-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Would you allow this paladin in your game? (new fiction added 11/11/08)
- Thread starter shilsen
- Start date
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Needle point here...
"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."
The phrase "and so forth" is explicitly set forth and thus the list itself admits that is *not* exhaustive but is exemplary. I think we have to figure out what items fall under the "and so forth" in order to complete the list (clearly, there must be at least one additional item - and probably more - not on the list as written or the phrase would not be needed). Of course the problem with that is finding something we agree on as the "and so forth" item(s) that need to be on the list per the Rules as Written.
So yes, I guess we disagree on that point (exhaustive vs. exemplary) but I think I have enough ammunition to lend credence to my argument based on the RAW.
--The Sigil
The phrase in the SRD (don't have the PHB handy) is (emphasis mine):shilsen said:
"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."
The phrase "and so forth" is explicitly set forth and thus the list itself admits that is *not* exhaustive but is exemplary. I think we have to figure out what items fall under the "and so forth" in order to complete the list (clearly, there must be at least one additional item - and probably more - not on the list as written or the phrase would not be needed). Of course the problem with that is finding something we agree on as the "and so forth" item(s) that need to be on the list per the Rules as Written.
So yes, I guess we disagree on that point (exhaustive vs. exemplary) but I think I have enough ammunition to lend credence to my argument based on the RAW.
--The Sigil
Last edited:
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
That "And So Forth" just makes the whole honour thing even more subjective than it already is. I think whatever applies in that place would depend on the specific Paladin's Code/God/Whatever. The hard part about applying the Paladin to a world with many Gods is that the achetype is based on a concept of following only ONE God, of which doesn't exist in the D&D world.
The whole honour thing would be different for each Paladin, depending on what exactly he follows. If its a Deity, it would be that Deity's code(which could easily allow for Cedric's actions). If its just his own personal calling to the act of Good, then its a bit more flimsy. I believe that's a big reason why a DM and player of a Paladin should set down what exactly his Code is and what those "And So Forth" actions really are.
The whole honour thing would be different for each Paladin, depending on what exactly he follows. If its a Deity, it would be that Deity's code(which could easily allow for Cedric's actions). If its just his own personal calling to the act of Good, then its a bit more flimsy. I believe that's a big reason why a DM and player of a Paladin should set down what exactly his Code is and what those "And So Forth" actions really are.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Needlepoints...
Good - Putting the wants of others before your own.
Neutral - Putting the wants of others before your own when it's not overly inconvenient.
Evil - Putting the wants of self before the wants of others.
Perhaps I was reading a bit more than I should have into his "I think I've earned my wine women and song" comment, but it seemed to me to be an angry, "hey, I put in my 9 to 5, and after that I can gratify myself." Again, probably a failing of text as properly conveying shades of meaning.
--The Sigil
It looked to me - and I hope I'm reading it wrong, because the rest of your post raises some good issues - that you weren't disagreeing with my assessment of his behavior as "dishonorable." If that is the case, he's in violation of the paladin's code ("to act with honor"). Just want to make sure that you ARE in fact disputing the assertions that his actions are dishonorable, because that wasn't how I read your response, but some meaning gets lost in pure text medium.drnuncheon said:
Yes, I was in a hurry and didn't get time to expand that point properly. In an oversimplified nutshell:
Good - Putting the wants of others before your own.
Neutral - Putting the wants of others before your own when it's not overly inconvenient.
Evil - Putting the wants of self before the wants of others.
Perhaps I was reading a bit more than I should have into his "I think I've earned my wine women and song" comment, but it seemed to me to be an angry, "hey, I put in my 9 to 5, and after that I can gratify myself." Again, probably a failing of text as properly conveying shades of meaning.
--The Sigil
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
One final needlepoint directed to no one in particular...
SUPPOSITION: Drinking and patronizing brothels are against the teachings of of Cedric's religious order with regard to code of conduct (which I gather from Magnus' comments).
PREMISE 1: Tenets/teachings of that order come from the priests of that religious order.
PREMISE 2: The priests of the religious order represent the legitimate authority of that order (if they did not represent the deity in question, they would not receive spells, etc., no?)
AXIOM: The paladin's code requires him to "respect legitimate authority."
COROLLARY: "Respecting legitimate authority" means "obeying the instructions - including code of conduct" given by that authority within the scope of its authority.
CONCLUSION: Cedric drinks and patronizes brothels. This is against the teachings of his order with regard to code of conduct (supposition). These instructions come from the priests of his order (premise 1), who represent legitimate authority (premise 2). In not following these instructions, Cedric is not respecting legitimate authority (corollary). Therefore, by axiom 1, Cedric is in violation of the paladin's code and thus loses his paladinhood.
