fusangite said:
We're not advocating the idea of separate disassociated types of prostitution. We are arguing that there is a continuum of different types of prostitution.
Well, as it is the only kind of prostitution the paladin is interacting with, why wouldn't it be more relevant than the types with which the paladin is not interacting?
Yes. But the "purpose" of sex is a socially constructed thing, at least for the purpose of running RPGs. Even if you want to argue that sex in this world has some absolute "purpose" that is transhistorical and transcultural, what is the point of running a fantasy RPG if the fantasy world has to conform to the transcultural, transhistorical truth you posit for this world? The fact is that how we think about sexuality does vary based on social conditions. Now, if you want to argue that your particular cultural approach to these issues is the absolute reference frame and all other cultures can be judged based on their proximity to this view, that's fine. It still does not alter the fact that different cultures really do think about sexuality differently. Look at the Inuit and Mongol definitions of hospitality, for instance.
The purpose of sex is only socially constructed "for the purpose of RPGs" because the rules of morality in an RPG setting are, to some degree, socially constructed. "Murder is "wrong"" is a socially constructed thing in RPGs too, but I doubt there'd be any takers for Natural Born Killers paladins. And if there were any takers, they'd be wrong.
Your argument does not get any stronger by bringing examples of cultural relativism. Different cultures have different thoughts about sex. Different cultures also have different thoughts about slavery, genocide, rape, torture, and pretty much anything else you can come up with.
You seem to have quite the antipathy to transhistorical, transcultural concepts. However, as I read the PHB, D&D takes that bull by the horns and posits good and evil (and law and chaos) as universal, transhistorical, transcultural phenomena. The paladin class is explicitly tied to these transhistorical, transcultural concepts.
you're distorting several things in this paragraph:
1. How people (actually)
fusangite said:
Elder-basilisk said:
there's also the effect upon the johns to consider--I haven't known anyone whose marriage has been destroyed by such a habit, but I've met plenty of people who have tossed their futures away for a pair of thighs wrapped around them now)
Yes. But in other cultures, these dire consequences are less common or there are different consequences because those cultures understand sex differently.
Really? Care to give some examples of cultures where there are generally no negative effects on the Johns here? Because, where I'm standing, I can see that kind of thing happening from modern Amsterdam (where I witnessed it firsthand) to urban America and all the way on back to the first century (the parable of the prodigal son wouldn't work if people weren't familiar with the wastrel) to the time of the judges (Samson springs to mind). There are examples in pagan literature as well.
Look, I've gamed with people who feel that D&D is about modern people thinking modern thoughts living in modern cultures using medieval tech and magic. That's a fine way to play D&D -- it's just not a way I enjoy playing the game. And I don't think that's the playing style that most people contributing to this thread favour.
You've read enough of my posts that you should know it's not my take on D&D either. However, there are two questions that go on from here:
1. There are more options to playing D&D than simply A. Modern people with modern thoughts in modern cultures but with magical-medieval tech and B. Foreign people with foreign thoughts in different (usually ancient) cultures with magical-medieval tech. The concept of alignment offers a way to play the second while still evaluating the cultures and perspectives adopted. One can play culturally in Thay and still say "they're evil." Doing so is not necessarily a modern thought (I would argue that it is timeless) and, in fact, it seems particularly alien to the (post) modern point of view.
2. In exactly what cultures that could support paladins would this kind of behavior be seen as admirable? How exactly do you manage to simultaneously support the idea that paladins have to be chaste (unless they're Faerie Queen paladins) and that Sir Cedric fits the concept of a paladin.
(For that matter, I also question the assumption that it's practically possible for someone to draw a bright line and accurately discern between the various kinds of prostitution, etc. IME, most rationalization of any kind begins by assuming that subtle distinctions between the various mechanisms of satisfying ones appetites are clear and can be stuck to).
But we're not doing that. What we are saying is that prostitution runs along a continuum on which there are no sharp distinctions. Your reasoning here is essentially as follows: because there is no point in the spectrum where there are discreet breaks between colours, all colours are therefore yellow because yellow is the colour I see most frequently.
That seems to me to be exactly what you're doing. There is no clear point in the spectrum where prostitution becomes bad. The prostitution I'm choosing to look at at the moment is (by writer fiat) the stardust and gumdrops variety. Therefore all prostitution (that is relevant to this discussion) is the stardrops and gumdrops variety.
