D&D 5E Can a Paladin Cure Addiction?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We have arrived at the "Agree to Disagree" part.

So ... I would say that in every published setting, Paladins should be chased out of each town.

That said, this really depends. Because different settings and, for that matter, different editions have always had different expectations. In OD&D / 1e, it was common to have towns populated with mostly leveled characters. Village of Hommlet, for example, is chock full of leveled characters, from the third level druid (town smith) to the tenth level thief and seventh level assassin (runs the inn) to the random fourth level ranger/farmers.

So .... I think that the expectations people have vary depending on what they are used to. I do think that Paladins in the past would be particularly uncommon (THANK GOODNESS!) due to the multiple restrictions on them, but today's newfangled "Believe What You Want, It's All Cool Man" Paladin? Who knows?

Sure, it varies. But it’s objectively canon that they are less common in Eberron than FR, and that they aren’t common in any published setting with the possible exception of Ravnica.

And more importantly, they can say no. They aren’t vending machines of healing.

 

[Maxperson]

And more importantly, they can say no. They aren’t vending machines of healing.

Sure, but unless they are under 3rd level or an Oath of Vengeance paladin, their oaths would require them show mercy or compassion and heal these people if they can. I don't have the other oaths outside the PHB available at the moment, so I'm not sure about the other oaths.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, throwing my two cents into the OP ( @doctorbadwolf ).

I don't cover this topic in my gaming world; certainly not in D&D. I think that real-world substance abuse (alcohol and drug addiction) is not an appropriate topic for fantasy gaming of the type that I play.

To the extent that there are "drugs" in the fantasy world, they are fantasy drugs and intoxicants with their own rules.

I would be exceptionally careful when addressing this issue with any group. I don't know that you could get together a group of 4-8 people, and not have one or more of them not have been touched by the problems of substance abuse. Whether it's an issue they have struggled with personally, or a family member, or a friend, it's going to be a rough spot.

In addition, there still a lot of issues regarding differing perceptions on the issue, as you can see in this thread. You might have some of the old school "it's a personal failure, pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" types. Others might swear by 12 step programs; some might swear at 12 step programs. There are those who would view addiction and substance abuse under the disease model, and those who won't, and those who believe that calling it a disease is accurate and helpful in some ways and misleading in others. The current consensus is that addiction is a disease ("a chronic, relapsing brain disease" for example) in much the same way that certain forms of mental illness are diseases, but unlike, say, the way we conceive of transmissible diseases (the flu, ebola), purely physical maladies (cancer, heart disease) or purely genetic diseases (cystic fibrosis, Huntington's).

It's a combination of genetics and environment, combined with actual changes in the brain that occur due to the substance abuse. IMO.

I'm not sure that it's something easily reducible in game terms. That said, I would tend to think that because it's not purely a "traditional" disease (as in some foreign invader to the bode that can be cleansed) ... if I had to make a ruling in the game, then it would require more than a low-level cure disease or Paladin cure.

That’s a great analysis, thank you.

I think it makes sense that permanent cure of addiction would indeed require either repeated treatment or more powerful magic, but I’d let the surface effects and physical need be cured pretty easily with LOH. However, I could see keeping it simple and just y/n all or nothing.

 

[jasper]

Mice aren’t humans.
...

Mr. Mickey would like a word with you in the alley.

 

[Umbran]

Root cause is genetic more often than environmental. By a wide margin. For literally all forms of addiction. Environmental effects are very strong for addiction though.

You do realize that here you are mixing your message?

People don't do drugs because of genetics. The root cause is what causes the drug use, not what causes the drug use to more easily turn into addiction.

With respect, in our real world, since at least the advent of crack cocaine, there have been drugs available such that one use may be sufficient to put a person in a state of physical addiction. Their brain chemistry after that use is screwed, and they will forever after be fighting the urge to take more of that drug. At that point, it is not a matter of choice, or strength of character, or "cause of drug use". At that point, the cause of drug use is prior drug use. "I was stupid once," may be the cause.

A person may become an alcoholic when their only intent was commonly accepted social drinking. They need not be escaping depression or have some other "reason" to be drinking. Simply having had enough binge sessions out with friends in college may be sufficient for many people to irreparably impact their neurochemistry.

Sometimes, there is a reason for drug use. Other times, not so much.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You do realize that here you are mixing your message?



With respect, since at least the advent of crack cocaine, there have been drugs available such that one use may be sufficient to put a person in a state of physical addiction. Their brain chemistry after that use is screwed, and they will forever after be fighting the urge to take more of that drug. At that point, it is not a matter of choice, or strength of character, or "cause of drug use". At that point, the cause of drug use is prior drug use.

A person may become an alcoholic when their only intent was commonly accepted social drinking. They need not be escaping depression or have some other "reason" to be drinking. Simply having had enough binge sessions out with friends in college may be sufficient for many people.

Sometimes, there is a reason for drug use. Other times, not so much.

Nobody decides to use crack because of their genetics. The root causes of crack addiction are things that would require talking about politics to discuss, because the root cause it whatever causes them to use crack in the first place.

No one drinks because of genetics, either. One drinks for social reasons, usually, other times due to depression or trauma, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Nobody decides to use crack because of their genetics. The root causes of crack addiction are things that would require talking about politics to discuss, because the root cause it whatever causes them to use crack in the first place.

The point, which seems to have been missed, is that the initial use does not need some deep, political, socioeconomic reason. "I was dumb or ignorant, not considering consequences, and found being high to be a novel sensation," is sufficient.

Humans, of all social strata, across all cultures, for all of history (and before history) have sought out intoxicants. This takes the issue solidly outside of current politics and economics.

There are particular risks in our current culture for some social and economic groups. But that is aside the more general issue that our neurochemistry is such that it can be hijacked.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

You do realize that here you are mixing your message?



With respect, in our real world, since at least the advent of crack cocaine, there have been drugs available such that one use may be sufficient to put a person in a state of physical addiction. Their brain chemistry after that use is screwed, and they will forever after be fighting the urge to take more of that drug. At that point, it is not a matter of choice, or strength of character, or "cause of drug use". At that point, the cause of drug use is prior drug use. "I was stupid once," may be the cause.

A person may become an alcoholic when their only intent was commonly accepted social drinking. They need not be escaping depression or have some other "reason" to be drinking. Simply having had enough binge sessions out with friends in college may be sufficient for many people to irreparably impact their neurochemistry.

Sometimes, there is a reason for drug use. Other times, not so much.

Not mixing it at all.

I intend for the statement to apply to both things.

The stupid initial decision is itself effected more strongly by genetics (in the aggregate) than by environmental context.

Now if you were refering to the fact i said environment is also a strong factor that is not a contradiction. Though many would think it is.

Im not on a "side". Realistically they are actually both strong (and ues this is mathematically quitr possible). Genetics is just WAY more of a factor.