviously they gave him an enormous advantage, they were ghosts, thus intangible and unable to be harmed by the living and, depending on whether you're looking at the books or the movies, either scared Sauron's armies into disarray and often literally to death, or slaughtered them wholesale while taking full advantage of their incorporeality.

You say that you don't consider it inherently dishonorable to attack an enemy's weak spot, but the groin is a "cheap shot".  what makes it a cheaper shot than a shot at any other weak point?  It's not somehow easier or less skilled, a skilled enemy is perfectly capable of protecting it, by wearing armor there, by using his shield, or any number of other means.  So what's the problem?

I'd also point out that nothing anywhere in the rules has said a paladin may not "skip combat", in fact in many cases, I would see a paladin as morally obligated to try to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, to try to negotiate settlements between enemies where neither side is truly evil, to offer redemption to the wicked as an alternative to violence, a paladin is a high charisma class for a reason.  even attempting stealth to enter an enemy stronghold instead of charging in the front door is often a very paladin-like thing to do because it allows the paladin to avoid needlessly taking the lives of guards who are only trying to do their jobs and likely are unaware of and uninvolved in any evil being plotted by their employer.  In fact, the book of exalted deeds offers "ravages and afflictions" which are basically good aligned poisons paladins are allowed to use, so that they would have a full range of combat options available to them without the unnecessarily cruel implications of poison.

On a totally unrelated note, which is not a response to anyone, on further consideration I feel I need to amend my position on Cedric's use of prostitutes to say that whether this is allowed also depends heavily on the state of contraception in the setting.  A paladin should never go from place to place leaving a string of illegitimate children in his wake.  This is harmful to both the women he fathers children with, who are forced to raise them on their own without his financial or emotional support, and to the children who grow up without a father and in many settings, suffering the social stigma of bastardy.  If we're looking at a realistic medieval setting, where contraception often revolved around trying to predict a woman's fertility cycle and avoid sex during that time, and herbs that were at best not fully reliable and at worst superstitious nonsense or potentially harmful to a woman who took them, then a paladin who sleeps around will almost inevitably eventually impregnate some of the women he's sleeping with, and must limit his sexual practices with according caution.  These risks, and of course the high death rate for women in childbirth in ancient times, were a large part of the reason older societies and religions often demonized sexuality.  Of course, if in this setting, reasonably reliable and safe methods of birth control exist, such as contraceptive spells or alchemical potions, or even just fictional herbs that work better than their real world counterparts, then this is not an issue and Cedric's obligation in that regard would be merely to practice safe sex and in whatever way he's able, "step up" in the unlikely event he accidentally fathers a child.


----------



## Mallus

Aurondarklord said:


> S'mon, wow, okay, that is waaaay before my time, but I'll take your word for it.  However, I'm curious, was the lack of missile weapons part of a paladin's code of honor, or was it simply a game mechanic that paladins couldn't equip these weapon types, like how in, for example, world of warcraft, a mage can't equip an axe and a warrior can't equip a wand?



Some history...

The AD&D (1e) supplement Unearthed Arcana placed some... questionable role-playing restrictions on several classes, ie restrictions, if taken literally, meant they were for all intents and purposes, unplayable.  For example, Barbarians couldn't _join_ a standard D&D party until 6th level (ie, a party with both a magic-user and cleric) and couldn't use magical healing at all at 1st level (which raises the question of how they got to 2nd level _at all_, a fact compounded by the amount of XP they needed to get off 1st level).

Paladins, now as a subclass of the UA class "cavalier", were subject to some, in retrospect, utterly ridiculous rules. Here's a direct quote:

_"As a result of the code and desire for battle, cavaliers cannot be controlled in battle situations. They will charge any enemy in sight, with the following order of preference: 

1. Powerful monsters (dragons, demons, giants, etc.) serving 
2. Opponent cavaliers of great renown, enemy flags 
3. Opponent cavalry of noble or elite status 
4. Other opponent cavalry 
5. Opponent elite footmen 
6. Opponent camp and headquarters 
7. Opponent melee troops 
8. Levies or peasants 
enemy leaders, then the leaders themselves. 
and standards. 
The cavalier’s charge will be made at full speed, regardless of army cohesion, intervening  friendly troops, or other such considerations."_ -- Unearthed Arcana, page 16.

You can see here the origin of "Lawful Stupid". The class is unplayable --actually, it's not "played" at all during combat, since the PC has to follow the attack script quoted above, as if a particularly dumb bot in a video game. 

It should be noted the paladin as described in the AD&D Player's Handbook, is not required to be stupid, or practice a form of honor indistinguishable from suicidal stupidity. All that is required of them is them is 1) tithe, 2) not stockpile magic items, and 3) only consort/employ with good characters. 

Unfortunately, the autistic Bizarro World conception of quasi-Medieval honor suggested by the text in Unearthed Arcana has left an --unfortunately indelible-- mark on some gamer's conceptions of the paladin's code. 

Here endeth the history lesson.

edit: I don't want to leave the impression AD&D, even including UA, is unplayable. In fact, I'm running it tonight! It's just that you need to take certain parts of it, as with any rule system, with a grain of salt... (a glass of wine or three wouldn't hurt, either).


----------



## Aurondarklord

wow, Mallus, I consider myself informed.  Clearly, later iterations of the rules realized what a BAD IDEA a system like that was, since nothing like that made it into modern versions of the game.

As a matter of fact, if a player in my game had a paladin behave like that, they would probably lose their powers very quickly, because uncontrollable bloodlust would cost you your lawful alignment, and refusing to show mercy and incurring avoidable friendly fire would be considered evil acts.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> JamesonCourage, I'm not so much attributing views to you that you never expressed as the scope of my post became more than a direct response to you and sort of turned into a list of misconceptions about paladin honor I hate.  Not your fault.



That's fair, and informative. We're all just voicing our opinions anyways.


Aurondarklord said:


> I'll also definitely give you Qui-Gon, but you have to remember that even in-universe, Qui-Gon is considered a maverick who flouts the Jedi Order's rules and routinely disobeys the council.  Jedi (old republic era rules) in general I still consider an exceptional example of LG, an order of noble protectors who live in monastic servitude to their ideals and the people of their setting, following a strict code of behavioral rules.  What could possibly sound more like a paladin?  They're even referred to as knights!



This is an interesting question, and considering this thread's history, I don't feel bad at all going off on this tangent.

Basically, the Jedi Order itself might strive to be Lawful Good, but I do not see the Knights themselves as generally Lawful Good. The Jedi Order has laws, and is rigid; the Knights (and Masters, etc.) routinely stretch or break those laws (they're only guidelines! really!). Most post-Empire Jedi are much more individualistic than not, so even if they observe a lot of laws, I'd probably place most of them at Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis (I'm thinking of people like Corran Horn, Kyp Durron, etc.).

(I'm not as well acquainted with the Old Jedi Order, so there are probably examples of Lawful Good there.)


Aurondarklord said:


> With regards to you asking for a specific example of a dragon with such a weak spot, Smaug from the hobbit, so much treasure had melted into his body that it formed impenetrable armor all around him, except for one small spot over his heart.  Bard ultimately kills him by using his black arrow to target this specific spot.



Based on just the Hobbit, I have no idea if Bard is Lawful or not. As far as "is the shot dishonorable", I'd say it was, yes. Again, it's subjective, but it'd be like kicking the crutches out from someone that needed them to stand... but if that killed them instead. And it's not the killing that's dishonorable, it's the bypassing the fight that is. Do many Paladins struggle with this in my game (when I ran a 3.5 game)? Sure they did. I mean, it defeats Evil that much more safely and efficiently. But that's part of walking the Paladin line.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for the rest...I definitely like this God of Honor you mentioned, any rules you agreed to, including no rules.  Of course, a paladin must be good in ADDITION to honorable, so he can never fight by "no rules", there will always be certain things a paladin can't do, but if there are no standing agreements in place, and the setting has no generally accepted laws and customs of war, I definitely think a paladin can fight by no rules except not using tactics that are inherently evil, for example torture (I don't want to get into a huge real world philosophy discussion of whether torture is ever justified, I simply list it because the RAW specifically classes torture as an evil act).



Yeah, it gets a little awkward when setting starts deciding stuff, but it's necessary (since setting generally decides "honor" and all that). I mean, using poison is listed under "honor", and so it seems assumed that this is always a matter of honor in a default 3.5 world. So is "cheating", which, again, I likened to sportsmanship and bypassing a fight.


Aurondarklord said:


> The thing about sportsmanship is that sports have rules, clearly defined guidelines for how the game is played, that generally have both a letter and an easily interpreted spirit.  Sports are competition for the sake of competition, and trying to work your way around the skill set that the sport requires is very much a violation of the spirit of the game.
> 
> War doesn't work like that.



Well, actually, that's not always the case. It's kind of like sports. Some people "play to win, no matter how they win" and others "play to win" with sportsmanship in mind. The same goes for war. This could simply be the difference between "honor" and "dishonor" in combat. That is, those who have rules call it "honor" (no poison, etc.), and must follow these rules, and those who break them are labeled "dishonorable".


Aurondarklord said:


> It is not, generally speaking, just a duel or a collection of duels between paired off knights.  If such rules have been agreed upon, then of course the paladin should obey them, but in most cases they have not.



I think of the Paladin's code as a self-imposed limitation, not one based on agreement between parties. So, on this point I'll disagree. 


Aurondarklord said:


> A paladin does not go to war to test his strength and swordsmanship, if he wishes to do that, he may enter a tournament.  A paladin goes to war to defend the innocent and vanquish evil, and if he allows the innocent to die when he could have done something to stop it, because he'd rather lose fighting "properly" than win fighting intelligently, has he not been derelict in another part of his oath?  the part about defending the innocent and punishing evil?  This seems to me a question of law vs good, and the generally accepted wisdom for such situations is that a paladin should choose good when he encounters them.



But the Paladin must uphold his code at all times. In such a situation, I see a Paladin either doing his best to stop the Evil (and failing), or accepting a fall from grace to stop the Evil (by a dishonorable act for the Greater Good). He can, of course, get Atoned, stay a feat-less Fighter, or turn Blackguard. It's a hard situation for them, and I'd imagine that Paladins have philosophical debates on which is better (to fall and Atone to save innocents, or to go into a situation and knowingly fail to attempt to uphold all of the code).


Aurondarklord said:


> A lot of your examples just seem to me to boil down to "a paladin must intentionally handicap himself", which would really be pretty suicidal.  You can't use ranged attacks on melee enemies even in a pitched battle where the other side's ranged fighters are taking full advantage of it?  You'll lose, needlessly.  That's like saying that if a paladin is fighting a rogue, he must first take off his heavy armor, because that gives him an unfair advantage...of course the rogue will keep all the advantages HE has, but the paladin must have none.



Advantage is not the same as "bypassing" the fight. If the Paladin's armor made him literally invulnerable to the Rogue, then it would probably be dishonorable to fight him with that armor on. And, in the first example, the Paladin could bring his ranged attack on ranged enemies without any loss of honor.

But will you "lose needlessly" in some situations? Sure. I mean, that's the situation that even Cedric walked into! He knew his side was going to lose, and that he was going to die needlessly. Do I think the Paladin needed to be there? No, I don't. But sometimes that's the case; as a Paladin, you abide to a code that limits you. I mean, if using poison was the only thing that would weaken an enemy enough to maybe beat it, it should be used right? To a Paladin, the answer is no. The same goes for cheating, lying, and the like. Perfectly reasonable weapons of war are outlawed here; of course the Paladin has it harder.


Aurondarklord said:


> And that IS arbitrary, it IS a rule that makes no logical sense and exists on an abstract whim.



Well, I cited the definition, so you'll forgive me if I still disagree.


Aurondarklord said:


> What if your paladin is only equipped with a ranged weapon and the other guy has a sword?  should he fight bare handed because his code dictates he must not have an advantage, which means in this circumstance he must artificially give himself a DISadvantage?



I'm going to tackle these one at a time, because they don't seemingly all have the same answer.

As for this situation, yes, he should use what he can, but not his ranged weapon if it'll bypass the fight (if the enemy can clearly take it, I'd consider it fair game). Disarm the enemy, pick up a rock, hit him with your crossbow, use your gauntlets; do something.


Aurondarklord said:


> What if an enemy challenges a paladin to a duel with weapons that the enemy is an expert with but the paladin has never used before?  is the paladin obligated to accept this challenge?



Probably not, no (if there are no other stakes, then no, he's not).


Aurondarklord said:


> if you say he should not "bypass combat" then yes he is.



No, since no combat has occurred. It's not "cannot bypass all places where combat might take place." It's "in a combat, not use a weakness so powerful that the combat itself is simply skipped due to that weakness."


Aurondarklord said:


> This seems ridiculous to me, and extremely exploitable, enemies could simply force a paladin to always fight them only at the thing they're best at, a situation where in every individual aspect of combat, the paladin must always artificially handicap himself in the areas where he's better to be "equal" while retaining the full penalty of all his disadvantages, which will make the paladin in total weaker than his foe every time.  That's obviously unreasonable.



A Paladin doesn't need to fight like this, but often will. The reason being, simply, that others will "cheat", "use poison", "lie", and the like. He can try to see through the lies, he can try to not be poisoned, he can try to not be cheated, but he cannot make up for that disadvantage. He will always be at a disadvantage to anybody that capitalizes on the idea of "all's fair in war (mostly)". It's already ingrained into the Paladin class. It is a handicap.


Aurondarklord said:


> As an example, Aragorn is very paladin-like, a paragon of just and noble kingship.  Was it dishonorable of him to save Minas Tirith by calling the Oathbreakers into battle?  Obviously they gave him an enormous advantage, they were ghosts, thus intangible and unable to be harmed by the living and, depending on whether you're looking at the books or the movies, either scared Sauron's armies into disarray and often literally to death, or slaughtered them wholesale while taking full advantage of their incorporeality.



It probably was dishonorable, yes. Which, again, people in-game probably argue at length on whether or not that matters! That's the difference between a Lawful Good Fighter (or Cleric, even), and a Paladin. You can be Lawful Good and act with dishonor occasionally. It won't push you to Neutral Good, necessarily. The Paladin in the same situation would likely be Lawful Good still, but he'd lose his powers (again, from where I sit).


Aurondarklord said:


> You say that you don't consider it inherently dishonorable to attack an enemy's weak spot, but the groin is a "cheap shot".  what makes it a cheaper shot than a shot at any other weak point?  It's not somehow easier or less skilled, a skilled enemy is perfectly capable of protecting it, by wearing armor there, by using his shield, or any number of other means.  So what's the problem?



Because normally (and from the fiction, it looks like), it basically set the enemy up to be completely defenseless, from which point he was slaughtered. The fight was bypassed by hitting that weak point. Hopefully my post up to this point shows why I see this as "dishonorable".


Aurondarklord said:


> I'd also point out that nothing anywhere in the rules has said a paladin may not "skip combat",



Ah, but that's not what I was talking about. Again, I hope my post has made that more clear.


Aurondarklord said:


> n fact in many cases, I would see a paladin as morally obligated to try to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, to try to negotiate settlements between enemies where neither side is truly evil, to offer redemption to the wicked as an alternative to violence, a paladin is a high charisma class for a reason.  even attempting stealth to enter an enemy stronghold instead of charging in the front door is often a very paladin-like thing to do because it allows the paladin to avoid needlessly taking the lives of guards who are only trying to do their jobs and likely are unaware of and uninvolved in any evil being plotted by their employer.  In fact, the book of exalted deeds offers "ravages and afflictions" which are basically good aligned poisons paladins are allowed to use, so that they would have a full range of combat options available to them without the unnecessarily cruel implications of poison.



Avoiding unnecessary bloodshed I'm okay with. Stealth I'm okay with (probably most of the time). The "ravages and afflictions" I'm not okay with, and I know I'm not the only one. Those are poison. But, if I accepted the book (I used the Core 3), then yeah, I'd likely have to accept them.

As an aside, I just wanted to say thanks for the interesting, civil, and thorough posts to me. Considering you've had just 3 posts, I feel pretty special. As always, play what you like


----------



## Aurondarklord

heh...I joined this board because I saw this thread and it looked really interesting.  I've been glad I did so far, the posters seem extremely erudite and civil.

A bit on the Jedi...I'm very much looking at old republic days here.  post empire Jedi Order I consider neutral good, because Luke Skywalker was neutral good, and his beliefs and principles largely defined his incarnation of the order.  But old republic Jedi Order was VERY LG, and that was actually one of the things Luke perceived as wrong with it and that contributed to its fall, it was TOO rigid, and imposed unrealistic and unfair behavioral standards on its members, but even back in those days, tactics like mind tricks were generally accepted.

I think our biggest area of disagreement is this concept of "bypassing the fight", using a tactic or weapon that the enemy has no counter-move to, as being dishonorable, while I just see it as common sense, not to mention inevitable.  At some point, a paladin is gonna level up to the point he can just one-shot orcs and kobolds, what's he to do then if he encounters monsters too low level for him?  Refuse to save the town from the orc horde because it wouldn't be fair for him to fight them?  that sounds absurd to me.  Nothing in the RAW says, implies, or suggests that a paladin is not allowed to "bypass combat" or attempt to end a fight in one hit.  That would be akin to saying a paladin is forbidden from using weapons with x3 or x4 crit bonus, because a crit with those weapons (which I see as generally a gameplay method of saying you've hit a vital spot) is likely to kill in one hit.  I have never heard such an interpretation of the code used or considered before.

In the real world, most systems of "honor" ultimately stem from one of three things: an effort to prevent needless cruelty and suffering in war, an effort to enforce a power gap between social classes, or a desire to make war and victory more glorious.  The former I see as the legitimate form of honor that a paladin is bound to, and the latter two I see simply as a form of oppression that a paladin should rail AGAINST, and an indulgence of ego and thus the sin of pride, respectively

Honor model 1 is the kind of honor evident in rules like the geneva conventions, or the paladin's prohibition against poison.  Real world rules of warfare are not arbitrary sports rules, they all exist for very good reasons.  Why can't you impersonate neutral parties like the red cross or united nations?  Because if you do, people are less likely to trust anyone ELSE who claims to be the red cross or the united nations, doctors and peacekeepers will get shot at, wounded soldiers will die because the doctors coming to help them got killed, net result, more needless suffering and death.  Why can't you fake a distress call or a surrender?  Because it makes people paranoid, and less likely to accept the real thing.  Net result, needless suffering and death.  Why can't you use poison gas?  because it drifts across the battlefield and potentially into civilian populations indiscriminately.  Why can't you use poisoned or explosive bullets?  Because in the real world, where a medic can't just cast cure critical wounds and heal you in an instant, if a soldier gets shot, he's probably out of the war for the foreseeable future, there's no need to make the injury even worse and reduce his chances of surviving or eventually recovering, it makes war that much crueler than it has to be.  Similarly, a paladin's prohibition against poison exists because poison often kills in slow, cruel ways or lingers long after the battle is over to "finish off" an enemy who was defeated anyway.  Ravages and Afflictions, which you may not like but are part of the RAW, are intended to avoid these problems, and thus bypass the practical reasons why the use of poison was considered dishonorable for a paladin, and are thus allowed under the code.

Honor model 2 is the kind of "honor" that was propagated in ancient societies to keep the lower classes in their place.  Banning cheap, relatively easy to use weapons that defeat armor, like the crossbow, would mean that for all practical purposes, a mounted knight in full plate was invincible against poorly equipped, barely trained peasant footmen and hand-drawn bowmen, enforcing the superiority of the highborn, wealthy knight who can afford all that plate and his warhorse.  Dueling was a similar concept, if you were highborn, you could afford good steel and the master at arms at the castle you grew up in probably taught you swordsmanship since you were a kid.  Should any uppity peasant ever cross you, you can just challenge him to a duel, and since he likely has no training, cut him to pieces, or if he declines the duel, then he's branded a coward and loses all social credibility anyway.  This is not real honor, this is a form of social control.

Honor model 3 is probably closest to what you're talking about, the kind of knight who knocks an opponent off his horse, then jumps off HIS horse as well to finish the duel on the ground instead of using the advantage that he's still on his horse, or disarms an enemy, then allows him time to pick up his weapon.  Really, this only serves to humiliate the enemy, to show your utter superiority by giving him charity and STILL kicking his butt.  It is a form of showing dominance and superiority, a massive indulgence of ego, and an attempt to make your deeds in war bring you more fame and glory, often glorifying the bloody and horrific business of warfare in the process.  I don't see this as real honor either, I see it as turning an awful necessity, one of life and death, often with the lives of many innocents hanging in the balance, especially for a paladin, into a game.

In any system of honor I would consider reasonable, the rules exist for logical reasons and are there to prevent needless misery, death, and treachery, not to be "sporting" or artificially level the playing field, especially not in a way that actually stacks it AGAINST the good guys.

As for your example of having to choose between falling to save innocents and allowing innocents to die to keep honor...considering that allowing innocents to die is ALSO a violation of the paladin's code, this becomes a moral catch 22, no matter what a paladin does in this situation, he falls.  I do not believe a valid system of morality can exist in which a person can be in a catch 22 where ALL of the available choices reflect badly on their moral character.


----------



## Greenfield

Aurondarklord said:


> wow, Mallus, I consider myself informed.  Clearly, later iterations of the rules realized what a BAD IDEA a system like that was, since nothing like that made it into modern versions of the game.
> 
> As a matter of fact, if a player in my game had a paladin behave like that, they would probably lose their powers very quickly, because uncontrollable bloodlust would cost you your lawful alignment, and refusing to show mercy and incurring avoidable friendly fire would be considered evil acts.



The Cavalier was even forbidden from using a long reach weapon.  The two handed sword was the example given.  The only exception was the lance, for mounted combat against a similarly armed opponent.

Yeah, they were Lawful Stupid and a bad idea all around.

As for Barbarians:  I recall a young man wanting to join our game, but explaining that the Magic Users and Clerics would have to leave, since his character couldn't travel with them.

I, in turn, explained that the tail didn't wag the dog.  The fact that he wanted to play an overpowered, poorly designed class didn't mean that the rest of the game group had to accommodate.

The Barbarian, when it first came out, was an attempt to place Conan in the game: The magic-hating, muscle bound clod who couldn't lose a fight no matter how stupid he was.

An 8th level Barbarian was, functionally, a 10th level character, if not higher.  

On more of the original topic:  It's not dishonorable to fight smart, to look for and exploit weaknesses in the opponent's defense.  And as long as both sides know that the "rules" include cheap shots like kicking someone in the groin, that's not dishonorable either.

It's the element of "breaking the rules" that's dishonorable, and that is 100% dependent on what the accepted rules of behavior are.

The video game reference is a good one.  So is the comic book one:  If the only way to beat the bad guy is to hit that sweet spot, then it isn't dishonorable, it's necessary.  Failure to do what's necessary is certain failure.

If the only way to defeat that ultra-powerful alien is with a rare radioactive element, then there's nothing dishonorable in using it.  Getting into such a fight without it is a guaranteed loss, so such tactics would count as Lawful Stupid.  And no system should ever require you to be suicidally stupid.


----------



## Aurondarklord

well, THEORETICALLY Superman can be defeated without kryptonite.  I've HEARD "Batman can beat Superman without kryptonite" arguments before that theoretically work, but most revolve around laughable extremes of the whole "Batman is prepared FOR EVERYTHING" argument and involve Batman being able to do things like blot out the sun with bat-shaped satellites, build his own green lantern ring, or strip Superman of his powers by using some deus ex machina that appeared in an issue in the 60s and of course Batman must have stored in a secret room in his cave somewhere.

So the scope of my argument is not only covering situations where it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to win without exploiting a weak point, but also those where it's just good sense.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> heh...I joined this board because I saw this thread and it looked really interesting.  I've been glad I did so far, the posters seem extremely erudite and civil.



That's why it's the only RPG board I frequent. 


Aurondarklord said:


> A bit on the Jedi...I'm very much looking at old republic days here.  post empire Jedi Order I consider neutral good, because Luke Skywalker was neutral good, and his beliefs and principles largely defined his incarnation of the order.  But old republic Jedi Order was VERY LG, and that was actually one of the things Luke perceived as wrong with it and that contributed to its fall, it was TOO rigid, and imposed unrealistic and unfair behavioral standards on its members, but even back in those days, tactics like mind tricks were generally accepted.



Interesting. I haven't read books in years (I stopped mid Yuuzhan Vong war), and I haven't read any books from the older in-universe years (though I might browse a wiki now and again). I do know that Luke thought them too rigid, though, so your viewpoint all makes sense with what I've heard.


Aurondarklord said:


> I think our biggest area of disagreement is this concept of "bypassing the fight", using a tactic or weapon that the enemy has no counter-move to, as being dishonorable, while I just see it as common sense, not to mention inevitable.  At some point, a paladin is gonna level up to the point he can just one-shot orcs and kobolds, what's he to do then if he encounters monsters too low level for him?



Yeah, I didn't mean to imply he couldn't take out people in one hit. I meant that it's not generally deemed honorable to exploit a weakness to do so. If a guy attacks me with a sword, hitting him in the head with a sword is seen as fine; if I kick him in the groin, I think many people (most of the ones I know) would call that dirty fighting or dishonorable, even though it leads to the same result. That's basically what I'm commenting on.


Aurondarklord said:


> In the real world, most systems of "honor" ultimately stem from one of three things: an effort to prevent needless cruelty and suffering in war, an effort to enforce a power gap between social classes, or a desire to make war and victory more glorious.  The former I see as the legitimate form of honor that a paladin is bound to, and the latter two I see simply as a form of oppression that a paladin should rail AGAINST, and an indulgence of ego and thus the sin of pride, respectively



This is interesting. I'd see the Paladin as closer to the third, honestly. The code is to help a Paladin stay true, and to help be a shining beacon of Good to the world. To that end, making fighting Evil and victory over it be more glorious makes sense to me.

However, I say it's interesting because I see where you're coming from more clearly, and it makes sense. However, if he can't "cheat" or use poison, even when it would prevent suffering, does it make sense to ban it? That's why I lean closer to your third definition, but I'm curious what your thoughts are on it. (I did read the following three paragraphs, by the way, including your reasoning on poison. But, say a poison or cheating was the way to stop an Evil Thing; it makes sense to cheat or use poison, right? But Paladins refuse, even if that's the only way. What's your take on that?)


Aurondarklord said:


> Honor model 1



Very insightful description, thank you; I wanted to make it doubly clear that I did read these, and that they helped me in this discussion.


Aurondarklord said:


> Honor model 3 is probably closest to what you're talking about



Closest, yep, for the reasons I mentioned above (glorifying Good in its victory over Evil, shining beacon of hope, etc.).


Aurondarklord said:


> In any system of honor I would consider reasonable, the rules exist for logical reasons and are there to prevent needless misery, death, and treachery, not to be "sporting" or artificially level the playing field, especially not in a way that actually stacks it AGAINST the good guys.



Well, hopefully you see how this works in my head. The Paladin is hamstrung by not being able to cheat (even against the biggest cheaters), use poison (even against people that use it), lie (even against the biggest liars), and the like, and I attribute it closer to Honor 3 than Honor 1. It's to prove that Good is above it all, and can defeat Evil without being dirty, without losing honor, etc. It's essentially for inspiration. But again, that's my take on it.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for your example of having to choose between falling to save innocents and allowing innocents to die to keep honor...considering that allowing innocents to die is ALSO a violation of the paladin's code, this becomes a moral catch 22, no matter what a paladin does in this situation, he falls.  I do not believe a valid system of morality can exist in which a person can be in a catch 22 where ALL of the available choices reflect badly on their moral character.



Well, he could potentially keep his morals if he died while trying to protect them. He'll just have failed, and he'll be dead. But his morals will be intact. So, it might be "die" or "fall" in that situation, but as I said, I'm sure Paladins in-game debate which choice is better ("I'd fall to save them", "but that defeats the point of the code", "the code says to protect innocents", and so on). The person who would die trying to protect them still attempted it, and thus wouldn't fall, in my eyes.

Again, though, it's just my take on it. Again, thanks for the good conversation. As always, play what you like


----------



## Jackinthegreen

I think part of the issue here is not that a setting-appropriate paladin couldn't be considered bound by the third model of honor there:  It's that such a character can quickly become so difficult to play that any sense of enjoyment is lost, which often contradicts the entire point of playing the game.  Not only can the driving player have issues with it, but playing that character can create issues with other players too such as the party being required to follow the paladin's orders and then die because the paladin couldn't do something that was necessary in order to triumph.

Something I thought of regarding that third honor code: Isn't pride considered the deadliest sin of all?  I realize that not all settings will have philosophies akin to the Seven Deadly Sins, but in any place where there's something like that a paladin could very well have an impossible task of being viewed as prideful where pride itself is viewed as evil and corrupting.

I find myself asking where this image of paladins and other holy knights comes from, and all I can really think of is those times hundreds and thousands of years ago where war was considered glorious and tales were told of mighty warriors who were able to flout their enemies' efforts despite whatever impediments.  I'd argue that we as a people still tend to overly embellish those perceived as heroes, role models, or otherwise very influential people.  Some recognition is due of course, but too much of it can lead to delusions of grandeur.

I wonder if, over the years, we've made the stereotypical paladin out to be more than it's capable of being.


----------



## pemerton

Jackinthegreen said:


> Something I thought of regarding that third honor code: Isn't pride considered the deadliest sin of all?  I realize that not all settings will have philosophies akin to the Seven Deadly Sins, but in any place where there's something like that a paladin could very well have an impossible task of being viewed as prideful where pride itself is viewed as evil and corrupting.
> 
> I find myself asking where this image of paladins and other holy knights comes from



I think it comes from various tellings and retellings of the mediaeval romances.

And in at least some of those retellings, the paladin who unhorses an opponent dismounts to fight him/her not out of pride, but out of courtesy. If the opponent is also honourable, s/he may acknowledge the superiority of the knight who won the joust, and admit defeat. If s/he fights on, the default assumption is that the knight who was good enough to unhorse him/her will also be able to win the fight on foot.



Jackinthegreen said:


> I wonder if, over the years, we've made the stereotypical paladin out to be more than it's capable of being.



I think you are right in your post to have framed this not as an absolute question, but as a question about the viability of a certain archetype within the usual parameters of the game.

I think this sort of honourable knight is tricky in a game where the only way of taking someone out of a fight is by killing him/her. But is probably quite viable in a game which allows framing the stakes of winning and losing in other ways.



Aurondarklord said:


> I do not believe a valid system of morality can exist in which a person can be in a catch 22 where ALL of the available choices reflect badly on their moral character.



I dont want to get into territory that violates the board rules, so will refrain from stating my own view.

But Weber's famous essay "Politics as a Vocation", and also Michael Walzer's well-known work on "Dirty Hands", argues that the sorts of impossible situations you describe can arise.

Similar situations can also arise if you deny that "ought implies can" - that is, such a denial opens up the possibility of someone being obliged to do something that is impossible for him/her.



Aurondarklord said:


> no matter what a paladin does in this situation, he falls.



Within the context of the game, my preferred way of resolving this issue is to give the player primary responsible for resolving the moral question and playing out the consequences for his/her paladin PC. (Which need not be mechanical to be meaningful within the context of the game.)


----------



## Aurondarklord

JamesonCourage, I'm definitely starting to see the paladin you envision taking shape in my mind now.  One who fights in a showy fashion not because he's a vain glory hound, but to inspire the people who see him in action, to display not his own glory, but the glory of goodness and the glory of his God.  And this is a very cool type of paladin....I just don't think it's the ONLY type of paladin, and I think it has certain considerations of its own.

First of all, I think this kind of paladin, which I will hereafter call the "glorious paladin", has to be practical and realistic.  He also walks a fine moral line, because if he overinflates the notion of "his legend" in his mind and bases his actions off that, then he's guilty of hubris, and pride goeth, as we all know, before a fall.  I think the glorious paladin sometimes has to do moral math and wrestle with questions like "if I die gloriously here, will the legend that survives me, and the people inspired by it ultimately do more good than if I lived to help and inspire others in the future?" and consider the fact that nobody is going to be inspired by watching some moron throw his life away and get the people he's trying to protect killed in the process, and that stupid but "noble" behavior which presents "good" as an unrealistic and unattainable standard can actually HURT his cause and present honor and righteous behavior in a BAD LIGHT.  I think the glorious paladin who can walk that line, do the practical thing when he has to and the glorious thing when he can morally afford to, is Sir Galahad, while the one who always does only the glorious thing regardless of the situation ends up Don Quixote, a stupid good character tilting at windmills because he's divorced from reality.

Watch Game of Thrones sometime, or read the Song of Ice and Fire books from which it was drawn, and you'll see my point played out, on the one hand, you'll see characters like Daenerys Targaryen, a noble, benevolent queen who tries to act righteously in pursuit of her goals but acknowledges the realities of the world around her, and generally succeeds, but you'll also see characters like Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon who are so hidebound by their rules and their concept of honorable behavior that they just prove incapable of dealing with the real world, and not only do they lose for having done so, they inspire no one, Westeros ends up a worse place for their efforts, and they let the perfect get in the way of the good to the detriment of everyone around them.