My point here is this: if there is no bright line, but we admit that, realistically, the stardust and gumdrops prostitution is a rare thing (if it exists at all) and only a small portion of that spectrum, then: 1. How does Sir Cedric reliably tell the difference between OK and not-ok prostitution? (Surely, he doesn't think that his efforts only entitle him to debauchery at that particular brothel when he's in that particular town)
2. How does Sir Cedric keep his influence towards accepting stardust and gumdrops prostitution from extending to the nastier (and more realistic) varieties? It's not like the brothel has a "paladin approved" sticker on the sign to differentiate it from other brothels that look similar but differ in ethically significant ways.
By patronizing this establishment which, by DM/writer fiat is entirely clean of anything improper, Sir Cedric is making a statement about his society should and should not accept and what "everyone" does and does not do. That statement does not simply apply, in the minds of his observers, to "this particular house of prostitution which is clean and well run and where everyone is there by free and informed consent with an eye by the madame towards getting them out." Rather, it applies to prostitution as a whole.
OK -- this is just an insane logical leap on your part. Your argument is that because paladins are exemplary individuals, every single thing they do should be/is viewed as a blanket endorsement of all practices associated with it. So, for instance, if a paladin travels by boat somewhere, he is endorsing press gangs and galley slavery. If he eats a loaf of bread, he is endorsing serfdom and agricultural slavery. If he uses a metal weapon or dons metal armour, he is endorsing slavery. If he engages in combat, he is endorsing all unjust wars and genocides. Etc.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were deliberately misreading my point here. My point is this: This particular brothel does not have a sign: organic, pesticide-free stardust and gumdrops brothel: paladin inspected, paladin approved. As you yourself admit, there is no clear bright line between the kinds of prostitution that are fine for Sir Cedric and the kinds that he shouldn't participate in (or encourage others to do).
Your examples of "extensions" of the argument are all flawed. First, they are flawed because they are all necessary from time to time. If you want to get to an island, you need a ship (or a teleport, blah blah, blah). If you want to live, you need to eat (or have a ring of sustenance, blah blah, blah). If you want to fight effectively, you need metal arms and armor (or you take druid levels, blah, blah, blah). The last time I checked, prostitution was neither essential to survival, combat [which is in the paladin's job description], or travel. That immediately places it on a different level from your so-called extensions of the argument.
One might also take issue with the examples from a different point of view:
The ship: There is a pretty bright line between slave-rowed galleys and non-galley ships. (I seem to remember the Athenians boasting about their navy being rowed by free men which would also seem like a bright line, but I could be wrong about the history). There is also, I think, a difference between sailing and prostitution in that sailing isn't inherently exploitive in the same way. You can (and many did) run ships without press gangs.
The food: Well, let's face it, paladins DO generally support serfdom--at least in the literature where they were born. But that said, supposing that a feudal hierarchical system is wrong after a considered evaluation, a paladin would still have to eat something and would (presumably) do so in the manner that did the least harm (or pretty close to that). On the other hand, a paladin won't die if he doesn't visit prostitutes so he can avoid that harm altogether.
The armor: I'm pretty sure you can get iron and blacksmiths without slaves. Try getting a brothel without prostitutes. (OK, so we're back to inherent wrongness, but that's quite significant. Inherent issues aside, though, any injustice incurred by wearing armor is indirect--it is associated with the materials and manufacture. The injustice associated with prostitution is often present directly in the transaction. The analogy would be a lot closer if the miners and armorsmith had to endure whateve injustice they endured every time someone donned the armor).
Let's just step into the modern world for a second: I believe that factory-farmed animals are raised under horrible conditions akin to torture; most vegetables are grown using pesticides that have adverse health impacts both on farm workers as well as on the people consuming them. Now, my paladin would buy organic vegetables and eat free range organic meat. Your paladin, faced with the same situation, would starve himself to death.
Again, you're comparing patronizing prostitutes to eating. I've managed to get by for nearly thirty years without visiting a prostitute and I'm not dead yet.
As to the modern world, I'm not particularly concerned about factory-farming or pesticides. My paladin would poke Peter Singer in the eye and would drive his Hummer by the In and Out Burger drive through to get a double double on the way to the stopping the evil succubus or other villain of the week.
If I read the comparison correctly, you're starting from the assumption that eating and having sex for money are ethically identical activities and the only ethically significant factors are how the sex object or food is produced. I think that's a faulty assumption.
1. Eating is a necessary activity, prostitution is not. That means that they occupy different ethical levels. The profound difference that this makes becomes clear when one considers our judgement of involuntary transactions. It is arguably acceptable to steal a loaf of bread. It is not acceptable to "enjoy" a prostitute without consent. They call that rape.
