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

[Torm]

Elite language is typically more structured because it is more closely moored to written tradition. I don't buy that adopting a more structured and formal manner of speech is somehow chaotic.

I don't either. BUT, it is possible that if Cedric had a humble background in his youth, he might consider his mode of speaking to be staying true to that and himself - and doing otherwise would be a LIE, of sorts. Much worse than the swearing itself.

(Sure he a Paladin now, but he's still street, dawg! He be keepin' his shizzle real, na mean?)

 

[Rostek]

As much as I hate to jump head first into an active debate (cross-fire, after all ), I think I might as well lend my opinion.

Originally Posted by Elder-Basilisk
This perspective while quite common ignores the history and context of cussing. In most speech, the words serve the purpose of conveying hostility and a person who swears like a sailor (a concept that has been around for quite a long time, indicating that people using expletives as "a part of their everyday speech" is not historically unique and likely does not represent a significant divergence from the historical place of coarse language) generally learns the contexts and settings in which it is likely to have consequences

Elder-Basilisk, I think your point is correct to some extent- however, at the same time CarpeDavid's explanation is a bit closer to the truth- Just read some Chaucer; some parts "foul" language is that which is used by the commoners as opposed to the "civilized" tongue used by the privileged upper class. While there are certainly portions of cursing that fall under your definition, much (if not most) of this type of language falls under colloquialisms and idioms of the lower-class (and thus is associated with chaos and "bad". This is a common theme- we put that which is "royal" on a pedestal and thus everything "common" has negative connotations).
I'm just going to stay away from the prostitution angle aside from saying that IMO (and experience), such things are far more complicated than the position you espouse.
The cynicism is refreshing for me. Granted- our only source of info is kind of stripped from it's context in fiction, but shilsen's explanation leaves me confident in the intention of the speech.
That said- I would allow Cedric IMC, slightly modified of course to fit properly with how I run alignment and religion. I see nothing in his behavior that is inherently "aligned", and the context provided gives me confidence that unless the Paladin Code in question (DM determined, as it should be- Campaign specific) specifically forbids it, it is fine.
This Paladin is very refreshing- I'm sick of the stupidly zealous Boy Scout who doesn't temper his belief with thought. This one is a Boy Scout who thinks, which I definatly appriciate.

 

[taliesin15]

FireLance wrote:
You know, I think the key disconnect that many people are experiencing is that there is a lot of baggage associated with the term "paladin".

*Pirate Cat, you certainly have a tough job on your hands!

*fwiw, the few prostitutes that I have known well were pretty flippant about the whole thing, easy money for not much work, and they never had to do anything they didn't want to do. And I'm well aware of the other end of the spectrum.

*and maybe that's what needs to be considered? That maybe the Houses of Healing in a Goddess based polytheistic society might have an, er, "intimate" side to their healing and rituals?

*now on another subject, I'm wondering if anyone's ever done a poll on what spells they think a Paladin should always have memorized...I'd love to see one on the non Wizard spellcasters too

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You're misinterpreting me. What I'm saying is that the kind of hermetic seal that seems to be postulated by you and other posters between the various kinds of prostitution is a bad way to approach the issue. (Your position might be rhetorically summed up as this: OK, all prostitution isn't OK, but some of it is and since this is one of the [unusual] kinds that fits my definition of OK prostitution, it's the only kind that's relevant.) I think that there's a lot more to even the higher class prostitution than you're covering, (aside from any inherent issues about the nature and purpose of sex, there's also the effect upon the johns to consider--I haven't known anyone whose marriage has been destroyed by such a habit, but I've met plenty of people who have tossed their futures away for a pair of thighs wrapped around them now) but that's not been the point I've been making. (For that matter, I also question the assumption that it's practically possible for someone to draw a bright line and accurately discern between the various kinds of prostitution, etc. IME, most rationalization of any kind begins by assuming that subtle distinctions between the various mechanisms of satisfying ones appetites are clear and can be stuck to). By patronizing this establishment which, by DM/writer fiat is entirely clean of anything improper, Sir Cedric is making a statement about his society should and should not accept and what "everyone" does and does not do. That statement does not simply apply, in the minds of his observers, to "this particular house of prostitution which is clean and well run and where everyone is there by free and informed consent with an eye by the madame towards getting them out." Rather, it applies to prostitution as a whole.

