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

[Voadam]

Law vs. Chaos

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


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.

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.

Arguments of how Cedric can be lawful

Tell truth, keep word, no contradictions from actions given. It is debatable whether his actions are disrespectful of authority (as he doesn't take guff from the messanger who is not his superior), dishonor his traditions(are his traditions against prostitution and drinking), and whether he fails to judge himself if his activities fall short of his duties (if his duties are to go smite evil and protect innocent he seems to do that so no self remonstration needed, if they are to be a chaste and temperate paragon then he has fallen short). It is easily conceivable that he respects the church and king honors traditions, and judges those who fail their duties.

Arguments against chaos

From the intro post I did not sense that Cedric favors new ideas over tradition, or would only do what he promises if he feels like it at the time. the "I earned my R&R and if you don't like it go stuff yourself" can be said to be a conscience following statement, however. He resents being looked down on by the other knight but does ask what the church needs him to do and states he is willing to do whatever needs to be done even though he believes it is futile.

Arguments against law/chaos neutrality

He arguably has a compulsion to obey and there is no evidence he can be tempted to lie or decieve.

 

[shilsen]

Voadam's reading of alignment is pretty close to the way I read it, which is why I thought Cedric worked within the LG framework when I came up with the character concept in the first place. Obviously, as happens with alignment, many posters here differ. Sometimes I wonder whether it would actually be worth having a really clear-cut, absolutely specific (and no, I don't think that's possible) definition of the various alignments. After all, then we wouldn't have threads and discussions like this one (and no, don't tell me why that is a consummation devoutly to be wished ).

Which, as I've said before, has thus far been a very interesting and - perhaps more importantly - extremely civil one so far. Who says all alignment discussions have to devolve into flame-wars?

 

[fusangite]

Who says all alignment discussions have to devolve into flame-wars?

It only hasn't devolved yet because I've been busy arguing about Aragorn.

 

[Ormiss]

There is a common misconception about the Lawful alignment - so common, in fact, that I've even seen the paid authors of RPG books screw it up from time to time.

Reading your definitions, I have to say that I find them logical and quite workable. However, the general consensus in literature and whatnot seems to be that "Lawful Good"-type characters constantly have to renege on their goodness in order to obey the law. This is, after all, one of the most common concepts in ALL literature. Of course, you could argue that truly good characters will eventually ignore the law to focus on their good aspect, but I digress...

Overall, I find myself agreeing with The Sigil's argument about the Chaos/Law axis and Sir Cedric's position thereon. In game mechanics, that provides a stronger argument than the one I used to deny Sir Cedric's presence (as a paladin) in "my" campaign.

Which, as I've said before, has thus far been a very interesting and - perhaps more importantly - extremely civil one so far.

Egad! I'll have to do something about this. You are all... uh... awful people! Yes! You are!

But yeah, seriously though, civil arguments are great, unless you're not participating, in which case it's quite fun to read flamewars.

EDIT: I almost forgot: This is rather embarrassing after 9 pages of this thread, but what exactly does "RAW" stand for? I can't seem to find it in the PHB or the SRD.

 

[fusangite]

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.

I had assumed that the line you would draw would be one that did not conflict with people's ordinary sense of good and evil. And I'm not just talking about people's sense of these things in modern society. I'm talking about fairly transcultural standards for right and wrong.

The idea that people should be summarily executed without trial or a chance to amend their behaviour simply for having the wrong thoughts or state of mind is not an idea that one finds in any culture I have studied.

And I find your idea especially absurd in this context. You argue that it is evil for two people, by mutual consent, to sleep together but it is not evil to summarily decapitate a twelve year old child you meet in the street because he has evil intentions.

I find it very amusing that you use an LOTR videogame to support this view. The entire narrative hinges on the fact that Bilbo didn't kill Golum because, even though Golum was evil, he didn't have the right to kill him. And this act of mercy is what allowed the ring to be destroyed.

