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

[Jackinthegreen]

The BOED does not appear to define sex for money as a normal and healthy act, or paying for sex as equivalent to paying for a new breastplate. Perhaps the authors regarded sex as in some way special?

It is also possible they had their hands tied while writing it since an official D&D book saying that prostitution, an activity widely looked down upon for many reasons, can be made to be good would cause a bit of an outcry despite the cover saying very explicitly "Warning! Content is intended for mature audiences only."

In short, perhaps the only way the authors could portray it was as "special." As free players, however, we aren't necessarily beholden to their publication influences.

 

[Aurondarklord]

I think they are writing with the assumption that players will be working on the baseline that modern American law and sensibilities represents "lawful good", because that's the values of the majority of their audience, and in most states, prostitution is illegal and held as a bad thing.

But in only a few cases do they make an explicit point of saying that something is wrong as a moral absolute, regardless of circumstances. For example, torture, they make very clear that torture is always an evil act, no matter who you're doing it to or why.

In other cases, they present a generalization, such as "poison is bad", and then go out of their way to point out the exceptions, like drow knockout poison and ravages, and explain the reasoning for why other poisons are bad.

In the case of prostitution, they don't go into this kind of detail, because as Jackinthegreen pointed out, they don't want an outcry, this is after all D&D, one of the most commonly and unfairly vilified games ever made, and they don't want to stir that pot by wading into a long discussion on unconventional sexual practices. But they do explain prostitution as evil for a reason, not evil as an absolute like torture, which IMPLIES that if that reason no longer applied, prostitution would not necessarily still be considered evil.

And S'mon, I would suggest you read at least the first post of the thread in full, not just the title. Shilsen explicitly goes on to ask if, beyond whether each individual poster would allow Cedric, if Cedric is or is not legal under 3.0/3.5 RAW, and that IS very much a question about the letter of the rules.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

But even without it being spelled out for me why this is the, as someone put it earlier in the thread "stardust and gumdrops" variety of prostitution, I don't have a hard time believing in the idea that women exist who 1, like casual sex, 2, are pretty or otherwise "high class" enough that they can pick and choose their clients a bit and avoid the really distasteful ones, and 3, as a result of 1 and 2 see prostitution as a relatively easy way to make a sizable amount of money and a superior choice to the mundane menial labor jobs that would likely be the only other choices for a woman of their social class in a medieval society.

I'm confused. Are the prostitutes "high class" or are they menial - suited only to mundane labor?

Are women empowered within the campaign world, or oppressed? Don't you think it nonsensical to have a progressive, liberated sex industry if other aspects of life are governed by gender, social class and medieval morality?

 

[Aurondarklord]

I honestly have no idea, that's a question of the individual campaign and Shilsen never told us all that much about the setting in his fiction.

But my point about high class vs menial is that in prostitution...let's face it, realistically, the hotter girls get the better pay and thus have to sleep with fewer clients to get by, allowing them to be choosier in what clients they accept and cater to a more refined, wealthier demographic. this is what I mean by a "high class" prostitute. However, just being hot would not help a lowborn woman in a medieval society in many other regards in terms of supporting herself. It won't do much to help her as a farmer, or a baker, or whatever, so she'd still be stuck with the difficult, menial drudgery that was available to lowborn commoners in medieval times as her other options for supporting herself, unless of course she manages to seduce someone wealthy or highborn and become a trophy wife, but that's still selling sex, the only difference is we've rubber stamped the word marriage on it so now it's okay. I'm sure realistically though we all realize that rubber stamping it with that word does not actually change the moral character of the act.

 

[S'mon]

And S'mon, I would suggest you read at least the first post of the thread in full, not just the title. Shilsen explicitly goes on to ask if, beyond whether each individual poster would allow Cedric, if Cedric is or is not legal under 3.0/3.5 RAW, and that IS very much a question about the letter of the rules.

I did read the first post in full. Several times over the years.

I expect the POV of the WoTC writers was that prostitution was a bit icky, but not as bad as torture. Anyway they appear to have only been discussing what constituted LG behaviour, not what was in compliance with the Paladin's code.

I would certainly not disallow Cedric from being LG based on the OP, though if he was apparently actually opening & running his own brothel later it starts to look a bit iffy to me. The guy seems closer to NG with C tendencies. It's not as if prostitution is sacred in his religion - I'd have no problem with say LG Paladins of Astarte guarding the temple where sacred prostitution was practiced, but from what I've seen Cedric comes across more as a Marty Stue in a quasi-Christian milieu.

 

[Aurondarklord]

The paladin's code says nothing about celibacy or not paying for sex, the only thing that's at all open-ended in the code is the "and so on" in the rule that the paladin must act honorably, and unless you believe that in all circumstances, patronizing a prostitute is inherently dishonorable, even if it does not contradict the tenets of your religion or break any oath you've taken, is legal in your society, and you treat the girls well and pay on time, I don't see Cedric as breaking the code here.

