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

[Elder-Basilisk]

Funny that you should mention slavery in a post asserting that something is OK because it was legal a little over a hundred years ago....

Considering other things that were legal at the time, one might question the implied judgement that legal=ok, good and acceptable.

Prostitution - You guys realize that up until about one hundred years ago (really less) prostitution was perfectly OK and legal in the US? It is only not legal because of religious institution influence - and that is not all religions. Prostitution is a state law, not federal law. Yes there are the places in this world that have slaves - but Shil did not write about such a place.

 

[Thundering_Dragon]

He inspired me. And that was BEFORE Shilsen's latest installment

But then, naive chuckleheads have never inspired me, whereas self-aware, intelligent warriors with a good grasp of their situation generally do.

You think a man who holds himself above vices, however petty they may be, is a "naive chucklehead"? A Paladin should always have dignity and honor, as well as courage and righteousness, and this character falls woefully short in the former regards.

The issue here seems to be whether or not Paladins should be exemplars of moral actions and attitudes. If you think Paladins should be held to a higher standard than others, this character should not be a Paladin. If you don't think that, why even have a code in the first place for the class? As long as they're generally doing the right thing and fighting evil, they're Paladins.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You think a man who holds himself above vices, however petty they may be, is a "naive chucklehead"? A Paladin should always have dignity and honor, as well as courage and righteousness, and this character falls woefully short in the former regards.

The issue here seems to be whether or not Paladins should be exemplars of moral actions and attitudes. If you think Paladins should be held to a higher standard than others, this character should not be a Paladin. If you don't think that, why even have a code in the first place for the class? As long as they're generally doing the right thing and fighting evil, they're Paladins.

No, I think that people who don't understand the gravity of their calling are "naive chuckleheads."

As for standards, I do, in fact, hold paladins to a VERY HIGH standard, because I want them to UNDERSTAND rather than parrot. Any dink can follow a Celestial Rulebook for no better reason than "It says so." It takes a truly good person, and a fairly impressive one, to do good because he actually knows what is right and wrong. There is a difference between knowing the trappings of right and wrong and seeing past those trappings to what your true impact will be. There's also a tremendous difference between doing right and giving the appearance of doing right. Which brings me to vice and "moral attitudes," I have a different opinion than most on what constitutes a vice and what constitutes a virtue, and most people who are "holding themselves above vice" are among the most despicable people on the planet, in my experience. And they are generally responsible for more suffering and death than any dozen flawed human beings who nevertheless actually try to do right. If all these cats are exemplars of "moral attitudes" then the heavens must be a really unpleasant place.

Dignity and honor is in the eye of the beholder, but in my estimation the kind of dignity and honor everyone wants out of paladins is hollow. It is actually a form of pride and self-aggrandizement. Paladins shouldn't ride out around with a trumpet announcing to the world what wonderful people they are. It's people like that which cause us to NEED paladins.

Oh, and while I'm dealing with falsehoods... I believe the second highest calling for a paladin (or anyone for that matter) is the service of Truth. Politeness and its associated trivialities are nonsense and lies. There's a difference between respect for the legitimate and feigning respect to that which has not earned it for reason of "civility." The first is a virtue, the second is the lowest form of dishonesty, the subversion of truth for expediency.

The highest calling is to Love, but that's harder. Very few people in D&D worlds or the real world have managed to pull that one off consistently, and if we were making it a requisite for playing a paladin, we wouldn't have any. Still, Cedric does a better job of it than most.

 

[iwatt]

Shilsen, I don't know what foul rituals and sacrifices you made to bestow eternal life to this thread........... please share

 

[Furby076]

Funny that you should mention slavery in a post asserting that something is OK because it was legal a little over a hundred years ago....

Considering other things that were legal at the time, one might question the implied judgement that legal=ok, good and acceptable.

Then by that notion we can't ever have paladins or anyone good. Let's see a paladain kills, with a sword....today if you killed someone with a sword (even a /murderer drug dealer) you would probably get the death penalty (or life in prison depending on your locale). So again, we cannot compare our reality to a game based on the dark ages.

Also, you totally took my statement out of context. Not all prostitution establishments are based on slavery or coersion. Many are based on "Hey I want to make a few hundred bucks a night, and I can easily do it here." You may not agree with it, but nobody is forcing you to sell yourself... Also, if you would read my statement again, you would realize I said that Shil did not write anything about slavery in his initial post - so given that, your first sentence is totally erroneous, and I will assume it was an accident.

