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

[Mallus]

And the point that you proved was that prostution was evil (if the women have no other choice) which was what your "What if the woman had no other means of income (a depressingly common occurance even now)?" statment implied.

Cool. We agree. Coercive prostitution is evil. See, no need to get angry (unless you think that's fun, which I'm embarrassed to say I do, sometimes).

So back to the origional point of the thread. A paladin who pays for sex is not a paladin at all.

Good idea, back to Cedric. The way I see it, Cedric is unable to change the entire fabric of his society. What he can do is look out for the girls, drop some money into their coffers, keep them healthy. Its about as equittable and fair-minded exchange (even respectful) as they're likely to get in the (implied) context of their society. He cannot address the greater evil, so he does a little localized good. Accepting shilsen's set-up, its hard to imagine the women Cedric frequents being better off without him (and the brothel). Who would marry, feed, employ, and protect them otherwise?

Again, I can see raising objections to such an idealized view of Medieval prostitution, but in the context of a game that idealizes feudalism in general, not to mention wholesale slaughter, larceny, and in the case of certain brutish races, genocide, why quibble?

 

[Navar]

OK Sorry that I did get angry (I am under a little stress at work.) I wronged you and I am sorry.

I can't argue with the gumdrop and happy stardust prostitution where everyone is doing what they want no man every cheats on his wife, all the working girls stay disease free, all of them are doing exactly what they want to be doing. I just think that forces me to suspend disbelief a little too much. If you include 1 actual fact about prostitution (disease spreading, sometimes forced, objectification of women, infidelity, bad role models for children, etc.) then the entire scenario collapses, and the question was "would I allow that Paladin in my game" and to that I say NO because in my game whores are just that, they have Stds (and spread them), men pay for them and don't buy things for their wives, and while some make the choice WAY too many have the choice made for them, so it is evil. So in my game whoring happens, but it is bad. YMMY

 

[Mallus]

I wronged you and I am sorry.

No worries. Its been a while since anyone called me a chauvanist. Its actually kinda bracing...

If you include 1 actual fact about prostitution (disease spreading, sometimes forced, objectification of women, infidelity, bad role models for children, etc.) then the entire scenario collapses

I understand it doesn't work for you, but change 'prostitution' to 'the knighthood' as watch what happens. Would paladins abide the more secular knighthoods (that do a lot of awful things to the peasantry, if we're modelling our knights after the Real McCoy...)? I'm guessing that most people wouldn't think twice about paladins giving tacit approval to the systematized abuses found in real-world feudal aristocracies. So doesn't the whole "knights-in-shining armor" routine require the same kind of "gumsdrops and happy stardust --love the phrasing, BTW" treatment as prostitution?

I just find it intriguing that some people can so readily sanitize fuedalism, but balk at doing the same to prostitution. Different stokes for different umm... perhaps I should rephrase that.

 

[fusangite]

my impression was that the Catholic church had no small amount of influence in those days and that fornication and adultery - which means brothels - were "evil sins" in the dogma of said church. I only bring this up because the paladin is a "holy warrior" and as such if you're claiming to model the world on the medieval period, it makes sense to model his religion on the dominant "holy" medieval religion, local cultures notwithstanding.

Right. You came in later in the thread. I agree with you here. I do think that not being celibate disqualifies the paladin from being a paladin. I would not allow Cedric in my campaign. However, you were arguing that prostitution was evil and that I would not accept.

"Killing is an evil act, with the following enumerated exceptions:"

