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

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6667464]Aurondarklord[/MENTION], I mentioned to philosophers - Finnis and Dworkin - who don't begin their discussion of sex from the proprosition either that it is sacred or that it is evil.

I'm conscious of board rules, and don't want to break them. But here's another way in via a bit of a tangent. Karl Marx denies that labour is a commodity, but does not think that labour is either sacred or evil. Rather, this characteric of labour is (according to Marx) a consequence of the role of labour in expressing the fundamentally creative nature of both the individual human being, and the species as a whole.

Most people who think that sex is not a commodity are going to begin from some comparable area of reasoning (like Finnis, Marx's reasoning is influenced by natural law ideas; and like other radical feminists, Dworkin is influenced by Marxist theories of exploitation; so the resemblances here in patterns of argument are not coincidental).

As I said upthread, you may not agree with those who say that sex is not a commodity. I haven't indicated whether or not I agree with them (and don't intend to). But the position is a fairly standard one, and (as I also said upthread) I'm not surprised that the Book of Exalted Deeds tends to take it for granted.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's been a long time, but here's my stand on it and a little background.

I am a big fan of the 4e Paladin who is more a champion of the causes of their chosen deity than a specific member of a LG order. So even when running 3.X games, I allow my players the freedom 4e afforded them, which is one alignment adjustment away from their deity variance.

When it comes to people playing their characters, playing their characters is their job, not mine. I set the framework of the game, the morality of the given town/country/universe that people are in and so on. I run the game. They run their characters. It's a simple dichotomy.

So along those lines I only question players in terms of their adherence to the demands of their deity.

If their deity says prostitution and drinking are bad, then a paladin who does such things is going to fall out of favor pretty quick. If their deity says nothing about sleeping with loose women or drinking, then neither do I. If the player belongs to a specific holistic order, either one they created or one they are taking from books, then I hold them to that as well. If they are doing something considered "bad" by their order, they'll get into trouble.

As for your character in particular, aside from his rather obvious Gary-Stuness(which to be fair, every character has to some degree), I wouldn't have a problem with him in my game.


I don't issue out penalties for drinking unless one of my players is making a big deal about how much they've drunk. I think trying to balance out real-world alcohol metabolization rates in a fantasy game is no fun. Likewise, I don't make a big deal out of sex either, I'm not going to go into detail about how you pleasured your partner, and I'm not going to have consequences either unless, as before, you're making a big deal out of it.**
**I have, out of boredom, created several fantasy STDs exactly for these kinds of players. I've also found several tables regarding pregnancy rates, so if a character wants to take their sex seriously, I'm willing to play along, but for the most part bedroom forays are something a character does by saying "I take the hot girl who's totally digging me up to my room and close the door." We then more on to other things. Brothels usually exist more for thematic reasons and silly-willies.
***So far, I've never had to use any of these rules in my game.

 

[Furby076]

A good character is not opposed to sex in
principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships
such as prostitution, the use of slaves for sex, or sexual
contact with children or others without the power to enter
freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect.

While having sex in and of itself wouldn't disqualify the character from being a Paladin, it seems that engaging in prostitution would.

Prostitution is considered "evil" generally in American culture (though not in every place...for example Nevada and chicken ranches. Though you can go to many other industrialized/democratic countries (e.g., Germany) where prostitution is allowed. I would say coercive prostitution (slave prostitution) would be considered evil, because you are removing somones free will, but if someone were to be a prostitute of their own choice then imho, and those of others around the world, it is not evil.

The problem with the morality you may take from D&D is that it is the morality of someone elses writing. Also, the problem with using the DMs morality (alone) is that it is theirs alone. While the DM creates/runs the game, the entire group at the table needs to enjoy it. An open minded DM will set aside some of their beliefs to allow their players to be entertained...and those players will set aside some of their beliefs to allow the DM to be entertained. There is no write or wrong except for what the DM and players agree to.

 

[S'mon]

Okay, if sex has a special moral character, then WHY does it have a special moral character?

It doesn't matter why; only that people feel it does. It doesn't matter whether a taboo is based on biology or purely cultural, only that it is a taboo.

Edit: Since Cedric's god supports Cedric rather than the established priests of Cedric's religion, it is clear that in Cedric's universe, Cedric is an acceptable Paladin. Ergo, were I running the Cedricverse, I would certainly allow Cedric as a Paladin of Cedric's god. Were I running my own universe, well I might allows Cedric as a Paladin of Pelor or another NG deity. I might allow Cedric in a Forgotten Realms campaign, even as (eg) a Paladin of Torm, as the Cedricverse seems close to the Forgotten Realms in tone and I try to keep to a Greenwood-ian feel in my FR campaign, which would allow for 'fest halls' et al.

I would not allow Cedric as a Paladin of the Great Church in my Yggsburgh setting, as the Great Church is a LG quasi-Christian religion, does not approve of prostitution, and there is no indication in that setting that the Lord or Son approve of prostitution contrary to the tenets of the Church.