I'll take a stand here. Killing people for their thoughts not their deeds is evil, not merely non-good. It's evil. You then proceed to change my argument about killing twelve year olds because you can't answer the question I posed:

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."

This is why I chose the word "crime" over "evil act"; there are lots of things that are evil that are not crimes. My point is that your view that it's okay to kill any evil person, any time, regardless of the circumstances breaks down when one recognizes that this includes summarily killing people, without recourse to any due process, who have committed no crime whatsoever. This person might be a narcisissistic jerk who lies, manipulates and hurts people every day. I had imagined one of those really nasty 12-year-old girls we all remember from high school who made it their life's work to hurt people -- like Regina character in the recent film Mean Girls. In your moral system, there would be nothing wrong with someone stabbing the character to death after school one day. After all, the fact that she eventually becomes a better person is irrelevant to you.

I would guess that those of us who do so believe the problems of prostitution to be inherent in the institution while the abuses of feudal aristocracies are either extrinsic to the institutions (and therefore, supporting the institution is not supporting the abuse as such) or intrinsic to power structures in general (and hence unavoidable without supporting anarchy).

So, let me get this straight… when two people make an agreement by mutual consent to exchange a service for money, it's intrinsically evil. But a social system premised on the belief in the absolute inequality of persons is intrinsically non-evil? Feudalism is based on vassalage; vassalage is, by its very definition, a system in which the majority cannot be enfranchised and in which inequality is inherent.

This strikes be as absurdly subjective. A system that collapses if the individuals within it have equality with one another, or are enfranchised, is, by our limited cultural definitions, an inherently evil way of living. Fortunately, D&D accommodates a level of cultural relativism that allows us to still have good people within this system. How, then do you propose that D&D does not allow a sufficient level of relativism for prostitution to be non-evil in any situation whatsoever?

Prostitution is not inherently non-consensual. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently unequal. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently disenfranchising. Feudalism is.

So please clarify for me. Which modern values are so transcultural and transhistorical that they make prostitution always bad and which modern values are ones you're prepared to see as an inessential cultural attribute?

it bring down society as a whole

Well, evidence against you here. Almost every society in history has involved prostitution and none has collapsed because of it. Now war, on the other hand…

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.

Ask yourself if your paladin truly follows the parts I bolded in the SRD quote. If not, they have lost their paladinhood.

Okay. Let's test.

1. Is patronizing a prostitute violating legitimate authority? Only if prostitution is against the law.
2. Is patronizing a prostitute dishonourable? Only if doing so is viewed as dishonourable by the society in question.
3. Is patronizing a prostitute lying? No.
4. Is patronizing a prostitute using poison? No.
5. Is patronizing a prostitute failing to help those in need? Only if the prostitute is being oppressed by her pimp.
6. Is patronizing a prostitute associating with evil characters? Only if the prostitute is evil.
7. Is patronizing a prostitute offensive to the paladin's moral code? Only if the moral code forbids prostitution.

Hedonism is inherantly chaotic, so not something a paladin should tolerate, let alone partake in.

Well, it's fortunate, then that Cedric is not a hedonist. A hedonist is a person who is primarily motivated by the pursuit of pleasure. Cedric's main motivation is do fight evil. You're not a hedonist simply by experiencing pleasure. Hedonism only arises when you choose pleasure over other important things. If hedonism where simply the regular experience of pleasure, nearly everyone would be defined as a hedonist.

Hedonism and prostitution offend the paladin's moral code, and thus is barred to the paladin.

Really? I thought the GM and the player wrote the paladin's moral code. Is there some moral code template in the SRD I have missed?

Prostitution is not likely to be legal everywhere in most fantasy settings, so the paladin could not tolerate it in lands where it is unlawful, as it then violates respect for legitimate authority.

So, because it's illegal to keep humans unchained in the Orc lands, a paladin must work to ensure that all humans are in chains everywhere?

Prostitution is also dishonorable, which violates the paladin's code.

What is honourable in one culture is dishonourable in another. Why is prostitution always dishonourable?

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.