I see the paladin's code as a balancing act, and a fine line that a paladin has to walk, because sometimes articles of the code conflict with each other, and the paladin has to decide which side to err on.  If you have to act with honor and respect legitimate authority, what if a legitimate authority figure commands you to do something you consider dishonorable?  If you have to help those in need and punish those who threaten innocents, what if you encounter someone who mugged an innocent for money to buy bread because he was starving?  Paladins have to have some room to make up their own minds in these situations which side of the code they go with and what kind of paladin they are, without the DM saying absolutely that one side is the right side and the other will cause them to fall.  And yes, I imagine paladins have in-universe arguments about this sort of thing, but they can't really do that if one side of the argument involves falling, because then clearly the Gods have made up their minds which side is right already.  In a polytheistic setting, who's to say THE GODS agree on the subject?  I imagine if you asked St. Cuthbert and Pelor these questions, you'd get very different answers, yet both sponsor paladins in the default 3E setting.  Perhaps behavior that will cause a paladin of one deity to fall won't cause a paladin of another deity to fall, even if both Gods are LG.

As for what you said that "most people" would view kicking in the groin as a dishonorable cheap shot, I think it depends on the circumstances.  I think if you're talking about two knights having a sword duel, then yes, but it also wouldn't be very effective because they're both wearing armored codpieces.  If you're talking about hitting below the belt in boxing, then of course, but that's a sport.  But if you're hearing about someone who fended off a would-be rapist that way, well, I don't think I've ever heard someone say "that was so dishonorable, she should have fought fair and gotten raped" and it's a standard move taught in close quarters combat classes in most modern law enforcement and militaries, which generally strive to be honorable, fighting by the laws and customs of war in the case of modern first world armies, and protecting and serving while respecting civil rights in the case of police.  Not to mention, saying that "most people" think it isn't by itself an argument.  There are a lot of things "most people" think that they can't quite explain if you pressure them for a detailed breakdown of why they think it.

Now, to the question you asked me about why a paladin can't lie, cheat, or use poison even if doing so gets results, the RAW presents the theory that some tactics, including torture and poison, are inherently "tools of evil" and thus tainted.  as I've said before, I don't want to get into whether that's true in the real world, and moral absolutism vs moral relativism, but according to the RAW, it's true in D&D and for the purposes of Sir Cedric that's good enough.  But among the "moral hard lines" the RAW lists, and books like the book of exalted deeds cover the subject in considerable detail, "kicking in the groin" or "using weak points to bypass combat" are never mentioned, and while that may sound like a cop-out on my part, please also consider that for the things that are specifically mentioned, the handicap they put on the paladin is mechanically addressed.  The paladin can't lie or cheat, but he has detect evil, and while of course not all people who ever lie or cheat are evil, the game gives him a great tool to help him see who he should be wary of and avoid falling for deceptions.  Similarly, ravages and afflictions, which are designed not to cause needless suffering to their targets, exist to present him a moral alternative to poison, so he'll have the options in his tool kit should a situation arise where poison is the one thing he needs to succeed in a given situation without violating his code.  So where the game limits the paladin, it addresses those limits mechanically by providing options that compensate for them so that good is NOT inherently hamstrung against evil, but rather has a different, but equally effective toolkit.

It is also worth mentioning that, as some people have pointed out, perhaps our expectations of what a paladin should be have become inflated beyond what's realistically playable, and we've confused the code for "a paladin must be morally perfect".  Paladins are mortals, not celestials.  It's feasible to be as perfect as a celestial when you live in the Heavens and are like CR14 just by existing...doing it on Earth as a mortal man?  a lot harder.  Nowhere does the code say, imply, or suggest that a paladin is held to a higher standard than other LG characters, despite that many people on this board seem to not only consider them to be, but take the idea that they are for granted ("well, you can just play an LG fighter or cleric, a paladin is something _special_"), and in fact the code specifically says that a paladin will fall for a "GROSS" violation, not that they will fall for ANY violation, which seems to suggest they have a bit of room to interpret it and skirt the limits as situations they deal with in practice demand, and will only fall if they are serious offenders, the occasional "cheap shot" in combat, if you want to view it as a cheap shot, would probably not qualify.

If you want to play a perfect character, paladin or otherwise, a shining beacon of glorious moral wonderfulness...D&D offers you the tools to do so, the book of exalted deeds offers feats like vow of chastity (which pretty much proves paladins are not by default required to be celibate, because its bonuses are not baked into the paladin class and it would be fairly redundant otherwise), and of course the saint template, which basically amounts to "you are an absolute moral paragon and get ridiculously overpowered bonuses for it", but once again, those bonuses are not baked into the paladin class, suggesting that the saint, a morally perfect character (or at least close to it) is virtue considerably above and beyond the basic requirements of a paladin.

If you consider that, Cedric is fine as a paladin, cheap shots or not, he meets the requirements as written...he just doesn't enormously exceed them.  he _maybe_ occasionally commits a small violation of the code in service to the greater good, depending on your interpretation of the code, but he never commits a GROSS violation, nor violates needlessly.  I will say that I found it grating that the fiction presented by Shilsen makes Cedric pretty much infallible in the eyes of his God and the superiors within his church, a paladin like that probably would not realistically be treated by everyone in-universe as THE GREATEST PALADIN EVAR IN THE HISTORY OF EVARZZZ, but he is an acceptable, and very interesting, paladin.

Pemerton, I am very well aware that moral theories have been proposed where such catch 22s exist, I just see the logic behind them as inherently flawed and invalid, they often boil down to questions of people in leadership positions having to make hard decisions between "bad" and "worse" outcomes, and saying they're evil either way, or presenting self-contradictory logic like "the greatest good is to become evil so that others don't have to, sacrificing your soul for theirs...but you're still evil...but it's good", and I just don't see the world that way, and think that kind of logic exists solely so that people can have their cake and eat it too, keep their hands clean by hating their leaders for making moral compromises while reaping the benefits thereof.

On another note...I may just be an idiot, but I can't find the site rules for this forum anywhere, and I don't want my discussion to run afoul of them, could somebody provide a link to the rules or tell me where they are?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> JamesonCourage, I'm definitely starting to see the paladin you envision taking shape in my mind now.



I'm glad some of what I say makes sense 


Aurondarklord said:


> I think the glorious paladin sometimes has to do moral math and wrestle with questions like "if I die gloriously here, will the legend that survives me, and the people inspired by it ultimately do more good than if I lived to help and inspire others in the future?"



I agree, which is why I think it's fine for a Paladin to leave sometimes, if there's no hope of winning. Try to evacuate as many people as possible, or go help a fortress that has a chance of winning instead of one that will assuredly be lost. There's Moral Math (like the sound of that) to be done!


Aurondarklord said:


> Watch Game of Thrones sometime, or read the Song of Ice and Fire books from which it was drawn, and you'll see my point played out



I've seen the show, and discussed the books. I'm not necessarily discussing realistic effectiveness, I'm discussing the Paladin's Code. Do Good or die trying, really. Inspire those around you to do Good by your honor, your purity, your strength. And if your strength fails you, your bravery to stand up for what is right, even in the face of impossible odds.

Sometimes, it might be Fall or Die. It's just the unfortunate reality of the Paladin code as it stands by the Rules as Written, since you may need to lie, cheat, or use poison to win a fight at some point. And, when you tack on more restrictions (based on the "and so forth" wording), of course they might get more caught up in rules than in effectiveness.

Your argument makes sense, and I can see a very Lawful Good person making it. It's just not good enough for a Paladin, from my view.


Aurondarklord said:


> If you have to act with honor and respect legitimate authority, what if a legitimate authority figure commands you to do something you consider dishonorable?



Resign from service, in my opinion.


Aurondarklord said:


> If you have to help those in need and punish those who threaten innocents, what if you encounter someone who mugged an innocent for money to buy bread because he was starving?



Take the money back, and give it back to the mugged family. See if you can arrange for the mugger to get an honest job, or arrange for him to accompany you to the next town and get work there, if possible.

Of course, a lot of this will change based on circumstances, and I do get your point, which I'll reply to in a moment.


Aurondarklord said:


> Paladins have to have some room to make up their own minds in these situations which side of the code they go with and what kind of paladin they are, without the DM saying absolutely that one side is the right side and the other will cause them to fall.



This is a social contract issue. I'd rather my GM decide for me; I can focus on my character, and react to the setting. But that's because it's not as open in my view, and I'll talk about right now.


Aurondarklord said:


> because then clearly the Gods have made up their minds which side is right already.  In a polytheistic setting, who's to say THE GODS agree on the subject?



This is where it's more set to me, as I've always seen Paladins as drawing their power from Good as reward for following their calling and the Code, and not as given by any god. Paladins, in my view, are set to such a strict view because of the restrictions Good has set, not because of what individual gods have set.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for what you said that "most people" would view kicking in the groin as a dishonorable cheap shot, I think it depends on the circumstances.



I don't. But I see "justified dirty fighting" as completely different from "fighting honorably." I don't think people would condemn her for hitting someone in the groin, but I don't think most of my friends would say it's "honorable" either. They'd probably stop to think longer about it since they'd obviously sympathize with the victim, but I think they'd frame it as I have.


Aurondarklord said:


> Not to mention, saying that "most people" think it isn't by itself an argument.  There are a lot of things "most people" think that they can't quite explain if you pressure them for a detailed breakdown of why they think it.



I brought up "most people" because honor in combat is basically defined by society, which means that, in my mind, "most people" is very important in deciding that.


Aurondarklord said:


> Now, to the question you asked me about why a paladin can't lie, cheat, or use poison even if doing so gets results, the RAW presents the theory that some tactics, including torture and poison, are inherently "tools of evil" and thus tainted.



Well, yes, in the Core 3e book, lying seems Evil, but poison doesn't seem to be. And I bring up the Core book for a couple or reasons. One, the Paladin was written in that context, and that's important to me. And two, that's how I played the game; I didn't include the Book of Exalted Deeds, Vile Darkness, and the like. I just used the Core 3.

So, while I agree that I don't want to go into the real world moral philosophy on such issues, I'd like to go into the D&D concept of why the Paladin can't. It's listed as a matter of honor: "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)". In the context of a Paladin seeing it as a manner of honor, and the core 3 not saying that poison is Evil, I feel perfectly fine making my judgment on the matter as "honor" and not "Good or Evil."


Aurondarklord said:


> and while that may sound like a cop-out on my part, please also consider that for the things that are specifically mentioned, the handicap they put on the paladin is mechanically addressed.  The paladin can't lie or cheat, but he has detect evil, and while of course not all people who ever lie or cheat are evil, the game gives him a great tool to help him see who he should be wary of and avoid falling for deceptions.



Well, nothing bars a Lawful Good Cleric from occasionally lying, cheating, or using poison, and he gets the Detect spells. I don't think that the Paladin getting the Detect Evil spell-like is because he can't lie, cheat, and use poison; he gets it because he needs to find Evil and do Good. But, that's my view, and I accept yours.


Aurondarklord said:


> So where the game limits the paladin, it addresses those limits mechanically by providing options that compensate for them so that good is NOT inherently hamstrung against evil, but rather has a different, but equally effective toolkit.



I think that the Paladin would be fine, mechanically, without such restrictions. He probably won't pass up a Lawful Good Fighter in combat, even if he was allowed to lie, cheat, and use poison like the Fighter can. I personally don't see the abilities as making up for it, but as a mechanical limitation placed to make the Paladin act as the designers thought a Paladin ought to act. Which leans towards the Glory Paladin, from my point of view.


Aurondarklord said:


> Nowhere does the code say, imply, or suggest that a paladin is held to a higher standard than other LG characters



I think the actual inherent mechanical limitations of the class definitely implies that they're held to a higher standard than others. For instance, they lose all Paladin powers if they willingly commit any Evil act. That's a lot harsher standard than other Lawful Good characters, in my book.

My 3.5 books (and all other books) are in storage at the moment (while I'm homeless), but I think the Paladin class description implies a higher standard, doesn't it?


Aurondarklord said:


> in fact the code specifically says that a paladin will fall for a "GROSS" violation, not that they will fall for ANY violation, which seems to suggest they have a bit of room to interpret it and skirt the limits as situations they deal with in practice demand, and will only fall if they are serious offenders, the occasional "cheap shot" in combat, if you want to view it as a cheap shot, would probably not qualify.



This is an interesting point, and a good catch. I'd probably think of "gross" as something along the lines of "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code. But I can easily see looser interpretations of it, and might even use those depending on the setting.


Aurondarklord said:


> If you consider that, Cedric is fine as a paladin, cheap shots or not, he meets the requirements as written...he just doesn't enormously exceed them.



Well, as I said in my original comment, I wouldn't even peg him as Lawful. I'm place him at Neutral. He acts Lawfully some of the time, but I also see a lot of Chaotic tendencies or actions in him. Have you read most of the thread (including all of the arguments, and not just fiction)? A lot of good arguments get made on why I think this is the case.


Aurondarklord said:


> I will say that I found it grating that the fiction presented by Shilsen makes Cedric pretty much infallible in the eyes of his God and the superiors within his church, a paladin like that probably would not realistically be treated by everyone in-universe as THE GREATEST PALADIN EVAR IN THE HISTORY OF EVARZZZ, but he is an acceptable, and very interesting, paladin.



The grating part I definitely get. It got old, right around the time that the Cleric was recounting tells to the younger Paladin, though even the "Bob" incident before that grated on me in a different way.

The concept, though, is an interesting _character_, in my view. It's just not an interesting Paladin. As always, play what you like 


Aurondarklord said:


> On another note...I may just be an idiot, but I can't find the site rules for this forum anywhere, and I don't want my discussion to run afoul of them, could somebody provide a link to the rules or tell me where they are?



They're hidden, but here you go: http://www.enworld.org/forum/faq.php?faq=faq_rules#faq_new_faq_irule1


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> they often boil down to questions of people in leadership positions having to make hard decisions between "bad" and "worse" outcomes, and saying they're evil either way, or presenting self-contradictory logic like "the greatest good is to become evil so that others don't have to, sacrificing your soul for theirs...but you're still evil...but it's good"



I think that that's a little harsh as a reading of "Politics as a Vocation", or even as a reading of "The Prince"!

I think at the heart of "Politics as a Vocation" is a pessimistic atheism. (And Weber expresses the same outlook in "Science as a Vocation" also.) That is, Weber denies that there are any workings of providence that will ensure that, if only everyone (including leaders) does good, everything will turn out for the best. Hence the importance of the "ethic of responsibility".

My own view is that a traditional D&D paladin is not really playable against that sort of background assumption. At the heart of the traditional D&D paladin is _optimism_ - that a person who acts with honour, courtesy, charity etc will prevail, and bring the world along with him/her.



Aurondarklord said:


> I just don't see the world that way



Fair enough, but the question then becomes how is virtue to be preserved? And how is that to be reconciled with the demands of the game?

In Plato we get the idea (from Socrates) that the good person cannot suffer harm, but that isn't viable for an RPG - Socrates may be correct that death is not harm, but it is pretty much the end of a PC as a vehicle for a player to engage the gameworld. In Kant an optimistic, providential view is maintained via the argument for the afterlife etc. Again, whether or not this is true, it doesn't seem a workable basis for an RPG.

In the Socratic or Kantian framework, the solution to the "Catch-22" you describe above - "having to choose between falling to save innocents and allowing innocents to die to keep honor" - is to do what honour permits or requires, and if the paladin, or other innocents, die as a result, then that is not the paladin's fault, and providence will ensure that it all balances out (the innocent will go to heaven, the wrongdoers be punished in the afterlife, etc).

"Lawful Stupid" isn't stupid, within that framework, because to die is not to suffer harm. In one version of the Arthurian romances (Chretien de Troyes, I think) Lancelot kills six (or so) of his fellow knights in escaping with Guinevere. There is no suggestion that he made a mistake in killing them, or that they made a mistake in fighting and dying - each has done the right thing, and that this happened to through them into conflict and lead to these killings is just part of the mysterious workings of the world.

Given the importance of character survival to the viability of standard D&D play, I think there are two ways to handle these "Catch 22s" for a paladin PC: if everyone wants a reasonably straightforward game then the GM has to make sure not to force the paladin into situations in which death is the only honourable and proper optio; or if those at the table are happier for something a bit more modern and "gritty" in its moral flavour, the GM has to let the player of the paladin make decisions about what is permitted, and what not, and what counts as "falling".

But if the GM, or the game system, just affirms that the paladin is doing what is permitted because it would be "Lawful Stupid" to do otherwise, then I don't think we're talking about a paladin at all. Because we're imposing a funadmentally modern moral perspective (particularly conceiving of death as a harm - and, more generally, your consequentialist reasoning about the good that will follow from a paladin's legend) that doesn't fit with the paladin, which is a fundamentally pre-modern, romantic archetype.

I think, therefore, that to at least some extent I'm in agreement with [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION].


----------



## pemerton

I also want to conjure up [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]! As a Cedric-sympathiser, presumably Mallus thinks that the paladin archetype can have cogency outside the romantic, providential framework that I describe.

Mallus, tell us more!


----------



## Aurondarklord

JamesonCourage, we definitely agree on the concept of do good or die trying, but in my opinion, die trying should be a last resort, and sometimes a paladin has to make compromises with the real world, just as some people have brought up in this thread that the mining industry, in medieval times, was largely a situation of people being forced into back-breaking slave labor.  While a paladin would try to avoid intentionally contributing to such practices, he generally lacks the ability to discern the exact origin of every piece of metal he owns or uses, and recognizes that as he goes about his business, at some point he will likely own items that were produced in such a manner.  Unless he takes the vow of poverty feat detailed in the book of exalted deeds, which he may but is not part of his class, he is making this compromise with reality so that he can do his job.  Part of being a paladin is walking that line, recognizing the little compromises that have to be made simply to deal with the world as it is, while avoiding the big compromises that morally compromise you as a person and result in a paladin falling.  Paladins are a high wisdom class, they are expected to be able to sort through this complex moral morass.  Ned Stark and Stannis Baratheon failed to do so, and that's the context in which I bring them into this discussion.

Yes, sometimes a paladin may end up in a fall or die situation.  But I don't believe it should be possible for them to end up in a fall or fall situation, where no matter what they do, they fall because they broke an article of the code, when multiple articles are in conflict.  And I believe "fight with honor" and "protect the innocent" can be in conflict, and the paladin needs room to interpret and decide which side to err on.

As for the paladin being held to a higher standard...I would say it is more that the paladin is held to ADDITIONAL standards.  The paladin must be lawful good, the code never says he is required to adhere to a higher standard of lawful good behavior than other LG characters, it simply says he will fall should he willingly commit an EVIL act, that is a specific additional restriction, however in general, he is simply required to be LG, not "more LG than thou", suggesting that while directly evil acts are out of the question, the paladin may occasionally commit chaotic acts and morally or ethically grey ("neutral") acts, so long as a sufficient preponderance of his behavior is LG that he retains the alignment, not that all of his actions at all times must be LG.  Beyond that, the code lists certain specific behaviors that the paladin must or may not engage in.  This is different than saying that his LG must be more LG than an LG fighter or cleric's LG.

And while you said you got my point about the code conflicting with itself, and thus I don't want to belabor the examples, it's worth pointing out that "resign from service" is not always an option, especially in a medieval setting where oaths and fealty were often "for life or until the lord releases the vassal", with no option for the vassal to quit.  Another game of thrones example, Jaime Lannister (I AM IN NO WAY SAYING JAIME QUALIFIES AS A PALADIN) gets into this subject with his kingsguard oath and infamous betrayal of it when he points out that, as a sworn kingsguard, bound to his oath for life, and thus sworn to defend and obey the king, and also a sworn knight, another oath he was bound to for life, which required him to protect the innocent and honor fealty, including the fealty owed to his father, what the hell was he to do when the king is massacring the innocent and orders him to kill his father?  No matter what choice he makes, he violates one of his oaths.

now, when you say that paladins draw their power from good itself, as opposed to the gods, this brings up certain problems of its own within the RAW, like what is this amorphous "good itself" that gives this power?  is it The Light like in warcraft?  is it The Force or a rough equivalent?  Is it a morally absolute code of right and wrong that exists as part of the universe like the laws of physics?  if so, who decided on those standards, or is morality objective and self-evident?  Is it some sort of intelligent personification of an alignment?  In that case, isn't it just a higher form of God by another name?  If so, why have deities in such a setting at all?  the RAW and the default D&D settings seem to assume, and phrase the rules as though they assume, that divine magic characters follow a deity and derive their powers from that deity, options are available for following an abstraction, but a deity is the default.  But beyond those problems, this idea creates an internal contradiction when you say that honor is defined by society and thus the opinions of "most people" are relevant.  If a paladin's code is determined by "good itself" then "good itself" has a pre-determined concept of what honorable fighting is, and the opinions of societies on the subject are irrelevant.  Complicated, isn't it?  This is one of the reasons I would say Gods are such a useful conceit in a D&D game, and one the RAW assumes are used by default, to avoid the above detailed mess.

I also think that to exclude the book of exalted deeds from consideration unfairly limits the discussion.  There's a lot in just the core 3 that's open ended or left to rule zero, which is fine, but if we're discussing the RAW, then we need to look at it as a whole, especially at books that were largely designed to fill in and clarify things that were open ended or unclear in the core 3, and the book of exalted deeds is THE most relevant piece of literature here because large portions of it are dedicated entirely to addressing player misconceptions of what good means in D&D and how to play good aligned characters, especially paladins, while avoiding lawful stupid behavior, thus placing the PHB paladin in a larger context and clarifying the intentions of the designers on where he fits in the "spectrum of goodness", and these things have to be taken into consideration when trying to suss out the intentions of the developers when they wrote the PHB.  As such, I ask you, what is the difference in behavioral requirements between a paladin and the saint template?  If a paladin is held to a standard of behavioral perfection, or as close to it as can be approximated by players, then where is there room for them to go "above and beyond" that to earn the saint template?

On a similar note, doesn't the use of the term "gross violation" inherently imply that it is also possible for a minor violation of the code, for which the paladin would not fall, to exist?  And if there is a distinction between minor violations and gross violations, isn't there inherently room within the RAW for interpretation (if you choose to consider Cedric's combat tactics dishonorable or "justified dirty fighting") as to whether occasionally violating the code in such a way is merely a minor violation considering the circumstances?  And if so, can't Cedric be allowed under the RAW as an imperfect, but still valid paladin who occasionally commits minor violations of the code, but never commits a gross violation?  "Gross" is a pretty strong word in a context like this.

As for that argument that Cedric is not lawful, yes, I've read most of it, and I find it flawed.  Most of what people have said in that regard seems to me to presuppose
1: that Cedric's personal appetites (drinking, sex, swearing) are morally wrong inherently, and
2: Cedric lacks the self control to resist those immoral desires, because a lack of self control is chaotic.
Now, I detailed in my original post my attitude towards each of Cedric's personal habits and why I don't believe they're inherently wrong or something that Cedric needs to strive to resist doing outright.  I believe that lawful behavior only requires Cedric exercise moderation in his indulgence of them, as one must exercise moderation in all things to avoid them becoming unhealthy.  And I see no evidence suggesting Cedric does not behave in moderation.  He consumes precisely seven ales each time he visits the bar, and while that seems like a lot, if you consider paladin fort saves + divine grace, it's probably what he actually NEEDS to get the desired effect.  And he knows that's his limit, that's how much he can drink before it adversely affects him, and he stops there, each and every time, that's Cedric exercising self control.  Cedric also demonstrates control of his sexual appetites in the segment where Madame Catherine discusses with one of her girls how Cedric refuses to sleep with any woman who's gotten out of prostitution.  Even if he's enjoyed his sexual experiences with a given girl, once she's out, she's off limits because he sticks to his resolve to avoid breaking hearts or leaving a widow when his duty inevitably kills him.  Once again, Cedric is exercising self control.  I see no problem here and no chaotic behavior.  As for foul language, I personally consider it inherently silly to attach moral connotations to the use of different words that mean the same thing simply because society has arbitrarily decided one of those words is more vulgar than the other, for reasons also detailed in my original post.

Pemerton, a lot of what you're arguing comes to questions of personal moral outlook, and I cannot objectively debate you on the subject.  What I can say is that the rules of D&D inherently seem to suggest that within the context of the game, death is considered a harm.  Once again going back to the book of exalted deeds (and God people are gonna get tired of me thumping on that sourcebook eventually...), much time is spent on the subject of mercy and the obligation of good characters to give quarter to defeated enemies and accept surrender.  This argument presupposes that death is a harm, because it explicitly disallows a paladin from finishing off a defeated and repentant enemy who asks for mercy using the logic "well, the Gods/goodness itself/whatever relevant cosmic authority will sort it out, if his repentance was sincere, he'll get a good afterlife, no harm no foul".

Providence is also explicitly not always in favor of good in D&D, because the standard D&D 3E setting details a world in which there is a balance between good and evil, the evil gods and fiends are as powerful and have as much of a stake in the cosmos as the good gods and celestials, and the ultimate victory of good over evil is not guaranteed, the possibility that evil will ultimately win is very real and in fact often the very situation the PCs must prevent.  Thus, optimism cannot be a requirement for a paladin, because it can require the paladin to have a view of the setting that is divorced from reality, and, as the book of exalted deeds specifies, "good is not nice, polite, well mannered, self-righteous, OR NAIVE".  A paladin cannot be required to be naive.

Should a player get into a "fall or die" situation and not want to lose his character, that player, and his party, should consider resurrection magic or possibly the risen martyr prestige class, detailed in...you guessed it, the book of exalted deeds.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> JamesonCourage, we definitely agree on the concept of do good or die trying, but in my opinion, die trying should be a last resort



Agreed.


Aurondarklord said:


> Part of being a paladin is walking that line, recognizing the little compromises that have to be made simply to deal with the world as it is, while avoiding the big compromises that morally compromise you as a person and result in a paladin falling.  Paladins are a high wisdom class, they are expected to be able to sort through this complex moral morass.



I agree, I think I just disagree on your interpretation of what falls under their code. Like I've said, I believe in "justified dirty fighting", but I don't think that it's good enough for the Paladin. 


Aurondarklord said:


> Yes, sometimes a paladin may end up in a fall or die situation.  But I don't believe it should be possible for them to end up in a fall or fall situation, where no matter what they do, they fall because they broke an article of the code, when multiple articles are in conflict.  And I believe "fight with honor" and "protect the innocent" can be in conflict, and the paladin needs room to interpret and decide which side to err on.



I'm sure, even by RAW, there might be times where's there's a "fall or fall" moment, in my eyes. I don't know think it's fair to purposefully inflict that on a player, but that's more of a social contract issue than a "in a bad situation, there's no wrong answer" issue, to me.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for the paladin being held to a higher standard...I would say it is more that the paladin is held to ADDITIONAL standards.



I strongly disagree. Part of being a Lawful Good character is not willing acting Evil too often, else you become Neutral on your way to Evil. Not being able to willingly commit any Evil act is definitely a higher standard. 


Aurondarklord said:


> it's worth pointing out that "resign from service" is not always an option



I guess this is true in a sense. This is part of the Paladin conflict, I think. Is a tyrannical government "legitimate authority"? If so, you're going to run into problems like what you're pointing out. If tyranny isn't legitimate, in the Paladin's mind, he can dismiss it, including being bound to permanent service.


Aurondarklord said:


> now, when you say that paladins draw their power from good itself, as opposed to the gods, this brings up certain problems of its own within the RAW, like what is this amorphous "good itself" that gives this power?



I wouldn't say it's a problem within the RAW, more of an unknown. It's Good. It may not be sentient. In the D&D universe, Good is an actual, objective force (Detect Good, and all). At some point, someone could have been granted Paladin powers by how they acted; over time, people were able to observe that under the right circumstances (the Code), they were granted power. Thus, granted by Good (in essence; commit _any_ Evil act and lose your powers).


Aurondarklord said:


> Is it a morally absolute code of right and wrong that exists as part of the universe like the laws of physics?  if so, who decided on those standards, or is morality objective and self-evident?



Yes to the first sentence, and "who knows?" to the second. It's obviously self-evident; Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all objective forces in the D&D universe. Who decided on them being objective forces? Based on the Core 3, I don't know. I know there's some lore on it, though.


Aurondarklord said:


> the RAW and the default D&D settings seem to assume, and phrase the rules as though they assume, that divine magic characters follow a deity and derive their powers from that deity



Well, as we're talking about 3.Xe, as far as I know (and you note), it's explicitly clear that Clerics don't need to worship a deity (something I never much liked, but that's how it was). I think the same is true for the Paladin. I know the setting in the book is briefly mentioned as Greyhawk (I think), but I don't know much on the assumed setting other than what the rules imply (that lying, cheating, and poison are a matter of honor, for example).


Aurondarklord said:


> But beyond those problems, this idea creates an internal contradiction when you say that honor is defined by society and thus the opinions of "most people" are relevant.  If a paladin's code is determined by "good itself" then "good itself" has a pre-determined concept of what honorable fighting is, and the opinions of societies on the subject are irrelevant.  Complicated, isn't it?



Not if you accept what I have 

That is, Good is an objective force, that following certain rules (the Paladin's Code) can grant you power (Paladin class), and that the setting (noted as Greyhawk, I think?) assumes that lying, cheating, and poison are dishonorable (as per the description of the Paladin class).


Aurondarklord said:


> This is one of the reasons I would say Gods are such a useful conceit in a D&D game, and one the RAW assumes are used by default, to avoid the above detailed mess.



I think the gods are assumed as part of the setting, just not part of the Paladin class.


Aurondarklord said:


> I also think that to exclude the book of exalted deeds from consideration unfairly limits the discussion.



I'll agree to disagree, on this. Needless to say, I don't feel the need to include all the splat books when discussing RAW, as I find that it will actually lead a lot more to contradiction than the Core 3... but that's a discussion for another thread.


Aurondarklord said:


> As such, I ask you, what is the difference in behavioral requirements between a paladin and the saint template?  If a paladin is held to a standard of behavioral perfection, or as close to it as can be approximated by players, then where is there room for them to go "above and beyond" that to earn the saint template?



Cannot act Evil does not mean always acts Good. There's always inaction. And I don't mean letting innocents die; I mean constant proactive attempts to do as much Good as possible. There's no such thing as spending money for you, there's only Charity. There's no need for magic items; you have a vow of poverty (which is described as extra Good). Same for the other vows, I think. And so on. There's room to go.


Aurondarklord said:


> On a similar note, doesn't the use of the term "gross violation" inherently imply that it is also possible for a minor violation of the code, for which the paladin would not fall, to exist?



As I said, I'd interpret that as "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code, much as one might define "gross negligence" ("Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care"). If we go by that definition, then that means the Paladin might not lose his powers by making a mistake, but he will if he act against the Code knowingly. So, accidentally using a poisoned weapon wouldn't make him lose his powers (though it'd probably upset the Paladin), but using poison on purpose will.

Again, that'd be my interpretation of it, but as I said then, I can see a lighter interpretation of it.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for that argument that Cedric is not lawful, yes, I've read most of it, and I find it flawed.  Most of what people have said in that regard seems to me to presuppose
> 1: that Cedric's personal appetites (drinking, sex, swearing) are morally wrong inherently, and
> 2: Cedric lacks the self control to resist those immoral desires, because a lack of self control is chaotic.



I wasn't convinced by those arguments. But, I don't think he showed proper respect to the Paladin that showed up with orders from his church (which violates respecting authority) when he physically grabbed the man, I think he meets some of the guidelines for both Law and Chaos. You can read my reasoning based on 3e alignment guidelines in the spoiler.
[sblock]*"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."* On this note, I think he probably tells the truth, keeps his word, judges those who fall short of their duties, and is trustworthy (4/9). I definitely think he doesn't honor tradition (the church disagreed with him), and I don't think he respects authority or is obedient to them (bucking the church enough that the head Cleric lost his powers). I don't think he's honorable. And I don't think I'd consider him reliable (he's going to do things his own way, and if I'm not on board, I can't really rely on him work with me in a way that I find helpful). That's 4/9 Lawful, and 5/9 not Lawful.

*"On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."* Cedric isn't that close-minded, definitely doesn't have a reactionary adherence to tradition, is probably less judgmental than most (as long as it's not hurting people), and isn't lacking for adaptability (0/4). I doubt he believes in Lawful society being the only way for people to depend on each other (0/5).

*"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility."* On the Chaotic characteristics, I think that Cedric does follow his conscience, resents being told what to do, favors new ides over tradition, values his personal freedom, favors adaptability, as well as flexibility (6/7). I think he probably goes through with what he promised, whether or not he likes it (1/7). That's 6/7 Chaotic, 1/7 not Chaotic.

*"On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."* I see Cedric as somewhat reckless (the scene where he gets in a fight to get to the Ogre, and then the aftermath where he died), and he seems to resent his church to some degree. I don't think he's acting arbitrarily, and he doesn't seem irresponsible (unless going into a situation as a Paladin where you're positive you're going to die without really changing anything is irresponsible, as Cedric does). I'd put him at 2/4 on this Chaotic scale. I think he'd lean towards individuals expressing themselves, but maybe not "unfettered personal freedom". So maybe 2/5 on this Chaotic side.

*"Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."* This isn't entirely inaccurate, but the first line doesn't ring true for my view of Cedric at all. The rest I can see him following.

*"Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."* I think this describes Cedric more accurately. He doesn't care what others think, follows his conscience, makes his own way, but is kind and benevolent. He follows his own good moral compass, even though it may not fit with society.