(1) "killing anything with an evil alignment is not evil"
(2) "killing anything with a good alignment is not evil only if it is in direct defense of a character's (PC or NPC) life, lawfully-deserved freedom (i.e., no obstruction of justice), or limb"
(3) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if that thing is at the time of battle acting in concert with those of evil alignment"
(4) "killing anything with a neutral alignment is not evil if it is in direct defense of a character's life, lawfully-deserved freedom, or limb."
5.) If the "killer" is a neutral creature with an intelligence score of 2 or less, killing is not an evil act (as I will submit that to commit an evil act, the actor must be capable of making moral judgments; an actor falling under exemption 5 cannot commit evil as it lacks the ability to make moral judgments, thus its actions, while "destructive" are not evil - and yes, that includes people whose intelligence is so impaired as to be below even the lowest "normal range" - frex, those suffering from severe brain damage).
6.) Killing a neutral creature with an intelligence score less than or equal to 2 (i.e., creatures not covered as "anything" by points 1-4 above) is an evil act if not done for the purpose of self-defense or for using some portion of the creature to physically/materially benefit oneself or others in a direct manner OR if the method chosen for such a killing is chosen primarily on the basis of its ability to inflict significant amounts of suffering on the creature before allowing it to die - i.e., killing for food or pelts is fine, killing for pleasure is not.

So, how does one act when confronting creatures[/QUOTE]I have a huge problem with this list. Alignments can change. What if a person who is evil today has an epiphany and becomes good tomorrow? Unless you're dealing with outsiders, the vast majority of evil creatures is possessed with free will and capable of becoming non-evil.

And what about human beings who are evil? Is it okay to summarily execute an evil 12 year old child who hasn't actually committed a crime yet? To me, that's evil.

The second problem you have is one of imperfect knowledge. How can someone who is not a paladin or in possession of sufficient Knowledge skills to know all the characteristics of the individual/species they face make these calls? How do you know the intelligence and alignment of every creature you meet unless you're a paladin with maxed-out Know - Arcana, Religion, Nature, etc.? How do you act with imperfect knowledge?

A paladin who pays for sex is not a paladin at all.

I agree with you here. But this does not make paying for sex evil. I have read your views about the sex trade and I strongly suggest you get a little more educated about its realities. Perhaps you should read the actual biographical accounts of people who have worked in the industry. A vocal minority of those women and men who work in the field enjoy their work or simply find it the least objectionable of the available options; if their clients enjoy receiving their services, where does the evil come from?

 

[zarabel]

Bravo Shil

I expected nothing less from you. It gave me a good laugh I must say. I would let this paladin into a game I was running. (If I actually preferred to DM) I say it's about time that we break away from the ideas that all paladins should behave like a boring stick in the mud that nobody wants to be around. Let's face it, for the most part, a group picks up a paladin, and there is a collective sigh from the table. Most characters do not feel comfortable with a paladin because most characters are not lawful good and know they will be judged. It's like, oh boy, he comes the paladin, the party's over. lol. I see nothing wrong in how Cedric behaved seeing as how he broke no laws. Do you think that all gods/goddesses are chaste? Not even. I feel he was lawful while still showing he was human. So, enough of my boring prattle, this is simply my opinion. (And we all know what they say about opinons ) I thought the writing was excellent, and the character was completely acceptable.

 

[The Sigil]

I have a huge problem with this list. Alignments can change. What if a person who is evil today has an epiphany and becomes good tomorrow? Unless you're dealing with outsiders, the vast majority of evil creatures is possessed with free will and capable of becoming non-evil.

You asked me to draw a clear line about where killing is acceptable and not an "evil act." I did. It's not my fault you don't like the line. You didn't ask me to try to "increase the good" by offering baddies the chance to have the epiphany. You asked for something more simplistic - how do I avoid evil? (Maximizing good and simply avoiding evil are two very different things ). My "line" wasn't necessarily drawn to keep a good character good, it was drawn simply to keep a neutral character from crossing into evil. Please show me where the line is internally inconsistent.

We can deal in what if's - "what if the evil person becomes good?" - but they're ultimately speculation, not cold hard fact (I presume here you mean he turns good after sparing his life, not killing someone who is now good because once upon a time he was evil).

The fact is, when he was killed, he was evil. So he never became good. The "what if" doesn't matter - because "it didn't happen."

(I am here reminded of the LotR:RotK EE easter egg...

"What if the ring WASN'T destroyed?"
"It was."
"But... what if... it wasn't?"
"It was!"
"But... what if... you know... it WASN'T?"
"It WAS!")

Yes, it's a simplistic worldview. But is completely internally consistent, no? When he was killed, he was evil. He never became good. Where's the problem?