So everyone who makes pleasure their first priority, even if they don't hurt anyone, is evil anyway just because them feeling good is their main goal? I thought that was being neutral.

The question is not "would the prostitutes be better off without Cedric?" but rather, "is prostitution inherently evil/wrong"

Well, that's fine and dandy if you can show that it is. But you can't just declare an absolute transcultural truth by fiat here. There are cultures that had sacred prostitutes. Is it your contention that the letter of the D&D rules prohibits these cultures from being non-evil?

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.

Agreed. Well, I admire your consistency. So, you feel that the rules also prohibit setting games in Roman-style slave societies, Iroquous-style societies where torture is part of the male citizenship ritual and Viking-style or Mongol-style societies where female war captives become the conqueror's sexual property. It seems to me that you have adopted the view that D&D cannot and should not model the vast majority of societies based on the historical past, or even those that comprise a significant portion of those depicted in fantasy novels. I personally like Roman, Iroquous and Mongol inspired D&D societies and would be quite unhappy if I felt the rules prohibited them as settings.

You seem to have quite the antipathy to transhistorical, transcultural concepts.

I do when they are used to suggest that the rules prohibit D&D from depicting things I find interesting.

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.

I'll agree with you there. I think the single biggest flaw is that the alignment system tries to force you to only tell stories about modern people with modern values stumbling around with swords and armour. But you're right. The rules tell me that this is what I should do. Fortunately, the actual practice of gaming doesn't result in that. In fact, people continue to publish settings for slave societies, societies that torture their war captives and societies that make female war captives the sexual property of the conquerors; so, evidently, I am not alone in deviating from your highly literal reading of the rules.

The paladin class is explicitly tied to these transhistorical, transcultural concepts.

Here, I also agree with you to an extent. I agree that there is a sexual morality that attaches to the class. But in my view, the rules as written, do not associate the paladin with these transhistorical, transcultural values any more than they do any other class. My argument against Cedric is one grounded in archetypes not in the rules -- because to ground these things in the rules would make it impossible for there to be good Roman emperors or good khans.

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.

Your reading of alignment doesn't seem to do that. I agree that there exist readings of alignment that do so. But yours does not. If there are no conditions under which slavery can be non-evil, you have made the good emperor an impossibility.

And in your model, they are not playing culturall in Thay. They are outside Thay's culture looking in. Just as they would be if they found themselves in ancient Rome or ancient Egypt. That's not playing in a setting at all.

1. How does Sir Cedric reliably tell the difference between OK and not-ok prostitution?

By being observant. The same way he can tell who he should kill and who he shouldn't.

2. In exactly what cultures that could support paladins would this kind of behavior be seen as admirable?

I'm with you here. I think that the paladin archetype doesn't have enough room for Cedric. However, responding more generally to your point, not everything a paladin does has to be admirable. The paladin merely needs to be an admirable individual overall. If there is a requirement that every single a paladin does be admirable, then we are close to beating all the role playing out of the role.

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.

I don't. I keep saying that I don't believe Cedric fits the bill. But the reason I keep posting here is to oppose those arguing that it is impossible to disentangle D&D from being operating within modern moral systems.

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.

Again, through observation and judgement.

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).

Why is going to the island necessary? What portion of the people in medieval society ever got in a boat? Similarly, if a paladin wanted to avoid cereals and subsist on food gathered and hunted in the forests, he could eat without supporting vassalage or slavery.

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.

So, a person can distinguish between consensual and non-consensual models of propelling ships but he cannot distinguish between consensual and non-consensual models of prostitution? I would be more likely to take the reverse position; while a person might never meet an oarsman and be able to make an assessment of his relative oppression, the person would have to meet the prostitute whom he patronized, thereby allowing him to gain direct evidence about the person's state, evidence he could not obtain about the oarsman.

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.

I wasn't making any such assumption. All I was doing was comparing how a paladin moored to cultural-based values would be ethical to how a paladin moored to transcultural values would be ethical.

