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

[domino]

Okay, then I'll give you the short version - it describes Lawful Good as it pertains to sex as entering into relations in which all involved parties have a clear idea of the terms of the relationship up front - regardless of the nature of the sexual relationship itself - and those terms are abided by.

If that doesn't describe straight forward prostitution, I don't know what does.

That can't be the only working factor. Else, RAPE fits under that description. And that's just not Good under any interpretation.

 

[Voadam]

I want to re-iterate a point Elder-Basilisk made in his (lengthy) post, but in my own words.

One act does not a person's alignment define... it is possible for good people to do evil acts, and vice versa. However, a paladin is held to a higher standard than simply maintaining a lawful good alignment. He cannot commit even a single evil act without losing his paladinhood.

Emphasis mine.

The above text states that an ACT can be adjudged as evil, not just an individual. In other words, acts have an objective moral state (more on this below).

I have, and Elder Basilisk has, already raised the objection that Cedric's behavior smacks of chaotic alignment, and not lawful alignment. I won't re-hash that here. I want to "drill down" on the "willfully commits an evil act" portion of the paladin's code, and pull some more from the SRD.

Emphasis mine.

By the rules as written, good and evil are objective states - in other words, what your culture accepts as "desirable" and "undesirable" (and what its language will refer to as "good" and "evil" respectively) is not used to determine whether or not an act is objectively good or evil. This means that all considerations of "good or bad brothel" or "culturally acceptable" or even "sacred temple prostitutes" are 100% moot. These are cultural externalities that do not have an effect on whether or not an act is Good or Evil (I'll use capitals from here on out to refer to the "objective good" and "objective evil" in the RAW as opposed to the "desirable" and "undesirable" acts which vary by culture).

Every act falls into one of three categories, then, on an objective scale: Good, Evil, or neither. The act of choosing to eat your potatoes before your carrots or vice versa, for instance, falls under "neither" (I have a hard time thinking of non-absurdly-artifically-constructed-solely-for-the-purposes-of-being-ridiculous circumstances that would make it Good or Evil by the rules as written). I will posit that if we cannot find a reason that an act satisfies an objective condition derived from the RAW that would make it Good or Evil, it is "neither."

We get very little guidance from the SRD as to exactly how we are to objectively evaluate acts to place them in the categories of good and evil. Obviously, we get help from some spells ("casting this spell is an evil act") but the alignment section itself gives rather sparse guidelines...

Originally Posted by SRD
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

I will posit that we can expand these definitions by including the opposite qualities (since we are dealing in objective terms, it seems reasonable that if the opposite of "good" is "evil" then the diametric opposite of something that is good would be evil and vice versa); i.e.:

"Evil" implies misanthropy, contempt for life, and a scorn for the dignity of sentient beings... and hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
--The Sigil

In RAW objective alignment exists in the game world even though the definitions themselves are vague with little hard guidance. In the game world a paladin can commit an objectively evil act that can cost him his paladin powers. I agree with you there Sigil.

However, your extrapolated definition of evil acts seems exceedingly over broad and not a natural reading of the term as used in the game.

It would seem to prohibit a paladin from huting or killing others. So no fighting evil. Period. It is expressly in the srd as something implied by evil.

Here are the problems I have with your extrapolated alignment definition expansions leading to your stated view of evil acts:

First implied does not equal the thing itself. Your expanded definition assumes that it does. Even though evil implies killing others, killing others does not necessarily equal evil. Under your expanded implied opposites view, killing others would also be considered good if done to protect others. The killing would be evil but the protection would be good.

Second you take anything implying the opposite of the implied qualities of good as defining evil while only some of those show up on the express list of qualities implied by evil. You are adding inferences and definitions that are not there in the srd. It does not say they are mirror opposites. Self interest as an opposite of altruism is not necessarily evil.

Third, to take your prior argument, mean does not equal evil. I would say the same applies to defining evil acts for paladins.

I would say your definition of evil acts seems a possible extrapolation of the srd guides, but it requires making unsupported inferential leaps and leads to artificial and unnecessary absurdities.

Under your extrapolated definition a paladin entering his first fight against an evil foe necessarily loses his paladin powers immediately.

PS my understanding of alignment descriptor spells is that there is no rule saying casting them is an aligned act, only that the spell itself detects as an aligned thing under detect alignment spells and divine casters do not have access to oppositely aligned spells. I would not say wielding an unholy sword is an evil act, nor would I say an evil summoner summoning an angel is doing a good act. In fact if he were to do so to commit heinously evil acts then I would say he is committing an evil act, though using supernatural good power to do so. And evil spells are a moot point because evil acts are only relevant in the context of paladins who do not have any evil descriptor spells on their spell list.

 

[domino]

Mean does not equal evil, no.

But paladins shouldn't be mean either.

 

[Torm]

If anything, that sounds like a Lawful Neutral proposition and mindset.

You're right - I left out the part where it says that the LG character will seek to enter relationships in this fashion that serve the desires of the other party or parties moreso than their own.

So, in other words, while Cedric is technically the one receiving the service, HE does an awful lot of the "work." Probably one of the reasons the girls like him so much.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Cool concept....God chose his paladin, not paladin chose his god.....Good writing, and anybody coming up with a story like that for his character I would allow.

Edit: Reread and thought, "Im a jacka$$". Sorry for the comment!

 

[Heathen72]

...And didn't JC end up with the hooker?

You're playing with fire there, Ds Da Man!

 

[Ds Da Man]

Yeah, maybe a tad bit bad choice on words, but kinda meant to show that JC didn't just hang out with the upper class, he was in the bottoms, helping the folks who really needed him!

