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

[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]

If that's my only option, I'd rather play a nice game of chess.

But noooooo. Instead, you get Global Thermonuclear War.

 

[Navar]

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]

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.

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]

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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*