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

[Will]

I haven't read the entire thread, but...

I have no problem with the prostitution, assuming it's legal. And drinking? Eh, whatever.

I find his attitude wrong for a paladin; a paladin has faith in what he's doing. The write-up sounds way too defeated and cynical for how I'd see a paladin in my game.

I could see him as a LG fighter, but as a beacon of good and law? No.

Now, SOME cynicism makes for a cool paladin. I play a paladin in a TT game who was the son of a well-off merchant family; he knows how corrupt day-to-day business and people are, he has no illusions about the world. He doesn't think he'll save the world.

But good things are worth doing, and good things are inspiring. And even if he chips a little, he's done something.

The paladin in the OP seems to have given up; he's just going through the motions. He's not inspired, or even resolute -- he's resigned.

I can imagine people allowing him as a paladin, I'm not saying it's clear-cut 'wrong.' But I think it violates the spirit of the thing.

 

[shilsen]

Given the sticky about long threads, even though this thread is nowhere near 1000 posts, can I suggest a compilation and fork?

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll drop one of the moderators a note sometime.

Whatever is best I guess.

In any case, I believe that when this thread does finally reach its end, Cedric will have earned the immortality of the Archives.

Fame at last!

I haven't read the entire thread, but...

I have no problem with the prostitution, assuming it's legal. And drinking? Eh, whatever.

I find his attitude wrong for a paladin; a paladin has faith in what he's doing. The write-up sounds way too defeated and cynical for how I'd see a paladin in my game.

I could see him as a LG fighter, but as a beacon of good and law? No.

Now, SOME cynicism makes for a cool paladin. I play a paladin in a TT game who was the son of a well-off merchant family; he knows how corrupt day-to-day business and people are, he has no illusions about the world. He doesn't think he'll save the world.

But good things are worth doing, and good things are inspiring. And even if he chips a little, he's done something.

The paladin in the OP seems to have given up; he's just going through the motions. He's not inspired, or even resolute -- he's resigned.

I can imagine people allowing him as a paladin, I'm not saying it's clear-cut 'wrong.' But I think it violates the spirit of the thing.

Did you read all of the fictional pieces? I think the later ones help flesh out the first one a lot and provide concrete examples of how one can simultaneously be resigned and inspired and resolute, to use your terms. But if there's anything this thread proves, it's that a dozen different people can look at the same thing and have diametrically different opinions, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's how Cedric still came across to you.

 

[Will]

Eh, thread's too big. But I'll take your word for it.

 

[Mallus]

But I think it violates the spirit of the thing.

Cedric certainly violates the spirit of the paladin class. He's interesting.

(I'll be here until the end of the week. Be kind to your bartender)

 

[evilbob]

I haven't read this entire thread (com'on - 26 pages!) but I just wanted to say: love the character concept! Not sure he's a paladin, though (at least by RAW). Here's why:

As some have already said, I agree that appearances matter. "Setting an example" is certainly part of acting honorably. You responded by asking, is the pious-acting paladin walking around town who doesn't actually -do- anything helping any more than this guy? To which I would have to say: well, yes, actually. Sure, he may not do as -much- to help to a small number of certain people, but he's leading a good example that has a minor effect on a very large number of people. Just knowing he exists is probably enough to help stop minor crimes and inspire others to lead better lives. So yeah: this really does count. Is it enough to strip Cedric of his paladin-hood? Probably not. But it's a start.

Next, the whoring. (How many times do you get to say that in a day? ) The big thing that jumps out to me here is that it would be easier and more honorable for Cedric to just pay the money without patronizing the whore house. Sure, he might feel like he deserves it, but I think it's fair to say that this is still far less honorable than NOT taking advantage of these girls in this situation, which he is clearly doing, despite any noble pretext - and I think we can agree on this without jumping into the huge side-discussion about prostitution, hollywood-ization, morals, laws, etc. Again, is it enough? Probably - but if not, it's getting a whole lot closer.

I also wanted to point out something that I haven't seen a response to so far: in the battle with the succubus at the temple, he trapped the building. Maybe I'm just being a stickler here, but I think that falls pretty squarely into what is covered by "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)." Now, it has already been said that "and so forth" is a VERY tricky term, but at least to me, "using traps" is certainly not being forthright, fighting with honor, or not being tricky or devious or whatever. Poison use and trap use are closely associated, and I think the fact that he tricked the enemies here in this way is something that would, according to most games, get him booted. Or at least, it would reaaally call his class into question - and if you're already teetering on or just past the line (as he is), then it'd be too much.


All that said: would I allow him in my game? Absolutely! I've rarely seen such an interesting character pulled off so well! He's a great anti-hero. But I think it would be either due to a house rule about relaxing alignment restrictions on the class, or by allowing any flavor of paladin in the game. As many have said before: Cedric is clearly chaotic good. He darn near embodies the description of the alignment! Does this mean he can't be a paladin? RAW, I think it does - but I'd still be happy to have him in my game.

