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

[Endur]

I think its possible that "prostitution" or other "victimless" crimes could be defined as evil even if we defined the people who participate in the act are themselves Lawful Good or another alignment.

i.e. good people can commit evil acts. It may make them less good and closer to neutral, but committing an evil act doesn't automatically make someone evil.

Another example would be drinking alcohol. One could define the institutionalized consumption of alcohol as "evil" because of the many bad effects that alcohol inflicts upon society. Look at the abstinence movement in the USA that created Prohibtion in the USA in the 1920's for a list of those bad effects.

And yet legions of Lawful Good Dwarves enjoy their ale and beer every day.

Its also possible to argue that "victimless" crimes are never Evil. That the requirement to have a victim is what determines whether the act is evil. So participating in victimless crimes might mean that someone is chaotic, a lawbreaker, but not evil.

 

[Mixmaster]

I'd allow it, but I would keep a very close eye on him. The "angst" Paladin is different.

 

[moritheil]

But I've got no problem with the sex and alcohol; it's the cynicism bordering on nihilism that makes him a fallen paladin in my book.

I would say he isn't fallen yet, but he's getting there. He's at least little bitter. And, as DM, I would slip in a few succubi or something to confuse him, further his resentment at "having to die," and lead him down the path to Blackguard.

Ultimately, this is more of a question of the players' and DMs' beliefs surrounding morality, sex, inebriation, and hedonism. It also depends heavily on setting. If the paladin follows, say, the patron of Love in the FR setting, then it might make perfect sense for him to have as much fun as possible, in the game context. I would rule that that order of paladins probably had a slightly different code in that respect. But he would definitely at least have to obey whatever precepts for that fun that the patron set forth.

Just ask yourself "Where do the paladin's powers come from?" and work from there.

 

[iwatt]

I cast Raise Thread

 

[The Sigil]

So, Sigil,

Just to clarify, is it your position that killing twelve year old girls who have committed no crime whenever you feel like it, simply because they are mean all the time is perfectly consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment?

No. Again, you're using a straw man here. "Mean" is not the same as "Evil" (with a capital E, referring to a person whose alignment in an absolute morality sense is Evil).

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Hurting, oppressing, and killing others is "mean" under most senses of the word "mean" I am familiar with that do not involve mathematical averages. Hence, an evil person is mean, but a mean person is not necessarily evil (in the same way that all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not necessarily squares). A scrupulously honest, to the point of tactlessness, twelve-year-old girl would probably be considered as "mean" by most, but that does not make her evil.

Hypothetically, if I have a fat wife (I don't), is telling my wife, "yes, honey, that dress DOES make you look fat" a mean act? An evil one? If it's the truth, isn't it an evil act to lie? That puts me in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" position. Of course, being scrupulously honest, in such a case I would say, "no, dear, the dress doesn't make you look fat - you make it look fat." *glad my wife doesn't read these forums*

So again, no. You're trying to argue via straw man. Mean != Evil.

My position is that kililng a twelve-year-old girl who is known (by the slayer) to be Evil (capital "E"), regardless of whether or not she's actually committed a crime (because the local laws could be written so that "Evil" acts are "legal"), is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment. Heck, I'll take it one step further. Killing an infant who is known to be evil (example under the rules as written: a baby monster of a race whose alignment entry reads "always evil") is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment.

Whether or not I think these rules are good design choices (I'm not sure I like "always X-aligned") is immaterial.

Please stop trying to read into that more than it says.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

I want to re-iterate a point Elder-Basilisk made in his (lengthy) post, but in my own words.

One act does not a person's alignment define... it is possible for good people to do evil acts, and vice versa. However, a paladin is held to a higher standard than simply maintaining a lawful good alignment. He cannot commit even a single evil act without losing his paladinhood.

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Emphasis mine.

The above text states that an ACT can be adjudged as evil, not just an individual. In other words, acts have an objective moral state (more on this below).

Sir Cedric seems to subscribe to a theory of "on-duty" and "off-duty" - i.e., provided he behaves himself while "on duty," he's entitled to do whatever he wants "on his own time." But the rules as written make no distinction as to whether or not the paladin was "on duty" if he commits the evil act (and, I would suggest, should not).

I have, and Elder Basilisk has, already raised the objection that Cedric's behavior smacks of chaotic alignment, and not lawful alignment. I won't re-hash that here. I want to "drill down" on the "willfully commits an evil act" portion of the paladin's code, and pull some more from the SRD.