Next time, however, I'll choose optional rather than essential activities for my illustrations.

And they oppose those who treat women badly by not patronizing prostitutes.

So, how does that work if the prostitute is independent or part of an all-female priesthood or guild?

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.

So, you can acknowledge that there can be non-evil ways of owning people but not that any of the female-run temple prostitution going on in the same society could be non-evil.

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.

That's part of my point. They drew the eye away so that the day could be won at Mount Doom. So, yes, he did travel to the gate to win. But at the time he did so, he believed that the strategy he was part of would almost certainly fail. And his men knew it would fail.

I'm not so sure about this. I can't think of any real societies where prostitutes were, in general regarded as a respected profession. I can think of ones where prostitutes were an accepted part of society, perhaps on a par with ditchdiggers, but that's not the same as being respected. In a lot of societies, ditchdiggers were not very respected.

In any event, it's not clear to me that it's valid to have Sir Cedric in one of those societies. The paladin class only fits into some cultures and societies. (I'm probably more flexible on this than Fusangite, but I don't think the concept is infinitely flexible).

Hey! When you correspond with Torm, I have no dispute with what you're saying!

Visiting a brothel - chaotic (hedonistic, not respectful of tradition),

This is only true in societies in which tradition does not respect prostitution.

evil (prostitution does not respect human dignity)

Whereas killing twelve year old girls who have committed no crime clearly does…

Belching, cursing, scratching himself

Whoa there Sigil! Are you seriously telling me that if your table manners are bad enough you lose your lawful alignment!?

Really? So, in order to be respectful of human dignity, one can't condemn anything or lecture anyone on morality? Somehow I doubt you'd take that view about anything you actually think to be wrong. "Don't lecture those slavers about morality, put them down, or act like you're higher than them; lecturing people on morality is an offense against human dignity." "Don't lecture that rapist about morality, put him down, or act like you're higher than him, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. To do that is an offense against human dignity?" Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?

I'm with you here EB. Talk about transcultural values… exhorting people to live their lives differently is only transgressive in the weird sick society we live in today.

 

[shilsen]

Egad! I'll have to do something about this. You are all... uh... awful people! Yes! You are!

So be it! *picks up gauntlet* You, sir, are a poopyhead! *sticks tongue out at Ormiss*

But yeah, seriously though, civil arguments are great, unless you're not participating, in which case it's quite fun to read flamewars.

That I can't deny. I've always been very amused at how upset people can get because an anonymous stranger on a messageboard disagreed with them.

EDIT: I almost forgot: This is rather embarrassing after 9 pages of this thread, but what exactly does "RAW" stand for? I can't seem to find it in the PHB or the SRD.

Rules As Written. And no, the RAW makes no reference to RAW. It's a mystery, wrapped in a conundrum, making out with an enigma.

 

[Ormiss]

Originally Posted by fusangite
So, let me get this straight… when two people make an agreement by mutual consent to exchange a service for money, it's intrinsically evil. But a social system premised on the belief in the absolute inequality of persons is intrinsically non-evil? Feudalism is based on vassalage; vassalage is, by its very definition, a system in which the majority cannot be enfranchised and in which inequality is inherent.

[...]

Prostitution is not inherently non-consensual. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently unequal. Feudalism is. Prostitution is not inherently disenfranchising. Feudalism is.

Yet, every civilized nation on earth is a form of vassalage. Even people in the United States are bound since birth to obey the laws of the nation. Yes, you can vote or be voted into office, and yes, this is not a fair analogy, but I think everyone understands what I mean. Every person that lives in a nation that is not an anarchy has given up a measure of personal freedom in order to secure a measure of safety and order. That said, I'm not saying democracy is a bad idea, because it's not. Generally speaking, it could be argued that this bond between citizens and rulers is something necessary for civilization to exist.