(I have posted elsewhere that ideally, a paladin offers his quarry the chance to repent unless offering that chance is likely to lead to the harm of an innocent, but since we're not talking about "increasing good" but simply "not doing evil" here, it's somewhat off-topic.)

And what about human beings who are evil? Is it okay to summarily execute an evil 12 year old child who hasn't actually committed a crime yet? To me, that's evil.

Allow me to answer your question about the child not quite as stated, but instead substituting the word "crime" with "evil act" (to avoid the whole, 'whether or not something is a "crime" is a function of local laws" side trek) and address it from that angle.

I reject the premise that you can be "evil" and not yet have committed an "evil act." Alignment is "who you are" - and what you do is a function of "who you are." It is in action (or deliberate inaction) that one's goodness or evilness - or neutrality (a mix of both that doesn't heavily favor one or the other) is displayed. These actions need not be the "ultimate visible act of evil" but thoughts, words and deeds in preparation for that act are also evil (e.g., if you're plotting to murder someone, the acquisition of poison, the planning process to insinuate yourself close to them, etc. are evil acts at the time of commission... they aren't neutral acts that suddenly become evil when the "ultimate act" of murder occurs).

You defined the child as "evil" in alignment, therefore he must have committed acts sufficient to classify him as "evil" in the first place - someone with an evil disposition but who doesn't ever act on it is "neutral."

Again, "alignment is what you are, and what you do reflects what you are." If you haven't committed any evil acts, you aren't "evil," you're "neutral" ... so your question is a meaningless paradox.

The answer I would give is, "if the 12-year-old is evil (then he will have committed evil acts); it is not evil to slay him." If the 12-year old has not committed evil acts (then he is not evil); it is evil to slay him. Whether or not it is evil to slay him is a function of which of the two conditions you asserted is true; both cannot be true at the same time.

I would structure it thusly using formal logic.

1 - If X is of evil alignment, then X will have committed evil acts.
2 - X is evil.
3 - X has not committed evil acts.
4 - Because X has not committed evil acts, X is not of evil alignment (Modus Tollens).
Conclusion: Line 4 and Line 2 contradict each other, therefore one of our premises (1-3) must be wrong.

If you wish to reject my premise (i.e., a necessary part of moving from "neutral" to "evil" in the first place is the prior commission of evil acts), fine... but since I hold it as a true principle unless proven otherwise, you will need to either prove otherwise or cede that we cannot continue to have a meaningful argument about the original question. I'm not telling you "disprove this!" I'm just saying if you don't agree, we're probably at a logical impasse on this one and will have to move our attentions elsewhere... and I think we may be.

The second problem you have is one of imperfect knowledge. How can someone who is not a paladin or in possession of sufficient Knowledge skills to know all the characteristics of the individual/species they face make these calls? How do you know the intelligence and alignment of every creature you meet unless you're a paladin with maxed-out Know - Arcana, Religion, Nature, etc.? How do you act with imperfect knowledge?

The simple answer is, you don't need to have perfect knowledge. You meet a creature. If you know it to be evil (e.g., a demon), you kill it on the spot. No evil committed.

If it threatens you, you kill it. You are in defense of life and limb, regardless of its alignment, and if you kill it, you're not committing an evil act. Hungry animals, mindless constructs, etc. are likely to fall into this category even if you don't know exactly what it is.

If you are not familiar with the nature of the creature, and it is not an immediate threat, you ought to take a moment or two to parlay in order to determine its nature (problem is, most PCs don't know how to do anything but slay; parlay is all but an obscene word) - thus solving your problem of lack of knowledge. If it attacks when you parlay, go back to "it threatens you" above.

Does this leave you open to treachery? Of course... but that's one of the "costs" of being good (in the same way that the old "-for-tat" solution to the prisoner's dilemma game is that you always get bitten first, but this is offset by higher potential gains from cooperation and taking the chance that you can get those gains - but that's getting off-topic).