 

[Furby076]

As some have already said, I agree that appearances matter. "Setting an example"

NOT taking advantage of these girls in this situation,

, "using traps" is certainly not being forthright,

If I may respond to these three items
1) Yes I prefer that paladins set an example, not because they should set an example but through their actions this is a byproduct
2) Cedric did not take advantage of these girls. He did not trick them into prostitution, nor did he get them started in the line of work. If I remember correctly the madam of the place even tries to get the girls out of the job, but doesn't force them out (their life is better then living on the street being homeless, foodless, and raped).
3) This is clearly 2nd edition mentality. The PHB, and other books (the cleric/paladin handbook I forget the name) all state that paladins can use tactics to win. They do not have to (anymore) knock on the front door, drop the gauntlet to the floor, and let their opponents buff up and get ready. It is totally acceptable (and smart) of a paladin to use tactics. Hence why 2nd ed was lawful stupid and 3rd ed is no longer lawful stupid.

Given that, everyone has an opinion.

 

[evilbob]

I dunno - gotta stand by my "taking advantage of them" statement. He is. Whether he means to or not, whether the girls think he is or not, he's taking advantage of the situation. He can always just not sleep with them and pay anyway.

I have to say I find the 2nd edition comment quite funny, since I never played 2nd edition. All the same: I think you have characterized my comment as if I said, "only direct, frontal assaults are ok" - which I did not. (It's strange to me that "direct, frontal assaults" are characterized by some as the only alternatives to devious tactics.) I think there's a pretty big gap between "using tactics" and "using dishonorable tactics." Poison use is another good tactic to use: but paladins are forbidden, a la RAW. Does that make them stupid? No. It just makes them more honorable in their use of tactics. Traps are pretty much in the same class. Surely we can agree that there's a big gap between "not knocking before breaking down the door" and "setting up a trap designed to kill people unawares?"

 

[Will]

Well, first, if prostitution is Evil or against the paladin code, it doesn't matter if he set it up or not; paying for it is becoming culpable to a degree.

At issue, though, is that first if. I think it's clear that prostitution very likely isn't Good; it doesn't uphold the dignity or respect of life, though people might even argue that point. It's also clear that prostitution CAN be Evil, when those involved are essentially slaves and suffer in various ways.

But it's D&D. Lots of stuff is glossy and painted over. Dental care is rampant.

So it's easy to imagine the D&D whorehouse that has employees that could be working as servants, but the money is better at the whorehouse and if they get very lucky and work their way up they might be married off. They are never mistreated, at least no moreso than servants anywhere, and never forced to ply their wares (except in so far as a prostitute that doesn't work doesn't get paid and may get fired).

In that sort of vaseline-lens version of a whorehouse? There are no clear violations of the paladin code. (IMO liberally)

 

[evilbob]

Yeah, even in the most idealistic, most trumped-up fantasy-style whorehouses, I still think the girls are being taken advantage of and that his actions are not honorable.

I guess it's just too hard for me to believe that prostitution somehow empowers women.

Dental care is rampant.

Lol!

 

[shilsen]

Dental care is rampant.

Now that's just a beautiful line !

I have to say I find the 2nd edition comment quite funny, since I never played 2nd edition.

And you are a kinder, gentler and happier man for it.

All the same: I think you have characterized my comment as if I said, "only direct, frontal assaults are ok" - which I did not. (It's strange to me that "direct, frontal assaults" are characterized by some as the only alternatives to devious tactics.) I think there's a pretty big gap between "using tactics" and "using dishonorable tactics." Poison use is another good tactic to use: but paladins are forbidden, a la RAW. Does that make them stupid? No. It just makes them more honorable in their use of tactics. Traps are pretty much in the same class. Surely we can agree that there's a big gap between "not knocking before breaking down the door" and "setting up a trap designed to kill people unawares?"

I had put in the bit about the trap on purpose because it's another of the things that is not something commonly associated with paladins but which is in enough of a gray area that I think it is usable. You, and I'm sure may others, evidently disagree. As you note, there's a big gap between the extremes and I think it comes down to issues of definition and where one draws the line. Paladins, by the RAW, are evidently able to use some degree of subterfuge, as evidenced by the Undetectable Alignment spell on their spell list. Now the question is what degree and type of subterfuge is acceptable, and that decision will vary between individuals. Do you let a paladin benefit from flanking bonuses? Or attack flatfooted enemies? Can he hit a clearly weaker enemy with a sword during a battle? Can a paladin/rogue use sneak attacks? Can he let his mage buddy cast a displacement spell on him? Can the mage cast Greater Invisibility on him? Can he use a trap? I would say "Yes" in all of the above cases.

I should note also that he was using a trap against a bunch of enemies who were attacking him, which I don't think quite counts as killing people unawares.