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

[Navar]

#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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.