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

[Fighter1]

I'll point you back towards one of my posts earlier in this thread. In a nutshell, the debate can be reduced to a single point:

The "and so forth" phrase in the rules as written implies that the list of forbidden activities is *exemplary*, not *exhaustive* - i.e., just because a given activity is not specifically written out as forbidden in the rules, that does not automatically make it okay (kind of like if I tell my kids they can't do heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana, or LSD ... I'm not going to accept as a defense when they come home stoned on PCP that PCP happened not to be on my forbidden list so I obviously intended for them to use it - my intent was obvious in proscribing drugs entirely, and they're just trying to loophole their way out of it).

Note that The Rules As Written themselves require the paladin's code to be played as the Rules As Interpreted! Unless you would like to suggest that the phrase "and so forth" should be read as not adding any activities to the list of those specifically prohibited.

And of course, once you get started on creating that list, it becomes a matter of philosophical interpretation, whether you like it or not.

If we truly wish to nitpick and slavishly bind ourselves to RAW, without concern of interpretation...

Hurting, oppressing and killing others is Evil. A paladin is forbidden to commit an evil act. Therefore, the moment a paladin hurts another creature - does one hit point of damage to any creature any time, anywhere, ever - he automatically loses his paladinhood. Except, of course, when they use their "Smite Evil" ability, because that is specifically allowed by the rules... so a paladin can attack once or twice a day (or a few times a day at high levels). Sure hope he hits on that attack!

Do you believe in this view of the paladin? A holy warrior who is forbidden to unsheath his sword except to attempt to Sunder weapons and fight defensively the entire time, never able to actually attack? It's based on a strict reading of the rules as written!

Of course not... you INTERPRET the rules to allow a paladin to attack - and destroy - the agents of evil. But that's not what the Rules as Written allow, is it?

As I mentioned before, the Rules As Written themselves require (by the phrase "and so forth") that the paladin code contain AT LEAST one more item on the "forbidden list" and possibly more... and determining the remainder of that list can only be done by Interpretation, so the Rules as Written ARE the Rules as Interpreted.

In addition, Defenders of the Faith is not a core book (which, IIRC, was the stipulation at the start of the thread). But it brings up an interesting question... I don't have a copy of the Book of Vile Darkness, but I seem to remember on my brief pass through it that it mentioned certain activities (torture, murder, mutilation, etc.) as "Evil" as defined by D&D. Would someone who has a copy of the book care to check to see if "prostitution" or "visiting prostitutes" or "fornication" or "adultery" or some other activity that could directly be applied to Cedric's brothel visits is on that list?

(Takes off devil's advocate hat).

--The Sigil

Two words: Shadowbane Inquisitor

From CA

This is a Pladin variant per se' (even says it in the description). Read up on it...interesting twist. Essentially a Paladin that WILL do ANYTHING to fight evil - including killing innocents.

If that is in the WoTC menu then why not a pessemistic Paladin that may be self destructive but still adheres to defending law, the weak, etc? The guy outlined here harms no one (but himself) and he is still a champion of good; just a pessimisitc and troubled one like many heros in many stories.

I love the idea - I think its great!

 

[shilsen]

This is awesome! I love it! Do you mind if someday I use a likeness for one of my characters?

Glad you liked it. And feel free to use him. One of my primary intentions when starting the thread was to inspire (irritate?) people into pushing the boundaries of the character class.

 

[Voadam]

If we truly wish to nitpick and slavishly bind ourselves to RAW, without concern of interpretation...

Hurting, oppressing and killing others is Evil. A paladin is forbidden to commit an evil act. Therefore, the moment a paladin hurts another creature - does one hit point of damage to any creature any time, anywhere, ever - he automatically loses his paladinhood. Except, of course, when they use their "Smite Evil" ability, because that is specifically allowed by the rules... so a paladin can attack once or twice a day (or a few times a day at high levels). Sure hope he hits on that attack!

The RAW say "“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

"implies" is not the same as "is."

 

[Fighter1]

Glad you liked it. And feel free to use him. One of my primary intentions when starting the thread was to inspire (irritate?) people into pushing the boundaries of the character class.

After seeing this thread and thinking about it - I think that the paladin is the most pigeon holed class out there - he is the target of discrimination everywhere in the gaming world! We gotta get him a lawyer! Where is the EEOCDAP (Equal Opportunity Commission for the discrimination against Paladins)? Jonny Cochran where are ya!?