*"Neutral Good, "Benefactor"
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them."* This has the least description, but I think it could describe him. He's looking out for Good. And, I think with how he acts in combination of Law and Chaos, he probably lands here, with Chaotic tendencies.[/sblock]

Anyways, this has been a very interesting, civil conversation still. And I want to thank you again for that. As always, play what you like


----------



## Aurondarklord

As I've said before, I don't believe circumstances can MAKE a person evil, I don't believe a valid moral system can exist where a person is evil no matter what they do.  faced with two horrible choices, a good person who makes the less horrible choice for the right reasons (mainly "because it's less horrible") is still good.  So I do not accept "fall or fall", but this is a question of personal views on morality and I don't think either of us could prove the other objectively right or wrong.  I mean, the human species has been debating the nature of morality since we were doing it in grunts.

I will acknowledge that "commit no evil acts AT ALL" is a higher standard, you're right, but it's a specific higher standard, it does not impose or imply a general higher standard.  what I mean is:

Average LG person: mostly commits lawful and good acts, occasionally may commit a neutral, evil, or chaotic act.

Paladin as I believe the class to be written: mostly commits lawful and good acts, occasionally may commit a neutral or chaotic act, may never commit an evil act.

Paladin as some people seem to believe the class to be written: must commit only lawful and good acts, may never commit neutral, chaotic, or evil acts.

Plus, of course, the specific mandates and prohibitions also listed in the code, but I consider them additional standards, not a general higher standard.

The resign from service question isn't always as simple as a tyrannical government.  Sometimes a just, legitimate, even elected government does things, and asks its operatives to do things, that may offend the code of a paladin.

I grant you, within the setting of D&D, good, evil, law, and chaos have some form of actual objective substance, that much is true.  but by default, divine magic characters are assumed to follow gods, hence the art in sourcebooks almost always shows them with holy symbols, hence rules tend to be written assuming a god first and then addressing the exception of a divine magic character who follows an ideal, etc.  Yes, D&D explicitly provides rules for running such characters without Gods, but it treats Gods as the default.

vow of poverty =/= saint template, if I remember correctly, you have to have a couple sacred vow feats to be a saint, but I don't happen to have my books on hand to consult either, aftermath of hurricane Sandy, I can only get internet at a library, but you can pick which ones, so no particular sacred vow feat is part and parcel of the saint template.  So...excluding specific rules covered by individual sacred vows, where is the line between paladin and saint?  is it just as simple as the saint gets no "down time" and must be on the clock 24/7?  Some people who've posted in this thread seem to expect that of Cedric anyway...

As for the question of "gross violation" meaning willing violation, while unintentional or unwilling violations are considered minor, I would say this is suggested not to be the case by the way the atonement spell is written.  Specifically, that if a cleric atones a paladin (or other class that has violated a code of conduct) who committed the violation unwillingly or unknowingly, they can do so for free, but if it was an intentional violation, the cleric must pay 500XP.  This suggests that an unwilling "gross violation" can occur, which suggests the intent of the designers was not to conflate "gross" with "intentional", so "gross" must have a different meaning...I would posit the meaning I've given to it.  Now personally, believing the way I believe about moral catch 22s, I find the idea that a paladin can lose class abilities for something they did as a result of magical compulsion laughable, but I accept it as part of the RAW.

As for Cedric getting upset with Magnus...Magnus is not his superior, as far as I can tell, Magnus is a novice or at least "still kinda green" member of the church, inferior to Cedric within the hierarchy.  So Cedric did not disrespect legitimate authority, Magnus does not have authority over him.  Cedric became gruff with an inferior for disrespecting...in this case unfairly judging...him.  Does this maybe cast Cedric as a bit arrogant or short tempered?  Yes.  But, "Good is not NICE, POLITE, WELL MANNERED, self-righteous, or naive".  And further fiction seems to suggest that Cedric was less losing his temper with Magnus than teaching him a needed lesson.  Perhaps Cedric could have handled that situation better, he's not a perfect person, clearly.  But I do not see that instance by itself as grounds for falling, it was simply not severe enough.  At worst it was an isolated minor chaotic act, in that he momentarily broke self control and acted temperamentally.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> The resign from service question isn't always as simple as a tyrannical government.  Sometimes a just, legitimate, even elected government does things, and asks its operatives to do things, that may offend the code of a paladin.



In that situation, resign. If they don't let you, we're getting close to a type of tyrannical government again.


Aurondarklord said:


> vow of poverty =/= saint template, if I remember correctly, you have to have a couple sacred vow feats to be a saint, but I don't happen to have my books on hand to consult either



I wasn't trying to say that the Vow made you a Saint, I was just speaking of ways to be Extra Good, since you asked how it would be possible. I referenced your Vows (from the Book of Exalted Deeds).


Aurondarklord said:


> So...excluding specific rules covered by individual sacred vows, where is the line between paladin and saint?  is it just as simple as the saint gets no "down time" and must be on the clock 24/7?  Some people who've posted in this thread seem to expect that of Cedric anyway...



As a template from the book, I'm sure it talks about what it means to be a Saint. I'm sure it's different from the Paladin. It might be compatible, it might not. I'd need to read it to be able to describe the difference.

But when we're talking about how to be a more "Good" Paladin, I already commented on that.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for the question of "gross violation" meaning willing violation, while unintentional or unwilling violations are considered minor, I would say this is suggested not to be the case by the way the atonement spell is written.  Specifically, that if a cleric atones a paladin (or other class that has violated a code of conduct) who committed the violation unwillingly or unknowingly, they can do so for free, but if it was an intentional violation, the cleric must pay 500XP.



The only explicit reference to the Paladin is "A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell." It does not mention the Code.

The spell does say "When cast for the benefit of a creature whose guilt was the result of deliberate acts, the cost to you is 500 XP per casting (see above)." However, we don't know if that's referencing Paladins, or if it's referencing things in general in a sort of blanket statement (which is what I suspect). For example, Clerics have a lot of ways to lose their powers, depending on the deity they worship. If they lose their powers (even unintentionally), or the Paladin loses his powers (by unintentionally committing an Evil act... which seems hard to do), then they can be restored at an XP cost.

However, it doesn't talk about the Code at all. It talks about committing an Evil act. So, the clause at the end (about the XP cost) could apply to Paladins, but it may not apply to the Code whatsoever; it may only apply to accidental acts of Evil (if that's possible).


Aurondarklord said:


> As for Cedric getting upset with Magnus...Magnus is not his superior, as far as I can tell, Magnus is a novice or at least "still kinda green" member of the church, inferior to Cedric within the hierarchy.  So Cedric did not disrespect legitimate authority, Magnus does not have authority over him.



I'd consider it not respecting legitimate authority if a Paladin disrespecting any messenger from the church, a legitimate lord he served, etc. Disrespecting the messenger is disrespecting the authority they represent. But again, it's not laid out in RAW, and so it's my take on it.


Aurondarklord said:


> At worst it was an isolated minor chaotic act, in that he momentarily broke self control and acted temperamentally.



I'm curious as to your take on the Alignment by RAW and my points on it in the spoiler I left. By those descriptions, Cedric doesn't seem Lawful to me. What is your take on what I wrote? As always, play what you like


----------



## Manbearcat

I think this one is simple.

Would I let someone play this character?  Yes.

Do I consider this character a Paladin?  No.

This character drips nihilism as an oozing sore drips puss.  Further, not only does he drip nihilism but he perpetuates it.  He unabashedly proselytizes the young Paladin before him in the fatalistic faith of "in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters".  The struggle with man's primal yearnings (pleasures of the flesh, lechery, and all other manner of vice) is a natural theme for an oath-bound man.  However, giving in to nihilism...and worse yet, willfully proliferating it...nothing could be more "un-Paladin-like."  

If one of my players wanted to play this character then, ok (and one has played something quite similar).  But I would play it like Mel Gibson's fallen Catholic Priest character in Signs...robbed of faith (admittedly no longer a Father and chafing at the mention of the title) and the power that faith entails.  That would be the Theme and "Redemption of Belief, of Spirit" would be the major quest (not of his own volition but a product of emergent play) for this character and minor quests and milestones would follow suit.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> the rules of D&D inherently seem to suggest that within the context of the game, death is considered a harm.  Once again going back to the book of exalted deeds (and God people are gonna get tired of me thumping on that sourcebook eventually...), much time is spent on the subject of mercy and the obligation of good characters to give quarter to defeated enemies and accept surrender.



This _could_ be framed not in terms of harm but in terms of courtesy or honour. What I mean is, to infer from "I would wrong X by refusing to grant quarter" to "I would harm X by refusing to grant quarter" is already to make assumptions about the relationship between wronging and harming that I think are at odds with the romantic ethos of paladinship.

That said, I wouldn't expect the Book of Exalted Deeds to be clear on this. In my view, at least, coherent moral philosophy has never been a prominent feature of D&D's alignment rules!



Aurondarklord said:


> This argument presupposes that death is a harm, because it explicitly disallows a paladin from finishing off a defeated and repentant enemy who asks for mercy using the logic "well, the Gods/goodness itself/whatever relevant cosmic authority will sort it out, if his repentance was sincere, he'll get a good afterlife, no harm no foul".



As I've said, it presupposes that refusing quarter is wrong. It is an open question, though, whether the wrongfulness consists in harming, or in something else.

There is also a further question of how the wrong is to be analysed - as a breach of duty to the person who is offering surrender, or as a failure of virtue on the part of the paladin.

My own view is that a paladin works best when the wrong is analysed by reference to the paladin's virtue, with the duty (if any) being a duty owed to the gods (or, if you prefer, the principles of LG) to uphold that virtue.



Aurondarklord said:


> Providence is also explicitly not always in favor of good in D&D, because the standard D&D 3E setting details a world in which there is a balance between good and evil, the evil gods and fiends are as powerful and have as much of a stake in the cosmos as the good gods and celestials, and the ultimate victory of good over evil is not guaranteed, the possibility that evil will ultimately win is very real and in fact often the very situation the PCs must prevent.  Thus, optimism cannot be a requirement for a paladin, because it can require the paladin to have a view of the setting that is divorced from reality, and, as the book of exalted deeds specifies, "good is not nice, polite, well mannered, self-righteous, OR NAIVE".  A paladin cannot be required to be naive.



First, on a tangential point - it seems to me to be highly arguable that good _ought to be_ polite and well-mannered.  Courtesy is related to respect, and respect for others is meant to be one of the animating concerns of the good.

But putting that to one side, I think that you are right to identify this as an issue. But my take on it is different from yours. In my view, what you've shown here is that the Planescape-style cosmology of 2nd ed AD&D and 3E is, at its core, incompatible with the existence of paladinhood.

That's not to say that paladins must be naive in the ordinary sense - they need not be gullible; they can be aware that many of those who promise to repent will in fact sin again; etc. But they have to have faith.

It seems to me that there are two ways the broader framework of the game can respond to that need for faith. It can vindicate the paladin's faith - but as you've noted, the Planescape cosmology doesn't do that. Or it can support the player of the paladin in grappling with what his/her faith means - but the traditional D&D paladin rules (and its alignment rules more generally) don't support _that_, because they put the GM rather than the player in charge of deciding what is or isn't permitted for the paladin.

I think the Planescape setting brings with it an implicit evaluative framework - a type of somewhat nihilistic, even cynical, relativism that upholds individual belief and essentially non-rational conviction as the pre-eminent, perhaps the sole, value. Debating the merits of such an outlook would be in breach of forum rules. I think it has clear affinities to the outlook of a lot of science fiction and pulp fantasy (REH, Lovecraft). But I don't see that it leaves any room for the non-deluded paladin.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Would I let someone play this character?  Yes.
> 
> Do I consider this character a Paladin?  No.
> 
> This character drips nihilism as an oozing sore drips puss.  Further, not only does he drip nihilism but he perpetuates it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> giving in to nihilism...and worse yet, willfully proliferating it...nothing could be more "un-Paladin-like."



My approach would be a bit different. I would be happy for a player to play this PC as a paladin, but not within a traditional D&D framework. For example, this PC is (in my view) not viable within the approach of a GM-policed code that determines whether or not the paladin PC gets to remain a mechanically viable PC.

As you indicate, I would expect the issue of "redemption or fall" to be a major focus of the play of this PC.

As a side-note, Burning Wheel has the "Lost Faith" trait for this sort of character, as well as mechanical support for regaining your faith during play. While faith has been lost, it can't be called upon in the game (which is roughly analogous to losing your divine abilities in D&D). In Burning Wheel this is not such a purge, however, due to features both of its PC build and advancement mechanics, and its approach to resolution and adjudication.

Whereas in D&D, for a paladin to lose his/her abilities is just to take a huge bath and become, effectively, a mechanically unviable character.


----------



## Manbearcat

@pemerton

Yup.  Agreed  The Burning Wheel implementation would handle this character archetype much more robustly and elegantly than D&D would.  

When I ran this sort of character (it was during 3e's initial run), I created a template for him and swapped out the class features until he redeemed himself.  I didn't want to punish the PC for willfully playing the archetype, exploring the theme and adding narrative dynamism to the game.  That would be a needless disincentive and punishment (for no wrong done).  And I certainly didn't want to deal with the headache of a mechanically unviable character.

4e makes this quite easy:  Theme + Multi-class Feat + Re=skinned powers or Theme powers swapped for current powers.  Done.


----------



## nijineko

the op description could be supported by the 3.x rules as is. the way the original paladin was described, it would not have worked, but in 3.x you have paladins of all four extreme alignments. the code of honor binding any given paladin will be dependent upon the entity or entities granting the powers to the paladin, and what the dm will allow to be such. therefore, it is already supported in theory.

as for the moral and ethical implications, that will depend on what is defined as good and evil, and law and chaos for that matter, in each game universe. the bovd and boed are worthless in deciding on such a matter, and for just about anything to do with good or evil, so it will depend on the dm, who should make known what is defined as moral and ethical in their particular game universe. 

in my game universes, just by way of example, there are a number of entities that can grant power to others. a paladin such as described in the op could theoretically exist, depending on which entity they tied them self too. however, the entities in question who would allow or encourage this are not actually sources of ultimate good, and what sources of ultimate good that exist in my game universes would never accept such behavior due to how good is defined in my universes. 

moral purity and chastity outside of marriage, though within a faithful marriage they are just as welcome to start a family as any other mortal. such are a few of the rules of ultimate good. 

like many others have commented, my groups do not run towards details of a sexual nature. i would not permit such a degree of descriptiveness, and chances are that i would discourage making this the theme of a character. having that as part of the backstory and it being mentioned in passing on occasion as flavor for what happened during downtime might fall under my radar... depending.


----------



## Aurondarklord

Oh dear, I seem to have failed to notice a bunch of stuff in a spoiler tag.  I'm an idiot.  I apologize, JamesonCourage, I was not intentionally avoiding your question.

Covering those issues first, and the questions you raise with Cedric's lawful alignment, point for point,

1: Does Cedric honor tradition?  No, he does not.  Evidence appears to show that Cedric does not ascribe any particular value to traditions merely because they are traditions.

2: Does Cedric respect and obey authority?  Yes, but not blindly.  He respects the authority of the High Lord, prayer is his first activity in the morning, and he takes better care of his holy symbol than he does of himself.  He and Father Shikuna appear to have great mutual respect.  All we know about the incident with the high priest is that there was a person who tried to alter his God's scripture to suit HIS personal idea of what the religion should be like, presumably to give himself an excuse to cast out Cedric, and the High Lord revoked his powers for attempting to do so.  Considering that knowingly vandalizing scripture to reflect your opinions over those of your God constitutes blasphemy, heresy, and probably schism if he'd managed it, I can very easily see a pissed off God revoking powers or even smiting the offender.  Whether Cedric was even directly involved in this incident is unclear, and certainly nothing about it reflects on Cedric's attitude towards authority, merely that the High Lord at one point endorsed Cedric's views over those of someone in a position of authority.  Another instance of grating writing, but not a bad reflection on Cedric's lawfulness.  Cedric is obedient to LEGITIMATE authority, and the biggest and most important authority, and the SOURCE of the legitimacy of all other authority, at least all other spiritual authority, as presented in the fiction, is the High Lord, who Cedric respects and obeys.

3: Is Cedric honorable?  Considering this has been the primary subject of our debate, I'm gonna say you've heard my opinions here.

4: Is Cedric reliable?  Cedric will always be there when you need him, regardless of how exhausted he is or how he feels, he will come when duty calls, the story about the dying old man and him delivering a baby right after paints him as Captain Reliable, and his personal habits seem to be run like clockwork.  I view it as almost objectively proven that Cedric is reliable.

So my personal lawful behavior tally is 8/9

Does Cedric have any of the listed down sides of a lawful alignment?  No, you're right, he's not demonstrated a single one on that list.  He's 0/4.  But all of those say that lawful characters CAN have those traits, not that they MUST.  I don't think it's reasonable to suggest, or the developers intentions, that a paladin must have the NEGATIVE potential aspects of lawfulness, if anything those traits tend to be part and parcel of lawful neutral and lawful evil characters.  Does Cedric consciously promote lawful behavior?  I don't know, the fiction does not specifically address his attitudes on the subject, but the RAW only says the a paladin must BE lawful, not that he must consciously promote lawful behavior, so this is irrelevant in my opinion.  Cedric may have a live and let live attitude towards order and chaos, he himself is lawful, but he's content to let chaotic people be chaotic if it works for them.  This merely suggests he's not so arrogant as to believe that what works for him is THE ONE TRUE PATH for everyone.  The alignment of the High Lord is never definitively stated, if Cedric is a lawful good paladin in service to a neutral good deity, something very possible under the RAW and possibly suggested to be the case here (since Bob the celestial horse comes from Elysium, this might imply the High Lord reigns there and is thus neutral good), such an attitude would make perfect sense.

Now, point for point on Cedric's chaotic behaviors checklist:

1: Does Cedric follow his conscience.  Yes.  But I would have a great deal of trouble thinking of a paladin who doesn't.  Conscience seems like a necessary element of the class's mentality to me.

2: Does Cedric resent being told what to do?  No.  Cedric follows the tenets of his faith without issue, and lives in service to the High Lord.  He resents being told he's wrong by a naive kid who doesn't actually understand the rules he's trying to enforce, that's a different circumstance and does not show Cedric as resentful of being told what to do IN GENERAL.

3: Does Cedric favor new ideas over tradition?  I grant that Cedric does not seem to ascribe any particular value to tradition because it's tradition, but neither is he shown to ascribe any greater value to new ideas because they're new.  I do not believe the fiction has shown whether Cedric has this quality or not.

4: Does Cedric value his personal freedom?  Cedric lives in voluntary servitude to a deity and a code, this suggests a willing abdication of personal freedom, so no.

5: Does Cedric value adaptability and flexibility?  He lives by a code, there is an inherent degree of inflexibility in this premise.  Cedric just seems to know exactly how much room he has to interpret this code, and pushes it that far and no further.  Cedric is never shown complaining about the code being overly rigid, only about others misinterpreting the code as more rigid than it really is.  So I would say this question has not been answered based on the fiction presented.

Final tally from my perspective?  1/7 chaotic behaviors demonstrated.

From the negative stuff...I don't see Cedric as reckless, I see him as dedicated.  A reckless person charges into battle without stopping to think about whether it's a good idea or he might get himself killed.  Cedric charges into battle after giving considerable thought to his reasons for doing so, and entirely aware he'll likely die.  That's not reckless, that's fighting the good fight and being willing to sacrifice himself.  I also don't see Cedric as resenting his church in general, he just resents a few isolated idiots within said church.

Now, the alignment descriptions...I see no objective evidence within the fiction written that Cedric actually believes any of the stuff from neutral good or chaotic good besides the parts that simply relate to GOOD.  I think we haven't really seen Cedric in the kinds of order vs chaos situations that would illuminate how he feels about such things, without having to "read between the lines" to find what you want to find.  As for the description of lawful good, the only problem you had with it was that you don't believe Cedric behaves as good people are expected or required to.  I think he does, he just has a different idea of what those expectations and requirements are than some of the people around him, particularly Magnus.  However, since the High Lord and the presented mortal religious authority, Father Shikuna, seem to agree with Cedric's version of the expectations and requirements, Cedric is in the clear, and thus matches the description of lawful good just fine.

Now, onto the newer points in your more recent post...

In the real world US military, and most modern first world military organizations, soldiers commit to service for a given period of time, and may not resign within this period.  Even officers, who in most cases may resign, may not do so in the middle of operations or for the purpose of avoiding having to obey an order they don't like.  And yet, the US is a democracy, the rules of our military are developed by social contract between the government and the governed, and this is inherently not tyranny.  It's not as simple as "if you can't resign at will, the government must be tyrannical".  I honestly don't know if that comment skirts too far over the line into political discussion, if I'm out of line I'll happily fix it.

The atonement spell says it removes the burden of evil acts "or misdeeds", misdeeds in this case, by being presented as something other than "evil acts" being a blanket description suggested to cover whatever violations of a code of conduct could apply to a given class, including paladins inherently under that umbrella even though the code of conduct is not specifically discussed.

And no, in this case I draw a clear distinction between the messenger and the message.  Cedric immediately jumped to obey the orders the messenger was sent to convey, he just reacted adversely to the messenger on a personal level.

Answer me this, how respectful of authority does a paladin have to be?  If you don't accept the idea that a paladin can get away with minor intentional violations of the code without falling, must a paladin demonstrate absolute deference to every legitimate authority figure he encounters?  Would a paladin who made a wisecrack about the king to the other members of his adventuring party immediately fall just for a trivial joke?  That seems like an extraordinarily disproportionate punishment.

Pemerton, not to be rude but...it seems to me that to reach the conclusion that a basic D&D class is inherently unplayable and disallowed by the rules in a basic D&D setting requires jumping through so many intellectual hoops that you can't seriously believe it was the designers intention.  Perhaps if your notion of what a paladin is requires being so divorced from the RAW, you should seriously consider if you and I, or for that matter you and the designers, are discussing the same class concept here, especially when we're talking in the context of what would be allowed under the RAW.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> Oh dear, I seem to have failed to notice a bunch of stuff in a spoiler tag.  I'm an idiot.  I apologize, JamesonCourage, I was not intentionally avoiding your question.



It kinda blends right in there. And no worries, I think you're being very intellectually honest when you engage me. I wasn't worried about it 


Aurondarklord said:


> Does Cedric have any of the listed down sides of a lawful alignment?  No, you're right, he's not demonstrated a single one on that list.  He's 0/4.  But all of those say that lawful characters CAN have those traits, not that they MUST.



That's all that the first 9 are; they're just traits that Lawful characters tend to have, not that they must have. Taking those into account, and your observation that he might not promote Lawful behavior in society, and your tally would become 8/14, which is 8 for Lawful, and 6 not for it. That's pretty close (and more generous than my reading, as I don't equate "helpful" with "reliable", and other bits I disagree with).


Aurondarklord said:


> Now, point for point on Cedric's chaotic behaviors checklist:
> 
> 1: Does Cedric follow his conscience.  Yes.  But I would have a great deal of trouble thinking of a paladin who doesn't.  Conscience seems like a necessary element of the class's mentality to me.



Agreed on this one (though the Paladin, following his calling, probably has aligned his conscience [Chaotic] with his Oaths and the Code [Lawful]). But it's still marking 1 on the Chaotic checklist.


Aurondarklord said:


> 2: Does Cedric resent being told what to do?  No.  Cedric follows the tenets of his faith without issue, and lives in service to the High Lord.



I disagree. He doesn't like being judged by others in his faith. He bucked against it, and when the head Cleric tried to change things to get him expelled, Cedric paid for it. I'm sure he was taught and told not to do those things before that point, and he sure seemed to laugh off others judging him (which leads me to believe that he acted the same way before, when he was taught it was wrong -we are speaking of the personality presented).


Aurondarklord said:


> 3: Does Cedric favor new ideas over tradition?  I grant that Cedric does not seem to ascribe any particular value to tradition because it's tradition, but neither is he shown to ascribe any greater value to new ideas because they're new.  I do not believe the fiction has shown whether Cedric has this quality or not.



His lifestyle is based on it. He's living in a completely new way than his church recommends (in fact, it spoke against it) or teaches. It's clear that he values that over tradition. That's the point of this thread.


Aurondarklord said:


> 4: Does Cedric value his personal freedom?  Cedric lives in voluntary servitude to a deity and a code, this suggests a willing abdication of personal freedom, so no.



Service is Lawful, yes. I'll give you that. But he's going to live how he wants, because it's fine. He deserves it. And if you don't like it, you can smiley-face off. It's all about his personal freedom.


Aurondarklord said:


> 5: Does Cedric value adaptability and flexibility?  He lives by a code, there is an inherent degree of inflexibility in this premise.  Cedric just seems to know exactly how much room he has to interpret this code, and pushes it that far and no further.  Cedric is never shown complaining about the code being overly rigid, only about others misinterpreting the code as more rigid than it really is.  So I would say this question has not been answered based on the fiction presented.



He's trying to make the Code as flexible as possible. He's adapting in combat and on the fly (dirty shots, setting the warlord up for Fireballs, etc.). He works with what he's got, and makes the best of his limitations. He tries to circumvent them as best he can (and in the case of the Code, without violating them). I think it's clear he favors flexibility and adaptation. Again, his lifestyle is based on that flexibility.


Aurondarklord said:


> Final tally from my perspective?  1/7 chaotic behaviors demonstrated.



That's just so far from what I think is obvious that I don't think we'll resolve our alignment debate. It's fairly obvious to me that he values both Law and Chaos to some degree, which is why I pegged him at Neutral, leaning Chaotic. However, you think he's straight Lawful, and I just can't get behind the reasoning. It just doesn't click with me.


Aurondarklord said:


> From the negative stuff...I don't see Cedric as reckless, I see him as dedicated.  A reckless person charges into battle without stopping to think about whether it's a good idea or he might get himself killed.



This is exactly how he died. He charged into battle, and didn't think he would get killed by the mob. And they killed him. He planned out the fight to some degree, but man was he ever reckless.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for the description of lawful good, the only problem you had with it was that you don't believe Cedric behaves as good people are expected or required to.  I think he does, he just has a different idea of what those expectations and requirements are than some of the people around him, particularly Magnus.



Totally disagree. He knows how Good people are expected to act, and he blatantly disregards it and aggressively dismisses it when its brought up.

*Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.* I think he obviously tries to do the best a Good person can do (he's a Paladin). He is devoted to helping others (in his way, but still helping them). It looks like he works with authority (the army), but he doesn't seem to be in their employ, and he'd probably fight against them if they were tyrannical. It seems to fit all around to some degree, while Lawful Good doesn't.

*Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.* Cedric obviously follows his conscious (as Paladins should), and has little regard for what others expect of him (his lifestyle is based on this, as is the thread). He believes in Goodness and right (Paladin), but has little use for laws and regulations (seems to have a "live and let live" type of mentality, and didn't follow the teachings of the church). He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do (standing up against the warlord, or not yielding to the head Cleric of his church). He follows his own moral compass, which is Good, but may not agree with that of society (his whole lifestyle versus what the church -and maybe the soldiers- expect of a Paladin). He hits all of these notes dead on.


Aurondarklord said:


> In the real world US military, and most modern first world military organizations, soldiers commit to service for a given period of time, and may not resign within this period.



You can resign. You might be imprisoned; so be it.


Aurondarklord said:


> The atonement spell says it removes the burden of evil acts "or misdeeds", misdeeds in this case, by being presented as something other than "evil acts" being a blanket description suggested to cover whatever violations of a code of conduct could apply to a given class, including paladins inherently under that umbrella even though the code of conduct is not specifically discussed.



Again, I only have the SRD right now, but let me hit two parts of it.

*Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.*

*Atonement
Restore Class
A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.*

The Atonement spell specifically talks about bringing a Paladin back. This can only be done if the Paladin lost their class features due to committing an Evil act, and, again, my interpretation of "gross violation" would be along the lines of "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the Code. But, my point is that the Atonement spell only brings Paladin's back for Evil acts; not for violating the Code. If you lose your Paladin powers by knowingly acting against the Paladin Code, you cannot be Atoned.


Aurondarklord said:


> Answer me this, how respectful of authority does a paladin have to be?



What scale am I using?


Aurondarklord said:


> If you don't accept the idea that a paladin can get away with minor intentional violations of the code without falling, must a paladin demonstrate absolute deference to every legitimate authority figure he encounters?  Would a paladin who made a wisecrack about the king to the other members of his adventuring party immediately fall just for a trivial joke?  That seems like an extraordinarily disproportionate punishment.



I think that if it's disrespectful, yes. In the Two Towers movie, when Legolas asks if Gimli needs a box (to see the army over the wall), it was clearly not to disrespect him. It was a good-natured joke, and not an attempt to belittle or disrespect him. Such jokes would be fine. As always, play what you like


----------



## Aurondarklord

define reliable, if Cedric does not meet your definition.  You say yourself, he's probably honest and would keep his word (though admittedly these contingencies have not been explicitly spelled out), his personal habits are extremely regular, he can always be counted on to do his duty...what more is required for reliability?

What do you mean that when the head cleric tried to change things, "Cedric paid for it"?  I don't understand the phrasing, and nothing suggests Cedric was directly involved in those events.  Cedric is not responsible for what a deity decides to do on his behalf, if the head cleric even fell exclusively because he went against Cedric, which is not how I read it.  You seem to be acting as though Cedric himself did something to this guy or somehow was personally responsible for taking away his powers.

Now, a huge amount of your arguments boil down to "Cedric lives the way he chooses, against the doctrines of his church, and tells off anyone who says otherwise", but this is just not true in the fiction as it's presented.  Look at the exchange between Father Shikuna and Magnus where they go over the tenets of the religion.  Cedric is living by those tenets, Magnus is simply assuming other behaviors to be required which are not, and reading his own assumptions and biases into the tenets where they aren't.  Cedric chooses to live by the tenets of his faith...as they are in fact, not as other people assume them to be, and he tells off people who ATTEMPT TO FORCE THOSE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS ON HIM.  That's very very different.  If anything, Cedric is enforcing law, demanding other people acknowledge the actual truth of the High Lord's words, instead of making up their own version of it, and while we have no indication whether the high priest and Cedric directly interacted at all in the incident where the high priest lost his powers for trying to modify the tenets, I don't believe it's chaotic to defy an authority figure in defense of a HIGHER authority figure who your immediate superior is disobeying.  That is in fact very lawful behavior in my book, in effect, a paladin throwing a heretic out of his religion, and that high priest, objective fact, WAS A HERETIC.

Cedric does not "try to make the code more flexible", he just knows how flexible the code really is.  Cedric does not live in an entirely new way against the teachings of his church, he just knows what those teachings actually are, and that they're not as strict as some people blindly assume, etc.

As for the descriptions of the alignments, dealing with the one line about how good people are expected and required to act...what requirement has Cedric broken?  And "expected" can have two very different meanings.  "expected" can mean essentially "assumed", how good people are assumed to act, keeping up appearances and such, admittedly, Cedric does not do this.  but "expected" can also be said in the sense of "expectations placed upon a person by an outside authority", like a person trying to live up to their parents expectations is trying to do what their parents WANT them to do, not what their parents necessarily assume they will do.  Cedric definitely lives up to the High Lord's expectations.  And aside from that one line...you're right, any of those three descriptions for the different good alignments could describe Cedric...frankly, I would call that a problem with how the descriptions are written, but if all three work and fit the facts, it should be up to the player which one gets stuck on their character, I mean, the player knows their character best...it's just the DM's job to keep them honest about it.

You say you don't understand my reasoning for saying Cedric is lawful...so think about this....what's Batman's alignment?  Batman is a gruff, often foul-tempered curmudgeon, he acts entirely outside the law, and he is arguably mentally ill...and yet the comics depict him as a force of order in stark conflict to the chaos embodied by The Joker.  How can someone so seemingly chaotic embody order?  Because if you look past the veneer, Batman isn't chaotic at all, his mind, however damaged it may be is rigidly structured and meticulous, almost compulsive in his behavior, and he lives by an internally imposed by nevertheless incredibly stringent code of behavior that he absolutely will not violate in any circumstance ever.

Cedric I view as a less extreme but similar example of lawful behavior, a character who rejects superficial strictures and the trappings of order, instead living by a more deeply ingrained and personal, but no less valid set of strict behavioral rules, in service to a HIGHER authority.

Now...the most serious point, what you said about the atonement spell...you can't seriously believe that this was the intention of the designers, to say the a paladin can be atoned for an evil act, but not for breaking the code?  Admittedly, the way it's written is oddly worded, but to draw the conclusion you've drawn would require a system of morals exists in the game world so backwards I can hardly fathom it, not to mention imposes absurd role playing restrictions.  Under such a system, a paladin who voluntarily committed cold blooded murder could be atoned...but a paladin who kicked an ogre in the groin has committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the Gods/the universe/whatever and can never be atoned...which also renders the player's character forever and irrevocably all but useless mechanically.

And not only does this not make sense, it is provably untrue.  I will directly quote Complete Scoundrel's grey guard prestige class:

"Dishonorable acts still cause you to lose both grey guard and paladin class features until you atone".

STILL CAUSE, UNTIL YOU ATONE.  A direct statement that a normal paladin who was not a grey guard could atone for dishonorable acts and get their abilities back.

"Thus, whenever you seek to atone for deeds that you willingly commit in the name of your faith but that break your code of conduct, a cleric casting an _atonement_ spell on your behalf does not spend 500 XP as is normally required."

Another direct statement that a paladin can receive an atonement spell to get back their class features after breaking the code of conduct.

