• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Would you allow this paladin character in your game?


StreamOfTheSky

Adventurer
It (the poison reference) is in the description of the Code of Conduct in the paladin class section of the PHB. It says that the code requires a paladin to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)". There's no mention of traps, so the individual player/DM will have to decide whether that falls under "and so forth" or not.

I thought the reason was because the DMG spells out in the poison section that the trade or use of poisons is generally illegal in any community, not because of some sense of honor.
Special Abilities :: d20srd.org
"Price
The cost of one dose (one vial) of the poison. It is not possible to use or apply poison in any quantity smaller than one dose. The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources."


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

Lol!

Well, NOW (the National Organization of Women) used to support prostitutes and work with them, several decades ago. You can do some searches on it, if you like. I did a bunch of research on the history of prostitution for a human sexuality class and always liked this essay (warning! adult language and topics): WendyMcElroy.com: Content / Individualist Feminism -- Commentary / Prostitutes, Feminists, and Economic Associates
It's pretty informative, of course i don't know how objective or truthful she is, but everything in there agreed with the other research I did, and she does a good job summing things up.

Here's the most relevant section, if you don't want to read the entire essay:
[sblock]The purpose of my paper is to investigate the conflict between prostitute activists and anti-prostitution feminists in one area -- namely, the treatment of the economic associates of whores,[5] particularly of the men. Most people might assume that this conflict, and others, is the natural state of affairs between willing prostitutes, who sell themselves sexually to men, and most feminists, who decry the sexual exploitation of women by men. This assumption is wrong. Prominent spokeswomen in the '60s, such as Ti Atkinson, referred to prostitutes as the paradigm of a liberated woman. And a brief history of the Prostitutes' Rights Movement illustrates that co-operation, and not conflict, characterized the early years.

The Early Prostitutes' Rights Movement and Feminism

The Prostitutes' Rights Movement first appeared through the organization known as COYOTE, an acronym for 'Call Off Your Tired Old Ethics'. In early 1973, COYOTE emerged in San Francisco from a preceding group which was named WHO: Whores, Housewives, and Others. The 'Others' referred to were 'lesbians' -- a word no one even whispered aloud at that political juncture in time. And the willingness of prostitutes to embrace the cause of lesbian rights was one of their early and strongest links with many feminists of that time.

The founder of COYOTE Margo St. James became convinced that a prostitute-based group was necessary because the feminist movement would not take the issue of prostitution seriously until whores themselves spoke out. Earlier, the lesbian community had reached a similar conclusion about the need to speak out for themselves.

The mid-70s were a propitious time for prostitute rights. The '60s had created sympathy toward decriminalizing victimless crimes. The abortion crusade had embedded the principle 'a woman's body, a woman's right' into American society. The Gay Rights Movement in San Francisco had highlighted police abuse of sexual minorities.

Originally COYOTE limited itself to providing services to prostitutes in San Francisco, but a national Prostitutes' Rights Movement soon began to coalesce around the local San Francisco model. By the end of 1974, COYOTE boasted a membership of over ten thousand and three COYOTE affiliates had emerged: Associated Seattle Prostitutes, Prostitutes of New York [PONY], and Seattle Prostitutes Against Rigid Rules over Women [SPARROW].

The feminist movement reacted with applause. In 1973, for example, NOW endorsed the decriminalization of prostitution, and this is still the 'official' policy -- at least, on paper.[6] Ms magazine lauded both the efforts and the personality of Margo St. James. As late as 1979, prostitutes and mainstream feminists were actively co-operating. For example, COYOTE aligned with NOW in what was called a Kiss and Tell campaign to further the ERA effort. A 1979 issue of COYOTE Howls, the organization's newsletter, declared:

"COYOTE has called on all prostitutes to join the international "Kiss and Tell" campaign to convince legislators that it is in their best interest to support...issues of importance to women. The organizers of the campaign are urging that the names of legislators who have consistently voted against those issues, yet are regular patrons of prostitutes, be turned over to feminist organizations for their use."[7]