CONCLUSION 2: If Cedric does not follow the teachings of the order and keeps his paladinhood, one of the suppositions, premises, or the corollary above is incorrect (the axiom cannot be). This means that if Cedric is played as written and keeps his paladinhood:
a.) Drinking and womanizing are NOT proscribed by the clergy of Cedric's church (unlikely given the fiction piece).
b.) The priests of his order do not represent the legitimate authority of a deity (possible, but checking on this would be as simple as checking on whether or not they receive clerical empowerment).
c.) That "respecting legitimate authority" has a meaning other than "obedience" (possible, but I don't think that's the intent of the rules).
This is not my only objection to Cedric (obviously), but if he's not living up to the tenets of the order as preached by those in authority (the priests), he's not exactly "respecting legitimate authority."
As a second aside, this piece makes for a great example of "absolute morality" versus "relative morality" - though in this case (to the dismay of some, I'm sure), the "relative morality" of the culture in question (Cedric's order) is set higher than - rather than "lower than" the level of absolute morality, which is seldom perceived to be the case. But that's another discussion altogether.
--The Sigil
(BTW, I can see the other side's argument, but I think it's important to consider all the ramifications from both sides, and it's turned into an excellent and mature discussion - which is why I continue to post ).
SUPPOSITION: Drinking and patronizing brothels are against the teachings of of Cedric's religious order with regard to code of conduct (which I gather from Magnus' comments).
PREMISE 1: Tenets/teachings of that order come from the priests of that religious order.
PREMISE 2: The priests of the religious order represent the legitimate authority of that order (if they did not represent the deity in question, they would not receive spells, etc., no?)
AXIOM: The paladin's code requires him to "respect legitimate authority."
COROLLARY: "Respecting legitimate authority" means "obeying the instructions - including code of conduct" given by that authority within the scope of its authority.
CONCLUSION: Cedric drinks and patronizes brothels. This is against the teachings of his order with regard to code of conduct (supposition). These instructions come from the priests of his order (premise 1), who represent legitimate authority (premise 2). In not following these instructions, Cedric is not respecting legitimate authority (corollary). Therefore, by axiom 1, Cedric is in violation of the paladin's code and thus loses his paladinhood.
CONCLUSION 2: If Cedric does not follow the teachings of the order and keeps his paladinhood, one of the suppositions, premises, or the corollary above is incorrect (the axiom cannot be). This means that if Cedric is played as written and keeps his paladinhood:
a.) Drinking and womanizing are NOT proscribed by the clergy of Cedric's church (unlikely given the fiction piece).
b.) The priests of his order do not represent the legitimate authority of a deity (possible, but checking on this would be as simple as checking on whether or not they receive clerical empowerment).
c.) That "respecting legitimate authority" has a meaning other than "obedience" (possible, but I don't think that's the intent of the rules).
This is not my only objection to Cedric (obviously), but if he's not living up to the tenets of the order as preached by those in authority (the priests), he's not exactly "respecting legitimate authority."
As a second aside, this piece makes for a great example of "absolute morality" versus "relative morality" - though in this case (to the dismay of some, I'm sure), the "relative morality" of the culture in question (Cedric's order) is set higher than - rather than "lower than" the level of absolute morality, which is seldom perceived to be the case. But that's another discussion altogether.
--The Sigil
(BTW, I can see the other side's argument, but I think it's important to consider all the ramifications from both sides, and it's turned into an excellent and mature discussion - which is why I continue to post
).
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Bingo.Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
Doesn't USUALLY exist in the D&D world, anyway.
Yes... returning to the example at hand, I think the teachings of Cedric's order are VERY relevant to the discussion, as they shape the "and so forth" - which is why Magnus' comments are so important. Assuming, of course, that Cedric is called by a specific deity and not by "Good" itself.
Agreed.
--The Sigil
Brennin Magalus
First Post
Someone brought this up previously:
"Few have the purity..."
This excerpt from the paladin description cannot be reconciled with a paladin who goes a-whoring.
Quod erat demonstrandum
"Few have the purity..."
This excerpt from the paladin description cannot be reconciled with a paladin who goes a-whoring.
Quod erat demonstrandum
The most important arguement was how shilsen posed the question - would *you* allow Sir Cedric in your campaign?
The answer depends on many variables. One of the most important, its clear to me as this debate goes on, is whether your world features are modern or medieval outlook. Some fantasy worlds, (one may argue that settings such as Forgotten Realms included) has a rather modern outlook. Sure there's no planes or trains, but the people are mostly educated, generally egalitarian, open to the religions of others, and consider slavery or even quasi-slavery such as serfdom as abhorrent. In such a setting, clearly Sir Cedric is inappropriate as a paladin.