(Note that it's quite possible to have two good-aligned people fight it out and have one of the slay the other and have that slaying NOT be an evil act. For instance, maybe there is a good-aligned orc among the evil orcs in the old keep. The players break into the old keep and start slaughtering evil orcs left and right (not an evil act). The good-aligned orc comes to their defense, as there is no lawful (different alignment axis, remember) reason for the slaughter and kills a paladin PC. The orc hasn't committed an evil act (defense of life and limb). Another good-aligned PC then slays the good-aligned orc. Defense of life and limb, not an evil act. You now have two good-aligned characters who have slain other good-aligned characters... and no evil acts committed.)

--The Sigil

EDIT: Apparently Eric's grandmother doesn't like the "this-for-tat" strategy. Oops!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I would guess that those of us who do so believe the problems of prostitution to be inherent in the institution while the abuses of feudal aristocracies are either extrinsic to the institutions (and therefore, supporting the institution is not supporting the abuse as such) or intrinsic to power structures in general (and hence unavoidable without supporting anarchy).

I'm guessing that most people wouldn't think twice about paladins giving tacit approval to the systematized abuses found in real-world feudal aristocracies. So doesn't the whole "knights-in-shining armor" routine require the same kind of "gumsdrops and happy stardust --love the phrasing, BTW" treatment as prostitution?

I just find it intriguing that some people can so readily sanitize fuedalism, but balk at doing the same to prostitution. Different stokes for different umm... perhaps I should rephrase that.

 

[Navar]

I agree with you here. But this does not make paying for sex evil. I have read your views about the sex trade and I strongly suggest you get a little more educated about its realities. Perhaps you should read the actual biographical accounts of people who have worked in the industry. A vocal minority of those women and men who work in the field enjoy their work or simply find it the least objectionable of the available options; if their clients enjoy receiving their services, where does the evil come from?

As I said it doesn't hurt the 2 people involved, it bring down society as a whole. I have had a lot of internal struggles with this very topic when I was taking my advance philosophy classes. I have listed the reasons this is true before, and you can check them out (I think they are on page 8.)

And on feudalism being evil I think the assumption in most D&D campaigns that the Lords are of good alignment. That is where is see the change from the real world and everything logically follows from there. Even if every whore in the D&D world is lawful good it doesn't stop the spread of disease.
Edit: Lost Ini on the Feudalism check, but EB's point is great as well.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, we accept that no legitimate authority objects to his choice of dinner or his chosen dancing style, so we're already living in fantasy land. Your criteria makes being a paladin impossible - not hyperbole "impossible", really and truely impossible. If you have multiple legitimate authorities and they disagree ("You miust worship in my temple from 4-5pm on wednesday. No! You must worship in MY temple from 4-5pm on wednesday"), then poof, no more paladins.

This is going quite a bit further than is justified. It's quite possible to accept the premise and say "but legitimate authorities don't disagree on such things." A paladin is not the ultimate nobody, forced to yield "legitimate" authority to anyone who acts like they have authority. ("You must worship in my temple from 4-5 PM on Wednesday." Paladin: "And who are you, to make such a pronouncement? Are you my commander, my confessor, or the chaplain of my order?"). Of course, I think this issue does go the root of what Cedric is about: he is the paladin who is his own authority, deciding for himself what is required and what is superfluous to the code. If paladins can never do that, then he can't be a paladin, but if an individual paladin can have legitimate and accurate insight that contradicts authorities that would otherwise be legitimate, then the question is whether or not Cedric's particular insights are valid.

 

[Arkhandus]

Quote from the Paladin description in the 3.5 SRD, emphasis mine:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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.
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Ask yourself if your paladin truly follows the parts I bolded in the SRD quote. If not, they have lost their paladinhood. Hedonism is inherantly chaotic, so not something a paladin should tolerate, let alone partake in. Hedonism and prostitution offend the paladin's moral code, and thus is barred to the paladin. Prostitution is not likely to be legal everywhere in most fantasy settings, so the paladin could not tolerate it in lands where it is unlawful, as it then violates respect for legitimate authority. Prostitution is also dishonorable, which violates the paladin's code. Helping a brothel would violate a paladin's code in that they aren't supposed to help those in need if they would "use that help for evil or chaotic ends", which prostitution and hedonism are.