In the mid-80s, the Prostitutes' Rights Movement was decisively killed by an unexpected assassin: the AIDS virus. In the understandable social backlash that surrounded AIDS, prostitution came to be seen as a source of contagion every bit as virulent as IV needle use. The Prostitutes' Rights Movement could not advance out of the shadow of AIDS. Around this time, mainstream feminism also turned against the Prostitutes' Rights Movement and began publicly to excoriate prostitution as a form of patriarchal abuse of women. In 1985, Margo St. James left the United States to live in France. She cited the sexually conservative swing in the American feminist movement as one of her motives in leaving.[/sblock]

Apologies to the mods if this breaches no politics rules, if so please remove.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BBQLord

First Post
I thought the reason was because the DMG spells out in the poison section that the trade or use of poisons is generally illegal in any community, not because of some sense of honor.
Special Abilities :: d20srd.org
"Price
The cost of one dose (one vial) of the poison. It is not possible to use or apply poison in any quantity smaller than one dose. The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources."
"Generally illegal" seems viable. This would, however, allow for exceptions where paladins can use poison.

The SRD quote is obviously in error: do they truly expect us to believe that in drow cities (Evil) they would make drow poison (a poison that isn't inherently evil) illegal?


The BoED states, again on page 34, that poison (that deals ability damage) is evil because it causes 'undue suffering' in the process of killing someone. (Yes, I don't agree with this statement either. During combat the most anyone is going to suffer from poison is for like five rounds. And given that the alternative is more beatings with a mace I'm none too sure about 'undue suffering' either).
 

Orius

Legend
The SRD quote is obviously in error: do they truly expect us to believe that in drow cities (Evil) they would make drow poison (a poison that isn't inherently evil) illegal?

The drow sleep poison itself may not be illegal, though I suspect its use is strictly controlled by the matrons who want to see it used for capturing slaves, not coups carried out by ambitious female relatives. Obviously the matrons don't want to be on the wrong end of it with all the byzantine backstabbing that goes on in their benighted little holes.

They also would probably outlaw lethal poisons as well, because that's always a popular way to knock off an inconvenient ruler. Of course, drow society being what it is, the matrons probably still get lethal poisons illegally, and go out of their way to execute a poisoner who's either too clumsy to not get caught, or who is no longer useful.
 

Blackrat

He Who Lurks Beyond The Veil

Fusilliban

First Post
Dude, Cedric dies in this siege. There's no question about that - if he lives, it'll just feel like a cop-out. The question isn't what happens, the question is how it happens.

But I've enjoyed the fiction so far, and who knows? Maybe Shil will surprise me.

I'm surprised that no one seems to object to Cedric's rudeness to the other knight in the intro - that's the thing that seems most un-Paladin-like to me.
 

BBQLord

First Post
The drow sleep poison itself may not be illegal, though I suspect its use is strictly controlled by the matrons who want to see it used for capturing slaves, not coups carried out by ambitious female relatives. Obviously the matrons don't want to be on the wrong end of it with all the byzantine backstabbing that goes on in their benighted little holes.

They also would probably outlaw lethal poisons as well, because that's always a popular way to knock off an inconvenient ruler. Of course, drow society being what it is, the matrons probably still get lethal poisons illegally, and go out of their way to execute a poisoner who's either too clumsy to not get caught, or who is no longer useful.

Ah, but now you're dodging around the issue that truly matters; if a matron found it, for whatever undiscernible reason, okay to allow paladins the use of drow poison, would these paladins be able to use this 'Good/Neutral' poison? As even the BoED states that the use of drow poison isn't inherently bad, I see no problem here. It would, however, conflict with the PHB write-up of the paladin's code of conduct.

Basically one has to make a choice: either agree with the RAW unthinkingly and without looking at the context or go with the RAI and think the paladin's code of conduct through, given whatever situation he finds himself in.

I'm surprised that no one seems to object to Cedric's rudeness to the other knight in the intro - that's the thing that seems most un-Paladin-like to me.
Plenty of people have already stated they found this unpaladin-like. I don't necessarily agree though. There is nothing about the Lawful Good alignment that makes you inherently courteous. Besides, the knight's intonation and attitude towards Cedric were, IMHO, more inexcusable because he had already formed an opinion of a fellow knight (which he even regarded as a hero, up to that point) without giving said knight the opportunity to explain himself.