Absent that reading of the atonement spell, my point stands that "misdeeds" must be an umbrella term that includes violations of the code of conduct aside from evil acts, which means that the 500 XP penalty being dependent on whether the acts were willing or not applies to code of conduct violations, which means that "gross violation" must not mean "willing violation" and that the possibility of minor intentional violations that do not cause a paladin to fall must exist.  The chain of logic holds.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> define reliable, if Cedric does not meet your definition.



Someone I can rely on. I don't find this to be the case unless I'm willing to do things his way. That's reliable some of the time, but not much of the time (especially since he's bucking tradition and conventions).


Aurondarklord said:


> What do you mean that when the head cleric tried to change things, "Cedric paid for it"?  I don't understand the phrasing, and nothing suggests Cedric was directly involved in those events.



Boy did I mess that up. I meant the Cleric paid for it. I'm sure that the Cleric tried to get Cedric in line, first, and Cedric certainly bucked against it. 


Aurondarklord said:


> You seem to be acting as though Cedric himself did something to this guy or somehow was personally responsible for taking away his powers.



No, I'm saying he blew off what the elder of his church said. He doesn't take "you need to act this way" from basically anyone. That's "resents authority" on a rather massive scale. He doesn't mind working with them, but he seems to fight against getting told what to do from anyone.


Aurondarklord said:


> Now, a huge amount of your arguments boil down to "Cedric lives the way he chooses, against the doctrines of his church, and tells off anyone who says otherwise", but this is just not true in the fiction as it's presented.



I disagree (though, again, the fiction slowly warped more in favor of Cedric the more it dragged on). The church obviously teaches people how to live, and those members seem to come to the same conclusions. And, again, you're arguing what his god will take away, not the churches teachings (though Shilsen did try to make it impossible to argue when he decided the church didn't have any teachings one way or the other on stuff). And I don't believe a god grants Paladinhood, so that doesn't mean much to me.

There's a reason that people of the church act a certain way, and why Father 
Shikuna is so weary when he needs to explain it again; this is nowhere near the first time people have had a problem with Cedric. He's the outlier. He's not accepting tradition, or being told what to do, and he's going to live his life, and people can accept it or get lost. He doesn't care if you don't approve, what you think of him, or if you get upset.


Aurondarklord said:


> a paladin throwing a heretic out of his religion, and that high priest, objective fact, WAS A HERETIC.



Yes, Shilsen stripped his powers away when the priest moved against Cedric. I mean, up to this point he's had his powers, teaching against Cedric using these powers, and he's fine. The church still apparently strongly leans that way (indicated by the Father's weariness), but no, it doesn't matter, the old head priest moved against Cedric, so he loses all of his powers. To call him a heretic is nearly nonsensical.


Aurondarklord said:


> Cedric does not "try to make the code more flexible", he just knows how flexible the code really is.



Can you explain to me what flexibility is, then? He's willing to bend in ways that most others won't. He accepts things that people in his position don't. He takes a strict code and pushes it as far as he can (but never breaks it). He's all about flexibility.


Aurondarklord said:


> Cedric does not live in an entirely new way against the teachings of his church, he just knows what those teachings actually are, and that they're not as strict as some people blindly assume, etc.



No, he knows what his god wants more (in the fiction). The church obviously had a problem with it. Members of the church do, and they're not all stripped of their power. The younger Paladin didn't lose his power for looking down on Cedric, though the high priest did. 

Cedric knows the Code well enough that his god (in this fiction) protects him. That's fine, sure. Cedric is a badass that can really do no wrong; that's also fine for a Paladin. It's part of the archetype, really. But Cedric can do it even though everyone disagrees. That's the point. It's not "there's an order of Cedric's out there." No, the point is that he bucks the system, the traditions. And that's defined as Chaotic.


Aurondarklord said:


> As for the descriptions of the alignments, dealing with the one line about how good people are expected and required to act...what requirement has Cedric broken?



Presumably an order from the high priest prior to him trying to change the laws to get Cedric to stop. Regardless, he's certainly gone against how he's "expected" to act.


Aurondarklord said:


> And aside from that one line...you're right, any of those three descriptions for the different good alignments could describe Cedric...



I agree. Aside from that one line, and the other two fit well (the Chaotic one very well). If he's exhibiting characteristics of Lawful and Chaotic deeds (and he is in my mind), and he fits the description of Neutral Good with no misses, Chaotic Good very well, and Lawful Good with one exception, then he's probably somewhere in the middle. Again, that makes me place him at Neutral with Chaotic tendencies. 


Aurondarklord said:


> You say you don't understand my reasoning for saying Cedric is lawful...so think about this....what's Batman's alignment?  Batman is a gruff, often foul-tempered curmudgeon, he acts entirely outside the law, and he is arguably mentally ill...and yet the comics depict him as a force of order in stark conflict to the chaos embodied by The Joker.  How can someone so seemingly chaotic embody order?  Because if you look past the veneer, Batman isn't chaotic at all, his mind, however damaged it may be is rigidly structured and meticulous, almost compulsive in his behavior, and he lives by an internally imposed by nevertheless incredibly stringent code of behavior that he absolutely will not violate in any circumstance ever.



Lawful doesn't comment on violence, and Lawful does not mean "following the law." I don't understand the comparison. Though if I took him through all the descriptions of the alignments, I think he might end up Neutral, too.


Aurondarklord said:


> Now...the most serious point, what you said about the atonement spell...you can't seriously believe that this was the intention of the designers



Again, the point of the thread is a comment on a Paladin by RAW. The RAW gets fuzzy because sometimes it needs interpretation (the "Honor" section of the code saying "and so forth", interpreting alignment, and the like), but this is not one of those times. In the spirit of the thread and its judgment of RAW, I'm sticking to my comment on Atonement and Paladins.


Aurondarklord said:


> Under such a system, a paladin who voluntarily committed cold blooded murder could be atoned



Maybe. If it breaks his Code of honor, too, he won't get his powers back.


Aurondarklord said:


> And not only does this not make sense, it is provably untrue.  I will directly quote Complete Scoundrel's grey guard prestige class:
> 
> "Dishonorable acts still cause you to lose both grey guard and paladin class features until you atone".



Two things on this. One, still not Core, which I've said it's what I'm dealing with (since that's the context of the Paladin class). Two, specific trumps general. That means that Paladins can only be Atoned for Evil acts, while Grey Guards have a looser restriction (since they aren't even mentioned by Atonement, it's covered in the class).


Aurondarklord said:


> A direct statement that a normal paladin who was not a grey guard could atone for dishonorable acts and get their abilities back.



Technically, the class says that Grey Guards can get their Paladin powers back. Not that a normal Paladin can. And we're out of the Core 3, too. The rules, in the Core 3, have specific rules for turning an Ex-Paladin back into a Paladin, and that only includes Atoning from Evil acts. I'll accept a source you site from the Core 3, or from errata, since the thread is about the Paladin's Code, and it seemingly meant Core (otherwise why not make him a Chaotic Good Paladin of Freedom and be done with it? Then he wouldn't be bucking the system).

I think we've just about run out. I'm definitely not going to convince you, and that's fine. I just don't feel any of my points have been adequately countered or disproven. I think it might be time to respectfully end the conversation, and I want to say thanks again for the civil discussion on it. You can take the last word if you want to, and happy gaming in the future. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> it seems to me that to reach the conclusion that a basic D&D class is inherently unplayable and disallowed by the rules in a basic D&D setting requires jumping through so many intellectual hoops that you can't seriously believe it was the designers intention.



I'm not saying that the paladin is inherently unplayable. I've said it causes difficulties if the gameworld doesn't vindicate the paladin's faith. Because the gameworld is very much in the hands of the participants, it's not that hard to make it work. I've run three long campaigns over the past 30-odd years. Every one of them has featured paladin PCs. And not a lot of drifiting from basic D&D assumptions has been required to make them work - you just have to disregard the alignment rules as written (in particular, the idea that they confer power on the GM to judge the player's playing of his/her PC).

I cetainly don't believe these difficulties were intended by the designers. I think the designers made mistakes. (Though things are also compounded by the fact that the class was designed in the mid-70s, whereas the Planescape cosmology into which you are trying to fit it was developed in the mid-90s.)

In particular, I don't think Gygax was a very good moral philospher, nor a particularly strong social theorist. And this shows in his alignment rules.



Aurondarklord said:


> Perhaps if your notion of what a paladin is requires being so divorced from the RAW, you should seriously consider if you and I, or for that matter you and the designers, are discussing the same class concept here



The class concept is present in the very name of the class: "paladin" ie "knightly or heroic champion". 

Central to the paladin class are such paradigms as Lancelot (before his fall), Galahad, Percival, Arthur, Aragorn etc. A player who is familiar with those characters, and who plays in accordance with their stories - chivalrous, gentle unless roused to anger, merciful, honest - should have not to think about the RAW content of the "code of honour" in order to comply with it, as the whole point of the code is to capture those characters.

There is a design tension inherent in AD&D that puts pressure on the paladin class - namely, the use of thoroughly modern concepts (like equality and human rights) to define the content of the Good and Lawful Good alignments. A GM who wants to can use that to screw over the player of a paladin - for example, by creating a situation in which a paladin must choose between loyalty to superior authority (say, a king) and equality between ruler and subject (say, if because of the kings taxes the peasants can't afford to rethatch their rooves, and therefore have to live in cheerless, damp houses). Of course the literary paladins were never confronted by this dilemma - peasants barely figure in the Arthurian romances, and the only peasants we come to know in LotR are the Hobbits, and purely by authorial fiat these have the living standards of mid-nineteenth century English folk despite having the apparent productive power of their thirteenth-century analogues.

The game has no inbuilt solution for reconciling the modernity of its definitions of its key moral concepts, with the romantic pre-modernity of the paladin archetype.

This is why I said, upthread, that there are two solutions to running a paladin in a more-or-less traditional D&D game. Either the GM plays along, and doesn't confront the player of the paladin with these sorts of dilemmas, which means that the above sort of problem doesn't occur - the players never encounter oppressed peasants (as opposed to proud yeomen under threat from orcs!), the orcs never surrender (and hence the issue of mercy doesn't have to be adjudicated), the bad guys never threaten to kill 10 innocents unless tha paladin himself commits murder (so the puzzles of non-romantic consequentialist morality don't have to be dealt with), etc. Roughly speaking, this is the world of Dragonlance or, as best I have a general impression of it, the Forgotten Realms.

In this sort of play, the paladin's loyalty and faith is vindicated by default, because nothing ever happen to challenge it. The threats that the paladin confronts, like marauding orcs or haunting undead, don't threaten his/her faith but confirm it. I think that, when the paladin was first introduced into the game, this was the default approach to play.

For some, though, this approach is a bit saccharine or polyanna-ish. (Though in my view it need not be. There are flaws to LotR, but I think Moorcock is unfair when he labels it "Epic Pooh".) They want something more morally or socially gritty (eg the Seven Samurai, or Hero). In this case, I think some drifting is required - namely, the GM's adjudication of alignment has to be abandoned, and the the player has to be given latitude to decide what his/her PC's calling demans, and what counts as permissible or impermissible. Given the obvious tensions between modernity and romance that I've outlined above, it is trivial for the GM to raise dilemmas should s/he want to. But it strikes me as completely pointless to raise them and then expect the player of the paladin to guess what is (in the GM's view) the correct answer. It also strikes me as pointless to raise them, expect the moral answer to be clear, and have the real challenge be a procedural one of how to achieve that answer - it is very easy for the GM to generate procedural challenges for the players of an RPG without throwing in the danger of a paladin's fall from grace.

If you're going to raise moral dilemmas, do it for real and let the player make the call! Let the player decide whether the gameworld vindicates the paladin's faith, or does not (in which case the paladin falls).

Planescape complicates things, because inherent to Planescape is the throwing up of dilemmas that are at one-and-the-same-time both extremely stylised and even artificial (compare the moral problem of poverty with the moral "problem" of an angel and a devil drinking together at a tavern in Sigil) yet, because of Planescape's infusion of everything with alignment significance, bear extremely heavily on a paladin's code per the RAW (a paladin presumably can't joint the pair for a drink, because of the prohibition on fraternisig with the evil - but what is the point of that prohibition, if an angel is permitted to violate it?!). Planescape makes the paladin's code look like trainer wheels, or like a rule that applies to the unitiated ("berks") but that the wise can transcend in pursuit of higher, more mysterious ends.

This is the cyncial, nihilistic attitude in Planescape that I mentioned earlier.

I can see a couple of possible responses. One is a sort of gnostic response - the person of faith, upon being initiated into the true mysteries, transcends earlier limitations. This sort of approach doesn't really have room for a paladin class, however, because adherence to the code is a sign of failure (failure to transcend) rather than of success. It suits a certain approach to the monk class, however.

The second sort of response is one that I've seen played out in my game, though in a slightly less relativistic context than Planescape - but it was still a cosmology in which gods and devils had entered into secret pacts to preserve hidden features of creation to which the ordinary people were not privy, and for which the interests of ordinary people, plus some heroic lesser divinities also, were being sacrificed. This is the response of the paladin standing on his/her virtue, re-affirming the values for which s/he stands, and therefore taking on the nihilism and cynicism of the heavens, and forcing them to recognise the proper demands of morality and virtue.

But this also requires the GM to let go of the reins of alignment, and let the player take the lead in deciding what morality and the code requires.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> The Atonement spell specifically talks about bringing a Paladin back. This can only be done if the Paladin lost their class features due to committing an Evil act





Aurondarklord said:


> you can't seriously believe that this was the intention of the designers, to say the a paladin can be atoned for an evil act, but not for breaking the code?  Admittedly, the way it's written is oddly worded, but to draw the conclusion you've drawn would require a system of morals exists in the game world so backwards I can hardly fathom it, not to mention imposes absurd role playing restrictions.  Under such a system, a paladin who voluntarily committed cold blooded murder could be atoned...but a paladin who kicked an ogre in the groin has committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the Gods/the universe/whatever and can never be atoned...which also renders the player's character forever and irrevocably all but useless mechanically.



I am strongly with Aurondarklord on this one. It strikes me as an obvious error of drafting.

This sort of error occurs in statutority drafting from time to time, and statutes are drafted with far more care, by much higher-paid professionals!, than game rules texts. It's unrealistic to expect game rules to be drafted to such precision that no slippage between obvious intention and words used will ever occur.

There is no rationale given, nor - as Aurondarklord points out - rationale _able_ to be given, for limiting Atonement to evil acts only.



Aurondarklord said:


> This suggests that an unwilling "gross violation" can occur, which suggests the intent of the designers was not to conflate "gross" with "intentional", so "gross" must have a different meaning



I agree with this too. The meaning of "gross" isn't "intentional" or "deliberate". It's "excessive" or "flagrant", as in "gross negligence" (which by definition can't be intentional!).

(I'm assuming that by "intentional" here we mean "intended by the paladin under a code-violating description" - for example, if the paladin hands someone a drink, not knowing that it is poisoned, and they drink it and die, we have an unintentional violation, because the paladin did intend the action under the description "handing them a drink" but not under the description "poisoning them". Nearly all code-violating behaviour is going to be intentional under _some_ description, unless the paladin is sleepwalking or has been dominated.)

What exactly counts as a gross violation would presumably have to be resolved between GM and player from time-to-time. A one-off kick in the groin, while in my view obviously dishonourable, doesn't strike me as grossly dishonourable. A pattern of such groin-kickings might be. Spitting in the face of the king would strike me as a gross violation, unless unintentional and excused via extremely non-culpable error!



Aurondarklord said:


> how respectful of authority does a paladin have to be?  If you don't accept the idea that a paladin can get away with minor intentional violations of the code without falling, must a paladin demonstrate absolute deference to every legitimate authority figure he encounters?  Would a paladin who made a wisecrack about the king to the other members of his adventuring party immediately fall just for a trivial joke?  That seems like an extraordinarily disproportionate punishment.



Here, on the other hand, I'm inclinded to disagree with you, and I think you're reading modern sensibilities back into the paladin archetype in a way that doesn't really work.

By coincidence yesterday, I was reading about the sedition trial of the poet William Blake. Blake was alleged to have said, during an altercation with a soldier who was billeted near his house, "Damn the King". Blake was acquitted because it couldn't be proved that he said the words - the soldier's testimony was contradicted by the testimony of other witnesses. Had the uttering of the words been proven than Blake would almost certainly have been found guilty and sent to prison for 3 months, perhaps whipped also. This is England in 1803/4. The standards for a paladin are at least as strict!

Look at Aragorn in LotR. He never mocks the steward, or the king. To a significant extent he refrains from judgement altogether, because he doesn't need to judge. There is no need to _judge_ Saruman or Sauron, for example - opposing their deeds is all that's required of him. (This is part of a paladin's humility. Note it is different if a paladin is also a justiciar or ruler, because then s/he has been vested with the authority to judge. But a paladin shouldn't feel the need to judge in the abstract.)

I don't know that a single wisecrack against the king should produce a fall, but it strikes me as more serious than a kick to the groin against a dangerous foe - because there is no excuse of the exingencies of the situation - and a step down an unhappy road for a paladin.


----------



## Greg K

I'm with JamesCourage. I don't see Cedric as Lawful Good for the reasons he stated. Cedric is not, to me, a Paladin.  A holy warrior (and, for this,  I am defining Holy Warrior to include the various non-evil Unearthed Arcana paladin variants, Green Ronin's Holy Warrior's Handbook, etc.), yes. A Paladin?

It  sounds like the player is one of the those players that wants the powers without being restricted by codes, church tenets and doctrines, etc.  That does not fly in the games that I run. In the games that I run, deities have tenets and doctrines (provide to the player up front) that  their clerics, paladins, and holy warriors (unholy warriors) are expected to follow. A player that does not want that can find another class or another table.

(as  Batman being a Paladin, that some people ask about, the answer depends on which version. Silver Age and the crappy Adam West show? Maybe. Original, Bronze Age and post Miller Year One?  No, I don't.)


----------



## Manbearcat

@pemerton

Can't xp but that is an absolutely excellent and thorough post.  The juxtaposition of the amoral, nihilistic nature of the Sigil setting to the implied Prime Material setting where Paladins presumably actually unflinchingly believe in and steadfastly carry out their code really knocks it out of the park.  

While you can play a Paladin whose faith is undone, and thus the ritualistic trappings of his code degraded, D&D's mechanics and its implied setting (along with its peripheral settings) does you no favors.  That is a recurring theme with many things D&D.  It is just about inevitable and could be well compared to comic books.  The longer a run by a particular comic book, the larger the numbers of authors and editors will imprint their vision upon the book.  The larger the numbers of authors and editors imprint their vision upon the book, the more incoherent the story becomes and the more inconsistent the characterizations and chronology.  Every creative venture follows that pathway.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> I am strongly with Aurondarklord on this one. It strikes me as an obvious error of drafting.



Again, we're talking in the context of RAW, and I'll accept any Core source or any errata. That was the question in the original post, and that's why I'm sticking to it. I'm not commenting on whether or not I agree with whether it's a mistake, or how'd I'd run it.


pemerton said:


> I agree with this too. The meaning of "gross" isn't "intentional" or "deliberate". It's "excessive" or "flagrant", as in "gross negligence" (which by definition can't be intentional!).



I actually quoted the first part of "gross negligence" when I explained my reasoning. From a very reputable source 
*Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. *
I took this to mean "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code, and not just any violation, regardless of intent. And I think that's a fair interpretation. As always, play what you like 

Edit: more definitions for discussion!
Another reputable source:
*gross negligence
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property.*
This interpretation might mean breaking the Code in any way that results in "a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety" would constitute "gross violation" of the Code. I could see that one. Again, as I've said twice, I could see a lighter interpretation than "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the Code, and may even use one, too. But I don't think mine in unfair.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> That is a recurring theme with many things D&D.  It is just about inevitable and could be well compared to comic books.  The longer a run by a particular comic book, the larger the numbers of authors and editors will imprint their vision upon the book.  The larger the numbers of authors and editors imprint their vision upon the book, the more incoherent the story becomes and the more inconsistent the characterizations and chronology.  Every creative venture follows that pathway.



Hmm - what does that tell us about traditional RPGing as such, which aspires to the long-running, multi-participant-authored campaign as its idea?

I think Planescape adds to this general tendency of ongoing story edifices to collapse under their own weight (vale, Claremont X-Men!), by being deliberately modernist or even post-modernist in its theory of value. Forum rules prevent me from expressing a view about the merits of that per se, but I would have thought any designer could see that that was going to upset the foundations of a class like the paladin!


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> Again, we're talking in the context of RAW, and I'll accept any Core source or any errata.



Given that judges, in the much higher stakes of real world legal disputes, sometimes have to make-do without "errata" - ie they have to make sense of legislation that has not been purged of drafting errors or oversights - than I think it is more than reasonable to expect the same of RPGers.

Which is to say, I am also talking about the RAW. I think you are misinterpreting those rules, by putting a literal interpretation on the use of "evil" in the Atonement spell description which that word was not intended to bear.



JamesonCourage said:


> I actually quoted the first part of "gross negligence" when I explained my reasoning.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property.



"Conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care" or "reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others" is not the same thing as intentionally harming others. A clear example would be a construction worker, high on a building site in an urban area, simply tossing a brick or a piece of steel piping over the side onto the street below. If that object were to land on someone and hurt or kill them, it would be highly arguable that the construction worker had been grossly negligent. But the construction worker has not intended to kill or hurt anyone. (What would be a possible instance of non-gross negligence producing the same harm?: the construction worker fails to adequately secure his/her pile of bricks or pipes, and one falls from the pile and lands on someone.)



JamesonCourage said:


> I took this to mean "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code



In the case of negligence, the duty is one of reasonable care - the avoidance of the risk of forseeable harm. Gross negligence is simply failing to meet that duty in a particularly bad way: namely, reckless disregard of the need to take reasonable care, or - to flip it around - taking flagrant risks in a reckless fashion.

A fat person is fat. A _grossly_ fat person is really, really fat. A negligent person is someone who fails to take care. A _grossly_ negligent person is someone who fails to take care really, really badly - like my brick-tossing construction worker above.

A paladin who acts dishonorably violates the code. A paladin who acts really dishonorably _grossly_ violates the code. I think talking about "conscious and voluntary disregard of the code" can be misleading, because it makes it seem like the paladin's mind should be on the code. But that is not what the code requiers. It requires, rather, that the paladin's mind be on those things that the code requires. The code is a statement of duty, but it is not itself the subject matter of the duty: the paladin's obgligation is to do certain things (like grant mercy) and refrain from others (like poisoning people).

So, if you want to phrase it in parallel to gross negligence, it would be "conscious or voluntary poisoning of someone", or "conscious or voluntary failure to grant quarter". But I don't know that that adds much, and I'm not sure it covers all the cases.

I emphasised, upthread, that it is important to think about the _description_ under which a person intended an action - because this goes to the person's belief about what s/he was doing, which in turn goes to what exactly it is that is "conscious and voluntary". The construction worker who, in my example, tosses a brick over the side and kills a pedestrian has intentionally performed an act (namely, the brick-tossing) that kills a person. But s/he has not intentionally killed a person, because what she intended to do was not to kill a person, but simply to toss a brick. (Contrast an assassin, who deliberately drops the brick on his/her victim.) The gross negligence consists in the fact that s/he ought to have had regard to the fact that falling bricks in urban areas can hurt pedestrians, but failed to do so.

It seems to me that a paladin who hands someone a poisoned drink, thinking it not poisoned, is less culpable than one who deliberately hands over a poisoned cup. My feeling is that the latter, but not the former, is a gross violation, because more dishonorable, and more dishonorable because the paladin _intended and desired_ to get the benefit of poisoning the person. She "consciously and voluntarily" poisoned another. Whereas the paladin who didn't know the cup was poisoned did not "consciously and voluntarily" poison anyone. She accidentally poisoned someone.

As I said upthread, one kick to the groin, in extremis, would almost certainly not count as a gross violation: the paladin has chosen dishonour over death, but not under that description: the immediate threat to which s/he was subject, not a conscious prioritising of life over honour, has motivated him/her. A repeated pattern of groin kickings, on the other hand, would be a different matter, because the paladin should be having regard to such things, after the fight at least, and a repeated pattern would suggest a readiness to prioritise life over honour that is wilful and therefore a gross and culpable violation.

My own view is that spitting in the face of the king, even when the paladin thought the face to belong to a peasant, could well count as a gross violation, because a paladin - cultivating the virtue of humility - should recognise that any pauper _could_ be the king in disguise, and hence that any face could be the face of the king, and hence not to be spat upon. While I could see some room for disagreement with that judgement, it's hard for me to conceive of a situation in which spitting in someone's face takes place in the same circumstances as a one-off emergency kick to the groin. This would be an instance in which the paladin commits a gross violation of the code, although the violating action - spitting in the face of the king - wasn't intended. I think this shows that the "conscious and voluntary" analysis has to be deployed with care (here the paladin is consciously and voluntarily taking a risk of violating the code, in circumstances where - given the demands of humility - that risk was not permissible).

(If someone took the view that humility was not itself a further paladin requirement, then they might reject the above analysis.)



JamesonCourage said:


> not just any violation, regardless of intent
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I could see a lighter interpretation than "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the Code, and may even use one, too. But I don't think mine in unfair.



The measure of "really dishonorably" isn't to do with the degree of intention behind the act - it's to do with (i) the degree of disregard of the demands of honour, and (ii) the severity of the consequences that result from that disregard. Nearly all breaches of the code will be intentional actions - the point is that, in many cases (like the accidental poisoning, or the impromptu groin-kick) they will not be "conscious and voluntary" breaches, because not intended under the requisite description. And in some other cases - like the face-spit - they will also not be "conscious and voluntary" breaches, but nevertheless gross violations because of the culpability in running the risk of breach.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> Given that judges, in the much higher stakes of real world legal disputes, sometimes have to make-do without "errata" - ie they have to make sense of legislation that has not been purged of drafting errors or oversights - than I think it is more than reasonable to expect the same of RPGers.
> 
> Which is to say, I am also talking about the RAW. I think you are misinterpreting those rules, by putting a literal interpretation on the use of "evil" in the Atonement spell description which that word was not intended to bear.



I think the word "evil" has a very specific meaning in the D&D universe, and the Paladin class specifically talks about it. And, this isn't something I'm worried about interpreting; again, I'm not talking about how I'd rule the spell. The context of the thread is "can this be played by the rules as written", and in that spirit, I approach the Atonement spell as well. I'm making my argument based on RAW, not on how I'd rule things.


pemerton said:


> "Conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care" or "reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others" is not the same thing as intentionally harming others.



I don't ever remember saying it was.


pemerton said:


> In the case of negligence, the duty is one of reasonable care - the avoidance of the risk of forseeable harm. Gross negligence is simply failing to meet that duty in a particularly bad way: namely, reckless disregard of the need to take reasonable care, or - to flip it around - taking flagrant risks in a reckless fashion.



Again, I told you why I made this call. I basically transported the phrase over from "gross negligence". It basically boiled down to intentional. If the Paladin intentionally breaks the Code (poisoning someone one purpose, for example), he'll lose his powers. If he accidentally poisons someone (hands them a poisoned drink that he doesn't know is poisoned), then he'll likely be very upset, but he won't lose his powers. And again, I think that's a fairly reasonable interpretation of the phrase.


pemerton said:


> A fat person is fat. A _grossly_ fat person is really, really fat. A negligent person is someone who fails to take care. A _grossly_ negligent person is someone who fails to take care really, really badly - like my brick-tossing construction worker above.



Right; the Paladin won't lose his powers for not testing all drinks he hands out for poison, for example. Even if there's an assassin around, and he knows it. It might potentially be careless, but it won't make him lose his powers. However, knowingly handing the poison over, lying, cheating, or the like will make him lose his powers.


pemerton said:


> So, if you want to phrase it in parallel to gross negligence, it would be "conscious or voluntary poisoning of someone", or "conscious or voluntary failure to grant quarter". But I don't know that that adds much, and I'm not sure it covers all the cases.



This is basically intention, but they summed it up by "gross violation". Which I'm fine with. It tells you not to intentionally break the Code, or you lose your powers. It doesn't add much to you, but the Lawful Good Paladin is my favorite archetype, including the code. It adds a lot to me.


pemerton said:


> It seems to me that a paladin who hands someone a poisoned drink, thinking it not poisoned, is less culpable than one who deliberately hands over a poisoned cup. My feeling is that the latter, but not the former, is a gross violation, because more dishonorable, and more dishonorable because the paladin _intended and desired_ to get the benefit of poisoning the person.



I agree? In the former, he didn't actually consciously or voluntarily disregard the Code, and in the latter he did. I think you're arguing with me while saying the same thing now? I'm not sure anymore.


pemerton said:


> As I said upthread, one kick to the groin, in extremis, would almost certainly not count as a gross violation



Hmm, but we still disagree here. My interpretation of "gross violation" as "conscious and voluntary disregard" for the Code certainly seems to apply here. He knows the Code, and he disregarded it voluntarily. Accidentally handing poison off is entirely different.


pemerton said:


> The measure of "really dishonorably" isn't to do with the degree of intention behind the act - it's to do with (i) the degree of disregard of the demands of honour, and (ii) the severity of the consequences that result from that disregard. Nearly all breaches of the code will be intentional actions - the point is that, in many cases (like the accidental poisoning, or the impromptu groin-kick) they will not be "conscious and voluntary" breaches, because not intended under the requisite description. And in some other cases - like the face-spit - they will also not be "conscious and voluntary" breaches, but nevertheless gross violations because of the culpability in running the risk of breach.



I disagree with the groin kick not being "conscious and voluntary". That's under the Paladin's control, and it was his choice. The accidental poisoning is obviously not him voluntarily disregarding the Code, and wouldn't make him fall, in my opinion. Same for accidentally disrespecting authority. But I think my take actually makes it easier on the player: you know the rules, and you can make mistakes, just don't cross these lines on purpose. But, again, that's my view. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care" or "reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others" is not the same thing as intentionally harming others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ever remember saying it was.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I basically transported the phrase over from "gross negligence". It basically boiled down to intentional.
Click to expand...


"Gross negligence" does not boil down to intentional. It boils down to degree of disregard to the risks of harming others that one creates. It's about culpability.

And I don't think that "gross violation of the code" boils down to intention either. It boils down to degree of disregard for the courtesy, honour etc due to others. It's about culpability too. In the case of the paladin's code intention is one dimension of culpability, but not the only one and not always the determinative one.

In the case of negligence, culpability can be seen as a function of the degree of risk (severity of harm, likelihood of its realisation) and the degree of knowledge of it (or the degree of culpability for ignorance). It's not about intention to cause those risks, nor about desiring to cause those risks (whether or not you meant to hurt someone, or even whether or not you meant to create a risk, is irrelevent to whether or not you acted with gross negligence), nor about whether the negligent action was istelf voluntary or involuntary.

That's why throwing a brick from a building is grossly negligent (high risk, high degree of knowledge), but failing to adequately anchor your pile of bricks may not be (lower risk), especialy if the reason for the inadequate anchor is that there is a chance, unknown to you, that birds perching on your bricks will dislodge your anchor (lower risk again, and lower degree of knowledge in a field where ignorance may be excusable - maybe they're a newly introduced species of bird). That's also why it won't be a defence to an accusation of gross negligence that you had a look and thought no one was down below - your gross negligence isn't imputed based on your desire or otherwise to scone people with your brick, but upon your duty to have regard to the sorts of risk that brick-dropping creates.

In the case of violations of the code, culpability seems a function of knowledge of the circumstances (is the cup poisoned) plus conformity of the behaviour with the demands of the code (passing someone a drink is polite, spitting in their face is not) plus having regard to the implications of the code (loyalty and humility should make you aware that any apparent pauper may be the prince in disguise) plus the force of external circumstance (an impromptu groin kick is clearly a violation, but if a one-off response in extremis strikes me as reasonably low on the culpability scale - in that context, it's simply not all that contemptuous).


----------



## Aurondarklord

JamesonCourage, As for reliability...a certain degree of "my way or the highway" is inherently part of how paladins are.  If you refuse to do things his way, the code bars him from being able to help you.  Cedric is no different, he just has a different "my way" than perhaps the stereotypical paladin.  When I think of someone unreliable, I generally picture a person who promises to pay the rent every month and then half the time comes up short with an excuse how he'll get it to you friday...or next friday.  I picture a dad who promises he'll be there for his kid's birthday, then suddenly a business trip comes up at the last second...again.  I picture someone whose opinions and attitudes constantly change or who can't be counted on to keep his word or be there when he's needed.  Cedric can be relied upon...just not always to do what YOU might want him to do.

See, you're reading between the lines with this high priest thing...you're ASSUMING that the high priest butted heads with Cedric, and that Cedric bucked his authority.  This was never discussed in the fiction.  The fiction merely says that he tried to change the tenets and lost his powers for it.  And trying to change the tenets is heresy and makes that high priest inherently an illegitimate authority figure Cedric need not obey.

You call my use of the word heretic nonsensical, but it is correct.  First definition of "heresy" on the merriam-webster online dictionary:

"adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma"

Wikipedia explanation of formal heresy in the Catholic Church:

"willful and persistence adherence to an error in matters of faith and is a grave sin and produces excommunication."

Church dogma for the faith of the High Lord is the tenets as currently written.  This high priest, who adheres to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma, namely a stricter idea of what the tenets should be, tried to change them, willfully and persistently adhering to his erroneous beliefs over existing dogma.  That is literally the definition of heresy, and makes him without any doubt a heretic.

