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

[Rolzup]

How often is Rolzup running this glorious fiasco-in-the-making?

How well you have me pegged!

'twill be a monthly affair, taking the place of my current Eberron campaign. Which, in turn, will end with a bang (or a least a disquieting squelching noise) this very weekend.

 

[Mallus]

I really would like to play in this new campaign. As I was fondly recalling the whole Sir Cedric debate, a character popped into my head; the sauve, handsome, opera-singing ex-bard paladin, Largo Al(berto) Factotum. And his shining white stallion, Triggaro, which he summons by humming a few bars of his favorite aria...

(there isn't a piece of cultural product I won't reduce to a joke)

He's 1/2 St. George, 1/4 Il Divo, and 1/4 neighborhood fixer. With monstrous social skills. And a louche, mumbly, yet immensely charming bad Italian accent...

"I am Largo.... Laarhgo...say it with me, is it not a lovely name? No it is not, is it? But a lovely voice, yes? And the man himself not so bad, eh? They say I was raised by angels."

 

[shilsen]

I really would like to play in this new campaign. As I was fondly recalling the whole Sir Cedric debate, a character popped into my head; the sauve, handsome, opera-singing ex-bard paladin, Largo Al(berto) Factotum. And his shining white stallion, Triggaro, which he summons by humming a few bars of his favorite aria...

O ... M ... F ... G!

(there isn't a piece of cultural product I won't reduce to a joke)

Which is why we all love you.

And sometimes have an overriding urge to hit you over the head with a blunt object.

Often simultaneously.

He's 1/2 St. George, 1/4 Il Divo, and 1/4 neighborhood fixer. With monstrous social skills. And a louche, mumbly, yet immensely charming bad Italian accent...

"I am Largo.... Laarhgo...say it with me, is it not a lovely name? No it is not, is it? But a lovely voice, yes? And the man himself not so bad, eh? They say I was raised by angels."

I'm imagining Cedric and him entering a room from opposite sides. The universe would probably close up shop and leave.

 

[Jhulae]

Tell me about it I wonder whether people find it through my sig or just happen to dig it up every once in a while.

Sig for me.

 

[Montague68]

Sig for me.

Sig as well.

I'm notoriously hard on paladins, simply because they are my favorite class. That being said, I would allow this character and probably give you extra xp for an original and refreshing viewpoint. I may even shamelessly steal the idea when I play next

The reason I love this concept so much is because it embodies a core belief of mine - that allegiance to social norms != holiness. The epitome of this line of thought was St. Symeon the Fool, an Orthodox Christian saint from Syria who did such things as attended church in the nude, relieved himself in public, and other hijinks. The whole point of his behavior was to illustrate that social etiquette and rules are imposed by man, and not God. Thus do not judge harshly those who are different. Sorry to bring real religion into it but I figure the comparison was too strong not to make

 

[William Ronald]

Depending on the campaign and the paladin's deity, I could see this as a viable character. Mind you, I think that there are multiple ways to interpret a paladin character. A large part of this depends on the character's faith and culture. For example, there are some people who believe that a lie is wrong under any circumstances. Others would argue that lying is permissible in some cases, for example to protect innocent life. (Similar arguments exist over misdirection. Again, I think this really depends on the character concept. Perhaps the best thing for paladin players and their DMs to do is to discuss character concepts, the campaign, and a code of conduct.)

This can lead to a situation where paladins following different deities from different cultures may find themselves disagreeing or even in open conflict. So, there may be some paladins whom Cedric might find difficult to understand, although he may well respect them.

 

[riprock]

I'd allow it. How about a Paladin devoted to a fertility goddess? While I agree that it might not be suitable for a game with children, since when the the whole dang world have to be "child-proofed"?

I'm going to clue you folks in on a basic tenet of human nature. Everyone has vices. No one is perfect - I don't care what oath you took. The man who doesn't admit his vices is the priest who molests children, the nurse who murders her patients, the serial killer who keeps tasty tokens in his freezer. I'd much rather trust a man who admits he drinks, plays poker, and chases the girls around the brothel. I'd certianly trust him before I'd trust the young self-riteous pip that came to find him.

Point one - he's not forced the girls in any way and in fact the statement was made that he need not pay. He's chosen to pay since that is their profession.