If I have a LG fighter he can still do most anything he wants as long as it does not involve harming innocents. Why should the pali be and different? Why should he be pigeon holed into being the "super good guy " in each and every aspect of his life. Heroes in so many stories are troubled, bothered and self destructive at times.

I don't see where the Paladin did anything wrong - he took on some ladies but did he hurt them? Where they to young? Slaves? NO! Your Paladin is an actual person with wants, needs and desires of his own.

And think about this: in pre-christian times things such as sex were looked upon VERY differently then they are now. Look at the Romans & Greeks. A paladin in ancient Rome might even be looked upons strangly for not indulging...he would have "earned it".

Now if your Paladin was of a god that forbid certain things or he had taken an oath of sobreity and celebacy then that would be different (as he would eb breaking trust or an oath). It appears he has not - thus he is a normal guy who fights evil and defends the weak and law where ever he goes; he just likes to have a little party afterwards.

 

[The Sigil]

The RAW say "“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

"implies" is not the same as "is."

The grandparent would call this "interpreting the rules" - you're interpreting what the word "implies" means. I'm looking at the list of actions they actually wrote, which is the only list of actions associated with the word "Evil" in the RAW... since paladins are forbidden from committing Evil actions, and this is a list of actions that are associated with Evil, they are forbidden, QED.



I'm just trying to point out that parsing every single word and trying to come up with some sort of list of every single action that is/is not Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic is nigh unto impossible by the RAW, because so few actions are enumerated. Therefore, the RAW must be subject to some interpretation.

--The Sigil

 

[Voadam]

The grandparent would call this "interpreting the rules" - you're interpreting what the word "implies" means. I'm looking at the list of actions they actually wrote, which is the only list of actions associated with the word "Evil" in the RAW... since paladins are forbidden from committing Evil actions, and this is a list of actions that are associated with Evil, they are forbidden, QED.

Under the RAW Paladins can't associate with evil people, not concepts associated with evil.

I'm just taking up your argument about how clear the RAW are on hurting, oppressing, and killing being evil actions as written.

Ice cream is associated with children's birthday parties, summer vacations, and whipped cream.

Just because you can't eat ice cream does not mean you can't go to a birthday party.

Ice cream implies a cone or a dish that it is served in. A dish or a cone are not ice cream. An ice cream cone though associated with ice cream, is not itself ice cream.

I'm just trying to point out that parsing every single word and trying to come up with some sort of list of every single action that is/is not Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic is nigh unto impossible by the RAW, because so few actions are enumerated. Therefore, the RAW must be subject to some interpretation.

--The Sigil

I think you can't do it because the definitions given are vague, ambiguous, and internally inconsistent and can reasonably be interpreted multiple ways. I agree this requires interpretation to apply them.

My disagreement is only with your QED.

 

[The Sigil]

I don't see where the Paladin did anything wrong - he took on some ladies but did he hurt them? Where they to young? Slaves? NO! Your Paladin is an actual person with wants, needs and desires of his own.

To repeat the gist of a post I made earlier in the thread, one key to the discussion is not found in the paladin himself; rather, it is found in the reaction of the acolyte sent to find him.

By the RAW, a paladin's code states that "a paladin’s code requires that she ... act with honor." The acolyte's reaction to Cedric's brothel activities shows us that Cedric is *not* in fact acting with honor - visiting a brothel is clearly a dishonorable act.

This point will again raise the sturm and drang of moral relativism versus moral absolutism, but your justification - that a Paladin is an actual person with wants, needs, and desires of his own is not sufficient to overcome the requirement that he act with honor. He has them, yes, but he is not permitted (by the paladin's code) to satisfy those wants, needs, and desires in a dishonorable way. Even if you wish to take up the argument that there might exist a culture where temple prostitution is honorable and encouraged, the simple fact of the matter is that Cedric's culture is not that culture (based on the acolyte's reaction to his exploits), so taking that position is a straw man.

A paladin is hungry. This is a basic human need. Is he permitted to order a meal from an innkeeper and then not pay him? No. That would be cheating (expressly forbidden under the paladin's code). Is he permitted to lie to get a meal? No. Is he permitted to steal a loaf of bread for himself? Not specifically forbidden, but I submit to you that this is not an honorable act; he ought instead to labor for his food. The fact that the paladin has to eat does not excuse him from the paladin's code allow him to get a meal any way he pleases.

