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

[shilsen]

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!"

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]

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.

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]

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.

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).

 

[shilsen]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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.