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.