While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Emphasis mine.

By the rules as written, good and evil are objective states - in other words, what your culture accepts as "desirable" and "undesirable" (and what its language will refer to as "good" and "evil" respectively) is not used to determine whether or not an act is objectively good or evil. This means that all considerations of "good or bad brothel" or "culturally acceptable" or even "sacred temple prostitutes" are 100% moot. These are cultural externalities that do not have an effect on whether or not an act is Good or Evil (I'll use capitals from here on out to refer to the "objective good" and "objective evil" in the RAW as opposed to the "desirable" and "undesirable" acts which vary by culture).

Every act falls into one of three categories, then, on an objective scale: Good, Evil, or neither. The act of choosing to eat your potatoes before your carrots or vice versa, for instance, falls under "neither" (I have a hard time thinking of non-absurdly-artifically-constructed-solely-for-the-purposes-of-being-ridiculous circumstances that would make it Good or Evil by the rules as written). I will posit that if we cannot find a reason that an act satisfies an objective condition derived from the RAW that would make it Good or Evil, it is "neither."

We get very little guidance from the SRD as to exactly how we are to objectively evaluate acts to place them in the categories of good and evil. Obviously, we get help from some spells ("casting this spell is an evil act") but the alignment section itself gives rather sparse guidelines...

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

I will posit that we can expand these definitions by including the opposite qualities (since we are dealing in objective terms, it seems reasonable that if the opposite of "good" is "evil" then the diametric opposite of something that is good would be evil and vice versa); i.e.:

"Evil" implies misanthropy, contempt for life, and a scorn for the dignity of sentient beings... and hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
"Good" implies protecting, defending, and preserving others... and altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Note that I did not say a "disregard" for certain things is the opposite of respect; disregard implies not understanding, knowing or caring how your actions affect others because it just doesn't really enter your mind but if it did, you would at least consider the effects... which is usually more of a neutral aspect.

Drinking does not, insofar as I can tell, fall under the evil umbrella; swearing, when directed at a sentient being, probably is an evil act by the RAW (profanity directed at an individual - a sentient beings - generally connotes scorn for the dignity that being, since the profanity is often a direct assault on that person's dignity). That sounds a bit harsh (even to me) ... but seems to fall out of the rules as written.

Now, the big question... prostitution. I preface the remainder of this paragraph with a big, fat, IN MY OPINION:

• Prostitution implies misogyny (objectification of women) and as such is a subset of misanthropy.
• It implies a contempt for life, because the John generally is actively unconcerned about the potential offspring from such a union... and (treading carefully around political/religious discussion) the prostitute is often expected - by herself, the pimp, and the John (in other words, everyone involved) to abort any such progeny, which I treat as contempt for life (politically, you may disagree on this point; that is your perogative and I won't argue it for fear of closing the thread).
• It implies a scorn for the dignity of sentient beings... prostitution, regardless of the "sugar and gumdrops" that may accompany it, is far from dignified - you are selling your body for cash, and that just doesn't seem to jive with dignity to me.
• I am led to understand that violence against prostitutes by both pimps and Johns is the worldwide norm - there are many exceptions, especially in more civilized countries, but it does seem to be the norm worldwide... to say nothing of the diseases inflicted upon prostitutes (hurting), oppression (by pimps and/or madams - and while society may bear some blame for "forcing" prostitutes into their roles, the individuals who then exploit them - Johns, pimps/madams, etc. should not escape blame either).
• Killing does seem to be a relative rarity, but does also happen...

In other words, not only does prostitution in general seem (to me) to meet one or two requirements of being an "Evil" act (of which satisfying but one is enough to call something "Evil"), it seems to go "above and beyond" by checking off pretty much the entire list! In other words, by the rules as written, I have a hard time finding acts that are "more" evil in terms of finding more ways to satisfy the list provided (torture, rape, murder come to mind)!

Yes, in specific circumstances, fewer of the items will apply. Not all prostitutes are abused or killed or even oppressed. But even one "checkmark" is enough to call it an "evil act" and I can't think of a circumstance in which none of the above will apply (since trading sex for cash - the "simplest" definition of prostitution regardless of all other circumstance - is by definition to me scornful of human dignity). YMMV, but there it is.