Now, the impression I get from what Shilsen presented in his fiction is that Cedric follows a fairly liberal religion that worships an equally liberal deity.  The tenets, the stated dogma of his faith, encourage moral behavior and moderation in personal indulgences, but nowhere forbid such indulgences outright, and wise and learned members of the faith, like Father Shikuna, are fully aware of this, while a relatively new, young member like Magnus is still a bit green around the gills, coming into his paladinhood with his own preconceptions of righteousness and what "ought to" be expected of one, and interprets the tenets through that filter.  And every religion has this to some degree, different members of the faith who interpret dogma slightly differently, reading into it through their own experiences and viewpoints.  More permissive faiths also tend to suffer from the occasional well intentioned moral extremist with a stick up his rear, who decides he's going to "reform" a faith he sees as being decadent or corrupted to make it live up to his much higher moral expectations, and the high priest who lost his powers seems to be an example of such a person.

The game world as presented by Shilsen repeatedly and visibly vindicates Cedric's interpretation of his faith and what is expected of him.  In that light, it's not that Cedric resents being told what to do or bucks authority in general, so much as Cedric refuses to alter his faith to suit the opinions of people who are visibly and provably WRONG about what is expected of him.  All he has to do to make sure he's right, and thus following the legitimate authority of his deity and the correct dogma of his church, is open his bible and read the tenets.

Of course, you don't believe that a God grants paladinhood, so you seem to believe that cuts the deity himself out of the authority power structure entirely.  That a paladin is answerable to the abstract nature of his alignment, and to the church...but not to a deity in the middle.  This doesn't make much sense to me, and I think to some degree you're trying to cut the High Lord out of the equation because he obviously supports Cedric and you don't want to give Cedric an excuse to buck the church and stay lawful.  Now, according to the SRD entry on divine spells "The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells.".  DIVINE forces, according to every online dictionary I can google, "divine" means relating to or proceeding from God or a God...of course the SRD also refers to "deities OR divine forces" when explaining where clerics get their powers, which seems to suggest they're something different, so I'm a little confused as to developer intention and I can kinda see where your idea that the paladin does not directly get his powers from his deity is coming from.  But there's enough room for interpretation that I figure individual players can choose and a paladin can get power from either a God or an ideal, however they and their DM choose to do it, and still be correct under the RAW, and the way the fiction is written, it very clearly seems to assume that Cedric follows a deity and gets his powers from that deity.

As for what I define as flexibility....living by a code, even if you bend that code a bit, is inherently inflexible.  A character who values flexibility would not want to take a class that has a code to begin with, so he'd have the maximum flexibility of being able to do whatever he deems appropriate without having to follow a code at all.

Now, RAW=/= "core 3", RAW is all the books, everything in 3.x published by wizards of the coast and not third party companies, and in a sense, later books CAN ACT AS errata for the core 3, because in many cases they attempt to clarify or expand on rules left ambiguous within the core 3, and in this case, the grey guard class does so by talking about the looser restrictions a grey guard has contrasted against what is "normal" for a paladin, by spelling out the difference and saying how atonement would normally work for a paladin vs how it works for a grey guard, and it specifically says that a paladin can normally atone for COC violations at 500xp penalty to the caster, whereas the advantage a grey guard has is not that they are able to atone, but that they don't have to worry about that penalty.

As for the question of why Shilsen wouldn't just use the paladin of freedom or holy liberator or something if he wasn't exclusively talking about the core 3 books....because doing so would defeat the purpose of the intellectual exercise.  The entire point is to present Cedric specifically as a paladin and determine whether he works.  Putting him into a different class and archetype makes that meaningless.

Pemerton....that's a very thought provoking post you lay out, and I think it lays out a few good points,

First of all, I believe the paladin's code has to be interpreted through the lens of the setting, to reconcile the modern audience for which D&D is written with the romantic archetype.  Because you're right, the paladin can't exist to constantly rail against the system of monarchy and the inequality between ruler and ruled in a medieval fantasy setting, that's what the holy liberator is for.  You have to determine what the values and ideals of your setting are, how your cosmology works, and thus what the obligations of a paladin are based on that.  A paladin in a gritty realistic medieval simulation type game, a paladin in a heroic romance game, and a paladin in a modern people in renfaire costumes game are gonna stand for different things and behave differently.  And part of that is tied to the social contract between players and DMs, the duty of the DM to design a world that works for the kind of game the players want, and the duty of the players to discuss what's expected of their characters in the presented setting with the DM and make sure they fit.

Of course a DM can be a jerk and present a paladin player an endless series of sadistic moral choices that either have no right answer or require the player to be able to read the DM's mind or just guess, and in so doing make the paladin class all but unplayable.  But I don't see that as a material point because it's always the case for anybody.  The fact that the DM can screw you over if he chooses to goes without saying, and applies no matter what class you're playing.  But I do believe that an experienced and skillful DM who has done a good job of conveying how the moral framework of his setting works to his players can present moral dilemmas to a paladin in an interesting way without simply letting the player decide whatever they want, by using the moral dilemma to create good role play opportunities, make the player get out of his head and into character and respond not as a modern 21st century American would think, but as his character would think and be conditioned to think by the framework of the setting.

As for planescape...I definitely agree that to play a paladin in planescape, you have to sit down and talk to your DM about exactly what constitutes breaking the code by fraternizing with evil, because at some point, you're gonna have non-combat encounters with evil outsiders in Sigil and the like.  Now, I don't see planescape so much as cynical or nihilistic as...a bit old testamenty, sort of like the story of Job where God and the Devil make a bet on human nature, the battle between good and evil is very real, but it's more complicated, more subtle, more of a cold war than the knock-down drag-out brawl of forgotten realms or greyhawk, and as an inherent part of that, the paladin has to have more freedom to solve problems by means other than violence when he encounters evil beings.

However, and I think this goes for any setting, unless you're playing at a pure hack-and-slash table, you have to interpret the prohibition against associating with evil to mean things more like "a paladin can't be in a party with evil characters", "a paladin can't have a succubus girlfriend", etc, not that the paladin will immediately fall if he so much as exchanges words with an evil character that aren't "repent or die".  A paladin has to be able to engage in diplomacy with evil beings, for example, to advocate for the interests of good at the cosmic bargaining table, and if treaties between the cosmic powers exist, following them is part of respecting legitimate authority.

As for the degree to which the world has to vindicate the paladin's faith, I think what you're asking for to some degree defeats the purpose of D&D.  If the world is stacked from the outset in such a way that good will always ultimately triumph simply because it's good, then there's no tension, the actions of the player characters don't matter, players know how the story ends before it even begins, and it's impossible to present a moral dilemma anyway, because the answer is always obvious.  I see no problem with the paladin in a world which doesn't have an inbuilt guarantee like that, even a world, like the one Cedric lives in, where he's a speck in the overall cosmic scheme of things, and he knows it, but he's trying to do what he can in what relatively small ways he can.  I don't see this as a failure to vindicate the paladin's faith, I see it as requiring the paladin to HAVE faith, faith being defined as dedicated belief in the ABSENCE of certainty.  The paladin does the right thing because he knows it's right, not because he knows he'll win.  And he inspires others to do the same, in the hope, even if it's a slim hope, that if he can make enough good men stand up for what's right, and they in turn inspire others, eventually the tide CAN turn in good's favor, even if doing so requires constant work and constant vigilance because if good slips, it can fail in a world where evil has a real chance to win.

Also, I never said Batman was a paladin, I said he can be interpreted as lawful.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> "Gross negligence" does not boil down to intentional. It boils down to degree of disregard to the risks of harming others that one creates. It's about culpability.



It's basically disregard of care _on purpose_. Serving spoiled food that you know is spoiled. Knowingly throwing a brick down, rather than securing them poorly and accidentally knocking one off. I see the following wording on "gross negligence":

*An indifference to, and a blatant violation of* 
This would seem to back up my "you know the Paladin Code, and you consciously disregard it" take to some extent.

*Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care*
Again, the conscious and voluntary disregard of the Code.

*carelessness in reckless disregard*
Again, it's conscious disregard (which I think apply to the Code, rather than negligence, which I think you're applying inappropriately to the Code).

You don't have to agree, and that's cool, but I'm steering this back to the Paladin's Code and the meaning of "gross"; I'm not particularly interested in going over "gross negligence" with you. If you think it's integral to this conversation to proceed, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on, because to me, it's a tangent. As always, play what you like


----------



## JamesonCourage

Aurondarklord said:


> Of course, you don't believe that a God grants paladinhood, so you seem to believe that cuts the deity himself out of the authority power structure entirely.  That a paladin is answerable to the abstract nature of his alignment, and to the church...but not to a deity in the middle.  This doesn't make much sense to me, and I think to some degree you're trying to cut the High Lord out of the equation because he obviously supports Cedric and you don't want to give Cedric an excuse to buck the church and stay lawful.



Hey, I know I said I'd let you get the last word, and I'm planning to let you have it after this, but I wanted to say that I'm disappointed that you don't think I'm arguing in good faith. Here's a quote from myself (from May 18th, almost sixth months ago):


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Just chiming in to say that I've always seen the Paladin as Lawful Good by necessity. That is, their code is so inherently tied to Good that the very fabric of Goodness itself gifts them their supernatural abilities. Yes, they may follow a god, but all of that falls short of their unwavering commitment to Good, not by any god. This is what separates them from a Cleric, in design. A Cleric is the holy warrior of a god, while a Paladin is chosen by the fabric of Good itself to champion it, as long as he follows a specific code.



Play what you like.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

I'll grant that the original intent was to evaluate the paladin by RAW, but the problem with RAW is that it is still up for interpretation and quite often becomes "Rules As I Interpret Them, And You Can't Prove Me Wrong So There!"  Thankfully the latter part of that hasn't really happened in this thread, but acknowledging that that can be the case raises another question:

Is it in the better interests of the concept and game to hold ourselves to RAW despite its failings?  If the intent was to get an objective view concerning this, is it even possible?  Is it a worthwhile pursuit to stick to the request of sticking to RAW on this, or can be go beyond that?

Shilsen, if you're still poking around here, could you chime in on this?


----------



## Aurondarklord

I never said you aren't arguing in good faith JamesonCourage, I just think you're arguing from a framework that would better support your position.  You want things to be a certain way, and in this case, for them to be that way you need to minimize the relevance of Gods to the questions we're dealing with.  So you take that interpretation.  I just think that if we're discussing the RAW, you have to acknowledge that it provides valid options for working both with and without Gods in divine magic classes, and Shilsen clearly is heavily leaning towards Gods.  I think you're wrong, or at least focusing exclusively on one of two valid options, I don't think you're doing so willfully or in bad faith, I just don't think you seem to like the idea of paladins getting a get out of jail free card from the "my god says so" excuse so you don't interpret things that way.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> It's basically disregard of care _on purpose_.



What can I say - that's not the legal meaning, and I don't find it very helpful as a gloss on "gross negligence". "Grossness" pertains to degree of culpability, and I think it has the same meaning in "gross violation" - that means "very culpable" violation.

I think degree of intent is probably a part of that, though there could perhaps be a de minimis exemption for even very deliberate violations.

But degree of carelessness, and external exigencies, would also normally be seen to pertain to culpability also.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> I do believe that an experienced and skillful DM who has done a good job of conveying how the moral framework of his setting works to his players can present moral dilemmas to a paladin in an interesting way without simply letting the player decide whatever they want, by using the moral dilemma to create good role play opportunities, make the player get out of his head and into character and respond not as a modern 21st century American would think, but as his character would think and be conditioned to think by the framework of the setting.



This is very removed from how I like to GM and how I like to play, but it gives me a good idea of where you're coming from. I agree that it's a possibility that I did not allow for in my earlier posts.



Aurondarklord said:


> I don't see planescape so much as cynical or nihilistic as...a bit old testamenty, sort of like the story of Job where God and the Devil make a bet on human nature, the battle between good and evil is very real, but it's more complicated, more subtle, more of a cold war than the knock-down drag-out brawl of forgotten realms or greyhawk, and as an inherent part of that, the paladin has to have more freedom to solve problems by means other than violence when he encounters evil beings.



OK. My feeling is that, in that situation, a paladin can still look quite naive. But I think I can see ways of making it work. The paladin has to be "in on the joke" with the powers of good.



Aurondarklord said:


> As for the degree to which the world has to vindicate the paladin's faith, I think what you're asking for to some degree defeats the purpose of D&D.  If the world is stacked from the outset in such a way that good will always ultimately triumph simply because it's good, then there's no tension, the actions of the player characters don't matter, players know how the story ends before it even begins, and it's impossible to present a moral dilemma anyway, because the answer is always obvious.



But I don't agree on this one. The world can vindicate the paladin's faith without the paladin necessarily winning in a procedural sense. For example, the paladin might die and all s/he stood for fail (as Aragorn worries may happen in LotR), but that wouldn't mean that the world failed to vindicate the paladin's faith - the paladin him-/herself didn't come to harm, even in death, because s/he died fighting righteously!

Contrast 1984 - where there is _always_ a point at which you break, and your previous resistance becomes meaningless. This is a world that fails to vindicate faith. I don't think that sort of world has the conceptual room for paladins - they're deluded, the most foolish, not the best and wisest.

My own preferred approach, which you've probably gathered by now, is to let the players debate over what the world is like by their own play of their PCs. Their choices, plus the action resolution mechanics as adjudicated by the GM, will provide the answer. The paladin I described upthread, who stood up to the cynical machinations of the gods in the name of humanity and decency, was prepared to undergo eternal suffering in order to do the right thing - but by doing so would have won, not lost. ("The good person can't be harmed!") Though the campaign itself would have come to an end. (As it happens, though, the PCs found a way to create a simulacrum of the paladin to undergo the suffering instead. So he was able to retire to his temple/monastery and train new generations of warrior-monks.)

In a diffrent campaign the arc of one PC (a warlock, not a paladin) did take a grimmer direction. He became addicted to a magic-enhancing drug; spent all his money paying for the drug, and lost his house; when his summoner friend decided to change sides in the key battle of the campaign, the warlock swapped sides too in exchange for the promise of his home back and a magistracy in his hometown once it was conquered; and finally, having run out of the drug, he ended up in withdrawal-shakes on a mission while resting to regain spells.

He was rescued by a valley elf enchanter, who became his girlfriend. He got off the drugs. Having been born into slavery himself and having bought his own freedom (that happened prior to play, as part of the PC backstory), he used his magistracy to campaign with some success for the end of slavery in the kingdom. Then his valley elf girlfried was killed on a mission, when the summoner lost control of one of his demons. The warlock fell back into addiction (to wine, this time) and died in a TPK before he had mustered the resource to get the elf resurrected.

My reason for these actual play examples is to try to illustrate what I mean when I talk about "letting the players choose": the GM throws the situation in the path of the PC, but it is the play of the game that determines the moral character of the world (Is it really one in which the good person can't be harmed?), rather than the GM deciding before play starts on "the moral framework of his setting."


----------



## Mallus

pemerton said:


> I also want to conjure up [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]! As a Cedric-sympathiser, presumably Mallus thinks that the paladin archetype can have cogency outside the romantic, providential framework that I describe.



Hello pem! Sorry for the delay, traffic in the virtual aether.

You've nailed the central problem with the paladin; they're idealized, romantic Christian knights from one literary tradition unceremoniously plunked down in another, into D&D's hodgepodge of influences, which include prominent elements of pulp swords-and-sorcery a la Howard, revisionist S&S a la Moorcock, and the amoral far-future picaresques of Vance. 

So from the start, you've got the deck (of many things) stacked against the class; D&D's default implied setting strips them out of the moral universe in which they make sense. Worse, the game's original basic structure --kill or trick, loot, advance-- runs contrary to their high-flying ideals.

What's a DM to do? Either ban the class or cut them some slack. 

(sorry if this is pedestrian, I'm not up to referencing Kant this morning ).

So, proceeding from the assumption the paladin class is only playable as a somewhat... compromised version of Galahad, what should we do about Cedric?

What I found the most amusing about this thread was the number of posters who admitted Cedric was an interesting character, but wouldn't allow him, presumably because maintaining a strict interpretation of the paladin class _in theory_ was more important that having an interesting PC active in their campaigns. 

Interesting fictional characters (and their exploits) are _why_ I play/run RPGs. So PCs like Cedric are a godsend (pun intended!).

He's a cross between Patton and Martin Luther (with Luther's love of beer replaced by a love of hookers), dolled up in Galahad-drag. The story-telling potential there is considerable. Cedric represent an opportunity to insert a classic reformer's story into a campaign.  It makes a nice addition to the dungeon-delving and monster-slaying. What DM worth their polyhedrals would pass that up?

There's an unfortunate tendency in the paladin discourse towards making the class less interesting in play, both thematically and ludically (is that even a word?). 

For example, by forcing the paladin to, in a strict, literal sense, respect "all legitimate authority", you neatly remove the ability to tell a reformer's story. The paladin cannot oppose their unjust king, or their decadent church. To me, this is pointless, it robs the class of the kind of drama it's ideally suited for, as the paladin's authority is traditionally seen as coming from a divine, rather than temporal source, and shaking up the status quo is something they should be able, if not encouraged, to do. 

In Cedric case, it's clear the legitimate authorities might be _wrong_, and fun part is playing that out at the table, not predetermining it during the elevator-pitch phase of chargen. 

And what id Cedric opposed his churches practice of selling salvation, instead of their sexual mores? I wonder if the opposition to him would have been so strong? 

Switching gears... the idea that paladin's should follow the rigid strictures of tournament combat _while on the battlefield_ seems equally counter-productive. For starters, it's not how the class was originally conceived. AD&D paladin's were explicitly forbidden from using poison. But burning foes alive with Greek fire was a-okay. As were bows/crossbows. And, presumably pouring pots of boiling oil on enemies scaling the castle walls. And metal-clad knees to the groin... 

Some gamers go so far as to equate smart tactics with dishonor. This doesn't make sense in a game derived from wargames, where smart tactics are a central component of play (it's also not very historical, so far as I can tell). 

Giving players a script to follow, either in terms of their permitted interpretation of their PCs religion, or of their combat tactics (as Unearthed Arcana does explicitly for the cavalier and paladin) seem like the antithesis of good DM'ing. When I run a game, I'm interested in what the PCs do, not in what I'd do in their place.

And micromanaging PCs is not something I'd do for anyone, regardless of class. It does not lead to better gaming. 

I kinda reject the notion that a DM needs to specifically define their setting's moral universe in order to make paladins playable. From a dramatic standpoint, that's the least interesting approach. If I were to run a game with Cedric, I'd leave the question, "is he a reformer or heretic (or both)?" to be resolved during the course of the campaign. Again, that's where the entertainment lies.  Just getting players to color within my lines, so to speak, seems dreadfully boring. 

Full disclosure: I know the OP, shilsen, so that obviously colors my opinion, but it also means I can dismiss the idea he's a disruptive player, or that Cedric represents a power-gamer's attempt to 'get something for free' from the paladin class (every gamer should be so lucky as to have a shilsen in their campaign). 

Cedric's a thought experiment - is Cedric legal under the 3e RAW? Amusingly enough, despite my ongoing participation in this thread, that's the question I'm least interested in. It's the wrong question to ask. Unless adhering to rules-orthodoxy is the principle goal while gaming.

A final thought: D&D paladins are a lot like Jedi. Iconic fictional constructs whose moral systems don't bear scrutiny. It's best not to think too much about them...


----------



## Aurondarklord

Hmmm...."in on the joke" is not quite what I meant...I don't think planescape is inherently as cynical a setting as you make it out.  It certainly CAN BE, I mean, it's a product of the 90s, THE age of the dark and gritty anti-hero.  If you want to run planescape as a John Constantine-esque world where the great powers of good and evil are having a laugh at the expense of mortals, or playing some game with each other and using us as the pieces, you can do that, and the world can support it well.  And in fact, in such a world, a player can choose to have their paladin in on the joke...or to have their paladin on a quest to smack some sense into the corrupt and decadent Heavens and make them get back into the fight!

But planescape doesn't inherently HAVE TO be a world like that.  It works equally well as a setting where both good and evil have recognized that if they go to all out war, neither can win, they'll destroy the cosmos in the process of fighting over it and nobody wants that, so under the threat of mutually assured destruction, they've hammered out various agreements and exist in a state of cold war.  The powers of good are still just as good as they've ever been, but in their humility and devotion to protecting mortals, they deem the cost of defeating the powers of evil too great, and have taken these lesser measures instead.  And while the paladin may have to come off his high horse and occasionally deal with someone who makes his skin crawl, he can still pursue righteous ends and not look at all foolish or naive, so long as he does it in an intelligent way.

I will definitely agree that you can have a world so dark, so cynical, and so soul-crushing that a paladin just doesn't work as a concept, at least unless you're intentionally playing him as a deluded fool.  But I also don't think that the world need be so anvil-droppingly moralistic that a good person is impervious to harm simply because they're good for the paladin to work.  I think there can be a middle ground.  I think the paladin can work as an archetype in any world where good CAN win, not necessarily where it WILL win, or at least is impossible to harm by the romantic definition of harm.  I also, tying the conversation back to Sir Cedric, don't believe you have to play the archetype to play the class.  Cedric is definitely not the archetype, and that's not what Shilsen is asking, but rather whether the different archetype that Cedric embodies is also allowed under the specifically laid out rules of the class.

As for the broader question of the role of the DM...I think it depends on the group.  Sometimes you can give the players more freedom than others.  Some groups of players will take that freedom and run with it and create something great...other groups will end up with total chaos at the table and the players all mad at each other.  Sometimes the DM needs to act as the referee to make sure the world retains some degree of narrative integrity despite philosophical or personality differences among the players, and sometimes that forces the DM to wade into questions of how morality works in the setting.  Especially as you get to higher levels and the Gods and their agents are more likely to appear in person, because the DM will be the one running them.  I'm not saying the DM should be a tyrant who acts totally without player input and forces all their characters to think how he thinks, of course not, but sometimes he has to step in and make judgement calls.


----------



## pemerton

Mallus said:


> Hello pem! Sorry for the delay, traffic in the virtual aether.



Thanks for the reply. I'm really sorry I can't XP it.



Mallus said:


> What's a DM to do? Either ban the class or cut them some slack.



Or - like you suggest - drop the assumption that it is the GM's job to define and police ingame morality.



Mallus said:


> What I found the most amusing about this thread was the number of posters who admitted Cedric was an interesting character, but wouldn't allow him, presumably because maintaining a strict interpretation of the paladin class _in theory_ was more important that having an interesting PC active in their campaigns.
> 
> Interesting fictional characters (and their exploits) are _why_ I play/run RPGs.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There's an unfortunate tendency in the paladin discourse towards making the class less interesting in play, both thematically and ludically (is that even a word?).
> 
> For example, by forcing the paladin to, in a strict, literal sense, respect "all legitimate authority", you neatly remove the ability to tell a reformer's story. The paladin cannot oppose their unjust king, or their decadent church. To me, this is pointless, it robs the class of the kind of drama it's ideally suited for
> 
> <snip>
> 
> fun part is playing that out at the table, not predetermining it during the elevator-pitch phase of chargen.
> 
> <sip>
> 
> Giving players a script to follow, either in terms of their permitted interpretation of their PCs religion, or of their combat tactics (as Unearthed Arcana does explicitly for the cavalier and paladin) seem like the antithesis of good DM'ing. When I run a game, I'm interested in what the PCs do, not in what I'd do in their place.
> 
> And micromanaging PCs is not something I'd do for anyone, regardless of class. It does not lead to better gaming.
> 
> I kinda reject the notion that a DM needs to specifically define their setting's moral universe in order to make paladins playable. From a dramatic standpoint, that's the least interesting approach. If I were to run a game with Cedric, I'd leave the question, "is he a reformer or heretic (or both)?" to be resolved during the course of the campaign. Again, that's where the entertainment lies.  Just getting players to color within my lines, so to speak, seems dreadfully boring.



All this I agree with. I don't know if you read through any of the (long) recent posts on the thread, but in this one I described a paladin in my last camaign who rebelled against the heavens because they were engaged in cosmological double dealing which resulted in abandoning the innocent and the virtuous to an undeserved fate.

I wholeheartedly agree that the GM predetermining the moral parameters, then having the player colour between the lines, is pointless and boring.



Mallus said:


> I know the OP, shilsen, so that obviously colors my opinion, but it also means I can dismiss the idea he's a disruptive player, or that Cedric represents a power-gamer's attempt to 'get something for free' from the paladin class (every gamer should be so lucky as to have a shilsen in their campaign).
> 
> Cedric's a thought experiment - is Cedric legal under the 3e RAW? Amusingly enough, despite my ongoing participation in this thread, that's the question I'm least interested in. It's the wrong question to ask. Unless adhering to rules-orthodoxy is the principle goal while gaming.



This is interesting because it gives me a slightly different perspective on the issue (I haven't read the whole thread - ony the first page or two when it was originally posted, and the last few pages since it was necro-ed).

I've seen posts coming from the direction you describe, but your gloss on that direction has made it much clearer to me: the idea is that _if a player is free to shape his/her PC's own moral universe, than s/he is getting something for free_. As if part of the "discipline" of playing an RPG is, as a player, subordinating your own moral and aesthetic judgements to those of the GM. In my view a very strange perspective to come from, but I think you're right that it's there.

I find the whole idea of "unearned pleasure" in RPGing bizarre in and of itself, but this is a particularly bizarre instance of that general outlook. Particularly when you look at the intellectual and artistic effort in conjuring up interesting PCs, which is clearly greater than just turning up and playing an Aragorn clone, or otherwise colouring between the GM's lines.



Mallus said:


> the idea that paladin's should follow the rigid strictures of tournament combat _while on the battlefield_ seems equally counter-productive.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Some gamers go so far as to equate smart tactics with dishonor. This doesn't make sense in a game derived from wargames, where smart tactics are a central component of play (it's also not very historical, so far as I can tell).



This is the only bit where I have a slightly different perspective from yours. Because the game is a fiction and not a history, if a player wants to project tournament chivalry onto the battlefield that is in my view his/her prerogative. Depending on the game's combat resolution system this may or may not be a mechanically effective strategy (4e is reasonably forgiving in respect of it, GURPs I would suspect not so much), but in at least some systems mechanical effectiveness is not always crucial for a player achieving his/her objectives in the game (eg maybe there are Fate Points earned for playing to character even at mechanical cost or the cost of losing a scene - Burning Wheel is an example).

Anyway, thanks for a reply which was as thoughtful as I'd hoped for!


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> Hmmm...."in on the joke" is not quite what I meant...I don't think planescape is inherently as cynical a setting as you make it out.  It certainly CAN BE, I mean, it's a product of the 90s, THE age of the dark and gritty anti-hero.  If you want to run planescape as a John Constantine-esque world where the great powers of good and evil are having a laugh at the expense of mortals, or playing some game with each other and using us as the pieces, you can do that, and the world can support it well.  And in fact, in such a world, a player can choose to have their paladin in on the joke...or to have their paladin on a quest to smack some sense into the corrupt and decadent Heavens and make them get back into the fight!



When I talked about being in on the joke, I was thinking slightly differently - the forces of evil _think_ everyone is all friendly and on a par (drinking together in Sigil, gambling together over the fate of Job, etc), but the forces of good (and the paladin) know what the real story is, and that evil is on the losing side (and in fact has already lost - they just haven't noticed it yet). So I was envisaging the joke being one that good plays on evil by treating them as if they're tolerable.



Aurondarklord said:


> I'm not saying the DM should be a tyrant who acts totally without player input and forces all their characters to think how he thinks, of course not, but sometimes he has to step in and make judgement calls.



As you say, I think this depends a lot on group composition and experiences, preferred styles, etc.

When there are issues in my game about philosophical disagreements, I do step in as the GM to help conciliate, but at the metagame level - ie talking to people out of character and perhaps out of game - rather than via ingame devices like the voices of the gods.


----------



## Aurondarklord

But then what do you do if, for whatever reason, Heironeous has to appear in person in a given situation, and you have two different players at the table whose characters both worship him, but put forwards radically different notions of his dogma and expectations.  Merely by the fact that he appears and you're running him, you have to, at least to some degree, settle the question of what he stands for and why.  And while I know this whole question can be avoided simply by playing a setting where the Gods are aloof and don't personally involve themselves, that's not everyone's preference, especially at epic levels or in games that involve a lot of traveling the planes.

I also, once again, disagree that the inevitability of good's victory is necessary for a planescape paladin or any paladin.  It's certainly one way to do it, and a central concept of one particular archetype of paladin, but I don't see it as necessary FOR ALL CONCEIVABLE types of paladin.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> But then what do you do if, for whatever reason, Heironeous has to appear in person in a given situation, and you have two different players at the table whose characters both worship him, but put forwards radically different notions of his dogma and expectations.  Merely by the fact that he appears and you're running him, you have to, at least to some degree, settle the question of what he stands for and why.



Then you (as GM) have to play Heironeous. But it has to be open to the player (or players, if Heironeous differs from the view of both their PCs) to have their PC declare that Heironeous has become corrupted, and has turned his back on the virtues that he once espoused.


----------



## Aurondarklord

But then how do you explain that they continue to get class abilities and spells, ostensibly FROM Heironeous?  It just seems to me like the format of D&D has to be bent quite a lot if one wishes to insert the assumption of "the players can never be provably wrong about how the universe works".

Also, with regards to the question of the world vindicating the paladin's faith, and the paladin being required to be hopeful and believe in inevitable triumph, I present a passage from the book of exalted deeds, describing a heroic archetype they refer to as the "fated champion":

"Martyrdom is the inevitable doom of the fated champion.  She knows that her passion for righteous deeds will lead to her death, and so all she does is tinged with a melancholy fatalism.  At times, she might speak glowingly about the great reward that certainly awaits her and her companions in the celestial realms, but at other times she focuses on the inevitability of her doom.  Her heroism is undiminished by her certainty that it will cause her death, however, and she is capable of truly astonishing acts of valor performed with no regard for her own safety."

Aside from the use of a female pronoun, that sounds like a biographical description of Cedric's worldview.

The book of exalted deeds also provides a sample multiclass rogue/paladin who still uses rogue-like weapons, carries thieves tools, and can sneak attack, with no mention of these things endangering his paladinhood


----------



## S'mon

I guess I don't really have a good handle on what a valid 3e Paladin is; IME people still played 3e and even 4e Paladins much like 1e Paladins.

Certainly there is no question of powergaming through ignoring or twisting alignment & code restrictions; the 3e Paladin is a weak class anyway. It's not like the 1e situation where Ranger and Paladin alignment & code restrictions are meant to offset mechanical power advantages.

I guess my requirement for a Paladin is a degree of humility, I absolutely won't accept a Paladin PC as a Nietzschean value creator, or a player of one who declares himself entitled to define his own morality. The Paladin player who declares "Heironeus has become corrupt!" because the GM's view of Heironeus differs from that of the player, is almost certainly being a dick.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

S'mon said:


> I guess I don't really have a good handle on what a valid 3e Paladin is; IME people still played 3e and even 4e Paladins much like 1e Paladins.
> 
> Certainly there is no question of powergaming through ignoring or twisting alignment & code restrictions; the 3e Paladin is a weak class anyway. It's not like the 1e situation where Ranger and Paladin alignment & code restrictions are meant to offset mechanical power advantages.
> 
> I guess my requirement for a Paladin is a degree of humility, I absolutely won't accept a Paladin PC as a Nietzschean value creator, or a player of one who declares himself entitled to define his own morality. The Paladin player who declares "Heironeus has become corrupt!" because the GM's view of Heironeus differs from that of the player, is almost certainly being a dick.




3E is definitely noted as being horribly balanced, but I am under the opinion they did try to make the alignment restriction an offset to the perceived mechanical advantages.  Under any kind of decent scrutiny that of course is BS which is probably why they changed things in 4E.

As to the player who says Heironeous (or any other deity) is corrupt, I'd wager there is a subset of players that could do it seriously and have it be a part of the game without being jerks.  However, the setup for that would have to be such that the DM and players accepted and could perform to the level of the extra maturity involved in that level of roleplay since it is quite difficult to play a character that can accuse deities of being corrupt.  That's a truly massive can of philosophical worms being opened up and it'll only work for a very small percentage of players.  It really is a philosophical exercise more than anything else at that point and I can think of very few people who could do it seriously.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> I guess my requirement for a Paladin is a degree of humility



Agreed.



S'mon said:


> I absolutely won't accept a Paladin PC as a Nietzschean value creator



Agreed.



S'mon said:


> or a player of one who declares himself entitled to define his own morality.



Not agreed. The paladin has to be humble. The player is just another player at the table, who is entitled as the rest of the group to play a role in exploring moral issues.



S'mon said:


> The Paladin player who declares "Heironeus has become corrupt!" because the GM's view of Heironeus differs from that of the player, is almost certainly being a dick.



I've played with players whose PCs have questioned the morality of the gods who purport to direct them. It has nothing to do with being a dick. Nor with Neiztschean value creation (the Euthyphro explains why gods are beholden to morality, not creators of it, and Plato is hardly a Neiztschean value creator!).

I mean, the GM has to play humble NPCs, including clerics and paladins, and the GM gets to define the morality of those NPCs!



Jackinthegreen said:


> As to the player who says Heironeous (or any other deity) is corrupt, I'd wager there is a subset of players that could do it seriously and have it be a part of the game without being jerks.  However, the setup for that would have to be such that the DM and players accepted and could perform to the level of the extra maturity involved in that level of roleplay since it is quite difficult to play a character that can accuse deities of being corrupt.  That's a truly massive can of philosophical worms being opened up and it'll only work for a very small percentage of players.  It really is a philosophical exercise more than anything else at that point and I can think of very few people who could do it seriously.