 

[Estlor]

I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion without crossing over boundary lines, but I'll make an attempt anyway.

I think the paladin described herein suffers from two things that keep him from being a true paladin - misogyny and fatalistic doubt. And by that I mean 1) he had no respect for women and 2) he doesn't believe in his calling.

The problem is there is a lot of hair splitting going on here. In an attempt to define a paladin's code we're arguing over the definition of evil in a manner similar to defending something by saying, "Well, that all depends on your definition of 'is.'" Instead of looking at the words of the code, look at the spirit of it.

A paladin is a champion of the causes of order and morality as they relate to each other, hand-picked by a god and blessed with powers beyond the scope of a normal fighter. In some cases a cleric is much more a "weapon of the gods," but (IMHO) it seems like the cleric is more the warrior of the god's church and the paladin is more the warrior of the god. A RAW support of this is found in the mechanics that permit a cleric of a LG god to be NG or LN, but a paladin chosen by a LG god must be LG.

Gace : a : unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b : a virtue coming from God c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace.

Virtue : a : conformity to a standard of right : MORALITY b : a particular moral excellence

The important thing about the paladin is it's not just about what's legal or what's moral to him. It's about supporting an environment in which morality guides law and law affirms morality. A modern example would be seat belt laws. You might say, "What business does the government have in telling me how I should drive me car?" But the philisophical root of that law is that 1) seatbelts save lives and 2) it's the responsibility of an enlightened government body to protect its citizens, often from themselves.

Now a paladin isn't a nanny or a babysitter. They know that not everyone is called to the same level of pious virtue that they are. No one is perfect (not even the paladin, though they're close), and everyone sins (in the D&D good/evil padagrim sense) from time to time. That's why a paladin doesn't promote a nanny-state in which they lead and strictly administer rights to others to prevent them from doing something "evil." A paladin recognizes that certain things are amoral - drinking, sex, dancing, gambling, rock music - and, in a healthy state these things do not need to be outlawed or condemned. However, the important thing to remember is that a paladin's state of grace is as important to them as the grace of those around them.

Like I said, certain things are amoral. However, if they exist or are used in an irresponsible manner, they become temptors. No doubt you've heard of the term "gateway drug." The idea behind that is that cigarettes and alcohol may be legal, uncontrolled substances, but the use of such increases one's likelihood to use illegal, uncontrolled substances. Likewise, irresponsible use of alcohol can also lead to other harmful behaviors such as casual sex or vehicular accidents. (Warning: Here's the most religious thing I'm going to say) A paladin, as a bastion of order and morality in an immoral, chaotic world, is obligated to avoid such acts that would place his immortal soul in peril. To put it secularly, he tries to avoid the temptation to break his oath.

Going back to Cedric, our example "paladin," he is currently in a state of casual sex and wanton drinking. Let's look into his motives.

At the brothel, Cedric sleeps with any number of women and hints at wishing to do the same with the madam, but he tempers this act by healing the girls and providing them with funds. Good act? What are his motivations? Does he go to the brothel to heal the girls and donate money freely? No. He goes to the brothel to have sex and heals while he's there anyway. He's not worried about those girls, he's worried about satiating his ever present lust. And before you bring up the money, the money he pays is irrelevant. A paladin who aids the poor does so without seeking anything in return. A paladin that acts according to the RAW (and to the expanded understanding of the RAW found in the BoED) would pay the money, heal the girls, tip his hat, and move on to the tavern for the night.

At the tavern, Cedric knocks back pint after pint while talking about the futility of his task. His drinking is not problematic. Chances are he drinks because he's a depressed fatalist. He genuinely believes that someday he is going to die and, no matter how much good he achieves in the meantime, it all means nothing because he can never succeed. He's turned to drinking to cope with the quiet times when he isn't killing sinners or womanizing about the town. That's neither a selfless nor a sacrificing attitude for a supposed bastion of morality and order chosen by a god to act as the arm of goodness on the Prime. He isn't inspiring those around him to strive for a higher cause or a greater good. If anything he would inspire them to turn away and take up the cause of hedonism - "Squeeze every last drop out of life, son, because some day you'll be dead and it won't matter. Tonight we drink!"

Cedric is a perfect example of an ex-paladin. He hasn't fallen, he's just fallen away. Something must have happened to splinter his understanding of the world around him to make him doubt the purpose of any of it. Maybe, someday, he can pull it back together and return to his state of grace, but for now he's the grizzled old drunk at the bar that tells stories of how things used to be.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Canis, I have removed the religious content from your post. Real-world religion is not permitted on EN World. Please stay far, far away from that topic in the future.

Thanks.

Sorry, guys. Apparently my barometer of what's objectionable has gotten skewed during my long period of board inactivity. That isn't even the part of the post that I was worried about. I shall be more careful all around in the future.

 

[Seeten]

I'm not sure how much I can add to this discussion without crossing over boundary lines, but I'll make an attempt anyway.

I think the paladin described herein suffers from two things that keep him from being a true paladin - misogyny and fatalistic doubt. And by that I mean 1) he had no respect for women and 2) he doesn't believe in his calling.

You say he is a misogynist. I say he has more respect than any man who knows he will die young, marrying anyway, and leaving a widow behind. He avoids the entanglement. He treats the girls well. He obviously treats them with respect. He keeps them safe. He gives extra money towards their welfare. I say in the Wild Wild West there were brothels, and there are today, despite our high society mindset, getting rid of them is not only not likely, but liable to be non-lawful. Try removing prostitution in Las Vegas, for example.

Part of the reason why Paladins suck is because all the high minded people put unreasonable non RAW expectations on them based on their OWN feelings, rather than based on the religion or calling they are actually from.