Point two - He doesn't appear to be married so he's probably not doing anything that would be termed a technical violation of his vows since chastity doesn't seem to be a requirement.

Ancient cults of fertility promoted sex because they were interested in all aspects of expanded life for the tribe -- particularly children and crops.

I would rule that if a fertility goddess was sponsoring a priest, that priest had better have at least twenty viable children, expected to live to adulthood, and at least one hundred children who miscarried, were stillborn, or died as infants.

Of course, once you bring children into it, huge problems arise. Obviously it would be harder to play a fertility priestess with numerous children and frequent pregnancies, and issues like infant mortality rate become relevant.

Of course, there were also numerous heresies and small cults in the ancient and medieval eras, which does not square well with D&D's gods, who could use their supernatural powers to wipe out or gently correct heresies.

Pan was the god of shepherds, hunting, and rustic music, not lust. Priapus (who was Greek as well, though also identified with the similarly 'endowed' Egyptian god Min in some works and findings that I saw in archaeological museums in Turkey) was a very lusty fellow, known for his lust for the Nymph Lotis that almost led to a successful rape but was discovered and thwarted due to a donkey braying, but he was a god of the fertility of vegetable crops (His statue was set-up in vegetable plots to promote garden fertility but doubled as a "scarecrow" to keep away birds). All the male Greek gods were lusty at some time or another, but that does not make them gods of lust

Also social class and rural/urban position affected sexual mores strongly in the classical world. City-dwellers and the rich were more likely to see sex as an avenue for individual pleasure, whereas the rural and the lower classes were more likely to criticize sex as means of fun. Of course, it was the rich who got to write the books, so the surviving literature is easy to misinterpret.

According to Hubbard's Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome (p.14):

There was, in fact, no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today. ... sexual dissidence was a flash point of ideological contention. In Greece, suspicion of homosexual relations of any sort seems most pronounced in those genres of discourse that are designed to appeal to the masses' resentment of sociopolitical elites...

The rich were typically the only ancients who could afford an exotic sex life. The poor did not have time or resources, so they could not have justified indulgence even if they had been inclined to do so. In societies so close to tribalism, considerable justification would have been necessary. These were essentially tribal civilizations, one step advanced from the taboos of a truly primitive tribe.

 

[Taraxia]

My issue with this guy has nothing to do with the idea that paladins must be celibate, or that they're not allowed to partake of pleasures of the flesh, or any of those things. My issue with him is his little spiel about how doing good is a useless endeavor, and therefore he's driven to *compensate* for his life of do-gooding with indulgences and how it wouldn't be worth it to him otherwise.

That, to me, grates against the point of a paladin, someone who explicitly is supposed to do good for its own reward, and to understand that as part of his connection to a deity. For him to make the statements he does about the meaninglessness of his struggle against evil is for him to be suffering from a severe lack of faith, and lack of faith is what makes a paladin fall.

 

[shilsen]

My issue with this guy has nothing to do with the idea that paladins must be celibate, or that they're not allowed to partake of pleasures of the flesh, or any of those things. My issue with him is his little spiel about how doing good is a useless endeavor, and therefore he's driven to *compensate* for his life of do-gooding with indulgences and how it wouldn't be worth it to him otherwise.

That, to me, grates against the point of a paladin, someone who explicitly is supposed to do good for its own reward, and to understand that as part of his connection to a deity. For him to make the statements he does about the meaninglessness of his struggle against evil is for him to be suffering from a severe lack of faith, and lack of faith is what makes a paladin fall.

This is a critique that was brought up on the first page of the thread. I think I expanded on the subject enough in the other fiction pieces besides the first one exactly how Cedric can do/believe what he does and still have a very substantial amount of faith, but of course, that's my personal take on it. Tastes and personal opinion differ - and nowhere more than on paladin threads

 

[genshou]

This is a critique that was brought up on the first page of the thread. I think I expanded on the subject enough in the other fiction pieces besides the first one exactly how Cedric can do/believe what he does and still have a very substantial amount of faith, but of course, that's my personal take on it. Tastes and personal opinion differ - and nowhere more than on paladin threads

I think they're right, though. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but everyone I've ever seen with that kind of attitude on religion fell to what their religion defines as a life of sin and never returned to the morals they'd been taught their entire lives. It's a slippery slope, and not one I see the most devoted servants of a Lawful Good ideal sliding down without repurcussions.