My own experience has been that a wide range of players can play a serious game that puts moral commitment at the forefront, provided the GM steps back and doesn't pounce on their every move.

My own view is that the idea that the game will collapse into juvenile amoralism unless the GM polices it via alignment rules and heavy-handed roleplyaing of deities is no more valid than the idea that the game will generate a satisfactory and engaging story only if the GM maintains a heavy rein on the plot.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

pemerton said:


> My own view is that the idea that the game will collapse into juvenile amoralism unless the GM polices it via alignment rules and heavy-handed roleplyaing of deities is no more valid than the idea that the game will generate a satisfactory and engaging story only if the GM maintains a heavy rein on the plot.




What can I say, I'm a bit cynical when it comes to games and religion/philosophy butting heads.  I didn't say that a GM has to police it of course, but I do recommend everyone at the table know what they might be getting themselves into to avoid alienating those who aren't up for such discussion and storytelling.


----------



## pemerton

Jackinthegreen said:


> What can I say, I'm a bit cynical when it comes to games and religion/philosophy butting heads.  I didn't say that a GM has to police it of course, but I do recommend everyone at the table know what they might be getting themselves into to avoid alienating those who aren't up for such discussion and storytelling.



Fair enough.

In that case, my advice would be as per post 864 upthread: the GM plays along too, and doen't confront the paladin with the sorts of dilemmas that make moral enquiry necessary.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

pemerton said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> In that case, my advice would be as per post 864 upthread: the GM plays along too, and doen't confront the paladin with the sorts of dilemmas that make moral enquiry necessary.



Given how tired I am I guess I wasn't totally clear:  In a game where those situations are possible I feel it's important to let players know those questions can come up and to let them opt out if they don't feel comfortable with it.  If everyone agrees of course then there's the possibility and perhaps likelihood of confronting a highly religious character with those kinds of dilemmas.


----------



## pemerton

Jackinthegreen said:


> In a game where those situations are possible I feel it's important to let players know those questions can come up and to let them opt out if they don't feel comfortable with it.



I think we're agreeing on that. That's what I had in mind by the GM "playing along".

The sort of thing I don't like in a game is where (i) the player is assumed to have no power or responsibility in respect of moral matters, but (ii) the GM nevertheless confronts the paladin or cleric PC with moral dilemmas. Because in that situation, either the game becomes "guess the GM's moral opinion", which I'm not a big fan of, or the moral answer is obvious and the game becomes a purely procedural challenge of making sure that the religious PC can pull off the right solution. I like a procedural challenge as much as the next player, but don't feel the need to spice it up with the threat of losing your PC as a consequence of stuffing it up!


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> Not agreed. The paladin has to be humble. The player is just another player at the table, who is entitled as the rest of the group to play a role in exploring moral issues.
> 
> I've played with players whose PCs have questioned the morality of the gods who purport to direct them. It has nothing to do with being a dick. Nor with Neiztschean value creation (the Euthyphro explains why gods are beholden to morality, not creators of it, and Plato is hardly a Neiztschean value creator!).
> 
> I mean, the GM has to play humble NPCs, including clerics and paladins, and the GM gets to define the morality of those NPCs!
> 
> My own experience has been that a wide range of players can play a serious game that puts moral commitment at the forefront, provided the GM steps back and doesn't pounce on their every move.
> 
> My own view is that the idea that the game will collapse into juvenile amoralism unless the GM polices it via alignment rules and heavy-handed roleplyaing of deities is no more valid than the idea that the game will generate a satisfactory and engaging story only if the GM maintains a heavy rein on the plot.




(1) The GM gets to define the morality of the NPCs, exactly right. The Paladin player doesn't get to define his god's morality. Because his god is an NPC, not an extension of the player.

(2) I am ok with PCs who question the morality of the gods, and I am ok with players disagreeing with NPCs' moral views, including deity NPCs. I like Moorcockian Humanist protagonists who disagree with the Lords of Law. 
I am not ok with a Paladin PC doing this. It completely goes against the concept of a Paladin, for me. If the Paladin can reject his god and retain his powers, then his powers are coming from a higher source. That higher source is still judging him, and can find him wanting.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Holy necro, Batman!

But to answer the original question, no I wouldn't allow him.  This guy's not a paladin.  

Kudos on the entertaining writing, though.


----------



## shilsen

Hah! It's always amusing to me--and a bit gratifying--when Cedric rises once more from the dead. Alas, the pleasures of my first semester at a new job and tons of grading have ensured that I pretty much don't follow ENWorld in general any more, but I'll be keeping an eye on the thread.


----------



## Dozen

@shilsen  After I read the first post, I said there was nothing to be said.(Kind of contradictory...) Then I noticed there were more stories. Having read all of them, I have one complaint. About the poll options, specifically. Why can't we vote 'Hell yes'?


----------



## Kobold Boots

I voted yes.  Forgive this post, it may tangent, and it's all opinion.

1. I think it's important to make a distinction between a deity's will and the will of his, her or its Church.  The point of a Church in a fantasy milieu is to further the worship of its deity.  Depending on how uptight the deity is about how to accomplish that against his, her or its value system; you may get some interesting conflicts there.  Not all deities are against things considered socially wrong by mankind.  Instead, they're focused on their own scope.

2. Building on point 1 for clarity, mankind would by and large create some social code that says "prostitution is bad because it leads to children without responsible parents or relationships that break up, lessening the fabric of the town."   or another that says "drinking to excess can lead to arguments and unnecessary deaths, lessening the fabric of the town."  but at the end of the day, these things don't necessarily matter to the deity unless the GM decides it should.

3. Last, there are cultures where such things are accepted as part of the greater good as a way to cure a social ill.  

So points 1 through 3 exist to state that alignments can mean different things in different campaigns and in different parts of the same campaign.

Next on adult themes:

1. It's my personal preference to only address adult themes with adults.  Ergo, I feel that if you're not in a group where everyone is at least 21, (younger depends on the group's maturity) these things should be fade to black moments or avoided.

2. If you're going to address adult themes, let the players know ahead of time so they're ready for it.  A lot of players can't read when a DM is being plotty and when he or she is being flirty or worse.  Make sure they know.

3. Last, when you're actually handling an encounter where adult themes are in play, do not break the physical wall.  Avoid any physical contact with your players (shoulder touch, innocent stuff meant).. keep it professional.  Some people can't separate fiction from real and adding touch makes it more real.  

Point three may sound weird, but adult themes at the RPG table is already kind of weird, so if you're going to do it.. be cool about it.

All things said, well done to the OP


----------



## Aurondarklord

shilsen said:


> Hah! It's always amusing to me--and a bit gratifying--when Cedric rises once more from the dead.




Yeah!  This Raise cost me 5000gp in diamonds, it BETTER be gratifying somebody!  

Even with mature, skilled role players, I still believe D&D is built around the model of the DM as referee.  How tightly or loosely they should hold the reins depends very much on the group, but letting the reins go entirely shouldn't be a valid option, else why have a DM at all?  And if you don't have a DM, well...if you're having fun it's not for me to judge you, but whatever you're playing isn't actually D&D at that point.

I believe that all drama is based on conflict and tension, if you can't come into conflict with the world around you, there's no drama, and if you can't potentially LOSE, there's no tension, and thus no valid conflict.  That's why I bet most of us stopped playing video games with a God Mode cheat on at about the age of 10.

If you plan to make moral philosophy a part of your game, then it also becomes a part of your drama, which means that to remain fun, it must have the potential for conflict and tension, which means the potential MUST exist for the players to be wrong or just screw up, otherwise they will quickly realize that they can basically never break their code and lose class abilities unless they decide to have their character fall as part of the story they want to tell.  And while a mature group of players won't intentionally abuse this, it's still a lot less fun because the tension, and thus the drama, involved in having to balance the code with the demands of combat and trying to succeed in your character's endeavors, is lost.

I believe it's a false choice to say morality is either player defined, purely procedural, or "guess the DM's opinion".  I believe that a skilled DM, one who is willing to take the time to discuss a little philosophy with their players beforehand and to use their world and their storytelling role to convey to players how they intend the universe to work, as well as give the players some leeway to have a say in the matter without just saying "do whatever you want", can create a world that makes enough sense and has strong enough recognizable philosophical themes that players can interpret it if they try and figure out what is expected of their characters, without the answers always being immediately obvious.


----------



## S'mon

Aurondarklord said:


> Y
> I believe it's a false choice to say morality is either player defined, purely procedural, or "guess the DM's opinion".  I believe that a skilled DM, one who is willing to take the time to discuss a little philosophy with their players beforehand and to use their world and their storytelling role to convey to players how they intend the universe to work, as well as give the players some leeway to have a say in the matter without just saying "do whatever you want", can create a world that makes enough sense and has strong enough recognizable philosophical themes that players can interpret it if they try and figure out what is expected of their characters, without the answers always being immediately obvious.




There's another situation - where the PC does X knowing that it breaches a moral code, but believing that it is the best thing to do, and willing to accept judgement - including their deity's judgement. Eg I had a LG PC (Zana Than, Ironborn Fighter in a _Midnight_ campaign), who had to kill a human prisoner in order for the mission to succeed. She really hated doing it, and if asked she would likely have said she deserved to be punished for doing it. The greater good made it _necessary_, but not _right_. She may have been right or wrong about that, but I'd say she did have the appropriate moral humility that I associate with Paladins - the willingness to be judged in the Balance, and potentially to be found wanting.


----------



## Furby076

S'mon said:


> I guess I don't really have a good handle on what a valid 3e Paladin is; IME people still played 3e and even 4e Paladins much like 1e Paladins.




Don't worry, you are not alone. Nobody really knows. There is no concrete answer because we are talking about "morality" and "behavior" and "faith" which is interpreted differently between each person.

In Shils campaign the "gods" have a very tenuous relationship.  Someone can be CE and still be a cleric of a LG god.  People assume the powers come from the god but it has been made clear that it is simply unknown for sure - meaning it can come from something else.  This is not just something the characters don't know, but the players don't (which is frustrating, not in a fun way, to the players).

In the end, when playing characters that require a heavy morale RP component (e.g., paladins) it is up to the player/dm to negotiate what those restrictions are.  It would be unfair for the DM to restrict a class to a player because the player does not have the same morality viewpoint as the DM - which i have seen many times over the years.  It does help to make a contract.  Pick 3-4 things the paladin would hold as virtues to uphold and that is the morality they need to keep.

People disagree though on what it is. One of the players at the table would argue with me that my character wasn't a paladin...that was his viewpoint. Perfectly valid, but again, it was his viewpoint.  People need to keep open minds about these things.


----------



## Rackhir

Furby076 said:


> In Shils campaign the "gods" have a very tenuous relationship.  Someone can be CE and still be a cleric of a LG god.  People assume the powers come from the god but it has been made clear that it is simply unknown for sure - meaning it can come from something else.  This is not just something the characters don't know, but the players don't (which is frustrating, not in a fun way, to the players).




Actually, this is a feature of Eberron, not necessarily of Shil's DMing/campaign.



Furby076 said:


> People disagree though on what it is. One of the players at the table would argue with me that my character wasn't a paladin...that was his viewpoint. Perfectly valid, but again, it was his viewpoint.  People need to keep open minds about these things.




Perhaps you'd care to go into more details as to the specifics of that situation.


----------



## Furby076

Rackhir said:


> Actually, this is a feature of Eberron, not necessarily of Shil's DMing/campaing.




Didn't realize that. Fair enough




Rackhir said:


> Perhaps you'd care to go into more details as to the specifics of that situation.



Nope. It would start up an argument which I don't feel like getting into because it would be an argument based on differing opinions - not facts.  Suffice it to say, I've never seen two DMs view paladins in the same way. Hell, depending on which official D&D book you read the rules and viewpoints differ.  Go from 3.0, to 3.5, to 4.0.  From Book of Exalted Deeds to Defenders of the Faith to the PHB. They all have statements that dramatically change how you can play a paladin.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> There's another situation - where the PC does X knowing that it breaches a moral code, but believing that it is the best thing to do, and willing to accept judgement
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I had a LG PC (Zana Than, Ironborn Fighter in a _Midnight_ campaign), who had to kill a human prisoner in order for the mission to succeed.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The greater good made it _necessary_, but not _right_. She may have been right or wrong about that, but I'd say she did have the appropriate moral humility that I associate with Paladins - the willingness to be judged in the Balance, and potentially to be found wanting.



I count this as an example of what I was talking about upthread - letting the player take the lead on what counts as morally permitted or forbidden. Or am I misunderstanding who was player and who GM in this situation?



Aurondarklord said:


> I believe that all drama is based on conflict and tension, if you can't come into conflict with the world around you, there's no drama
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you plan to make moral philosophy a part of your game, then it also becomes a part of your drama, which means that to remain fun, it must have the potential for conflict and tension, which means the potential MUST exist for the players to be wrong or just screw up
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I believe that a skilled DM, one who is willing to take the time to discuss a little philosophy with their players beforehand and to use their world and their storytelling role to convey to players how they intend the universe to work, as well as give the players some leeway to have a say in the matter without just saying "do whatever you want", can create a world that makes enough sense and has strong enough recognizable philosophical themes that players can interpret it if they try and figure out what is expected of their characters, without the answers always being immediately obvious.



What you describe in the last of these quoted paragraphs is one way to play an RPG. It's not the only one. And I know from experience that it is possible to make moral themes a central dramatic focus without the GM having to play the role you describe. I've posted some examples upthread (for example, deciding whether or not to turn against the gods; or deciding whether or not to sell out one's home city for the promise of a magistracy). One possibility you don't mention, for example, is that the drama is provided not by GM adjudication of the game rules, but by the response at the table, by the other participants, to the choices a player makes for his/her PC.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> I count this as an example of what I was talking about upthread - letting the player take the lead on what counts as morally permitted or forbidden. Or am I misunderstanding who was player and who GM in this situation?




I was the player. My PC was a LG Fighter in the Midnight setting.

BTW I often play LG Fighters if I want to play Paladin-like characters but don't want to have to worry about the GM taking my powers because his moral conception differs from mine. Conversely players often play Paladin PCs IMCs without a problem, including in 1e AD&D, but it's most common in 4e D&D, probably because 4e has no rules about Paladins losing powers so players worry less. Even so, every 4e Paladin I've seen has been (a) Lawful Good and (b) clearly straight down the line Lawful Good, such that they'd have no problem in a 1e AD&D game.


----------



## Aurondarklord

I honestly believe Pemerton that "it is possible for the players to be wrong" is one of the few baseline elements of an RPG that is actually REQUIRED for it to qualify as a game.  From Wikipedia's definition of a game:

"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction."

Goals are something you strive to meet.  if it's automatically met because you can't fail it, it's not a goal.  Similarly, challenge does not exist in the absence of the possibility of failure.

And if moral philosophy is an element of your game, and not simply a topic discussed while playing, then it must be possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.

I am really really REALLY not trying to be that guy who tells people that my way of playing is the only way of playing and if you disagree you're doing it wrong.  But I do believe that there are certain basic elements an activity must have to qualify as a game, because the term "game", like any other word, has a fixed definition.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> I honestly believe Pemerton that "it is possible for the players to be wrong" is one of the few baseline elements of an RPG that is actually REQUIRED for it to qualify as a game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And if moral philosophy is an element of your game, and not simply a topic discussed while playing, then it must be possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.



That argument is not sound. The play of the game, in D&D, is at a minimum engaging the gameworld via your PC, telling everyone at the table (especially the GM) what your PC is doing, where s/he is going, etc. Action resolution rules are triggered by some of this; other times it's resolved via free roleplaying.

All it takes to make moral concerns part of the game is that (i) the GM sets up the gameworld, or elements within the gameworld, having regard to the moral concerns that they invoke (eg the PCs learn that one of their friends makes his money as a slave trader), and (ii) the players respond to certain situations (via their PCs) having regard to the moral concerns that are invoked, and to which their concerns will give rise.

I mentioned upthread the paladin who turned on heaven. Here is a fuller account of that campaign:

* The PCs encountered an aspect of a dead warrior god, corrupted and mad, and also discovered his giant, petrified body (an island in an item port) which cultists were trying to use as the heart of a ritual;

* The dead god entered into a "merge" or "communion" with the paladin PC (I can't remember now if this was initiated by the player playing his PC, or by me playing the dead god);

* The paladin PC learned the background of the dead god - that he was trapped eternally in the void fighting a battle with an otherworldly abomination, to save the world from it;

* The player of the paladin PC, after destroying the cultists that were desecrating his  body, decided that his chief ambition was to free the dead god from his torment;

* The PCs learned that certain children were being born without souls, due to some sort of interruption of the karmic cycle;

* The PCs learned that the gods weren't prepared to do anything about this, because of ancient pacts with the lords of karma and the rulers of the hells;

* The PCs learned that the one god who might help (i) had been banished for prior interference with the workings of karma, and (ii) had been the best friend of the dead god, before the dead god became eternally trapped in the void;

* The PCs resolved to make contact with the banished god to get his help;

* The PCs discovered that the banished god was trapped in a prison plane, the gate to which was an angel, and one of the PCs (not the paladin) persuaded the angel, via moral argument, that her duty required her to let him kill her to open the gate, rather than to obey her original instructions from the god;

* The PCs went through the gate and befriended the banished god, and acquired from him a lesser copy of his Soul Totem, which would let them bend certain karmic laws;

* The PCs then concocted a final showdown, where they entered the void, temporarily defeated the otherworldy evil there, rescued the dead god and brought him back to the world; originally the paladin intended to take the dead god's place in the eternal struggle, but then the PCs tricked the lord of hell into using the Soul Totem to create a karmic duplicate of the paladin, who went into the void instead, so that the paladin could found a monastery on the island that was the dead god's petrified body and establish an order dedicated to the dead god (in the process of sending the paladin to the void the PCs managed to banish the ruler of hell, and a minor godling they had been confronting for many levels, to the void also).​
That account leaves out some of the other PCs and their endgames: the one who persuaded the angel to let herself be killed ended up reconciling with the parents of his dragon lover; the party leader took control of the port town in which the paladin's monastery was located; the leader's quieter cousin disobeyed the leader's wishes that he enter into a political marriage, and instead married the NPC sorcerer the group had rescued from an outcast demon, and with her founded a dynasty dedicated to keeping the gates between the world and the void closed on the worldly side. I believe that the fox spirit, exiled from heaven before play began (as part of the PC's backstory), managed to regain some sort of heavenly role. (Before the PCs turned against the wishes of the heavens, they turned against the lords of karma, protecting their fox spirit friend from constables of hell who had come to earth to enforce the terms of his exile.)

From the account I've given, I hope it is fairly clear how the campaign put moral concerns into play: questions of loyalty, love, obligation, freedom, compassion and nobility were front and centre in the campaign. There was the paladin's relationship to the dead god; the whole party's relationship to the banished god; the relationship between the PC cousins; the relationship between the PC and the dragon, in the context of her own obligations to her parents; etc. All these relationships, and the moral questions around them, unfolded in play. None of the outcomes were predetermined, although - after the final showdown - the PC endgames were worked out through free roleplaying and narration, based on the various events and choices that led up to and followed from the showdown.

For all that to come out in the game, and be at the centre of it, there is no need to judge the players (or their PCs) right or wrong. There is only the need, as a GM, to continue to push the unfolding campaign in a way that raises these concerns, and to follow the leads of the players in responding to them.

Here are some passages from Ron Edwards that describe this approach to play, and contrast it with the approach you are advocating (I hadn't read Ron Edwards when the campaign I am describing started, but reading him did help me GM it successfully to its conclusion):

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all. 

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. . .

Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary. . .

Story Now [ie Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be _addressed_ in the process of role-playing. "Address" means: 

* Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place. 

* Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all. 

* Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances. . .​
The _Now _refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. . .

"Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play.​
In advocating a morality "inherent to the gameworld", which the GM communicates through thoughtful, consistent and subtle framing and adjudication, and with the players do their best to discern and have their PCs adhere to, you are advocating a simulationist approach to the incorporation of moral concerns into play. This is the sort of approach that I would expect the standard Star Wars or LotR game to take: anger leads to hate leads to the dark side, and the aim of the game is to show that this is true, and part of the GM's responsibility is to make sure that this is the case.

But that is not the only way to go. What happens when you disobey the gods and break the laws of karma? Is creating a karmic substitute to take the place of the dead god an act of cowardice, of cunning, the proper way to honour the dead god and recognise the horrors to which he has been subjected by the gods? In the campaign I described, the answers to those questions are not pregiven. Part of the point of play is to address them, and to find out the answers.

In my current game, one of the PCs is a drow chaos sorcerer who is a member of a Corellon-worshipping cult dedicated to overthrowing Lolth and undoing the sundering of the elves. He is also a demonskin adept who wears robes sewn from the skins of dead demons and emblazoned with a dire rune (the same rune is emblazoned on the inside of his eyelids, and would blind him from time to time except for the Robe of Eyes that he wears), and who is in communion with the Queen of Chaos. Is drawing on the powers of chaos and the abyss compatible with this character's loftier goals? Or will the whole thing come unstuck? There is no pre-determined answer. We'll find out in play.

And if I were to run a Star Wars game I'd run it the same way. Does anger really lead to hate? And the dark side? Let's find out by playing!


----------



## Aurondarklord

Okay, Pemerton, I think we're comparing apples and oranges here.

Did you just describe a very interesting piece of fiction that would be enjoyable to role play out?  absolutely.

Did you discuss any game mechanics?  ....No.

See, that's what makes D&D, and the whole genre of tabletop/play by post games, with fixed rules or freeform, that all spawned from D&D, so unique, they're a game and a story at the same time, and sometimes those elements are in competition with each other.  Some groups prefer to ignore game mechanics sometimes in favor of telling the story they want to tell, other groups prefer to make their story fit the mechanics, but you cannot ignore the mechanics and the "game" side of things completely and still claim to actually be playing D&D.  You might be having a lot of fun, but whatever you're doing it's something besides this game.

The scenario you described, barring some sort of story element that actually dictates that the paladin doing these things was acting morally, appears to me to be in conflict with the 3E paladin as written, because he dedicated himself and his quest to a goal entirely in defiance of what, as far as I can tell, was the greatest source of legitimate authority in the setting, the pantheon.

Of course, that's completely fine, if you choose to ignore certain mechanical limitations of the paladin or amend the way the class works to suit your game, that's entirely your decision, but you ARE ignoring an element of the game rules and while morality may still be a theme of the story, it is no longer a mechanical element of the game at such a table.  Personally, I'm sorry to say that as fun as what you wrote sounds, I probably wouldn't allow it for a paladin at my table because, as an extension of respect for legitimate authority, I see the paladin's code as requiring that a paladin have enough humility to accept that he or she is just a mortal, and may not be capable of seeing the whole picture at the cosmic scale, and trusting the deities or whatever relevant heavenly powers to have the wisdom to know what they're doing, even if the paladin can't understand it.  Giving Heaven the finger and charging off to do things your way like a 90s antihero, should not, IMO, be the mentality of the paladin class.  But the paladin at my table doesn't have to be like the paladin at your table and that's the beauty of the game.

But if we are discussing the rules as written, and this is in large part a rules thread, then the DM has to make those calls, because just leaving it to the player removes that element of the game mechanics.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> Did you discuss any game mechanics?  ....No.



The scenario I described drew heavily on d20 resources: the Freeport trilogy for cultists in port towns; Monte Cook's Requium for a God for the dead god; Bastion of Broken Souls for karmic shenanigans; and also on AD&D sources, like the Fiend Folio Slaad Lords for statting up some of my voidal beings, and Oriental Adventures for statting up constables of hell; as well as a range of Rolemaster creature books.

The actual game in question was run playing Rolemaster. It could have been run, in rougly similar terms, using any edition of D&D. All have the action resolution mechanics to resolve the combats I describe; neither Rolemaster nor any pre-4e edition of D&D really has good mechanics to resolve things like persuading an angel, via moral argument, to let herself be killed (though Rolemaster has good mechancis for building persuasive PCs), but I muddled through.

Of course I didn't apply any alignment mechanics, and have not done so since the first AD&D campaign I GMed in the mid-80s. But that's my point: you don't need mechanical alignment, nor the idea that moral truths are imbedded in the gameworld, to run a game in which moral concerns are front-and-centre.



Aurondarklord said:


> See, that's what makes D&D, and the whole genre of tabletop/play by post games, with fixed rules or freeform, that all spawned from D&D, so unique, they're a game and a story at the same time, and sometimes those elements are in competition with each other.  Some groups prefer to ignore game mechanics sometimes in favor of telling the story they want to tell, other groups prefer to make their story fit the mechanics, but you cannot ignore the mechanics and the "game" side of things completely and still claim to actually be playing D&D.



The only mechanics that were disregarded in what I described are mechanical alignment rules (and related rules like those for ex-clerics and ex-paladins).



Aurondarklord said:


> You might be having a lot of fun, but whatever you're doing it's something besides this game.



Mechanical alignment is not essential to fantasy RPGing (it plays no role in Runequest, for example, and almost no role in Rolemaster as written). Nor is it essential to D&D - I dropped it from my game after reading an article in Dragon #101 called "For King and Country", which persuasively explained why my game would be better without it. I've since identified further reasons, not canvassed in that article, why I dislike mechanical alignment.



Aurondarklord said:


> The scenario you described, barring some sort of story element that actually dictates that the paladin doing these things was acting morally, appears to me to be in conflict with the 3E paladin as written, because he dedicated himself and his quest to a goal entirely in defiance of what, as far as I can tell, was the greatest source of legitimate authority in the setting, the pantheon.
> 
> Of course, that's completely fine, if you choose to ignore certain mechanical limitations of the paladin or amend the way the class works to suit your game, that's entirely your decision, but you ARE ignoring an element of the game rules and while morality may still be a theme of the story, it is no longer a mechanical element of the game at such a table.



Of course it's not a mechanical element! That was my point. You contended, upthread, that

If you plan to make moral philosophy a part of your game, then it also becomes a part of your drama, which means that to remain fun, it must have the potential for conflict and tension, which means the potential MUST exist for the players to be wrong or just screw up​
and that

if moral philosophy is an element of your game, and not simply a topic discussed while playing, then it must be possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.​
I've just provided a counterexample to your claims - that is, I've described a fantasy RPG campaign that actually happened, in which moral concerns were part of the game, part of the drama, and had the potential for conflict and tension, but in which it was not possible for a player's action to provably fail to live up to a moral standard imposed by the game.

(You may ask, what was the source of the tension, then? I answered with my quote from Ron Edwards: "emotional feedback" between the participants, that is, the evolving aesthetic and evaluative judgments of those playing the game together.)



Aurondarklord said:


> Personally, I'm sorry to say that as fun as what you wrote sounds, I probably wouldn't allow it for a paladin at my table because, as an extension of respect for legitimate authority, I see the paladin's code as requiring that a paladin have enough humility to accept that he or she is just a mortal, and may not be capable of seeing the whole picture at the cosmic scale, and trusting the deities or whatever relevant heavenly powers to have the wisdom to know what they're doing, even if the paladin can't understand it.



That's fine. I'm not trying to persuade you to play in any particular fashion, or to drop mechanical alignment. I'm just pointing out why the claims you made upthread, that I've requoted above, are not true as such about fantasy RPGing.

Nor even about D&D, given that it is not inherent to D&D that it have mechanical alignment rules (4e does not, for instance, and since the beginning of the game, well before Dragon #101, I would say that mechanical alignment has been one of the most contentious and ignored elements of the game rules).



Aurondarklord said:


> But if we are discussing the rules as written, and this is in large part a rules thread, then the DM has to make those calls, because just leaving it to the player removes that element of the game mechanics.



Just to reinterate - my entire point is that moral concerns can be front and centre in a game without the GM having to make the calls that you describe. As Ron Edwards says, all you have to do is "stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play" - which, in this case, means dropping mechanical alignment.

Contrary to what you asserted upthread, that won't make the drama and tension any less. In fact, in my experience, it is almost guaranteed to increase it. (Because the player is now responsible for his/her choices for his/her PC, rather than having the cover of the ingame moral framework to hide behind.)


----------



## S'mon

Aurondarklord said:


> Giving Heaven the finger and charging off to do things your way like a 90s antihero, should not, IMO, be the mentality of the paladin class.




I agree - and if the Paladin can do that and still retain his powers, it just means there is a LG power higher than the Pantheon that is granting them, and that approves of his actions.  Perhaps that power is the LG Alignment itself as a cosmic force.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> I agree - and if the Paladin can do that and still retain his powers, it just means there is a LG power higher than the Pantheon that is granting them, and that approves of his actions.  Perhaps that power is the LG Alignment itself as a cosmic force.



Well, in the campaign I described it was "the Buddha of the Pure Land in the West" - whatever exactly that means (the paladin in question wasn't very intellectual, and so the metaphysics never really had to be worked out - though the paladin's conception of the Pure Land Buddha was rather different from the esoteric monk who sought to emulate the Five Infinite Buddhas; and also presumably was different from the Emperor of Heaven, who was also a fully enlightened Buddha).

But my point still stands - as far as _play_ was concerned, it was the player, not the GM, who determined what was required conduct for a paladin honouring his reverence of the Buddha and his commitment to those values.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> Well, in the campaign I described it was "the Buddha of the Pure Land in the West" - whatever exactly that means (the paladin in question wasn't very intellectual, and so the metaphysics never really had to be worked out - though the paladin's conception of the Pure Land Buddha was rather different from the esoteric monk who sought to emulate the Five Infinite Buddhas).
> 
> But my point still stands - as far as _play_ was concerned, it was the player, not the GM, who determined what was required conduct for a paladin honouring his reverence of the Buddha and his commitment to those values.




ok so provided I got this whole back and forth right.

The guy you replied to was making a comment about the D&D game system and the rules of the D&D game system in terms of paladins.

You replied with something that while frankly is awesome, by your own admission wasn't D&D, but Rolemaster.  

Why are we having this conversation on the D&D board and why is your point valid, above two points considered?

Fair question.. no horses in the race myself.


----------



## pemerton

Kobold Boots said:


> The guy you replied to was making a comment about the D&D game system and the rules of the D&D game system in terms of paladins.
> 
> You replied with something that while frankly is awesome, by your own admission wasn't D&D, but Rolemaster.



Read my post four above this one. The whole campaign I described could have been run, for all relevant purposes, in AD&D, 3E or 4e. No change to 4e would be required. The only change to AD&D and 3E that would be required would be to ignore mechanical alignment - something that thousands of D&D players have been doing for more than 30 years, and that I have been doing since reading Dragon 101 over 25 years ago. Most of the resources I was using - Freeport, Requiem for a God, Bastion of Broken Souls - were written for D&D.

The contention was made that it is impossible to have moral content matter in a game if the player, rather than the GM, is the author of that morality. My response is that that is not true - it is not true in D&D (all you have to do is drop mechanical alignment) and it is not true in general.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> Read my post four above this one. The whole campaign I described could have been run, for all relevant purposes, in AD&D, 3E or 4e. No change to 4e would be required. The only change to AD&D and 3E that would be required would be to ignore mechanical alignment - something that thousands of D&D players have been doing for more than 30 years, and that I have been doing since reading Dragon 101 over 25 years ago. Most of the resources I was using - Freeport, Requiem for a God, Bastion of Broken Souls - were written for D&D.
> 
> The contention was made that it is impossible to have moral content matter in a game if the player, rather than the GM, is the author of that morality. My response is that that is not true - it is not true in D&D (all you have to do is drop mechanical alignment) and it is not true in general.




Well, all that is fair and good except for one point.

You had to change the basis of his argument in order to make your point.  Therefore the example fails based on initial premise.

If you play D&D RAW, you can't ignore the mechanical functions of alignment.  You can do anything you want once you execute GM fiat, but that's not where I read his position as coming from.

For the record, I'm a rules liberalist and I separate godly intent from axiomatic alignment as well as separate godly power from the gods themselves.  So I'm down with what you're saying, it's just not a fair response to his point given the boundaries he's approaching the matter from.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> as far as _play_ was concerned, it was the player, not the GM, who determined what was required conduct for a paladin




Bloody hippies. 

This is all very well for those Indie Hippy Games, but it ain't no D&D!


----------



## Jackinthegreen

Kobold Boots said:


> Well, all that is fair and good except for one point.
> 
> You had to change the basis of his argument in order to make your point.  Therefore the example fails based on initial premise.
> 
> If you play D&D RAW, you can't ignore the mechanical functions of alignment.  You can do anything you want once you execute GM fiat, but that's not where I read his position as coming from.




The original question of "does this work by RAW?" has been questioned and it's evolved a bit.  Most agree that by the exact rules the paladin probably wouldn't exist, but most also agree that Cedric is a great character and it is a shame he wouldn't be able to.  Which leads into the question of whether the rules themselves are even worth going by strictly if it limits interesting characters and roleplay opportunity when that's a central part of the game.

In short, the initial premise appears to no longer be valid.  Yes, it seems a bit like moving the goalposts, but we've also realized that the game is more interesting (and tends to work better) when the goalposts are moved, the field expanded, etc.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Jackinthegreen said:


> The original question of "does this work by RAW?" has been questioned and it's evolved a bit.  Most agree that by the exact rules the paladin probably wouldn't exist, but most also agree that Cedric is a great character and it is a shame he wouldn't be able to.  Which leads into the question of whether the rules themselves are even worth going by strictly if it limits interesting characters and roleplay opportunity when that's a central part of the game.
> 
> In short, the initial premise appears to no longer be valid.  Yes, it seems a bit like moving the goalposts, but we've also realized that the game is more interesting (and tends to work better) when the goalposts are moved, the field expanded, etc.