 

[Furby076]

A Paladin should always have dignity and honor, as well as courage and righteousness, and this character falls woefully short in the former regards.

The issue here seems to be whether or not Paladins should be exemplars of moral actions and attitudes. If you think Paladins should be held to a higher standard than others, this character should not be a Paladin. If you don't think that, why even have a code in the first place for the class? As long as they're generally doing the right thing and fighting evil, they're Paladins.

I think Cedric has a lot of dignity and honor...maybe not the stereotypical kind, but he has it. He is proud of what he does - without regret - he does not hide it or shy from it. He is definitly honorable...he keeps his word, helps those in need, and pays when asked not to pay. To be honest, he didn't even have to pay...services such as protection and healing are MORE then enough for him to be considered paying...what does Remove Disease cost in the DnD world? What does a DnD prostititue cost (5 gold MAYBE).

I don't think a paladin has to be the leader - they typically are, but they don't have to be imho. There can be paladins who do not want to have anything to do with society other then "Yes ma'am who is the evil demon harassing your family...he will be dealt with, goodbye" and she never hears from him again, except she knows the local demon was slain.

I think the biggest problem people have here is the paladin who goes to a prostitute. The morality of prosititution is subjective to a persons culture/religion. Again, to say "well what if they are forced" is incorrect because according to Shil's story and intentions, they are not forced...they are doing it to get a better way of life.

 

[Voadam]

IN this sense, I think the first definition of "Objectification" from dictionary.com works just fine: "To present or regard as an object."

We do not (usually) get into relationships with objects (when we do, a "personification" has developed - we treat that old car or the dearly loved teddy bear as a person with whom we have a relationship). In other words, objects are easily replaced with no remorse or emotional attachment provided the function is the same - if I need to write something down, I will pick any pen & paper provided they provide enough function (i.e., the paper is big enough to contain what I need to write and the pen lets ink flow freely).

When Person A regards Person B as an object, the relationship (in the eyes of Person A) is all about "does this person satisfy the function I desire" and nothing else - in the example at hand (women), "objectifying women" would be (to use a fark-ism) to look at a woman and say, "I'd hit it!" Any sufficiently attractive woman can easily be interchanged for the present partner because it's not about HER so much as it is about the functionality you desire - the sex.

I'd post a longer explanation because I know everyone's going to nit-pick and parse every word of this, but I don't have time. But basically, objectification boils down to, "do you care about HER" or do you only care about "what she can do for/to you?" If it's the latter, and she can easily be replaced by any other female of similar physical specifications willing to do the same things for/to you, you've objectified her. An easy example, IMO, is porn - my guess is that the appeal of the centerfolds is the titillation of the images (in which case one centerfold is as good as the next), and not in the discovery that "hey, she likes sunsets, dark chocolate, and listening to Mozart's Requiem just like I do! I wonder what I can do to make her life more enjoyable."

--The Sigil

But isn't this objectification fine in transactions between non friends? When you want an apple from the store you don't necessarily care about the individual vendor's personhood, it is ok to just want to buy an apple.

 

[shilsen]

Shilsen, I don't know what foul rituals and sacrifices you made to bestow eternal life to this thread........... please share

It's quite easy, actually - fricasee a few power-gamers, top up with the paladin's code, sprinkle with a little alignment for flavor, and there you go !

 

[Dirigible]

Wow. I'm surprised this debate is still going on; I remember seeing it months ago.

I wouldn't approve of Cedric in a game I was GMing, because he is both a 'debauched paladin' and a 'pessimistic paladin'. Either of those is fine on their own, but together, I think they're a bit much.

 

[Belgarath]

OK, here goes. Let me just preface this by saying i have only read the first 5 pages or. Someone else may chimed in with this.

There is a lot of talk about his defeatist attitude and I for one would personally agree with it. I as a DM would look at the storyline and suggest an alternative that would be more acceptable to me.

Instead of the whole thing of I will die fighting and it won't mean a thing, I would suggest it something along the lines of "Listen. I can die tomorrow and it wont mean much because I havent accomplished half of what i would like. This is a dangerous way of life, and if i want to take some enjoyment out of it, then I should be able to. <Insert god's name> doesnt have a problem with it, so why the **** should you?"

This would fit in well with the cursing. He still has all the same traits and a bit of a defeatist attitude. This fits more with the one that knows exactly what being a Paladin would cost him, but is going to do it anyway. I personally cannot see somebody who thinks that he cannot make a difference having the faith it would require to be a paladin.