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

[Navar]

And you would find it to be preserving their dignity MROE by going in and lecturing them on morality, putting them down, and acting as if you are higher than them. I am against prostitution becuase of the various consequences, but I don't find this argument to be valid.

No, and that is a false argument. I never said he should lecture them at all. I just said he shouldn't pay them for sex. Jesus hung out with a "working girl" but he didn't a) pay her for sex or b) lecture her on her profession.

 

[iwatt]

No, and that is a false argument. I never said he should lecture them at all. I just said he shouldn't pay them for sex. Jesus hung out with a "working girl" but he didn't a) pay her for sex or b) lecture her on her profession.

If you believe some books he did marry her though

 

[Navar]

If you believe some books he did marry her though

This is correct Mr. Brown would be happy, even in the "rather screwed up" world he created Jesus don't have sex outside of merriage.

 

[Voadam]

Helping a brothel would violate a paladin's code in that they aren't supposed to help those in need if they would "use that help for evil or chaotic ends", which prostitution and hedonism are.

Tell me, is hedonism an evil or chaotic end in your view?

 

[Voadam]

You asked me to draw a clear line about where killing is acceptable and not an "evil act." I did. It's not my fault you don't like the line. You didn't ask me to try to "increase the good" by offering baddies the chance to have the epiphany. You asked for something more simplistic - how do I avoid evil? (Maximizing good and simply avoiding evil are two very different things ). My "line" wasn't necessarily drawn to keep a good character good, it was drawn simply to keep a neutral character from crossing into evil. Please show me where the line is internally inconsistent.

We can deal in what if's - "what if the evil person becomes good?" - but they're ultimately speculation, not cold hard fact (I presume here you mean he turns good after sparing his life, not killing someone who is now good because once upon a time he was evil).

The fact is, when he was killed, he was evil. So he never became good. The "what if" doesn't matter - because "it didn't happen."

(I am here reminded of the LotR:RotK EE easter egg...

"What if the ring WASN'T destroyed?"
"It was."
"But... what if... it wasn't?"
"It was!"
"But... what if... you know... it WASN'T?"
"It WAS!")

Yes, it's a simplistic worldview. But is completely internally consistent, no? When he was killed, he was evil. He never became good. Where's the problem?

(I have posted elsewhere that ideally, a paladin offers his quarry the chance to repent unless offering that chance is likely to lead to the harm of an innocent, but since we're not talking about "increasing good" but simply "not doing evil" here, it's somewhat off-topic.)

Allow me to answer your question about the child not quite as stated, but instead substituting the word "crime" with "evil act" (to avoid the whole, 'whether or not something is a "crime" is a function of local laws" side trek) and address it from that angle.

I reject the premise that you can be "evil" and not yet have committed an "evil act." Alignment is "who you are" - and what you do is a function of "who you are." It is in action (or deliberate inaction) that one's goodness or evilness - or neutrality (a mix of both that doesn't heavily favor one or the other) is displayed. These actions need not be the "ultimate visible act of evil" but thoughts, words and deeds in preparation for that act are also evil (e.g., if you're plotting to murder someone, the acquisition of poison, the planning process to insinuate yourself close to them, etc. are evil acts at the time of commission... they aren't neutral acts that suddenly become evil when the "ultimate act" of murder occurs).

You defined the child as "evil" in alignment, therefore he must have committed acts sufficient to classify him as "evil" in the first place - someone with an evil disposition but who doesn't ever act on it is "neutral."

Again, "alignment is what you are, and what you do reflects what you are." If you haven't committed any evil acts, you aren't "evil," you're "neutral" ... so your question is a meaningless paradox.

The answer I would give is, "if the 12-year-old is evil (then he will have committed evil acts); it is not evil to slay him." If the 12-year old has not committed evil acts (then he is not evil); it is evil to slay him. Whether or not it is evil to slay him is a function of which of the two conditions you asserted is true; both cannot be true at the same time.

I would structure it thusly using formal logic.

1 - If X is of evil alignment, then X will have committed evil acts.
2 - X is evil.
3 - X has not committed evil acts.
4 - Because X has not committed evil acts, X is not of evil alignment (Modus Tollens).
Conclusion: Line 4 and Line 2 contradict each other, therefore one of our premises (1-3) must be wrong.