Understood.  

That said, "working better" and "we've" are broad strokes.  I'd argue that culturally, the game worked better the way it was written, when it was written.  The changing morality of our society creates a situation where goalposts need to be moved to satisfy the majority of the people posting here.

The character as written would be allowed into my setting and campaign world because of its cosmology.  The other captain strongjaw paladin would be too.  I just think that in more conventional D&D campaigns it's not a paladin, but a knight with a calling and a couple of healing trinkets which would be more interesting anyway.


----------



## pemerton

Kobold Boots said:


> I'd argue that culturally, the game worked better the way it was written, when it was written.



Dragon #101 is September 1985 - a decade after D&D's original publication, and over 25 years ago.

And alignment had been questioned before then. And not all versions of D&D have mechanical alignment of the same force as AD&D or 3E (eg B/X, and I believe OD&D, is less definite on exactly what, if any, the _mechanical_ meaning of alignment is - to the extent that in an early White Dwarf Lewis Pulsipher was advocating the introduction of rules to make alignment more mechanically significant).

To pick up (if obliquely) on [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s most recent post, Nietzsche was writing a century earlier again, and Hobbes more than two centuries before Nietzsche! It's hardly radical in 1974, or 1985, to suggest that aesthetic creations aimed at exploring moral questions will do better if the participants are allowed to express their own conceptions rather than having their imagination held in check by an external conception of what is morally permitted.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> Dragon #101 is September 1985 - a decade after D&D's original publication, and over 25 years ago.
> 
> And alignment had been questioned before then. And not all versions of D&D have mechanical alignment of the same force as AD&D or 3E (eg B/X, and I believe OD&D, is less definite on exactly what, if any, the _mechanical_ meaning of alignment is - to the extent that in an early White Dwarf Lewis Pulsipher was advocating the introduction of rules to make alignment more mechanically significant).
> 
> To pick up (if obliquely) on [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s most recent post, Nietzsche was writing a century earlier again, and Hobbes more than two centuries before Nietzsche! It's hardly radical in 1974, or 1985, to suggest that aesthetic creations aimed at exploring moral questions will do better if the participants are allowed to express their own conceptions rather than having their imagination held in check by an external conception of what is morally permitted.




Obviously you feel strongly and are interested in debating the matter I'm presuming and/or presenting.  

You're also good at moving an argument to suit your point of view.  I am not so interested.  Therefore, in closing:

1. Mechanical alignment is part of D&D from 1st ed AD&D on as far as I can tell.  Therefore if you're playing by the rules as written, there's none of this moral questions stuff going on.  The DM determines black and white, shares it with the players and that's it.  It's pretty clear that the axis of good and evil is meant to be standard American good and evil from the time period the game was written in.  It wouldn't be before then,  or after then and each version of the game would have morality covered by its own time period.

2. If you don't want to roll that way, cool.  That's part of the GM fiat thing.  

Either way, just because people want to chat about cultural relativity or have spent oodles of time reading authors that focused on sociological and psychological issues in their time, does not mean that anyone's game or this thread needs to be about those things.  In fact, to some it over-complicates that which does not need to be complicated.

We cool?


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> Dragon #101 is September 1985 - a decade after D&D's original publication, and over 25 years ago.
> 
> And alignment had been questioned before then. And not all versions of D&D have mechanical alignment of the same force as AD&D or 3E (eg B/X, and I believe OD&D, is less definite on exactly what, if any, the _mechanical_ meaning of alignment is - to the extent that in an early White Dwarf Lewis Pulsipher was advocating the introduction of rules to make alignment more mechanically significant).




Not having Alignment in the game is one thing. A small step from RAW. 
Not having Paladins subject to an External-to-the-Player code is a much bigger step away from RAW. Letting the player decide on his power source's morality IMO means you're turning your game away from Gamist/Sim to Dogs in the Vinyard style story-creation Narrativism.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> Dragon #101 is September 1985 - a decade after D&D's original publication, and over 25 years ago.
> 
> And alignment had been questioned before then. And not all versions of D&D have mechanical alignment of the same force as AD&D or 3E (eg B/X, and I believe OD&D, is less definite on exactly what, if any, the _mechanical_ meaning of alignment is - to the extent that in an early White Dwarf Lewis Pulsipher was advocating the introduction of rules to make alignment more mechanically significant).




Not having Alignment in the game is one thing. A small step from RAW. 
Not having Paladins subject to an External-to-the-Player code is a much bigger step away from RAW. Letting the player decide on his power source's morality IMO means you're turning your game away from Gamist/Sim to Dogs in the Vinyard style story-creation Narrativism.


----------



## delericho

FWIW...

The _character_ described in the OP would absolutely be permitted in my campaign. The _paladin_ described in the OP would not.

He's a fine character. In-world he may be referred to as a paladin, he may be a member of an organisation called 'paladins', he may even _think_ that he's a paladin. Mechanically, though, he's not. IMC, at least.


----------



## Aurondarklord

S'mon said:


> Not having Alignment in the game is one thing. A small step from RAW.
> Not having Paladins subject to an External-to-the-Player code is a much bigger step away from RAW. Letting the player decide on his power source's morality IMO means you're turning your game away from Gamist/Sim to Dogs in the Vinyard style story-creation Narrativism.




It seems important to me to point out that for paladins, druids, clerics, and really any class subject to an alignment limitation or a behavioral code, these restrictions exist not only to try to enforce a class archetype for role playing purposes, but as mechanical limitations, often meant to be a trade off to a power advantage for balance purposes (whether paladins or any given class subject to such a limitation actually NEEDS it to avoid being overpowered is a separate issue outside the scope of this discussion), but that is the intended purpose, the code is a mechanically enforced drawback on the class.  Allowing the player to define their own morality effectively removes the code as a mechanical limitation, since, even ignoring the question of power gamers who would deliberately abuse this to justify any behavior they deem advantageous, most players who have even a basic interest in optimizing their combat play to play the "game" aspect of D&D, wherein their goal is to defeat the monsters in combat, will not intentionally take actions they believe will violate the code and gimp their character.

So this is in fact as significant a mechanics change to the paladin class and the rules as written as if you were to add to the spell list, remove Smite Evil, or decide by DM fiat that paladins are allowed two extra feats.

And for that matter, it is impossible to remove mechanical alignment and externally enforced objective morality without severely messing up the paladin class's balance anyway, I mean, what do you do with detect evil and smite evil then?  those are key class features, especially smite evil, which is the paladin's primary situational damage source.  If it is impossible to objectively determine from a mechanical perspective that a creature is or is not evil, you must rework these abilities for them to remain valid, either removing them entirely, limiting them in some other mechanical way (perhaps they only function on undead and evil outsiders?) or allowing the paladin to smite whomever HE considers evil, and all of those options considerably impact a paladin's combat effectiveness.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> Letting the player decide on his power source's morality IMO means you're turning your game away from Gamist/Sim to Dogs in the Vinyard style story-creation Narrativism.



No argument from me on that score!

But I'm not as sure that it's as big a step _in play_ as it can look on paper. I suspect that in many groups, even though they are playing a game which, on paper, subjects the paladin to an external-to-the-player code, in practice the morality of the paladin is negotiated (mostly informally, I would think) between participants in the course of play.

Which is to say, I think there is much more drift to vanilla narrativism in play then the written rules of some games would suggest.

My evidence for this hypothesis is the ridiculously large numbers of discussions about alignment in general, and paladins in particular, in all gaming forums for ever. Those discussions result mostly from _clashes_ between participants: what I'm adding to get to my own hypothesis is that for every disaster that leads to a letter to the Forum or a thread on ENworld, there are many more groups going in the same direction as caused the clash, but motoring along happy with their play because they reached a happy accommodation within the group.

Or, to put it even more bluntly: I find it hard to believe that my own GMing trajectory was unique, or even radically atypical, in the history of the hobby!


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> Or, to put it even more bluntly: I find it hard to believe that my own GMing trajectory was unique, or even radically atypical, in the history of the hobby!




Hmm; my gut feeling would be that it is pretty radically atypical for people who are still playing D&D. I'd suspect that originally it may have been more common to drift some Sim games like Runequest or Pendragon (70s/'80s) or Vampire ('90s) in that direction. And that now many people who want that are playing Indie games.


----------



## Dordledum

Great character, but defenitely no Lawful Good paladin. As a Paladin of Freedom (UA) it'd be fine.


----------



## dm3.5swva

Love it! So much controversy with a pig paladin! So much to do with this its AWESOME! Really though would you get rid of a paladin for flaws? Could Hieronous smack him around a little bit to straighten him out? Start losing divine power for straying to far. Run with it! Remind him his alignment can be altered for deeds to far off the wall. Great for the Game and Taboo! ​


----------



## Aurondarklord

For all of the people objecting to Cedric because he drinks, wenches, and speaks crudely....

Would we even be having this conversation if Shilsen had created him as a dwarf instead of a human?


----------



## Narse

I was in favor of a character in this style, and was actually just reading this thread to help in research to argue a character much in this style to the DM of a campaign I am about to start playing in. In gathering information for my argument, I found this in the Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 10:
_
There is nothing inherently evil about human (or humanoid)
sexuality, and being a good character doesn’t necessarily mean
remaining a virgin. Certain religions and cultures in the D&D
universe encourage or at least condone some people taking
vows of chastity, but these are similar to vows of poverty or abstinence—
rooted in the belief that giving up the enjoyment of a
good and natural thing can have positive spiritual benefits, not
derived from an attitude that sex is evil. However, a good character
is bound to realize that sexuality is laden with traditions of
exploitation and abuse, an area of interpersonal relationships
where power dynamics are often manifested in unfortunate—
really, evil—ways. A good character is not opposed to sex in
principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships
such as prostitution, the use of slaves for sex, or sexual
contact with children or others without the power to enter
freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect._

While having sex in and of itself wouldn't disqualify the character from being a Paladin, it seems that engaging in prostitution would.


----------



## Aurondarklord

Note the language used in describing the prostitution they're talking about,  terms like "exploitative or coercive relationships", "without the power to enter freely and willingly", this is the context that describes their mention of prostitution on that list of evil sexual behaviors, it is evil IN THAT CONTEXT, for the reasons they listed, much as the book of exalted deeds explains why poison is against the paladin's code, and then explains the exceptions and offers ravages as an alternative.  It's not going to go into that kind of detail on prostitution because it's the book of exalted deeds, not the book of erotic fantasy, but similarly, it can be logically inferred that if you strip away the evil context, by presenting an example of prostitution that is not exploitative or coercive, being entered into by willing participants (which you can do in a fantasy setting, and which represents the example Cedric was involved in), then the prohibition would no longer apply, elsewise why give context explaining why it's wrong, if it's wrong as an absolute irrespective of context?


----------



## Narse

Aurondarklord said:


> Note the language used in describing the prostitution they're talking about,  terms like "exploitative or coercive relationships", "without the power to enter freely and willingly", this is the context that describes their mention of prostitution on that list of evil sexual behaviors, it is evil IN THAT CONTEXT, for the reasons they listed, much as the book of exalted deeds explains why poison is against the paladin's code, and then explains the exceptions and offers ravages as an alternative.  It's not going to go into that kind of detail on prostitution because it's the book of exalted deeds, not the book of erotic fantasy, but similarly, it can be logically inferred that if you strip away the evil context, by presenting an example of prostitution that is not exploitative or coercive, being entered into by willing participants (which you can do in a fantasy setting, and which represents the example Cedric was involved in), then the prohibition would no longer apply, elsewise why give context explaining why it's wrong, if it's wrong as an absolute irrespective of context?




It's not going into a definition under the terms of which prostitution is wrong, it's saying a good character won't have sex under the following conditions. Prostitution is listed as a definitive situation that the character won't be involved in. The sentence can be rephrased as follows:
_
A good character is not opposed to sex in principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships such as prostitution. A good character will not condone the use of slaves for sex. A good character will not condone sexual contact with children. A good character will not condone sexual contact with those that do not have the power to enter freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect._

The book says a good character won't condone exploitative or coerced relationships, and gives prostitution as an example of what an exploitative or coerced relationship is. The book defines all prostitution as an "_exploitative or coercive relationship_". It doesn't say _'A good character will not condone prostitution that is exploitative or coerced._'


----------



## Aurondarklord

Context context context my friend!

The book makes a  generalization here, listing prostitution as a coercive and exploitative  relationship, and therefore evil.  it's listed as an example under a  category, if it no longer fits in the category, would it still be a  valid example?  of course not.

Is that "rules as interpreted"  instead of "rules as written"  ....admittedly yes, but only to the same  degree that people have previously argued that you have to interpret  developer intent in situations like "evil implies hurting or killing  others to avoid an obviously silly "literal genie" interpretation of the  rules where a paladin will lose his powers as soon as he deals damage  to any other character.

BOED defines prostitution as evil by  listing it in a category, "coercive and exploitative relationships", if  it no longer fits in that category, then it's obviously existing outside  the reasons why the writers listed it as evil.


----------



## Narse

Aurondarklord said:


> Context context context my friend!
> 
> The book makes a  generalization here, listing prostitution as a coercive and exploitative  relationship, and therefore evil.  it's listed as an example under a  category, if it no longer fits in the category, would it still be a  valid example?  of course not.
> 
> Is that "rules as interpreted"  instead of "rules as written"  ....admittedly yes, but only to the same  degree that people have previously argued that you have to interpret  developer intent in situations like "evil implies hurting or killing  others to avoid an obviously silly "literal genie" interpretation of the  rules where a paladin will lose his powers as soon as he deals damage  to any other character.
> 
> BOED defines prostitution as evil by  listing it in a category, "coercive and exploitative relationships", if  it no longer fits in that category, then it's obviously existing outside  the reasons why the writers listed it as evil.




Even if it's as simple as 'being coerced into having sex in exchange for money', prostitution is still a coerced act. The exchange of money is what coerces the prostitute to engage in the sexual activity. Without the money, the prostitute would not engage in the sexual relationship. Even in the example given at the start of the thread, if sexual relations are given because the prostitutes, or the madam, wants to show her gratitude, the sexual act is still coerced, because they feel indebted to the paladin for the service of protection he provided. The paladin insists that this is inappropriate for him to accept (and it is), and pays for his prostitutes. The prostitution is still coerced.


----------



## Baron Opal

Aurondarklord said:


> For all of the people objecting to Cedric because he drinks, wenches, and speaks crudely....
> 
> Would we even be having this conversation if Shilsen had created him as a dwarf instead of a human?




Yes, of course. If only because he would be held to a higher standard.

More seriously, yes. The discussion is about a class with supposedly well defined but not really behavioral core that has significant penalties when that set of core behaviors are deviated from. How much deviation and in what manner is acceptible given the historical (gaming / mythical) parameters of the class.


----------



## Aurondarklord

Narse, by that logic (defining all prostitution as inherently coercive) you go right back into discussions that came up much earlier in the thread that essentially amount to "why is sex a moral special snowflake that functions by different rules than everything else?", because by that logic, ANY trade of money for services, or at the very least any trade of money for services not utterly essential for survival, is coercive.  You think the town blacksmith wants to work his butt off all day in the forge patching up the paladin's armor?  no, he does it because the paladin pays him to.  Wouldn't it be so much more honorable for the paladin to just give him the money as charity?  by the logic you've put forth, the paladin's relationship with the blacksmith is coercive, and therefore evil.  I have never heard of a paladin losing his powers for retaining the services of a blacksmith in the capacity of his trade.  Perhaps the blacksmith wishes he weren't a blacksmith, he wishes he had been born a noble in a tropical land and could lounge on the beach all day sipping the medieval equivalent of mai tais, but the mere fact that becoming a blacksmith was not his ideal vision of how his life might have gone does not make retaining his services evil.  Nobody's chained him up in the forge or addicted him to drugs to compel him to fix armor all day.  Of course, a lot of prostitutes ARE held prisoner and drugged into compliance, and THAT is a coercive, exploitative relationship between them and their johns, but if you characterize the act of prostitution ITSELF as coercive as an absolute, regardless of circumstances, you are essentially saying that all trade of goods for services is coercive (clearly not the case in D&D), or that sex is a special moral snowflake with inherent moral dangers not present in other aspects of life (contradictory to the BOED defining sex as a normal and healthy act), so therefore the wording of the passage on prostitution must be holding it as an example within a category, and not as an inherent absolute, and you are interpreting the RAW far too literally.

Baron Opal, while I was being a bit snarky before, I do seriously believe that this conversation would have a different tone if Cedric were a dwarf.  Dwarves are usually LG, so it can be inferred that stereotypical dwarven behaviors and character archetypes fall within what WOTC considers LG behavior.  And stereotypical dwarves, the beardy, clannish, ale-swilling, vaguely Scottish mixed with vaguely Viking warrior-miners we know so well from Lord of the Rings onward seriously like to party, especially to drink, tend to speak crudely and plainly (contrasted with the stilted, flowery speech of elves), and are often dour and grouchy around people they haven't warmed up to yet.  All traits Cedric has, and people have loudly objected to as unbefitting of a paladin, or even outright contrary to a lawful alignment.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> by that logic (defining all prostitution as inherently coercive) you go right back into discussions that came up much earlier in the thread that essentially amount to "why is sex a moral special snowflake that functions by different rules than everything else?", because by that logic, ANY trade of money for services, or at the very least any trade of money for services not utterly essential for survival, is coercive.



I don't want to break the board rules, but presumably everyone reading this thread is aware that there is a vast, vast literature - with popular dimensions and academic dimensions - arguing for the distinctive character of sex and sexuality (compared, say to blacksmithing) as an element of human life, and hence the distinctive character of prositution as a commercial transaction.

Those arguments may or may not be sound, but it's not all that surprising that the Book of Exalted Deeds takes the view that they _are_ sound. I certainly think that that is the less controversial view.


----------



## Aurondarklord

Actually, the book of exalted deeds basically says that sex is just a normal healthy activity and vows of chastity have nothing to do with it having a special moral character.  most of that is towards saying that D&D does not regard sex as evil, but neither do they say anything about sex being sacred.


----------



## Narse

Aurondarklord said:


> Narse, by that logic (defining all  prostitution as inherently coercive) you go right back into discussions  that came up much earlier in the thread that essentially amount to "why  is sex a moral special snowflake that functions by different rules than  everything else?", because by that logic, ANY trade of money for  services, or at the very least any trade of money for services not  utterly essential for survival, is coercive.  You think the town  blacksmith wants to work his butt off all day in the forge patching up  the paladin's armor?  no, he does it because the paladin pays him to.   Wouldn't it be so much more honorable for the paladin to just give him  the money as charity?  by the logic you've put forth, the paladin's  relationship with the blacksmith is coercive, and therefore evil. Blah  blah blah...




Trade is coercive, the blacksmith wouldn't  exchange his weapons and armor without money. I wouldn't go to work  without getting paid. The issue of coercion however only applies to  sexual acts, though. The paladin won't engage in sexual acts as a result  of coercion. His other activities, such as buying services from a  blacksmith, do not have this restriction attached to them, so your  argument about such things is non-sequitur.



Audrondarklord said:


> If you characterize the act of prostitution ITSELF as coercive  as an absolute, regardless of circumstances, you are essentially saying  that all trade of goods for services is coercive (clearly not the case  in D&D)




I am not saying that, so I would be saying the following...



Audrondarklord said:


> ...or that sex is a special moral snowflake with inherent moral  dangers not present in other aspects of life (contradictory to the BOED  defining sex as a normal and healthy act)




I would agree  that, by the book, sex -- despite being a normal and healthy act -- has a  special quality to it that would prevent a good character from  partaking in the commerce of it.



Audrondarklord said:


> ...so therefore the wording of the passage on prostitution must  be holding it as an example within a category, and not as an inherent  absolute, and you are interpreting the RAW far too literally.




..and there is the disagreement. I believe that, despite sex being a  legitimate good act in and of itself, there IS a special aspect to  sexual activity. Even in modern day society, this is true, and the parallels can be seen in both how commerce between an adult and a child in both worlds is perfectly fine, but sexual commerce, or even regular consensual sexual activity between an adult and a child is taboo -- there is a special quality of sex that makes it different from just a commodity, and thus why sexual commerce is forbidden to good characters.


----------



## Aurondarklord

"trade is coercive"...

so, a paladin is allowed to put a sword to someone's throat and force them to do whatever the paladin says, so long as it isn't sexual?

I recognize you're not actually TRYING to say that, but if you say that coercion is fine as long as it doesn't apply to sex, you are endorsing some pretty nasty practices, forced labor, extortion, unfair wages, sharecropping...

I personally don't see trade as inherently coercive, so I don't run into those problems in my view of things, and I don't think that the authors of D&D meant to suggest that in their game's morality, trade is inherently coercive.

And if you ignore that idea, then you're not stuck requiring sex to be a moral special snowflake for the logic to hold, if you don't interpret the rules overly literally.


----------



## Narse

Aurondarklord said:


> "trade is coercive"...
> 
> so, a paladin is allowed to put a sword to someone's throat and force them to do whatever the paladin says, so long as it isn't sexual?
> 
> I recognize you're not actually TRYING to say that, but if you say that coercion is fine as long as it doesn't apply to sex, you are endorsing some pretty nasty practices, forced labor, extortion, unfair wages, sharecropping...
> 
> I personally don't see trade as inherently coercive, so I don't run into those problems in my view of things, and I don't think that the authors of D&D meant to suggest that in their game's morality, trade is inherently coercive.
> 
> And if you ignore that idea, then you're not stuck requiring sex to be a moral special snowflake for the logic to hold, if you don't interpret the rules overly literally.




I am not saying that coercion is allowed except when it applies to sex. There are several restrictions I'm sure. Some may or may not be specifically mentioned, however, sexual coercion is one that is, and prostitution is a method of sexual coercion that is specifically mentioned.

Commerce is definitely coercive in nature, but not all coercion is exploitative or evil. General commerce is not an evil act, but one person is coerced into relinquishing a good or service in exchange for a payment. Without this exchange, of payment, the good or service would not be relinquished, and therefore, by definition, commerce is a form of coercion.


----------



## Aurondarklord

I'm sorry, but the argument that trade is inherently coercive does not hold up.

Just google the word coercive.  I've looked on wikipedia, on every online dictionary I can find, all of them define coercion the same way, the use of force, intimidation, or some form of undue psychological pressure to compel a person to do something against their will.  Simple financial reward being offered does not meet this threshold.  People frequently enter into financial bargains entirely voluntarily, often it's their own idea.  If you open a shop, and sell your wares, you've decided of your own choosing to to engage in trade, no one made you do it.

Coercion, also called "duress", is also a legal defense, the law holds that a person is not criminally responsible for actions they were coerced into performing, but no court has ever considered money a form of coercion for this purpose, no matter how desperate the person being offered the money is or how badly they need it.  Imagine for a second that trade WAS considered coercive...murder for hire would be legal, at least for the assassin.  So obviously, that's not the case.  And if trade is not inherently coercive, the whole argument that the book of exalted deeds forbids prostitution regardless of circumstances falls apart.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> I've looked on wikipedia, on every online dictionary I can find, all of them define coercion the same way, the use of force, intimidation, or some form of undue psychological pressure to compel a person to do something against their will.  Simple financial reward being offered does not meet this threshold.  People frequently enter into financial bargains entirely voluntarily, often it's their own idea.



There is a big literature, too, on the difference between a threat and an offer. Coercion is generally understood as involving threats, not offers.



Aurondarklord said:


> if trade is not inherently coercive, the whole argument that the book of exalted deeds forbids prostitution regardless of circumstances falls apart.



That's not true. You don't have to regard trade as inherently coercive to regard prostitution as inherently coercive. The people who earn academic salaries, and sell books, arguing that prostitution and pornography are inherently coercive might be wrong, but they're not incoherent. As I (and [MENTION=6698446]Narse[/MENTION]) noted upthread, there are well-known arguments that sex and sexuality is not a commodity, and hence not a proper object of commerce, and that any commercialisation of it is, therefore, coercive and improper as such.

Those arguments may be flawed, but they're not all that radical. I suspect that the BoED takes their soundness for granted.

I assume the Book of Exalted Deeds also takes the view that it would be wrong for a paladin to buy a slave _even if the person enslaved was choosing to sell him-/herself into slavery_. The idea that formally voluntary choice is a moral cover-all is a modern notion that I would associate more with economic analysis and with libertarianism than with the moral code of a paladin.


----------



## Aurondarklord

The paladin would not take a slave who voluntarily sold himself?

What about the vow of obedience feat?  A paladin would not take on an underling who had sworn a sacred and holy vow to serve him because it's immoral?

Granted, money doesn't change hands, but it's still a form of voluntarily enslavement.

The idea of D&D, the kind of society it presents as its default, we all know what that was like in real life, aristocrats and serfs were born into their social status, the one having as their birthright absolute power over the other, who were not regarded as having any basic human rights, most people lived in abject poverty and had to do backbreaking menial labor to avoid starvation...and frequently starved anyway because the nobles decided to overtax them.  Women were property, or at least an extra mouth to feed and a father had the right to marry his daughters off to whomever he pleased, even if that person was a violent drunk she wanted nothing to do with.

To make a paladin work in that kind of setting requires either sanitizing it or allowing the paladin to ignore it.  But now you're telling me prostitution is so inherently bad it's IMPOSSIBLE to sanitize no matter how much authorial fiat is used, even though worse sexual practices can be cleaned up easily just by slapping the label of marriage on them?  I don't buy that, and I don't buy that as the writers intent.  They don't want to go into detail on these issues because they're sick of D&D being scapegoated by puritanical idiots, but if you look at the way the passage is written, it defines prostitution as evil in the context of it being exploitative and coercive, which I admit is probably what the writers considered the default, and it probably IS the default and most common form of prostitution.  But they never say it can't possibly be removed from that context, and I honestly don't believe they mean to suggest it, I think it's just a case of they didn't want to cover the issue in detail because of possible controversy, and they left the language open enough to be subject to interpretation.

Reading the way it is written Pemerton, can you honestly tell me you believe there's NO POSSIBLE WAY that the way I'm looking at it is a valid one?  Because if we're talking rules as WRITTEN, then to say Cedric is barred by the RAW, it has to be absolutely clear, with zero room for interpretation, that there is only one valid way to read the rules and that way says no.  Otherwise it's still very much a question of rules as interpreted and DM fiat, and the rules as WRITTEN do not bar it.

Am I being a giant rules lawyer to say that?  Absolutely, but this is a thread about the letter of the rules.


----------



## Narse

Aurondarklord said:


> I'm sorry, but the argument that trade is inherently coercive does not hold up.
> 
> Just google the word coercive.  I've looked on wikipedia, on every online dictionary I can find, all of them define coercion the same way, the use of force, intimidation, or some form of undue psychological pressure to compel a person to do something against their will.  Simple financial reward being offered does not meet this threshold.  People frequently enter into financial bargains entirely voluntarily, often it's their own idea.  If you open a shop, and sell your wares, you've decided of your own choosing to to engage in trade, no one made you do it.
> 
> Coercion, also called "duress", is also a legal defense, the law holds that a person is not criminally responsible for actions they were coerced into performing, but no court has ever considered money a form of coercion for this purpose, no matter how desperate the person being offered the money is or how badly they need it.  Imagine for a second that trade WAS considered coercive...murder for hire would be legal, at least for the assassin.  So obviously, that's not the case.  And if trade is not inherently coercive, the whole argument that the book of exalted deeds forbids prostitution regardless of circumstances falls apart.




Your argument is valid. I will concede that commerce would not fall under that, and with that being the case, prostitution that would not fall under coercion, such as that given in the initial example of the thread, would probably be fine.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

First, kudos to [MENTION=198]shilsen[/MENTION] for enjoying numerous thread necros over the last 7 years. I confess, I read the first post only, and those posted over the last few days.

That said, I would be dubious about allowing this character to be a _Paladin_ - as conventionally described - on two counts:

*1) It defies believability/verisimilitude*: I find it very hard to accept that there will _not_ be a coercive/exploitative component to prostitution _given human history and experience_. Yes, the DM can mandate whatever he or she feels as "societally acceptable" as far as the ethical dimensions of sexuality are concerned within the campaign, but these broader issues are not addressed. What is the relationship between the procuress and the prostitutes? What are their rights? Are they unionized?



> ...four of *your* girls at once, Catherine




Emphasis mine. Is ownership reasonably implied? By patronizing this establishment, is Cedric condoning the institution of prostitution? Of indentured sexual thralldom? 

*2) It violates archetype.* For good or bad, the Paladin archetype is drawn from the mythical Arthurian grail-knights and the companions of Charlemagne seen through rose-tinted, medieval Aquitanian eyes: it is a specific, literary expression of an ideal. Should Paladins be chaste? Humble? Pious? Abstemious? My answer is unequivocally _yes_. The Paladin might practice _fine amour_, but the notion that he is licentious or lewd run contrary to the literary precedents.

This gives rise to a fundamental cognitive dissonance; I would regard this character as untenable, unless one redefines what _Paladin_ actually means. The internal moral dialogue of the Paladin is what defines him; but at this point, the notion of _Paladinhood_ is drawn into question.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> It seems important to me to point out that for paladins, druids, clerics, and really any class subject to an alignment limitation or a behavioral code, these restrictions exist not only to try to enforce a class archetype for role playing purposes, but as mechanical limitations, often meant to be a trade off to a power advantage for balance purposes (whether paladins or any given class subject to such a limitation actually NEEDS it to avoid being overpowered is a separate issue outside the scope of this discussion), but that is the intended purpose, the code is a mechanically enforced drawback on the class.



I'm not sure that this is true, at least not in all cases.

In AD&D the limitation on druid armour are obviously a drawback. But the weapons not so much - they seem to be for flavour as much as anything else, give that the druid gets accesss to a good one-handed weapon in the form of the scimitar.

Rangers suffer a disadvantage in being restricted in what they can own, and not being able to have henchmen until 8th level, but its not clear that Good alignment is a penalty - after all, many PCs will be good in any event without particularly suffering as a result. It seems to me to be more about archetype enforcement.

When it comes to paladins, the tithing requirement and magic item limits are obviously a disadvantage mechanic. But whether the restrictions on henchmen and acquaintances are a disadvantage or not is very campaign specific. In a traditional dungeon-crawling campaign they might be - because some of the limited supply of henchmen and allies will be evil or neutral - but in a Dragonlance-type campaign they would be no disadvantage at all, given that the game assumes all the PCs will be good in any event.

More generally, for an honour requirement to be a constraint on mechanical power requires a particular sort of campaign set up, in which being dishonourable is a regular source of powering up. I am not sure how many D&d campaigns fit that description, but I would be surprised if its a majority of them.



Aurondarklord said:


> Allowing the player to define their own morality effectively removes the code as a mechanical limitation, since, even ignoring the question of power gamers who would deliberately abuse this to justify any behavior they deem advantageous, most players who have even a basic interest in optimizing their combat play to play the "game" aspect of D&D, wherein their goal is to defeat the monsters in combat, will not intentionally take actions they believe will violate the code and gimp their character.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And for that matter, it is impossible to remove mechanical alignment and externally enforced objective morality without severely messing up the paladin class's balance anyway, I mean, what do you do with detect evil and smite evil then?  those are key class features, especially smite evil, which is the paladin's primary situational damage source.  If it is impossible to objectively determine from a mechanical perspective that a creature is or is not evil, you must rework these abilities for them to remain valid, either removing them entirely, limiting them in some other mechanical way (perhaps they only function on undead and evil outsiders?) or allowing the paladin to smite whomever HE considers evil, and all of those options considerably impact a paladin's combat effectiveness.



In a campaign in which the GM enforces alignment and codes, these are a power limitation for the paladin only if the GM is regularly framing situations in which acting dishonourably or in a chaotic or evil fashion would be mechanically advantageous. How frequent is that in the typical D&D campaign? As I said, I doubt that it is very frequent in a majority of campaigns. It probably is more frequent in a classic Gygaxian campaign. In that sort of campaign, I assume fewer people play paladins!

As for smite evil (not actually a feature of any version of D&D except 3E), how much stronger does a paladin PC become if the player gets to decide who is worthy of smiting? To put it another way, how many combats does the typical D&D party have against non-evil antagonists. My guess is, not that many. The typical Monster Manual and typical module is certainly chock full of evil monsters and NPCs!

So I have doubts that a paladin who is allowed to smite whomever the player chooses will really gain any sort of noticeable power-up.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> The paladin would not take a slave who voluntarily sold himself?
> 
> What about the vow of obedience feat?  A paladin would not take on an underling who had sworn a sacred and holy vow to serve him because it's immoral?



But such a person is not a slave. They do not become the property of the paladin.

Today's world is full of religious who are bound by vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, but they are not slaves. In particular, if they renounce their vows, they may be moral wrongdoers (at least in the eyes of some orders), but the head of their order has no power to compel them to return. They are free to go, even if that would be a betrayal. Slaves are in a fundamentally different, unfree situation.



Aurondarklord said:


> The idea of D&D, the kind of society it presents as its default, we all know what that was like in real life
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To make a paladin work in that kind of setting requires either sanitizing it or allowing the paladin to ignore it.