However, personally I will never accept prostitution. Yes, it is 100% impossible to stop it, and it will go on forever, as it always has. Still, by accepting (allowing by law) prostitution, you're saying that it's okay to objectify women so that they can be bought and sold. I certainly feel that the act of prostitution is a violation of human dignity, and though I'm not sure I can present an immutable, logical argument for why exactly I feel that this is a fundamental truth, and why prostitution is more wrong than selling a Rolex watch for money, it is something that I regard as inviolable.

So what is my point, here? Well, according to my morals, which, starting from myself, I will apply as transcultural values to any "traditional" campaign I make, prostitution is simply wrong. If that is indeed true, a good-aligned god will definitely agree with me. For another person, results may vary, but in such a campaign designed by me, Sir Cedric is violating his moral code.

This (my) post is almost entirely worthless except for one thing: I think there are people out there who agree with me. Maybe not a large percentage, but who knows.

On the subject of slavery and other such practices which are arguably little different from prostitution, I still feel that there is a moral line between these concepts. Is this logical? I don't know; perhaps not, but there is an inherent essence in the concepts of rape and prostitution that, in my mind, make them worse than murder and slavery.

PS. Shilsen! You, sir, make the worst chocolate chip cookies I have ever had the displeasure to taste. Take that! Also, thanks for the heads up on RAW.

 

[Orius]

Not at all. "Lawful characters ... respect authority." That does not mean that they may not privately disagree with some of the local laws, which are not Lawful (with a capital L; i.e., "absolutely morally Lawful" as opposed to "legal"). Whom a character accepts - or should accept - as the "proper authorities" in an area will vary by alignment on the good-evil axis.

That would depend on the society in which the lawful character resides. Certainly, if he lives in a modern democratic society he may very well petition his legislators to repeal the laws, since that would be working within the legal framework to resolve a problem he has with the laws. Or if he doesn't think he'll get his way with the politicians, he can always try to go over their heads and petition for a referendum. Naturally, this doesn't necessarily apply to D&D campaigns. The bottom line is where a chaotic character ould just break the law because he thinks its wrong, the lawful character will try to use the law against itself.

for instance, in a corrupt citystate it might be illegal to pray to any non-evil deity; a Lawful Good character will reject this law as it is "evil" and suffers no particular repercussions; that law is not a Law, if you will

There's also the matter of precedence. Laws of a higher authority usually must be followed over lesser laws, or at least that's the way a lawful character would see it. In your case, the character's god is almost certainly considered a higher authority than the ruler of the city, therefore it's right and proper for the character to break the no worship law since he's following the command of a higher mandate.

 

[shilsen]

However, personally I will never accept prostitution. Yes, it is 100% impossible to stop it, and it will go on forever, as it always has. Still, by accepting (allowing by law) prostitution, you're saying that it's okay to objectify women so that they can be bought and sold. I certainly feel that the act of prostitution is a violation of human dignity, and though I'm not sure I can present an immutable, logical argument for why exactly I feel that this is a fundamental truth, and why prostitution is more wrong than selling a Rolex watch for money, it is something that I regard as inviolable.

Fair enough. As you say, there really isn't "an immutable, logical" argument for why you feel that way, and I would hazard that a big part of the reason is specific historical/cultural conceptions about the role of the body in morality. For me, personally, having a rational basis for my feelings (I worked out a while ago how to feel what I think I should) is important, and since I can't really see a rational difference between prostitution and selling a Rolex (as long as both sellers are doing so of their free will), I don't regard them as different. I'd ask you some questions about things like where one draws the line between someone selling a cake that he baked, or selling a massage, or prostitution, but you've already obviated them by your statements about how/why you feel the way you do. Different strokes, as they say.

PS. Shilsen! You, sir, make the worst chocolate chip cookies I have ever had the displeasure to taste. Take that! Also, thanks for the heads up on RAW.

*swoons in horror*

 

[apesamongus]

I also find it hard to be respectful of the dignity of sentient beings, and pay them for sex.

Paying someone for sex seems more respectful, to me, than paying them to clean up horse manure. And I don't see anyone claiming the paladin is breaking his vows by patronizing the stables and their exploitation of the stable hands.