A medieval worldview tries to recreate the attitudes, at least some of them, of the past. Life is hard, and people suffer. Most are uneducated and superstitious, and wary and possibly violent toward someone of the same race with a funny accent, nevermind an entirely different race! And other faiths could be seen as dangerous delusions or demon worship. Slavery is still looked down upon, but serfdom and other lower class people are where they are supposed to be. A prostitute is a lowly profession to be sure, but not really lower than a ditch-digger or other unskilled labor. In such a setting, Sir Cedric is perfectly appropriate. Heck, I'd have the members of the Order upset not because he visits the brothel - what knight doesn't? - but because he doesn't try to hide it.
Also there is the nature of the religions in the campaign. Are the gods specific and direct, often speaking to their clerics and telling them exactly what is and isn't appropriate? Or are they more aloof, largely leaving men to divine their own interpretations and dogmas from the teachings? And about the drinking, it depends again on the modern/medieval mindset. If the people have some concept of basic sanitation, then a paladin drinking could be seen as scandalous. In a medieval world he's a paladin who doesn't want to get dysentary (okay, he's immune to disease, but that's not the point). Everyone drinks alcohol - men, women, even children, because it's safer than water.
I'd allow Cedric in a heartbeat. But then I have a harsh medieval mindset world with aloof, unspecific deities. He's fit right in. Other settings he might not.
The answer depends on many variables. One of the most important, its clear to me as this debate goes on, is whether your world features are modern or medieval outlook. Some fantasy worlds, (one may argue that settings such as Forgotten Realms included) has a rather modern outlook. Sure there's no planes or trains, but the people are mostly educated, generally egalitarian, open to the religions of others, and consider slavery or even quasi-slavery such as serfdom as abhorrent. In such a setting, clearly Sir Cedric is inappropriate as a paladin.
A medieval worldview tries to recreate the attitudes, at least some of them, of the past. Life is hard, and people suffer. Most are uneducated and superstitious, and wary and possibly violent toward someone of the same race with a funny accent, nevermind an entirely different race! And other faiths could be seen as dangerous delusions or demon worship. Slavery is still looked down upon, but serfdom and other lower class people are where they are supposed to be. A prostitute is a lowly profession to be sure, but not really lower than a ditch-digger or other unskilled labor. In such a setting, Sir Cedric is perfectly appropriate. Heck, I'd have the members of the Order upset not because he visits the brothel - what knight doesn't? - but because he doesn't try to hide it.
Also there is the nature of the religions in the campaign. Are the gods specific and direct, often speaking to their clerics and telling them exactly what is and isn't appropriate? Or are they more aloof, largely leaving men to divine their own interpretations and dogmas from the teachings? And about the drinking, it depends again on the modern/medieval mindset. If the people have some concept of basic sanitation, then a paladin drinking could be seen as scandalous. In a medieval world he's a paladin who doesn't want to get dysentary (okay, he's immune to disease, but that's not the point). Everyone drinks alcohol - men, women, even children, because it's safer than water.
I'd allow Cedric in a heartbeat. But then I have a harsh medieval mindset world with aloof, unspecific deities. He's fit right in. Other settings he might not.
Brennin Magalus
First Post
maddman75 said:
I definitely disagree. A paladin is not based on a "typical" medieval knight. Rather, he is based on literary figures like Galahad and Roland, as well as the historical Templars and Hospitallers (and perhaps Joan of Arc), none of whom would go a-whoring.
sword-dancer
Explorer
Cedric isan example of a Pally who had seen that the war he fights in is lost.The Sigil said:
He wouldn?t resign, surrender or desert, he is ready to fight this to the bitter end, willingly going the dark road till he dies.
If Cedric is right is another Question, but that he is willingly to ly his leife for a lost cause, because this fight shouldn`t be abandonnend is an ac´t of a true Paladin, if the Person has the class of a Pakky is irrelevant.
In his "free time" he drinks?
Had Cedric took a vow of ascetism? No, also what`s the Problem, he is sexually active, as long as these let the Partner with a cultural stigma and he didn`t enter the game with wrong Expectations by his Partner, so what?
That he goes to Prostitutes is only a Problem if these is usually forbidden from his god, or "forced on the Prostitutes".
Burt if he does this without being reasonably sure he would fall.
OTOH their had it given temple Prostitutes, young woman had their
He is cynic,oh yes, he knows(or believes so) his fight is lost, has seen so many dark and cruel things, fates.. why should he be merry?
Charlemagne btw massacred 5000 Saxon at Verden at theAller, murdered them with cold blood.
The Titel Paladin comes from his Palace officers.
Similar Threads