Agreed, and I posted much the same upthread when I said that the easiest way to make a paladin work is for the GM to not frame situations that raise moral quandries of the sort to which the OP gives rise.

The other option I canvassed, of course, is to put the moral power in the player's hands, so s/he can decide what attitude to take towards the social institutions of the pseudo-medieval world.



Aurondarklord said:


> But now you're telling me prostitution is so inherently bad it's IMPOSSIBLE to sanitize no matter how much authorial fiat is used



I didn't say that - I'm not violating board rules!

I said there is a well-known argument to that effect - based on the idea that sex is not a commodity - and that I find it easy to belive that the author(s) of the BoED took that argument for granted.



Aurondarklord said:


> Reading the way it is written Pemerton, can you honestly tell me you believe there's NO POSSIBLE WAY that the way I'm looking at it is a valid one?



I don't think it's a very tenable reading of the passage from BoED, no. I think that passage absolutely takes for granted the coercive and/or exploitative character of prostitution.

Is it viable for a fantasy RPG to depart from the BoED on that point? I'm sure it is - a certain sort of pulp-ish game, pseudo-Conanesque or pseudo-Western, might have prostitutes who aren't coerced and who provide their services purely voluntarily and even out of a love of sex (much as a blacksmith might love crafting).

But my personal view is that such a game wouldn't really have room for paladins, not for alignment/moral reasons but for genre reasons: the genre connotations of that sort of fantasy, for me at least, just don't fit with the paladin archetype.



Sepulchrave II said:


> I would be dubious about allowing this character to be a _Paladin_ - as conventionally described
> 
> It violates archetype.[/B] For good or bad, the Paladin archetype is drawn from the mythical Arthurian grail-knights and the companions of Charlemagne seen through rose-tinted, medieval Aquitanian eyes: it is a specific, literary expression of an ideal. Should Paladins be chaste? Humble? Pious? Abstemious? My answer is unequivocally _yes_. The Paladin might practice _fine amour_, but the notion that he is licentious or lewd run contrary to the literary precedents.
> 
> This gives rise to a fundamental cognitive dissonance; I would regard this character as untenable, unless one redefines what _Paladin_ actually means. The internal moral dialogue of the Paladin is what defines him; but at this point, the notion of _Paladinhood_ is drawn into question.



This pretty much captures my view.

 [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] upthread made a good case for breaking from the archetype to the necessary degree, but (from other posts of Mallus's that I've read over several years) I'm pretty sure that I am much more conservative in my approach to fantasy tropes than Mallus is.


----------



## Aurondarklord

Sepulchrave, in response to your arguments, first that Cedric's situation is implausible...not necessarily.  Shilsen uses a later piece of fiction to explain it, basically Cedric and Catherine, a former prostitute who got out, set up this brothel as a kind of halfway house to transition girls out of the life, helping them build up some savings and recover from whatever forced them to become streetwalkers or whatever before Cedric and Catherine rescued them.  But even without it being spelled out for me why this is the, as someone put it earlier in the thread "stardust and gumdrops" variety of prostitution, I don't have a hard time believing in the idea that women exist who 1, like casual sex, 2, are pretty or otherwise "high class" enough that they can pick and choose their clients a bit and avoid the really distasteful ones, and 3, as a result of 1 and 2 see prostitution as a relatively easy way to make a sizable amount of money and a superior choice to the mundane menial labor jobs that would likely be the only other choices for a woman of their social class in a medieval society.  Even in today's society, there are plenty of women who make such choices, just go to Nevada, or see any number of books and documentaries of the "confessions of a former high end call girl" variety, especially the blog by Brooke Magnanti that got turned into the series "secret diary of a call girl".

I also don't see the idea being "implausible" as inherently bad, D&D, and high fantasy in general frequently present a sanitized version of medieval society, which, given human history and experience, is highly implausible, and fiction in general frequently depicts the implausible as a form of escapism.  That's why a solar-powered alien who can lift a planet, run at the speed of light, and shoot laser beams out of his eyeballs, but nevertheless looks exactly like an incredibly hunky human and is romantically pursued by several of the world's most beautiful women, is one of our most enduring cultural icons.  Also, his best buddy the multi-billionaire who dresses up as a bat and gets EVEN MORE tail.  There's a show I watch called Supernatural, which tends to go out of its way to constantly remind us, largely for the benefit of the significant female audience, how hunky and studly the two main protagonists are, in one scene, Sam, one of our heroes, is depicted as having slept with a call girl, an incredibly gorgeous one at that, and having rocked her world so much she's not only willing to leave without making him pay her, but after he insists, she gives him her card so he can call her on her night off for a freebie.  I actually found the scene:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSxDj06ZY40[/ame]

Is that somewhat unlikely?  I dunno, what are the statistics on guys that ripped retaining call girls?  But there was no outcry or controversy decrying how implausible this was.  your argument, that just because something might be implausible in real life means it shouldn't ever happen in fiction, reminds me of some complaints about the most recent Bond movie, some people have argued that Bond actually rapes one of the women he sleeps with in Skyfall, even though the scene is framed as clearly and obviously consensual, the argument basically comes down to "in real life I can't imagine a woman would consent in that situation, therefore she couldn't have and it must be rape", an obviously silly argument that ignores one of the central conceits of James Bond as a character, which is that women ALWAYS want to sleep with him.

To your second point about Cedric violating archetype....well yeah, that's the whole point, but archetype =/= rules, otherwise you'll have a game where players do nothing but create the same stereotypes over and over again, you might as well play with pre-packaged characters like Lidda, Jozen, and Tordek instead of allowing the players to make up their own.  In fact, if you look at the SRD explanation of alignment, they specifically caution against using it as a role playing straightjacket that restricts characters.

Now, Pemerton, it depends.  I got in a big debate with JamesonCourage, I think you joined in too, about whether a paladin is allowed to kick someone in the groin.  Essentially, since Cedric has a level of rogue in his build, that was a literary application of his sneak attack class skill.  If you say the code restricts a paladin from using sneak attack, then you've rendered Cedric mechanically inferior by blocking off a class ability, and that DOES act as a mechanical restriction, if not due to alignment, due to the specifics of the paladin's code.  and I believe that allowing a paladin to smite anyone definitely is a significant power boost, and clearly so does WOTC or they wouldn't have made so many prestige classes, like Grey Guard and Shadowbane Inquisitor, with "you get to smite anybody" as one of the main mechanical advantages.

As for religious vows being unenforceable, I'd say in D&D that's definitely not true, we're talking about a world where the Gods are very real and provable, where if you sin, and oathbreaking is generally a very great sin, especially a religious oath, you can be at risk of eternal torment in the nine hells or the abyss, which will be far worse than any punishment another mortal could inflict on you, where celestials descend from the upper planes to punish sinners, and where breaking a deal or vow can get a Kolyarut, basically a magic version of The Terminator, sent after you.

As for whether the writers take for granted that sex has some form of special moral character, considering the mention of prostitution comes as part of a passage explaining that sex in D&D is considered a normal, healthy, and natural thing, I would disagree, I would in fact say that they're specifically saying that from a rules perspective it DOESN'T have a special moral character.  I think that what they take for granted is that prostitution is coercive.  But "take for granted" =/= "enforce in all situations".  They say that prostitution is bad because it falls under "coercive and exploitative", but logically if you invent a situation in which it DOESN'T fall under that category, then their reasoning for why it's evil no longer applies, and the book does not intend to enforce said reasoning anyway.  Can we at least agree that that's sound logic and the writers did not intentionally mean that passage to bar DMs and players from ever inventing any form of prostitution that differs from their assumption about the moral character of prostitution and thus no longer falls under their logic?


----------



## S'mon

Aurondarklord said:


> or that sex is a special moral snowflake with inherent moral dangers not present in other aspects of life (contradictory to the BOED defining sex as a normal and healthy act)




The BOED does not appear to define sex for money as a normal and healthy act, or paying for sex as equivalent to paying for a new breastplate. Perhaps the authors regarded sex as in some way special?


----------



## S'mon

Aurondarklord said:


> Otherwise it's still very much a question of rules as interpreted and DM fiat, and the rules as WRITTEN do not bar it.
> 
> Am I being a giant rules lawyer to say that?  Absolutely, but this is a thread about the letter of the rules.




?!?! Thread title is "Would YOU allow this Paladin in your game?"  Of course it is *entirely* about rules as interpreted, and "DM fiat".


----------



## Jackinthegreen

S'mon said:


> The BOED does not appear to define sex for money as a normal and healthy act, or paying for sex as equivalent to paying for a new breastplate. Perhaps the authors regarded sex as in some way special?



It is also possible they had their hands tied while writing it since an official D&D book saying that prostitution, an activity widely looked down upon for many reasons, can be made to be good would cause a bit of an outcry despite the cover saying very explicitly "Warning! Content is intended for mature audiences only."

In short, perhaps the only way the authors could portray it was as "special."  As free players, however, we aren't necessarily beholden to their publication influences.


----------



## Aurondarklord

I think they are writing with the assumption that players will be working on the baseline that modern American law and sensibilities represents "lawful good", because that's the values of the majority of their audience, and in most states, prostitution is illegal and held as a bad thing.

But in only a few cases do they make an explicit point of saying that something is wrong as a moral absolute, regardless of circumstances.  For example, torture, they make very clear that torture is always an evil act, no matter who you're doing it to or why.

In other cases, they present a generalization, such as "poison is bad", and then go out of their way to point out the exceptions, like drow knockout poison and ravages, and explain the reasoning for why other poisons are bad.

In the case of prostitution, they don't go into this kind of detail, because as Jackinthegreen pointed out, they don't want an outcry, this is after all D&D, one of the most commonly and unfairly vilified games ever made, and they don't want to stir that pot by wading into a long discussion on unconventional sexual practices.  But they do explain prostitution as evil for a reason, not evil as an absolute like torture, which IMPLIES that if that reason no longer applied, prostitution would not necessarily still be considered evil.

And S'mon, I would suggest you read at least the first post of the thread in full, not just the title.  Shilsen explicitly goes on to ask if, beyond whether each individual poster would allow Cedric, if Cedric is or is not legal under 3.0/3.5 RAW, and that IS very much a question about the letter of the rules.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Aurondarklord said:
			
		

> But even without it being spelled out for me why this is the, as someone put it earlier in the thread "stardust and gumdrops" variety of prostitution, I don't have a hard time believing in the idea that women exist who 1, like casual sex, 2, are pretty or otherwise "high class" enough that they can pick and choose their clients a bit and avoid the really distasteful ones, and 3, as a result of 1 and 2 see prostitution as a relatively easy way to make a sizable amount of money and a superior choice to the mundane menial labor jobs that would likely be the only other choices for a woman of their social class in a medieval society.




I'm confused. Are the prostitutes "high class" or are they menial - suited only to mundane labor?

Are women empowered within the campaign world, or oppressed? Don't you think it nonsensical to have a progressive, liberated sex industry if other aspects of life are governed by gender, social class and medieval morality?


----------



## Aurondarklord

I honestly have no idea, that's a question of the individual campaign and Shilsen never told us all that much about the setting in his fiction.

But my point about high class vs menial is that in prostitution...let's face it, realistically, the hotter girls get the better pay and thus have to sleep with fewer clients to get by, allowing them to be choosier in what clients they accept and cater to a more refined, wealthier demographic.  this is what I mean by a "high class" prostitute.  However, just being hot would not help a lowborn woman in a medieval society in many other regards in terms of supporting herself.  It won't do much to help her as a farmer, or a baker, or whatever, so she'd still be stuck with the difficult, menial drudgery that was available to lowborn commoners in medieval times as her other options for supporting herself, unless of course she manages to seduce someone wealthy or highborn and become a trophy wife, but that's still selling sex, the only difference is we've rubber stamped the word marriage on it so now it's okay.  I'm sure realistically though we all realize that rubber stamping it with that word does not actually change the moral character of the act.


----------



## S'mon

Aurondarklord said:


> And S'mon, I would suggest you read at least the first post of the thread in full, not just the title.  Shilsen explicitly goes on to ask if, beyond whether each individual poster would allow Cedric, if Cedric is or is not legal under 3.0/3.5 RAW, and that IS very much a question about the letter of the rules.




I did read the first post in full. Several times over the years. 

I expect the POV of the WoTC writers was that prostitution was a bit icky, but not as bad as torture. Anyway they appear to have only been discussing what constituted LG behaviour, not what was in compliance with the Paladin's code.

I would certainly not disallow Cedric from being LG based on the OP, though if he was apparently actually opening & running his own brothel later it starts to look a bit iffy to me. The guy seems closer to NG with C tendencies. It's not as if prostitution is sacred in his religion - I'd have no problem with say LG Paladins of Astarte guarding the temple where sacred prostitution was practiced, but from what I've seen Cedric comes across more as a Marty Stue in a quasi-Christian milieu.


----------



## Aurondarklord

The paladin's code says nothing about celibacy or not paying for sex, the only thing that's at all open-ended in the code is the "and so on" in the rule that the paladin must act honorably, and unless you believe that in all circumstances, patronizing a prostitute is inherently dishonorable, even if it does not contradict the tenets of your religion or break any oath you've taken, is legal in your society, and you treat the girls well and pay on time, I don't see Cedric as breaking the code here.

Is he a Marty Stu in a quasi-christian milieu?  Maybe.  The fiction was a mixed bag, I think the terms Mary Sue and Marty Stu get thrown around way too much these days, to the point that you can pretty much deem any protagonist who is a bit of a special snowflake to be one...and protagonists almost by definition are supposed to be special and interesting in a lot of cases.  Look at some of the examples I've been mentioning, James Bond, Superman, Batman...beloved cultural icons, would definitely be decried as loathesome Marty Stus if they were made up by some random RPer on the internet instead of being famous iconic characters.  But yeah, when Cedric's God depowers his own high priest for wanting to get rid of Cedric and things like that, it does get a bit grating...but on the other hand most of the fiction Shilsen came up with was highly entertaining and presented Cedric as a pretty balanced character.  As for the other part...I think the emphasis here has to be very much on the QUASI in quasi-christian.  Cedric's religion seems to be a bit more laid back in terms of the whole prudishness and piety business and more focused on "we help the helpless", a bit...Pelor-esque maybe?  The High Lord definitely isn't uptight.  I see Cedric as most likely an LG paladin of an NG deity, with most of his lawfulness coming from his personal mannerisms, his rigidly consistent, habit-driven nature, dedication to duty for the sake of duty, and scrupulous honesty, rather than the kind of lawfulness a more traditional paladin might have, which is more about trying to impose order and live by complex tradition and hierarchy.  But as the SRD itself says, there's always more than one way to play a given alignment.  And mind you, one of Shilsen's pieces of fiction explicitly says that the rules of Cedric's religion don't forbid, or in any way mention, prostitution, Magnus just thinks it's icky and surely must be disallowed (even though he has no actual basis for that belief in his religion's scriptures) because it goes against his glorious puffed up notion of a paladin as a perfect paragon of Galahadeyness...but hey that's what the saint template is for.

Long ramble aside though, being a marty stu in a quasi-christian setting is not actually against the paladin's code as written.


----------



## pemerton

Aurondarklord said:


> As for whether the writers take for granted that sex has some form of special moral character, considering the mention of prostitution comes as part of a passage explaining that sex in D&D is considered a normal, healthy, and natural thing, I would disagree, I would in fact say that they're specifically saying that from a rules perspective it DOESN'T have a special moral character.



I don't follow the argument. Most of those who argue that sex is not a commodity would begin from the premise that sex is a normal, healthy and natural thing. That view would be shared by both John Finnis and Andrea Dworkin, for instance, who otherwise have quite different views on sexual ethics!


----------



## Aurondarklord

Okay, if sex has a special moral character, then WHY does it have a special moral character?

I have only heard two real arguments, on opposite ends of the spectrum.

1: sex is evil.  You can have a wide variety of justifications for this, ranging from unprovable religious dogma, to more modern ideas that sexual dynamics allow one gender to objectify or exploit the other, but the net result is the same, sex is somehow fundamentally dirty, to be avoided and shamed, and if you have to do it...which obviously we have to in order to keep our species going, should be kept locked up within marriage, in the bedroom with the lights off, for the purpose of producing children.  And of course it should be enjoyed as little as possible, which means any sort of fornication, and especially women who would offer that kind of sinister temptation for money, or are the victims of an oppressive system that's forced them or brainwashed them into promiscuity, because no right thinking woman could possibly want that on her own, depending on where you come at this view from...well that's just right out!

2: sex is sacred.  It is a transcendent experience, the peak of human intimacy and love, it should be a fairy tale, something you save for that one special soulmate to whom you consecrate yourself with marriage after an epic courtship where you prove to each other that your love can endure all hardships and demonstrate that you're worthy of your partner's most precious gift, that of course can be shared only with someone so special.  And those who have sex more freely are demeaning it, turning this most incredible of things into something base and mundane, and certainly prostitutes, who assign financial value to something inherently priceless are the worst of the worst.

Whether you sneer at sex or put it on the ultimate pedestal, you're inherently defining it as something abnormal, something that exists apart from the rest of the world and must be treated with the utmost kid gloves, which certainly does not sound like a "normal, healthy activity".


----------



## Loonook

Aurondarklord said:


> Okay, if sex has a special moral character, then WHY does it have a special moral character?
> 
> I have only heard two real arguments, on opposite ends of the spectrum.




How about sex is dangerous, and thus respected?  In this, I will strictly be going with heterosexual intercourse... I don't feel like getting into any other imbroglio.

We are a race that is poorly built for natural procreation.  Sure, it's fantastic fun, and practice makes perfect... But because of our bipedal nature, energy requirements, etc. babies become serious business.  Even in a world with great care, infant mortality, stillbirth, and miscarriage still happen.  

Then we have the 'practice' side of things.  Even if you're deciding to go for any attempt at safe sex?  There's not really such a thing in most settings without magic.  Poultices, charms, etc. which didn't necessarily work in the real world may have a chance of working in this setting... But at what cost?  Does your local Temple of Love provide protective amulets to those who could suffer from an unplanned pregnancy?  Do nobles pay for their court mages to make philters or other means? And of course there's always all sorts of wonderful conditions beyond that...

There's a lot of questions to it.  Of course D&D never covers that, and the one 3rd party book that does cover any of that sort of thing is kind of anathema to this board . 

So moreso people didn't necessarily find it icky or wrong in the evil sense, but more in the possibly deadly, possibly sickening dangers of it.  I would have no problem with prostitutes in a setting, or consider it necessarily an evil act.... And paladins don't spread disease, just a possibility for a bouncing baby zealot.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Aurondarklord

If Cedric is engaging in these behaviors without using reliable protection (I don't hold that it has to be perfect, because perfect isn't achievable in any area of life, but it should be reasonably reliable), be it magic or mundane, then at the very least he's acting dishonorably, for all the various reasons you just mentioned.  I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt in that regard.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6667464]Aurondarklord[/MENTION], I mentioned to philosophers - Finnis and Dworkin - who don't begin their discussion of sex from the proprosition either that it is sacred or that it is evil.

I'm conscious of board rules, and don't want to break them. But here's another way in via a bit of a tangent. Karl Marx denies that _labour_ is a commodity, but does not think that labour is either sacred or evil. Rather, this characteric of labour is (according to Marx) a consequence of the role of labour in expressing the fundamentally creative nature of both the individual human being, and the species as a whole.

Most people who think that sex is not a commodity are going to begin from some comparable area of reasoning (like Finnis, Marx's reasoning is influenced by natural law ideas; and like other radical feminists, Dworkin is influenced by Marxist theories of exploitation; so the resemblances here in patterns of argument are not coincidental).

As I said upthread, you may not agree with those who say that sex is not a commodity. I haven't indicated whether or not I agree with them (and don't intend to). But the position is a fairly standard one, and (as I also said upthread) I'm not surprised that the Book of Exalted Deeds tends to take it for granted.


----------



## Sunseeker

It's been a long time, but here's my stand on it and a little background.

I am a big fan of the 4e Paladin who is more a champion of the causes of their chosen deity than a specific member of a LG order.  So even when running 3.X games, I allow my players the freedom 4e afforded them, which is one alignment adjustment away from their deity variance.

When it comes to people playing their characters, playing their characters is _their_ job, not mine.  I set the framework of the game, the morality of the given town/country/universe that people are in and so on.  I run the game.  They run their characters.  It's a simple dichotomy.

So along those lines I only question players in terms of their adherence to the demands of their deity.

If their deity says prostitution and drinking are bad, then a paladin who does such things is going to fall out of favor pretty quick.  If their deity says nothing about sleeping with loose women or drinking, then neither do I.  If the player belongs to a specific holistic order, either one they created or one they are taking from books, then I hold them to that as well.  If they are doing something considered "bad" by their order, they'll get into trouble.

As for your character in particular, aside from his rather obvious Gary-Stuness(which to be fair, every character has to some degree), I wouldn't have a problem with him in my game.


I don't issue out penalties for drinking unless one of my players is making a big deal about how much they've drunk.  I think trying to balance out real-world alcohol metabolization rates in a fantasy game is no fun.  Likewise, I don't make a big deal out of sex either, I'm not going to go into detail about how you pleasured your partner, and I'm not going to have consequences either unless, as before, you're making a big deal out of it.**
**I have, out of boredom, created several fantasy STDs exactly for these kinds of players.  I've also found several tables regarding pregnancy rates, so _if_ a character wants to take their sex seriously, I'm willing to play along, but for the most part bedroom forays are something a character does by saying "I take the hot girl who's totally digging me up to my room and close the door."  We then more on to other things.  Brothels usually exist more for thematic reasons and silly-willies.
***So far, I've never had to use any of these rules in my game.


----------



## Furby076

Narse said:


> _A good character is not opposed to sex in
> principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships
> such as prostitution, the use of slaves for sex, or sexual
> contact with children or others without the power to enter
> freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect._
> 
> While having sex in and of itself wouldn't disqualify the character from being a Paladin, it seems that engaging in prostitution would.




Prostitution is considered "evil" generally in American culture (though not in every place...for example Nevada and chicken ranches.  Though you can go to many other industrialized/democratic countries (e.g., Germany) where prostitution is allowed.  I would say coercive prostitution (slave prostitution) would be considered evil, because you are removing somones free will, but if someone were to be a prostitute of their own choice then imho, and those of others around the world, it is not evil.

The problem with the morality you may take from D&D is that it is the morality of someone elses writing. Also, the problem with using the DMs morality (alone) is that it is theirs alone.  While the DM creates/runs the game, the entire group at the table needs to enjoy it.  An open minded DM will set aside some of their beliefs to allow their players to be entertained...and those players will set aside some of their beliefs to allow the DM to be entertained.  There is no write or wrong except for what the DM and players agree to.


----------



## S'mon

Aurondarklord said:


> Okay, if sex has a special moral character, then WHY does it have a special moral character?




It doesn't matter why; only that people feel it does.  It doesn't matter whether a taboo is based on biology or purely cultural, only that it is a taboo.

Edit: Since Cedric's god supports Cedric rather than the established priests of Cedric's religion, it is clear that in Cedric's universe, Cedric is an acceptable Paladin. Ergo, were I running the Cedricverse, I would certainly allow Cedric as a Paladin of Cedric's god. Were I running my own universe, well I might allows Cedric as a Paladin of Pelor or another NG deity. I might allow Cedric in a Forgotten Realms campaign, even as (eg) a Paladin of Torm, as the Cedricverse seems close to the Forgotten Realms in tone and I try to keep to a Greenwood-ian feel in my FR campaign, which would allow for 'fest halls' et al.

I would not allow Cedric as a Paladin of the Great Church in my Yggsburgh setting, as the Great Church is a LG quasi-Christian religion, does not approve of prostitution, and there is no indication in that setting that the Lord or Son approve of prostitution contrary to the tenets of the Church.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> I don't follow the argument. Most of those who argue that sex is not a commodity would begin from the premise that sex is a normal, healthy and natural thing. That view would be shared by both John Finnis and Andrea Dworkin, for instance, who otherwise have quite different views on sexual ethics!




Did I ever tell you that Finnis taught me Jurisprudence at Oxford?  He and his acolyte did a sufficiently bad job promoting Natural Law theory that for 10-15 years afterwards I was a strong Legal Positivist!  These days I tend to think the Natural Lawyers have a point.
I remember other Dons being very hostile to (Andrea) Dworkin & MacKinnon, in general they did not like the cultural Marxists at all, and I don't recall looking at any classical Marxists until I was doing my PhD.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> Did I ever tell you that Finnis taught me Jurisprudence at Oxford?  He and his acolyte did a sufficiently bad job promoting Natural Law theory that for 10-15 years afterwards I was a strong Legal Positivist!  These days I tend to think the Natural Lawyers have a point.



I've never met Finnis, but I have a colleague who did his DPhil under Finnis's supervision and has told me a few stories.

I'm in the process of finishing a paper at the moment for a workshop I'm co-organising next week, defending a sort of sociological positivism against Mark Greenberg's criticisms. I would describe myself as a pessimistic positivist: I think that written, bureaucratic law only really makes sense under positivistic assumptions, but that those assumptions may not hold good, in which case the project of written, bureaucratic law would be a failure.



S'mon said:


> I remember other Dons being very hostile to (Andrea) Dworkin & MacKinnon, in general they did not like the cultural Marxists at all, and I don't recall looking at any classical Marxists until I was doing my PhD.



None of that surprises me, given the general outlook of Oxford pol phil and jurisprudence!

I studied social theory as an undergraduate, but have really only come to understand it since teaching it: I teach Durkheim, Marx and Weber, plus various more contemporary authors that show the continuing force of some of the concerns that motivated the classics, as well as the continuing force of some of their solutions.


----------



## S'mon

OT, but hey, the boards need some posts! 



pemerton said:


> I teach Durkheim, Marx and Weber, plus various more contemporary authors that show the continuing force of some of the concerns that motivated the classics, as well as the continuing force of some of their solutions.




Sounds like my mother, she's a (retired) Sociologist - growing up I constantly heard "Durkheim, Marx, Weber" - yet she was probably the only right-wing sociologist in Northern Ireland, if not the entire British Isles! I remember her telling me that 'religion was the opium of the masses' per Marx - and also that it was absolutely vital to avoid social disintegration...


----------



## Jackinthegreen

S'mon said:


> It doesn't matter why; only that people feel it does.  It doesn't matter whether a taboo is based on biology or purely cultural, only that it is a taboo.




But it does very much matter why people think something is taboo because in some very well-known cases we eventually find such ideas are silly.  For example, it used to be that interracial marriage was taboo due to racism but now such an idea is no longer discriminated against by the general public.  In the case of D&D it seems possible that a deity could have a champion like Cedric to help show that some things are not as bad as the people think they are so long as people are responsible.  Through such fiction we might be able to think critically about our own views and come to understand that some things we think are bad really aren't, or even vice-versa.


----------



## S'mon

Jackinthegreen said:


> In the case of D&D it seems possible that a deity could have a champion like Cedric to help show that some things are not as bad as the people think they are so long as people are responsible.




If you look at my edit beneath the bit of my post you quoted you'll see that I addressed the fact that Cedric's god supports Cedric, ergo in the Cedricverse Cedric is a fine Paladin, because Cedric's DM says so (leaving aside that Cedric is actually a DMPC). In the Cedricverse Cedric may be used by Cedric's god to teach that Cedric's god views prostitution as ok. As long as either (a) the god defines acceptable behaviour or (b) the GM agrees with Cedric's god, then no problem, Cedric keeps his Paladinhood.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

S'mon said:


> If you look at my edit beneath the bit of my post you quoted you'll see that I addressed the fact that Cedric's god supports Cedric, ergo in the Cedricverse Cedric is a fine Paladin, because Cedric's DM says so (leaving aside that Cedric is actually a DMPC). In the Cedricverse Cedric may be used by Cedric's god to teach that Cedric's god views prostitution as ok. As long as either (a) the god defines acceptable behaviour or (b) the GM agrees with Cedric's god, then no problem, Cedric keeps his Paladinhood.




I did notice and comprehend the edit, but I was specifically responding to you saying that it doesn't matter why though I suppose I didn't do quite as good of a job as I would have liked.  The why matters because it is through understanding the whys and other parts of a taboo that we can get to the root of whether it actually has a place in a given community both in fiction and in real life.  That is relevant to the thread because we have to analyze whether the taboos actually pertain to alignment and whether taboos can shape alignment or the idea of what an alignment stands for, or whether the idea of alignments in and of themselves are worthwhile.  The fact that for Cedric to exist as he does means his deity and the DM are behind him and view his activities as qualifying him to stay Lawful Good is obvious.  But that's just the first layer of this and we all can discuss so much more.


----------



## S'mon

Jackinthegreen said:


> I did notice and comprehend the edit, but I was specifically responding to you saying that it doesn't matter why though I suppose I didn't do quite as good of a job as I would have liked.  The why matters because it is through understanding the whys and other parts of a taboo that we can get to the root of whether it actually has a place in a given community both in fiction and in real life.  That is relevant to the thread because we have to analyze whether the taboos actually pertain to alignment and whether taboos can shape alignment or the idea of what an alignment stands for, or whether the idea of alignments in and of themselves are worthwhile.  The fact that for Cedric to exist as he does means his deity and the DM are behind him and view his activities as qualifying him to stay Lawful Good is obvious.  But that's just the first layer of this and we all can discuss so much more.




Well we can't discuss the merits of any real-life taboos as that would come under politics, religion, or both.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

S'mon said:


> Well we can't discuss the merits of any real-life taboos as that would come under politics, religion, or both.




It might depend on the specific taboo or other idiosyncrasy.  For example, it's taboo and disrespectful in Japan to spit on the field in baseball but very much expected in the US.  I'd say neither politics nor religion had a part in that.

Going into the ones concerning Cedric, we've seen a bit of chatter about the prostitution but it's mostly tiptoeing around because it's a sensitive issue.  That's probably the biggest thing people have to think about with regards to him and I know leaving out any reference to his sexual activities would have more people think he could be a paladin.


----------



## Aurondarklord

pemerton said:


> @_*Aurondarklord*_ , I mentioned to philosophers - Finnis and Dworkin - who don't begin their discussion of sex from the proprosition either that it is sacred or that it is evil.
> 
> I'm conscious of board rules, and don't want to break them. But here's another way in via a bit of a tangent. Karl Marx denies that _labour_ is a commodity, but does not think that labour is either sacred or evil. Rather, this characteric of labour is (according to Marx) a consequence of the role of labour in expressing the fundamentally creative nature of both the individual human being, and the species as a whole.
> 
> Most people who think that sex is not a commodity are going to begin from some comparable area of reasoning (like Finnis, Marx's reasoning is influenced by natural law ideas; and like other radical feminists, Dworkin is influenced by Marxist theories of exploitation; so the resemblances here in patterns of argument are not coincidental).
> 
> As I said upthread, you may not agree with those who say that sex is not a commodity. I haven't indicated whether or not I agree with them (and don't intend to). But the position is a fairly standard one, and (as I also said upthread) I'm not surprised that the Book of Exalted Deeds tends to take it for granted.




First of all...you can't seriously claim that Andrea Dworkin didn't argue from the point of view that sex was evil, at least, heterosexual, penetrative intercourse.  She wrote an entire book arguing that heterosexual intercourse was inherently coercive, invasive, and demeaning towards women, that it was a form of "occupation", and an expression of male contempt for women.  I'd not be the first person to sum up her views as "all sex is rape".

Nor are Marx's views really relevant here, in the context of D&D, labor is certainly a commodity, or at least the game books presume the players will treat it as one, hence all the tables on how much different professions charge for their services per day and the value of crafted items.

And prostitution can be just another form of labor, I still haven't heard a real argument that is compatible with "sex is a normal and healthy activity" (IE, does not stem from "sex is evil" or "sex is sacred") that explains how sex has a special moral character that renders all prostitution inherently coercive and exploitative, regardless of circumstances.


----------



## BigVanVader

I voted no, because he's a Paladin. Every Paladin is the same, they make a big deal out of literally everything in the universe.

Hey Cedric, can you stab that Orc over there?

"Nothing matters in the end, we're all dying so I better get my pleasures where I can! I'm God's Lonely Man."

Yeah that's great Cedric. Hey, turn the cart around, let's just go hire that fighter that was eating his toenails. I'll bet he'll shut up and stab Orcs.


----------



## Sadras

Why would you necro a 2-year old thread? No other topics since then were interesting enough?


----------



## was

Sadras said:


> Why would you necro a 2-year old thread? No other topics since then were interesting enough?




People overly worried about their post count I would guess.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Sadras said:


> Why would you necro a 2-year old thread? No other topics since then were interesting enough?




The OP is Jan '05, so I'd count it as a 9 year 10 month necro, which very nearly makes it epic.  It's easy to do this by accident with the "related thread" links at the bottom of threads.  I mostly don't mind necros, but I'd love it if they were prominently flagged as such so I don't accidentally do quote replies where people have to remember what they were thinking a decade ago to respond.


----------



## BigVanVader

Mishihari Lord said:


> The OP is Jan '05, so I'd count it as a 9 year 10 month necro, which very nearly makes it epic.  It's easy to do this by accident with the "related thread" links at the bottom of threads.




It's also easy to do if you've been reading 98 pages and completely forget that there's been significant time passed between each comment and post.


----------



## jrowland

Maybe [MENTION=198]shilsen[/MENTION] will hear the necro summons and regale us with tales of Sir Cedric's adventures.


----------