Is he a Marty Stu in a quasi-christian milieu? Maybe. The fiction was a mixed bag, I think the terms Mary Sue and Marty Stu get thrown around way too much these days, to the point that you can pretty much deem any protagonist who is a bit of a special snowflake to be one...and protagonists almost by definition are supposed to be special and interesting in a lot of cases. Look at some of the examples I've been mentioning, James Bond, Superman, Batman...beloved cultural icons, would definitely be decried as loathesome Marty Stus if they were made up by some random RPer on the internet instead of being famous iconic characters. But yeah, when Cedric's God depowers his own high priest for wanting to get rid of Cedric and things like that, it does get a bit grating...but on the other hand most of the fiction Shilsen came up with was highly entertaining and presented Cedric as a pretty balanced character. As for the other part...I think the emphasis here has to be very much on the QUASI in quasi-christian. Cedric's religion seems to be a bit more laid back in terms of the whole prudishness and piety business and more focused on "we help the helpless", a bit...Pelor-esque maybe? The High Lord definitely isn't uptight. I see Cedric as most likely an LG paladin of an NG deity, with most of his lawfulness coming from his personal mannerisms, his rigidly consistent, habit-driven nature, dedication to duty for the sake of duty, and scrupulous honesty, rather than the kind of lawfulness a more traditional paladin might have, which is more about trying to impose order and live by complex tradition and hierarchy. But as the SRD itself says, there's always more than one way to play a given alignment. And mind you, one of Shilsen's pieces of fiction explicitly says that the rules of Cedric's religion don't forbid, or in any way mention, prostitution, Magnus just thinks it's icky and surely must be disallowed (even though he has no actual basis for that belief in his religion's scriptures) because it goes against his glorious puffed up notion of a paladin as a perfect paragon of Galahadeyness...but hey that's what the saint template is for.

Long ramble aside though, being a marty stu in a quasi-christian setting is not actually against the paladin's code as written.

 

[pemerton]

As for whether the writers take for granted that sex has some form of special moral character, considering the mention of prostitution comes as part of a passage explaining that sex in D&D is considered a normal, healthy, and natural thing, I would disagree, I would in fact say that they're specifically saying that from a rules perspective it DOESN'T have a special moral character.

I don't follow the argument. Most of those who argue that sex is not a commodity would begin from the premise that sex is a normal, healthy and natural thing. That view would be shared by both John Finnis and Andrea Dworkin, for instance, who otherwise have quite different views on sexual ethics!

 

[Aurondarklord]

Okay, if sex has a special moral character, then WHY does it have a special moral character?

I have only heard two real arguments, on opposite ends of the spectrum.

1: sex is evil. You can have a wide variety of justifications for this, ranging from unprovable religious dogma, to more modern ideas that sexual dynamics allow one gender to objectify or exploit the other, but the net result is the same, sex is somehow fundamentally dirty, to be avoided and shamed, and if you have to do it...which obviously we have to in order to keep our species going, should be kept locked up within marriage, in the bedroom with the lights off, for the purpose of producing children. And of course it should be enjoyed as little as possible, which means any sort of fornication, and especially women who would offer that kind of sinister temptation for money, or are the victims of an oppressive system that's forced them or brainwashed them into promiscuity, because no right thinking woman could possibly want that on her own, depending on where you come at this view from...well that's just right out!

2: sex is sacred. It is a transcendent experience, the peak of human intimacy and love, it should be a fairy tale, something you save for that one special soulmate to whom you consecrate yourself with marriage after an epic courtship where you prove to each other that your love can endure all hardships and demonstrate that you're worthy of your partner's most precious gift, that of course can be shared only with someone so special. And those who have sex more freely are demeaning it, turning this most incredible of things into something base and mundane, and certainly prostitutes, who assign financial value to something inherently priceless are the worst of the worst.

Whether you sneer at sex or put it on the ultimate pedestal, you're inherently defining it as something abnormal, something that exists apart from the rest of the world and must be treated with the utmost kid gloves, which certainly does not sound like a "normal, healthy activity".

 

[Loonook]

Okay, if sex has a special moral character, then WHY does it have a special moral character?

I have only heard two real arguments, on opposite ends of the spectrum.

How about sex is dangerous, and thus respected? In this, I will strictly be going with heterosexual intercourse... I don't feel like getting into any other imbroglio.

We are a race that is poorly built for natural procreation. Sure, it's fantastic fun, and practice makes perfect... But because of our bipedal nature, energy requirements, etc. babies become serious business. Even in a world with great care, infant mortality, stillbirth, and miscarriage still happen.

Then we have the 'practice' side of things. Even if you're deciding to go for any attempt at safe sex? There's not really such a thing in most settings without magic. Poultices, charms, etc. which didn't necessarily work in the real world may have a chance of working in this setting... But at what cost? Does your local Temple of Love provide protective amulets to those who could suffer from an unplanned pregnancy? Do nobles pay for their court mages to make philters or other means? And of course there's always all sorts of wonderful conditions beyond that...

There's a lot of questions to it. Of course D&D never covers that, and the one 3rd party book that does cover any of that sort of thing is kind of anathema to this board .

So moreso people didn't necessarily find it icky or wrong in the evil sense, but more in the possibly deadly, possibly sickening dangers of it. I would have no problem with prostitutes in a setting, or consider it necessarily an evil act.... And paladins don't spread disease, just a possibility for a bouncing baby zealot.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Aurondarklord]

If Cedric is engaging in these behaviors without using reliable protection (I don't hold that it has to be perfect, because perfect isn't achievable in any area of life, but it should be reasonably reliable), be it magic or mundane, then at the very least he's acting dishonorably, for all the various reasons you just mentioned. I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt in that regard.