If you wish to reject my premise (i.e., a necessary part of moving from "neutral" to "evil" in the first place is the prior commission of evil acts), fine... but since I hold it as a true principle unless proven otherwise, you will need to either prove otherwise or cede that we cannot continue to have a meaningful argument about the original question. I'm not telling you "disprove this!" I'm just saying if you don't agree, we're probably at a logical impasse on this one and will have to move our attentions elsewhere... and I think we may be.

The simple answer is, you don't need to have perfect knowledge. You meet a creature. If you know it to be evil (e.g., a demon), you kill it on the spot. No evil committed.

If it threatens you, you kill it. You are in defense of life and limb, regardless of its alignment, and if you kill it, you're not committing an evil act. Hungry animals, mindless constructs, etc. are likely to fall into this category even if you don't know exactly what it is.

If you are not familiar with the nature of the creature, and it is not an immediate threat, you ought to take a moment or two to parlay in order to determine its nature (problem is, most PCs don't know how to do anything but slay; parlay is all but an obscene word) - thus solving your problem of lack of knowledge. If it attacks when you parlay, go back to "it threatens you" above.

Does this leave you open to treachery? Of course... but that's one of the "costs" of being good (in the same way that the old "-for-tat" solution to the prisoner's dilemma game is that you always get bitten first, but this is offset by higher potential gains from cooperation and taking the chance that you can get those gains - but that's getting off-topic).

(Note that it's quite possible to have two good-aligned people fight it out and have one of the slay the other and have that slaying NOT be an evil act. For instance, maybe there is a good-aligned orc among the evil orcs in the old keep. The players break into the old keep and start slaughtering evil orcs left and right (not an evil act). The good-aligned orc comes to their defense, as there is no lawful (different alignment axis, remember) reason for the slaughter and kills a paladin PC. The orc hasn't committed an evil act (defense of life and limb). Another good-aligned PC then slays the good-aligned orc. Defense of life and limb, not an evil act. You now have two good-aligned characters who have slain other good-aligned characters... and no evil acts committed.)

--The Sigil

EDIT: Apparently Eric's grandmother doesn't like the "this-for-tat" strategy. Oops!

Ahh but under your revised code, a kid who kills flies for pleasure and fries ants with a magnifying glass has committed many evil acts.

Or say he goes sports hunting with his dad and doesn't materially benefit from his kills but enjoys hunting.

So the kid could be evil (minorly say, but still enough for him to be evil) and therefore killing him is not an evil act.

Of course you can quibble that the DM should not make his alignment evil for the consistent committing such minor evil acts. Or that he is not responsible for his actions until he is an automatous adult and so kids are treated like animals and any cruelty is neutral, not evil, or evil but won't affect him alignment wise until he becomes an automotous adult.

 

[The Sigil]

Tell me, is hedonism an evil or chaotic end in your view?

Chaotic, I would think.

"Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

The highlighted portion seems to me to be pretty much "hedonism in a nutshell."

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Ahh but under your revised code, a kid who kills flies for pleasure and fries ants with a magnifying glass has committed many evil acts.

Or say he goes sports hunting with his dad and doesn't materially benefit from his kills but enjoys hunting.

So the kid could be evil (minorly say, but still enough for him to be evil) and therefore killing him is not an evil act.

If he spends his day doing nothing but frying ants and tearing the wings off of flies... yeah, he probably is evil. He's clearly fixated on and enjoys the pain and suffering.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Now, if he does it every now and again, with other episodes of protecting his little sister or feeding the dog because it's hungry, or what have you, he's neutral... he lacks commitment to cruelty.

Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Again, if it's something he does as regularly as he can and revels in the pain and suffering... and he's capable of moral action (more on that in a second), yes, he's evil. If he's like most of us, and has tried it occasionally "just to see how it works" but also does "good" things just as often, he's neutral.

Of course you can quibble that the DM should not make his alignment evil for the consistent committing such minor evil acts. Or that he is not responsible for his actions until he is an automatous adult and so kids are treated like animals and any cruelty is neutral, not evil, or evil but won't affect him alignment wise until he becomes an automotous adult.