2. Food comes from non-human animals (yup, I'm a speciesist; run for the hills!) or plants. Prostitutes are human beings. That serves to reinforce the difference. It is worse to mistreat a human than to mistreat an animal. Thus the ethical issues involved in prostitution are more direct and immediate, and, often, are more significant.
2.1 Humans may be involved in the production of food, but that is incidental and can be changed. The prostitute is inherently human; that can't be changed. (Short of Star-Trek style holodecks or Arcanis's Phantasmal Lover spell).
2.2 In a fantasy setting, my general thought is that PC races plus a few others have the same ethical status as humans. I'm not so clear on inherently antagonistic races like mind flayers or ones with always in their alignment entries.
3. Food covers pretty much the entire category of necessary sustenance. Prostitution is only a small part of the category of sex. So, by comparing rejection of prostitution to rejection of all food, you are committing a category error. Just like you can reject factory farmed chickens and still accept free range chickens, it's possible to reject prostitution and still accept marital sex or even fornication and adultery.
I agree that paladins should set examples. Paladins should oppose bad rules by endorsing good kings. They should oppose bad landlords by associating with those who treat their peasants well. Etc.
And they oppose those who treat women badly by not patronizing prostitutes.
Even if I were to imagine that there was nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, paladins would still need a clear line dividing the good prostitution from the bad in order to patronize them. People observing Sir Cedric would have to be able to differentiate the good brothel from the bad on the basis of public information, like they can differentiate between good landlords and those who treat their peasants well. By your own admission, there is no such bright line for prostitution.
If patronizing prostitutes was necessary for survival or for fulfilling a paladin's duties things might be different. But, since it is not necessary, a paladin ought to hold himself to a higher standard of purity than he does in necessary things.
I'm watching you tangle yourself up here. I think you're seeing the problem of trying to create these transhistorical and transcultural values.
Nope. Just the problem of applying them in particular contexts.
Paladins live in the context of their culture; in Rome, a paladin wouldn't be indifferent to all forms of slavery; he would associate with people who treated their slaves well and who granted manumission fairly and generously.
You're right about the Roman paladin. But unless there is a concept of a good brothel in Cedric's game world like there was a concept of a fair and good master, it makes no difference to the impression he leaves. And unless there actually IS a good brothel (not just a concept of one), it makes no difference to whether or not Cedric is a paladin.
I think we agree on the central point of the digression, however: what ones' actions are interpreted to support and how they support it is culturally dependent.
What portion of Aragorn's army that marched from Minas Tirith to the Black Gate thought they would win? From my reading of the text, less than 20%. But there sense of hopelessness didn't make victory any more or less real. Fortunately, through most of history, this modern nonsense about creating one's own reality was not really part of people's thought. Whether you believe you will succeed is not actually the preponderant factor in determining success.
Ordinarily I wouldn't break up your thoughts like this, but this example is so eggregiously wrong that I have to. Aragorn's army didn't win the day at the Morannon. The victory was won at Mount Doom. For that matter, Aragorn didn't travel to the Morannon in order to win; he travelled there to give Frodo a better chance of winning. Certainly, most of Aragorn's men (and Aragorn himself) probably expected to die. That they didn't was due to Gollum's timing.
In the jurisdiction in which I used to live, there was one election in 1991 when something totally incredible happened and a bunch of people were elected to the legislature who did not believe that victory was possible. People who ran $300 campaigns were swept into office past incumbents who had spent over $100,000. Many of these candidates were not available to the media on election night because they believed victory to be so improbable/impossible that they were out doing other things. Many grudgingly quit their jobs, having made no plans to become full-time parliamentarians, etc. Belief in one's success is not a necessary condition of success.
Which is, of course, why Patton, Eisenhower, Alexander, and all the other great generals of history gave "we may win this battle, but if we're lucky, we'll die quickly and won't spend the rest of our lives as drooling imbeciles when the horrors of this battle become apparent to us" speeches. Victory is certainly possible for those who don't expect it. However, it seems to be one of the laws of leadership that confident and bold leadership generally contributes to victory.
While I agree with you that deportment is a necessary part of paladinhood and that Cedric does not rise to the standard I would set, I'm not sure that hope is a necessary part of said deportment.
Hope may not be a necessary part, though I still believe that it is important. Sir Cedric's attitude, however, doesn't even measure up to the call to die a good death.
Furthermore, Sir Cedric himself believes that his championship of good is futile but necessary. He could very well apply this thought to the abolishment of prostitution as well. As several people said, it's not necessary (in fact I view it as directly wrong) to sleep with a prostitute in order to protect and cure her. Sir Cedric could spend the time playing cards with the girls instead, and pay for their time. "Stardust and gumdrops" aside, I think most prostitutes would prefer that.