'Rudeness', or rather a quasi-emotional response of discontent, seems like a fair response.
 

shilsen

Adventurer
Summer break is over, Shilsen :D

Whoops! Busted :)

And no, I agree, I don't think this thread is ever going to die. We will pester shilsen until he gives us more story :)

Yeah... More story Shilsen! We wan't to know what happens with the siege.

So be it. I need to stop putting this off, anyway. I'll start writing the conclusion of the siege (and Cedric's fight with Kurgash) this week.

Dude, Cedric dies in this siege. There's no question about that - if he lives, it'll just feel like a cop-out. The question isn't what happens, the question is how it happens.

Hmm, that's exactly what my girlfriend said when she read what I had so far. And told me that Cedric was a Marty Sue and she should kick me in the nuts for writing this :)

But I've enjoyed the fiction so far, and who knows? Maybe Shil will surprise me.

We'll see. I have a general idea of what'll happen, but it's not set in stone, so I may surprise myself.

BBQLord said:
I actually registered to answer here. Unbelievable, if you knew how much of a lazy lurker I am.
(Sorry for reviving something so dead but damn, this stuff is Epic Awesome).

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
 

Rackhir

Explorer
I actually registered to answer here. Unbelievable, if you knew how much of a lazy lurker I am.
(Sorry for reviving something so dead but damn, this stuff is Epic Awesome)

If you liked it that much, don't forget Shil has a story hour, linked in his sig and mine. If you enjoyed this, then give it a try.

Not only is it stranger than you imagine. It's probably stranger than you can imagine.

Note: The first couple of write ups are essentially just his notes on what happened. So if you want a story, you might want to skip through some of those.
 

Chocobo

First Post
Interesting concept. For some reason I've never seen this before...
I like the story, and the character.

But I'd have to say no to being a paladin. It isn't the drinking or the whoring or the cursing. I was ok with it until the last few paragraphs of the first chapter, but then I saw the dealbreaker. It's the lack of faith. He claims to have faith, but he doesn't believe that the good that he does serves any purpose. He believes that he is doing the right and good thing, but he doesn't believe that it can change anything. He believes that as an instrument of his god, his actions make no difference whatsoever. That is certainly a lack of faith. He might believe that the god exists and that the god is good, but that's not the same thing. This is a moral man with an absence of faith, and that in my opinion excludes him from being a paladin.

Feel free to correct me if you think I'm misinterpreting that, but if I got this write-up I would tell you that if you play that character as written he would be a fallen paladin.
 

BBQLord

First Post
If you liked it that much, don't forget Shil has a story hour, linked in his sig and mine. If you enjoyed this, then give it a try.
I will, thanks for the tip!

It's the lack of faith. He claims to have faith, but he doesn't believe that the good that he does serves any purpose. He believes that he is doing the right and good thing, but he doesn't believe that it can change anything. He believes that as an instrument of his god, his actions make no difference whatsoever. That is certainly a lack of faith. He might believe that the god exists and that the god is good, but that's not the same thing. This is a moral man with an absence of faith, and that in my opinion excludes him from being a paladin.
Seeing as we're talking about Paladins I must disagree about the lack of faith. Sir Cedric might say and think he's lost faith but he actually still has tremendous faith in the righteousness of his actions. He doesn't "go through the motions", he actually does what he does because it's who he is deep inside. Doing the right thing, thinking/knowing it won't change anything, actually makes him a better paladin than other paladins who think their actions register.


However, I can image that it depends on your philosophical bend. Do you have to have faith in what you do or do you have to have faith in what you accomplish?

Deontology looks at the inherent rightness of an action (not it's consequence) to determine it's worth. The opposite, teleology, states that one must look tot the consequences of one's actions before one can judge it's worth. Killing baby Hitler is okay with teleology while deontology would say that killing an innocent baby is wrong.
 

Remove ads

Top