A paladin has sexual appetites, too (like all of us). This is actually a tricky one to adjudicate. Is marriage honorable? Probably. But is it honorable to take a wife, knowing full well that the wife (and any children she might bear) might be exposed to danger because Evil forces will know that the best way to hurt him is to attack them? Or to go off on an (unnecessary) adventure once married, knowing that he might die and leave his wife a widow and his children fatherless? Maybe not. Is it then honorable to have a series of one-night stands, even though he may leave a string of fatherless children? Probably not. Satisfying sexual appetites in an honorable fashion is a very tough call. It seems to me that the paladin probably has only a couple of choices that don't result in moral quandries later on down the road... (a) celibacy or (b) retirement from active adventuring upon marriage - at least until the kids are grown, and possibly if his wife is an adventurer, she can go with him.

However, I'm getting off the subject. My point is that "need" does not override "code" - a paladin is not permitted to lie or cheat merely because he "needs" to... the code doesn't make convenient exceptions. So claiming that a paladin has needs and wants and desires is a straw man. If he cannot satisfy those in an honorable fashion - within the strictures of the code - he must go without or lose his paladinhood.

Tough? Yes. But then, living a life of virtue (as a paladin is expected to) never was easy.

--The Sigil

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If I have a LG fighter he can still do most anything he wants as long as it does not involve harming innocents. Why should the pali be and different? Why should he be pigeon holed into being the "super good guy " in each and every aspect of his life. Heroes in so many stories are troubled, bothered and self destructive at times.

well, because "super good guy" is pretty much the stated role of the paladin class in D&D, backed up by the mechanics and flavor text of the PHB? Not to say that you can't change your game to make paladins different, but asking why others might like to play paladins as they were designed seems a little over the top.

And think about this: in pre-christian times things such as sex were looked upon VERY differently then they are now. Look at the Romans & Greeks. A paladin in ancient Rome might even be looked upons strangly for not indulging...he would have "earned it".

Now if your Paladin was of a god that forbid certain things or he had taken an oath of sobreity and celebacy then that would be different (as he would eb breaking trust or an oath). It appears he has not - thus he is a normal guy who fights evil and defends the weak and law where ever he goes; he just likes to have a little party afterwards.

well, I haven't read all of it, but didn't the very first fiction involving this paladin have a member of his church looking askance at his actions? Not a PC with a different idea of what the world should be, but a character created by the same mind as this one and thus operating from a reasonable clear view of what church/diety this fellows supposedly follows? So, questioning our assumptions about the game world doesn't work in this instance.

I voted "no" when I first saw this thread, mostly because the character plays as a bit of an attetion whore PC who tries to DM by roleplayed assertions. And overall, self destructive and doomed fate isn't what I look for in PCs.

 

[genshou]

If I may respond.

Please do; that's why I posted. I'm just glad someone has enough energy left to contest.

First, it is your opinion you are speaking of, and the "strawman" argument doesn't qualify here.

(emphasis added below)

Prostitution is wrong as far as I'll ever be concerned.

It should be obvious that this is my opinion and nothing else. Did you think I was inferring otherwise? And the whole "cultural bias" argument is a straw man simply because it is a sham argument being used to divert attention from other arguments against the original debate.

1) I am not folloing the first sentence at all.
Nobody said prostitution was idyllic. It isn't a halo profession. Not many women want to have sex with random, strange men who might be disgusting. That doesn't mean every prostitute is doing this job because she is a slave. There are many women who choose to do this on their own, and in the course of a short night make thousands of dollars - if not more (some of the higher ends make anywhere from 10-50k/night).

By idyllic I am referring to the picturesque brothel which came up in the initial post, as well as the "perfect situations" people keep bringing up. Sure there are those who simply choose to do it because they want to make a lot of money per night and don't care about what they're doing. But are they the majority? I'd imagine that they are far from it.

2)That is fine if you don't care about the RAW, but you cited the RAW a number of times so it must matter somewhat.

When have I ever cited the RAW? I think you are confusing me with someone else. :\ What I did say that I'm more in favor of ignoring or adding to the RAW.