Depends on the age of the child, I guess... a two-year old, I think, is neutral by fiat because a two-year old is incapable of moral action (understanding the consequences of his actions). I would argue that the average twelve-year-old (this WAS the example posited) is in fact capable of moral action and thus capable of being evil. Most of us by age 12 knew the difference between "right" and "wrong."

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

There is a point at which a child goes from being "incapable of moral action" and thus neutral (e.g., if you subscribe to "tabla rusa" a human child is 100% neutral at birth)... that point probably varies by child and is somewhere between the ages of about 5 and 9, but once the child is able to comprehend the effects of his actions on others and identify with them, the child becomes capable of moral action. Doing some good and some evil (experimenting with stuff) will keep him neutral. Revelling in and consistently focusing on causing suffering will move him to evil.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

I think people get caught up in the Lawful Good concept. The paladin must follow a code of conduct, as long as he follws his code (which is partially dependant on his church) then anything else is up to his choice. Is one to say a paladin can't get married? Can't have sex? I understand that perhaps it isn't a good IDEA to patronize prostitutes but I woudln't say it infringes only either the GOOD or LAWFUL alignment unless his church SPECIFICALLY forbids it. Most here seem to be assuming that they know what the paladin's code is when they don't.

I vote yes.

How can the problem be that people are getting caught up in the Lawful Good concept? Part of the paladin's code of conduct is that he must be Lawful Good! The question then becomes, "is prostitution a Lawful or Good practice" (not, "is prostitution a lawful or a good practice") because Lawful (the alignment) is not the same as lawful (legal by the laws of the land/culture in which a particular character resides).

The problem is that this is really an alignment thread in disguise.

To go back the very beginning of the thread... by the "Rules As Written," is Cedric a paladin?

Let's bring up all of the "Rules As Written" that ought to be in play here, and slowly trace this out.

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

First acid test: Is a paladin Lawful Good by the Rules As Written?

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

A good character may kill, provided he is not killing an innocent or if the reason he is killing is to protect an innocent (there's the violence angle).

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Even a "stardust and gumdrops" prostitution service does not exhibit a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, as it places a higher value on sex and money than on human dignity (or "sentient being dignity," if you will). Prostitution, therefore, cannot be good by definition.

I'm going to avoid the question of, "is he making personal sacrifices" or does he expect to be "paid" (in women) for his services toward them? Myself, I think he makes plenty of personal sacrifices without thought of reward (by putting himself in harm's way); accepting someone's offer of recompense now and again is not "non-good." To me, the "personal sacrifices" question isn't at issue - Cedric is okay here as far as I'm concerned. Besides there are PLENTY of other things that are far more obviously problematic.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

In Cedric's example, the prostitutes are clearly being oppressed... or he wouldn't be working to "spring them from the joint." While Cedric himself may not be the oppressor, and even the particular brothel he frequents may not be actively oppressing women and instead helping them to get out, the institution of prostitution itself is evil by definition. Thus, someone involved in providing prostitution services will be someone who consistently offends the paladin's moral code.

Furthermore, by frequenting brothels, the paladin is associating himself with an institution he knows to be evil. While there is no express prohibition of this in the code (it prohibits associating with evil characters), it stands to reason that to associate with an evil institution, one necessarily associates with those who are actively serving that institution (and are thus themselves evil)... it also stands to reason that such association with evil institutions is implicitly forbidden in the code.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

If the tradition of the church/paladins is to avoid prostitution and heavy drinking (which the exchange between Cedric and Magnus seems to expressly indicate), Cedric's dalliances with prostitutes and heavy drinking are evidence that he is not lawful, as he is not honoring tradition.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Cedric does not like being told what to do. He favors his own ideas over tradition. He follows his conscience and lets it guide him. Not only is there concrete evidence in the stories that he's not lawful, his actions are those of a chaotic character - diametrically opposed to lawful.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Cedric isn't exactly what I'd call "obedient to church elders." In his favor, he does seem to be honorable... we're not sure from what has been shown whether he is trustworthy or reliable.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Again, this recalls Cedric's hedonism with regard to wine, women, and song. Cedric seems to resent authority (in his conversations with Magnus), and enjoys his personal freedom - in fact, he makes it clear that personal freedom is quite important to him..