Now that I've had a while to think this over, I think that a part of this equation that has gone undiscussed in this thread so far is this: appearances matter a lot and any lawful good character should know that. (Ordinarily I ignore law and chaos for the reason that I think the axis is incoherent, but this concept fits so perfectly with the three lawful alignments that I think it's worth mentioning as a part of the archetype). A paladin need not just do the right thing; he has to be seen to do the right thing as well. Conversely, if a man or woman in a position of prestige, he will know that it is not enough to simply not do the wrong thing, he has to also not be perceived to be doing the wrong thing. A paladin considering whether or not to accept a gift from a local lord would not just consider whether the gift was actually a bribe but whether it would be seen as a bribe and would thereby tarnish his order's reputation with corruption. Working from the premise that slavery is wrong, a paladin should not only not own slaves, but should not give the impression that he supports it. (In some ways, this would circumscribe the activities of a paladin in a society where slavery is controversial like pre-civil war America much more than those of a paladin in a society where it isn't controversial like ancient Rome. The American paladin would be aware that being seen in certain places or with certain people would lend support to their cause (slavery) but, since slavery was not a cause as much as a fact of life in ancient Rome, his actions would generally not be seen to support or oppose it unless he took explicit pains to make them do so). In the same way, a paladin might have doubts about the odds for victory, but, by appearing to view failure as inevitable, he would make it so. Consequently, the life of a paladin cannot be one of unambiguous openness. When in command, he must don the mask of command. When in a position of authority and respect, he must ensure that the authority and respect is turned to good uses rather than evil ones.

It is also at least a part of the issue relating to language. Language is one of the lines by which people declare their allegiance or identity with certain parts of society. To talk about AmeriKKKa would declare my (counterfactual as it happens) allegiance with a certain political subgroup. To talk in what Tom Wolfe describes as f-- patois declares one's identity with another group.

In this sense, the impression that Sir Cedric is a drunkard or a lecher can be just as important as the facts of the matter. Sir Cedric, however, does not appear to take any care for appearances. In fact, that appears to be partly the point of the exercise. Sir Cedric is a paladin who does not look or act like a paladin in everyday life. (This also is about the only justification I can see for the Holy Liberator suggestion that I've seen several times on this thread. Chaotic people are expected to treat the indirect consequences of their actions as irrelevant).

We must not be reading the same thread, or you really like exaggerating. I haven't seen anyone arguing here that prostitution (and esp. prostitution as a whole) is "innocent fun and games". What I have seen, however, is people arguing that the institution of prostitution is much more multifaceted than you make it out to be. Yes, there are people who are prostitutes because they have been enslaved or forced into it. There are also people who have chosen to be prostitutes because they prefer it to scrubbing floors or working in a field. And there are a lot of other variants, especially if you look at prostitution across the ages. You seem to completely discount any possibility other than "prostitution as coercion/slavery", and that's what a number of people here have responded to.

 

[ajanders]

Character concepts

Because this character is not a paladin (IMO). I think you're starting backwards... you're starting by deciding, "I will take a paladin" and asking, "what is his motivation and role-playing potential?" What you should be doing is deciding, "I will take a character with this motivation and role-playing potential" and then asking, "is he a paladin?"
...
What I'm doing is looking at an interesting, thought-provoking character, and asking myself, "is he a paladin?" No... in the very same way someone who is scared of the arcane and refuses to have anything to do with it is simply not a sorcerer. He may be a fascinating character to role-play, but he's no sorcerer. He's just not cut out for sorcery, because he would flat-out reject the tenets of the sorcerer class.

I'm coming to this a little late, but I think I have to disagree with at least the two examples you specify and maybe the general principle as well.
Sorcerors are traditionally said to be born, not learned. You can be terrified of arcane magic all you like, but barring major Mcguffins, nothing can strip your sorceral spell powers from you. It's not like being a wizard, who can break his staff and burn his books.
Even if the sorceror swears off using magic and sticks to fighting or roguery, there's still always those spells inside you, waiting to be cast.
Paladins may be different. The SRD and core books aren't clear about how you become a paladin. My conception of it (from which everyone elses may vary) is that a paladin is chosen by the powers of Law and Good. The powers of Law and Good don't always choose the wise people, or the strong people, or the people with high charisma. They don't always choose the people the man in the street might expect, either.

I'll go further and suggest that many classes could be played against type profitably. There's no reason not to have cowardly fighters (who only fight when cornered or forced) honest rogues (who are detectives or security consultants) or even nonperforming bards (like the scholar-bard from Unearthed Arcana).