 

[S'mon]

I don't follow the argument. Most of those who argue that sex is not a commodity would begin from the premise that sex is a normal, healthy and natural thing. That view would be shared by both John Finnis and Andrea Dworkin, for instance, who otherwise have quite different views on sexual ethics!

Did I ever tell you that Finnis taught me Jurisprudence at Oxford? He and his acolyte did a sufficiently bad job promoting Natural Law theory that for 10-15 years afterwards I was a strong Legal Positivist! These days I tend to think the Natural Lawyers have a point.
I remember other Dons being very hostile to (Andrea) Dworkin & MacKinnon, in general they did not like the cultural Marxists at all, and I don't recall looking at any classical Marxists until I was doing my PhD.

 

[pemerton]

Did I ever tell you that Finnis taught me Jurisprudence at Oxford? He and his acolyte did a sufficiently bad job promoting Natural Law theory that for 10-15 years afterwards I was a strong Legal Positivist! These days I tend to think the Natural Lawyers have a point.

I've never met Finnis, but I have a colleague who did his DPhil under Finnis's supervision and has told me a few stories.

I'm in the process of finishing a paper at the moment for a workshop I'm co-organising next week, defending a sort of sociological positivism against Mark Greenberg's criticisms. I would describe myself as a pessimistic positivist: I think that written, bureaucratic law only really makes sense under positivistic assumptions, but that those assumptions may not hold good, in which case the project of written, bureaucratic law would be a failure.

I remember other Dons being very hostile to (Andrea) Dworkin & MacKinnon, in general they did not like the cultural Marxists at all, and I don't recall looking at any classical Marxists until I was doing my PhD.

None of that surprises me, given the general outlook of Oxford pol phil and jurisprudence!

I studied social theory as an undergraduate, but have really only come to understand it since teaching it: I teach Durkheim, Marx and Weber, plus various more contemporary authors that show the continuing force of some of the concerns that motivated the classics, as well as the continuing force of some of their solutions.

 

[S'mon]

OT, but hey, the boards need some posts!

I teach Durkheim, Marx and Weber, plus various more contemporary authors that show the continuing force of some of the concerns that motivated the classics, as well as the continuing force of some of their solutions.

Sounds like my mother, she's a (retired) Sociologist - growing up I constantly heard "Durkheim, Marx, Weber" - yet she was probably the only right-wing sociologist in Northern Ireland, if not the entire British Isles! I remember her telling me that 'religion was the opium of the masses' per Marx - and also that it was absolutely vital to avoid social disintegration...

 

[Jackinthegreen]

It doesn't matter why; only that people feel it does. It doesn't matter whether a taboo is based on biology or purely cultural, only that it is a taboo.

But it does very much matter why people think something is taboo because in some very well-known cases we eventually find such ideas are silly. For example, it used to be that interracial marriage was taboo due to racism but now such an idea is no longer discriminated against by the general public. In the case of D&D it seems possible that a deity could have a champion like Cedric to help show that some things are not as bad as the people think they are so long as people are responsible. Through such fiction we might be able to think critically about our own views and come to understand that some things we think are bad really aren't, or even vice-versa.

 

[S'mon]

In the case of D&D it seems possible that a deity could have a champion like Cedric to help show that some things are not as bad as the people think they are so long as people are responsible.

If you look at my edit beneath the bit of my post you quoted you'll see that I addressed the fact that Cedric's god supports Cedric, ergo in the Cedricverse Cedric is a fine Paladin, because Cedric's DM says so (leaving aside that Cedric is actually a DMPC). In the Cedricverse Cedric may be used by Cedric's god to teach that Cedric's god views prostitution as ok. As long as either (a) the god defines acceptable behaviour or (b) the GM agrees with Cedric's god, then no problem, Cedric keeps his Paladinhood.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

If you look at my edit beneath the bit of my post you quoted you'll see that I addressed the fact that Cedric's god supports Cedric, ergo in the Cedricverse Cedric is a fine Paladin, because Cedric's DM says so (leaving aside that Cedric is actually a DMPC). In the Cedricverse Cedric may be used by Cedric's god to teach that Cedric's god views prostitution as ok. As long as either (a) the god defines acceptable behaviour or (b) the GM agrees with Cedric's god, then no problem, Cedric keeps his Paladinhood.

I did notice and comprehend the edit, but I was specifically responding to you saying that it doesn't matter why though I suppose I didn't do quite as good of a job as I would have liked. The why matters because it is through understanding the whys and other parts of a taboo that we can get to the root of whether it actually has a place in a given community both in fiction and in real life. That is relevant to the thread because we have to analyze whether the taboos actually pertain to alignment and whether taboos can shape alignment or the idea of what an alignment stands for, or whether the idea of alignments in and of themselves are worthwhile. The fact that for Cedric to exist as he does means his deity and the DM are behind him and view his activities as qualifying him to stay Lawful Good is obvious. But that's just the first layer of this and we all can discuss so much more.