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Cedric is neutral at best; I'm not sure he even has a normal respect for authority and clearly feels no compulsion to obey tradition (though I think he seems to have a compulsion to rebel against tradition somewhat). By the rules as written, Cedric is not lawful, and if he's not chaotic, he's a chaotic-leaning neutral.

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Cedric does not act as a good person is expected to act (avoiding brothels is clearly expected of a good person per Magnus' comments). He doesn't seem to be much for discipline (he does, to his credit, appear to be ever-ready to battle evil, but does not seem to be particularly disciplined). Again, to go back to prostitution, that he's trying to "help the prostitutes get out of the brothel" tells me they're in a bad situation; not only should he be helping covertly, he should be "speaking out" against it. He's not.

On many, MANY levels, Cedric fails to meet the very first requirement of being a paladin that most people think of - being lawful good - by the RAW. Also note that in most of the examples I cited above, culture doesn't matter - it's not "the law of the land" that's in question (are prostitutes legalized, regulated, etc.) but rather a definition of "Law" or "Good" as moral absolutes (which is the RAW, like it or not, and that was how the question was originally framed).

I'll stand by what I said at the beginning. Cedric is an interesting character. He's not a paladin... because he's chaotic (with mild neutral tendencies) good (with strong neutral tendencies), not lawful good. By the RAW, failing even ONE of the tests above is enough to make you "not lawful good." Cedric has, by my count, at least nine "red flags" that tell me he's not acting as a lawful good character would... and that's just problems with alignment. I barely touched on "paladins code" violations.

--The Sigil

 

[Voadam]

Just going off the first post I'd have no problem with Cedric being Lawful Good.

He does what his god wants in fighting evil despite the risk to his life.
I got the impression that he would do whatever the church/god ordered him to do because it was for the good and they ordered him to do it even though he felt he would eventually die horribly in doing his duty. He might moan and blubber about it but he'll do it. The job his life is dedicated to is fighting evil and following god's orders.

Even assuming he has chaotic or evil aspects to him he could still be LG under RAW as long as they are outweighed by his LG ones.

If he does an evil act however he then he loses his paladin status irrevocably.

If he grossly violates the code he loses his paladin status.

He must be LG and follow the code and not associate with evil characters.

I wouldn't label his actions evil or gross violations of the code.

I'm not arguing he must be classified LG, but I am saying I could fit him into LG since the alignments are so flexible with so much wiggle room in their definitions.

 

[The Sigil]

From the first post...

Visiting a brothel - chaotic (hedonistic, not respectful of tradition), evil (prostitution does not respect human dignity)
Prayer - good (active devotion to good)
Associating with Madam Catherine - violation of a paladin's code (associating with one who is engaged in prostitution and thereby oppression and thereby evil acts)
Heals the girls - good (note: it could be argued that hisability to do this is due only to writer fiat; if he's not a paladin, he can't heal)
Paying to help "get the girls out" - good (though it is not made clear why he is paying until later; with just the first post, we might assume it is giving money to those who will use it for evil purposes - by the first post, impossible to tell)
Heavy carousing - chaotic (not respectful of tradition)
Belching, cursing, scratching himself - chaotic (lack of discipline)
Not respectful to representative of his order - chaotic
"I fight the fight because it should be fought" - good (active devotion to good)
"I've earned (indulging myself) and if you don't (think so) you can just go **** yourself" - chaotic (values individual freedom, concerned about being rewarded for his efforts)

The tally:
0 lawful acts
5 chaotic acts
4 good acts (though one is ambiguous without later clarification and one is by writer fiat)
1 evil act
1 possible association that might violate the paladin's code

I see a chaotic good character in the first post (viewed only on its own). In fact, the tendency towards chaos is far more clearly defined than the tendency towards good (since half of the good acts are ambiguous or possible writer's fiat), and there is also (to my mind) an evil act in there as well, making the tendency toward good less well-defined. I see no tendency towards lawfulness (by the RAW); all of his actions that can be identified along the law-chaos axis by the RAW are chaotic.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc. I say he's Chaotic Good with neutral tendencies along the good axis.

--The Sigil