One could, also, *ahem* role-play a paladin who had sex with a succubus of dubious ontological status on the altar of his deity and come up with a campaign I think most of us would agree we'd like to be able to run and love to be able to play in.

In fine, the SRD code of the paladin gives a great deal of latitude to GM's to define a paladin's code. That's exactly what it's supposed to do, so I'm not kicking.
Should you spring this character on your DM suddenly? No. But you shouldn't create any character without checking with the DM to see if it fits the campaign...and if your character is so generic it can fit in any campaign, it's probably a pretty bad character.
Play away, kids.

 

[Torm]

You're misinterpreting me. What I'm saying is that the kind of hermetic seal that seems to be postulated by you and other posters.... <snip>

DUDE! You sure do like to use big words! I promise I don't mean to harsh you with this, I have a great deal of respect for your educated opinion, and would like to help you have it more easily understood. "Hermetic seal" = "separation" and "postulated" = "suggested" in normal-people-speak. And please tell me you didn't just use the word "patois"! Write for your audience. Which is not to say anyone here can't understand you, but the goal of writing is to effectively communicate, not to make your readers work for it.

That said, I will restate what I read in your post in two statements, then respond to them:

1. You feel that some posters are acting like there are several different isolated types of prostitution, and you would suggest that it is more of a single scale.

Fair enough. But I know, at least in my case, I didn't mean to suggest they are different things, but rather that there are points on the scale that are less immoral. And saying that you can't pick one of those to write about because it fails to impress upon the reader the terrible things at other points in the scale is the same as saying I can't write about a man saving his wife from rape by shooting her attacker with a gun, because that would fail to convey all of the horrible things that can be done with guns. This point on the scale is the one Shilsen picked, because it makes Cedric possible.

2. You feel that, for a Paladin, appearance matters about as much as actions. A disreputable appearance says bad things about his associates, and promotes bad behavior in others.

I mostly agree. BUT: Who does the most good - the person who shows already relatively moral people a bright shiny path, or the person who stoops to meet people in the gutter half-way to show them something that, while maybe still not up to polite society's standards, is still better than what they've known?

Not to get religious, but even Jesus went amongst the Samaritans.

Also, if this is what Cedric already was when he "got the call", his deity knows what he asked for, and to try to "keep up appearances" as something he isn't would be a LIE.

 

[reapersaurus]

OK, let's cut to the chase here.

shilsen, I think it's manipulative for you (and others) to view this "Sir Cedric" strictly within the boundaries you are creating.
(example - viewing prostitutes thru this "working woman" lens which ignores the moral, physical, and psychological degeneracy inherent in the profession/industry.
I have not had much real-life experience with prostitutes or pimps, and I hate to break it to you, but I don't have to to have a solid footing in how prostitution is viewed by the majority of society.
There are serious problems with the lifestyle, and I think it's misleading to ignore all of them simply because you controlled all the parameters of Sir Cedric's story and placed him within "one of the good whorehouses".)

It's a further cop-out to create a high-level paladin of questionable appearance, yet he's happened to prove himself time and time again with heroic and saintly deeds, who even had his diety directly support him (in all his incorrect behavior) over a HIGH PRIEST OF HIS CHURCH. You've also apparently given Cedric a diety who thinks everything Cedric does is kosher with him. Don't you see how that's an artificial, unfair/skewed set-up to begin with?

You've also hand-waved many accurate arguments against Sir Cedric as written, basically saying "I view those objections as being subjective, and not requirements of the paladin class."

The paladin class, unlike any other, is one of absolutes and strict discipline, sacrifice, and leadership (both moral, spiritual, etc). To view it with a contemporary relativistic view is absolutely an antithesis to the concept of the class.

shilsen - it is _you_ who is proposing the non-standard view.
We can debate all we want (and your side's examples are quite compelling), but after is all said and done, we're still faced with the cold hard reality that the typical paladin would not be viwed as a whoring, excessive-drinking, excessive-cussing nihilist.

shilsen, from how you describe yourself, you and I are very similar in character/personality.
And you approach paladins in a very similar fashion to me.
I've been on record for years that there are more paladin types that should be allowed. I founded the "Paladins of the Board Unite" Play by Post thread years ago which showcased many non-standard paladins. My Kerith in that thread said many things very close to what you espouse for Sir Cedric.

But you go too far.

While it's correct that a paladin doesn't have to be a typical knight in shining armor, he DOES have to adhere to certain rules of conduct and expectations of a holy warrior. The personality traits inherent in a paladin (discipline, leadership, decisiveness, self-sacrifice, etc) are in conflict with the problematic traits you have given Sir Cedric.