As for your views of morality...well a d100 does have enough facets to cover the full spectrum of people's morality. You may consider prostitution evil - but not everyone does...in fact, i'd wager the majority of the world disagrees with you.

I'm confused about what you're getting at by referring to a d%. And to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less what the majority of the world thinks, because we as a species have proven time and time again that the majority is usually wrong. The majority of people in this world are morally, ethically, and philosophically uneducated, if not downright ignorant. There's a reason why societies ruled by a benevolent, cultural elite have usually fared better than those ruled by the majority.

3) You don't know why each and every woman decided to become a prostitute. Maybe one specific girl is dumb as doornails and realizes that is the only way she will make good money. Maybe another girl wants to have sex with many men and get the benefit of pay. Maybe another is paying her way through college. Maybe another wants to make 25k/night. Then there are those who are looking to live on the streets because they can't find a job - but nobody forced them to be prostitutes. There are MANY homeless men/women who are not prostitutes. There are many homeless people who got off the streets without resorting to crime. You cannot generalize for every prostitute.

That's an awful strong reaction based on what I actually said. All I did was point out the fact that arguing about objectifying a prostitute vs. objectifying a dancer is a ridiculous way to try to prove a point. Sure there are lots of reasons women get into such careers. I've never disagreed with that and perfectly understand what you're getting at. I never considered the people behind the business to be "evil", because as you pointed out there are a great deal of circumstances which could apply to any given prostitute.

4) As far as destitute - I disagree with you, and I disagree with the person who said "destitute" and relating it to prostitution as if to be a prositute you have to be destitute. Again, we cannot speak for each and every woman - but I am pretty sure the girl making 25k/night (for ONE guy) is not destitute...in fact, she is going to retire after one year's worth of work -we are going to be working for the next 30-40!

I'd be interesting in hearing a statistic of the average income per night of a prostitute. I'm getting sick of seeing these high numbers being tossed around without anything to back them up. When I say "destitute" I don't mean they'll necessarily be there after they get into prostitution, only that so many turn to it because they already are. What percentage of prostitutes do you think are making 25k a night on only one John, anyway?!?!?!

Prostitution is all about opinions. Your morals may say it is wrong - and that is fine. Don't tell me however that prostitution is wrong and evil because I frankly don't buy it. Don't come to me and say "yea but these girls are slaves" because not all prositutes are slaves (or indentured servants, etc) - some - MANY - do it on their own free will and can leave whenever they want. And as for the game rules...find me a pssage in WoTC's books that say prostitution is evil and then my paladin will start smiting the hookers in Sharn.

Would it be better, perhaps, if instead of saying that prostitutes are evil or immoral, we were simply to say that prostitution itself and the support thereof is evil or immoral? It is a possibility which we will leave open to debate. And as part of that debate, I will throw this out. If prostitution is such a lucrative career, then why aren't all you "prostitution is not evil/immoral/wrong" proponents out there doing it instead of arguing moral philosophy on a messageboard? Honestly answer that, please.

 

[FireLance]

Would it be better, perhaps, if instead of saying that prostitutes are evil or immoral, we were simply to say that prostitution itself and the support thereof is evil or immoral? It is a possibility which we will leave open to debate. And as part of that debate, I will throw this out. If prostitution is such a lucrative career, then why aren't all you "prostitution is not evil/immoral/wrong" proponents out there doing it instead of arguing moral philosophy on a messageboard? Honestly answer that, please.

I'm going to address the issue indirectly, using the example of slavery, in case my daughter manages to google this thread and decides to take my remarks out of context at some future date.

There are institutions in the real world that almost always result in evil. Prostitution and slavery are perhaps the two most often cited examples.

However, in the make-believe world of D&D, the DM can put in all kinds of circumstances and conditions, so much so that a paladin could involve himself with either of these institutions without losing his powers.

For example, a DM could create a society that practises an idealized form of slavery that is no different from any other economic transaction. The potential slave commits to providing services to an owner for an upfront payment (to pay off a debt, for example). There are ways to ensure that both parties enter into the transaction of their own free will. There are ways to ensure that the owner treats the slave well, and does not abuse him in any way. There may even be ways for a slave to buy himself out of slavery and regain his freedom. Under such circumstances, a paladin may not find anything wrong with the institution and may even own slaves himself.

Just because it never works in the real world, doesn't mean that it can never work in the worlds we imagine.