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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Significantly worded! The priests, and not the deity.

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.

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