If you just kept to the main thrust of the character (that a paladin's powers come from his god, and that relationship and him upholding the principles of his god is more important than the worldly church's interpretations of their diety) than it would be a stronger character.

By including the whoring (instead of simply enjoying the pleasures of flesh) and the excessive drinking (instead of just occasional drink) and the excessive cussing (instead of just being untraditional in speech and not all "flowery") and the nihilistic attitude (instead of just not being Lawful Stupid), you've pushed the character too far from being a real paladin.
There are many other things he could be - all of which are cool characters to play, I'd wager - but they aren't a Paladin.

Elder Basilisk, you keep getting down with your bad self.
It's a pleasure to read your posts on paladins. You obviously get it.
And shilsen, I know you get it, too - you just go too far with pushing the envelope with this particluar character.

 

[Torm]

By including the whoring (instead of simply enjoying the pleasures of flesh) and the excessive drinking (instead of just occasional drink) and the excessive cussing (instead of just being untraditional in speech and not all "flowery") and the nihilistic attitude (instead of just not being Lawful Stupid), you've pushed the character too far from being a real paladin.

Well, I'll admit I agree that I initially felt a bit taken aback by his negative attitude - but it occurred to me that maybe Magnus was catching him at a bad moment. I consider myself to be a pretty optimistic person, but you catch me at the wrong moment (like, say, reflecting on life over a glass of beer) and I may be a little gloomy, too. We haven't seen Cedric in the field, and I think his reported actions show that he really thinks he does some good. He just seems to believe in personal battles (helping the hookers get out, etc) of good and evil, rather than global ones - and those he definitely seems to think he can win. (Maybe that difference does make him Chaotic rather than Lawful. But that depends on his actions, too.)

Rereading Shilsen's story posts, I'm not sure I would consider what he is doing to be whoring, exactly. He isn't exchanging money for services - the women know that he helps them, and they want to do what they can for him. Prostitutes frequently aren't all that enthusiastic about actually performing the services they do, it is the money that motivates them, and yet these women are seeking Cedric out. One might argue that this is actually WORSE on Cedric's part, because he is allowing himself to be rewarded for that which, as a Paladin, he should be doing for free! But, it depends on the exact nature of his relationship. After all, many of us buy gifts for those we care about on Valentine's Day, and some of us have sex later that day, but that doesn't make the gift "payment" for the sex, necessarily.

And as for his language, well, from what I've read in the story posts, I think too much is being made of that - like someone else said, his language seems "vulgar" in the sense of "common".

Contrary to saying he is pushing the envelope too far, I would say Shilsen has done an excellent job of making a Paladin that walks the very line. Cedric makes me cringe. But as a fellow Paladin who is still convinced that he is, overall, a force for Good, it is my Duty to defend his honor, rather than look down my nose at him - until he does push too far.

 

[shilsen]

While this is true for us as players, it is not true for the characters. If, as I have reasoned elsewhere, D&D's physics are Aristotelian, or even Platonic, or pre-modern Christian or Judaic, objects are objectively not subjectively named. Thus, all the "true name" magic that fits into demonology. While, in our physics, object naming is subjective, names for most of history have been objective.

fusangite, this is why I love your posts and often end up disagreeing about them I think you're looking for a little more consistency in the D&D universe than it actually has. I think language as subjective or objective both work in D&D, simply because the D&D multiverse doesn't consistently lean one way or the other.

DUDE! You sure do like to use big words! I promise I don't mean to harsh you with this, I have a great deal of respect for your educated opinion, and would like to help you have it more easily understood. "Hermetic seal" = "separation" and "postulated" = "suggested" in normal-people-speak. And please tell me you didn't just use the word "patois"! Write for your audience. Which is not to say anyone here can't understand you, but the goal of writing is to effectively communicate, not to make your readers work for it.

I think Elder-Basilisk was just inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity - if you see what I'm saying

You already covered much of what I would have responded to E-B in your post, so I won't repeat it, but:

Not to get religious, but even Jesus went amongst the Samaritans.

Darn you! I've been so proud of myself thus far for making the will saves to not make that reference! Spoilsport

 

[shilsen]

OK, let's cut to the chase here.

shilsen, I think it's manipulative for you (and others) to view this "Sir Cedric" strictly within the boundaries you are creating.
(example - viewing prostitutes thru this "working woman" lens which ignores the moral, physical, and psychological degeneracy inherent in the profession/industry.
I have not had much real-life experience with prostitutes or pimps, and I hate to break it to you, but I don't have to to have a solid footing in how prostitution is viewed by the majority of society.
There are serious problems with the lifestyle, and I think it's misleading to ignore all of them simply because you controlled all the parameters of Sir Cedric's story and placed him within "one of the good whorehouses".)

I'm not ignoring problems with the lifestyle. I'm just saying that the lifestyle isn't a black-and-white thing, so there are ways and situations where a paladin can interact with it while fitting the requirements of the class in the PHB. If a paladin were consorting with and taking advantage of prostitutes who were essentially slaves, would it be a problem? Of course. To use an analogy, paladins consort with priests regularly. There are also evil priests who torture and kill the helpless. Does that mean a paladin can't consort with priests at all? Nope. Just that he can only consort with the right kind.

It's a further cop-out to create a high-level paladin of questionable appearance, yet he's happened to prove himself time and time again with heroic and saintly deeds, who even had his diety directly support him (in all his incorrect behavior) over a HIGH PRIEST OF HIS CHURCH. You've also apparently given Cedric a diety who thinks everything Cedric does is kosher with him. Don't you see how that's an artificial, unfair/skewed set-up to begin with?

Well, that wasn't the set-up I began with. That's what I added later to flesh out the character, and as I've said before, if you don't care for it, feel free to ignore it in your discussion. There isn't a point on this thread where I've said, "His god accepts him, so he must be a paladin", and I'm not about to.

You've also hand-waved many accurate arguments against Sir Cedric as written, basically saying "I view those objections as being subjective, and not requirements of the paladin class."

But I do view those objections as subjective. You obviously don't. So we disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

The paladin class, unlike any other, is one of absolutes and strict discipline, sacrifice, and leadership (both moral, spiritual, etc). To view it with a contemporary relativistic view is absolutely an antithesis to the concept of the class.

Don't forget that I'm explicitly focusing on the 3e PHB paladin as written. Not the archetype. Not the conceptions which people may have from playing paladins in earlier versions of D&D. Not the literary versions. Did you notice that (IIRC) the PHB description of the paladin never mentions "leadership", for example? Tabula rasa, baby!

shilsen - it is _you_ who is proposing the non-standard view.

Of course! I thought that completely went without saying. I've been saying from the beginning that Cedric is an atypical paladin. But, from my perspective, he is a character who still fits the parameters of the PHB paladin as written.

We can debate all we want (and your side's examples are quite compelling), but after is all said and done, we're still faced with the cold hard reality that the typical paladin would not be viwed as a whoring, excessive-drinking, excessive-cussing nihilist.

True. Which is fine, because Cedric's not a typical paladin.

shilsen, from how you describe yourself, you and I are very similar in character/personality.
And you approach paladins in a very similar fashion to me.
I've been on record for years that there are more paladin types that should be allowed. I founded the "Paladins of the Board Unite" Play by Post thread years ago which showcased many non-standard paladins. My Kerith in that thread said many things very close to what you espouse for Sir Cedric.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.

But you go too far.

While it's correct that a paladin doesn't have to be a typical knight in shining armor, he DOES have to adhere to certain rules of conduct and expectations of a holy warrior. The personality traits inherent in a paladin (discipline, leadership, decisiveness, self-sacrifice, etc) are in conflict with the problematic traits you have given Sir Cedric.

If you just kept to the main thrust of the character (that a paladin's powers come from his god, and that relationship and him upholding the principles of his god is more important than the worldly church's interpretations of their diety) than it would be a stronger character.

By including the whoring (instead of simply enjoying the pleasures of flesh) and the excessive drinking (instead of just occasional drink) and the excessive cussing (instead of just being untraditional in speech and not all "flowery") and the nihilistic attitude (instead of just not being Lawful Stupid), you've pushed the character too far from being a real paladin.
There are many other things he could be - all of which are cool characters to play, I'd wager - but they aren't a Paladin.

And these are the places where we disagree on what, IMO, are matters of interpretation and taste.

Elder Basilisk, you keep getting down with your bad self.
It's a pleasure to read your posts on paladins. You obviously get it.
And shilsen, I know you get it, too - you just go too far with pushing the envelope with this particluar character.

No arguments about the first point. I enjoy E-B's posts, even if I generally don't agree. And for the latter, obviously I disagree. I think I am pushing to the envelope to the edge - and stopping there. As I mentioned before, I think it's good to stand on the brink of the abyss and look in unwaveringly.