Prostitution, to me, looks like one of the EASIEST examples to find of an "evil act" in the Rules As Written. I am surprised, honestly, that we have seen so many people so vociferously defending it IN TERMS OF THE RULES AS WRITTEN. I understand that you may have issues with the RAW (on whether or not good and evil are objective, on whether or not the lists given are correct even if they are), but the original question asked "RAW" so if you object to the RAW on general principles, that's fine for another thread but remains totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Of course, if my players are any indication, there will people who go to their grave saying, "the only things a paladin can't do are cast spells that explicitly state 'casting this spell is an evil act' and 'murder innocents' because those are the only acts that the rules explicitly state are wrong" because players always want the smallest possible definition of "evil acts" - because they read "evil acts" as "restrictions on how I play my character" - regardless of whether or not the rules as written obviously contemplate more acts than just those explicitly listed since they give guidelines for adjudicating those acts that are not explicitly listed.

I think I am done contributing/ranting for now.

--The Sigil

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The problem is that this is really an alignment thread in disguise.

Of course it is. Most of the long ones are. I'm VERY late to this thread, but it has been an immensely interesting read. If infuriating at times. People seem to have very different definitions than I of what constitutes "Good" and often completely unrecognizable definitions of "Lawful." I'm particularly interested in your conclusion that Cedric is "good (with strong neutral tendencies)" from the post I'm about to dissect.

Even a "stardust and gumdrops" prostitution service does not exhibit a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, as it places a higher value on sex and money than on human dignity (or "sentient being dignity," if you will). Prostitution, therefore, cannot be good by definition.

What makes "stardust and gumdrops" prostitution un-good is that it is some form of attack on the prostitute's dignity? I would buy that, but only if her personal dignitiy is somehow predicated on so superficial a thing as who she gives orgasms to. Placing this immense burden of morality on the reproductive act is very strange to me. (And I spent more than half my life as a devout Catholic) To bring it back to game terms, animals are supposedly neutral, but a female cat will have sex with any male cat that comes along when she is in heat. Doesn't that make her wanton and evil?

If the tradition of the church/paladins is to avoid prostitution and heavy drinking (which the exchange between Cedric and Magnus seems to expressly indicate), Cedric's dalliances with prostitutes and heavy drinking are evidence that he is not lawful, as he is not honoring tradition.

Cedric does not like being told what to do. He favors his own ideas over tradition. He follows his conscience and lets it guide him. Not only is there concrete evidence in the stories that he's not lawful, his actions are those of a chaotic character - diametrically opposed to lawful.

RELIGIOUS CONTENT REMOVED

Cedric does not act as a good person is expected to act (avoiding brothels is clearly expected of a good person per Magnus' comments). He doesn't seem to be much for discipline (he does, to his credit, appear to be ever-ready to battle evil, but does not seem to be particularly disciplined). Again, to go back to prostitution, that he's trying to "help the prostitutes get out of the brothel" tells me they're in a bad situation; not only should he be helping covertly, he should be "speaking out" against it. He's not.

From what I've read, it sounds like this brothel is very comparable to some of those in small town America. The girls are there as sort of a halfway house to get the heck out of the life eventually. The patrons of the tavern know about the place, the religious hierarchy clearly knows about the place and at least some of them don't approve. We can assume that the religious demagogues would, at best, shut the place down and run the girls out of town, thereby eliminating a place that was acting as a haven for women who fled a much harsher version of that life in the city. What do you think the women would do then? You tell me: what is the Good thing to do? Oddly, just like real life, and action you take has BOTH good and bad consequences. It is easy to claim a particular "moral high ground" out of adherence to tradition. It is harder to live in the real world and still do the most good for the most people. You spend a lot more nights sitting up and agonizing over the decisions you've made. For my money, that thought and self-exploration makes you a better person than the guy who was "just following orders" and managing to do "good." YMMV

Every great spiritual and cultural revolution in history (including the one that created Christianity) was sparked by someone trying to make people think in new ways about morality, tradition, and religion. Heck, that's what most SAINTS did. But, apparently, paladins aren't allowed to do that. Who knew?

On a different note: a related set of comments on prostitution's "alignment"...

But that doesn't mean I buy shilsen's idea that how we think about sexuality is solely a cultural construction. While I'm not an essentialist, I think it's pretty hard to argue that there are no essential aspects to how we can think and feel about sexuality.

Yep. As a neurobiologist, I can tell you that we are wired to think "sex=fun."

Unfortunately, our culture decided "fun=bad."

As always, the interaction between "nature" and "nurture" is what tells the story, so you do the math.

As a side note, I agree with you on this. While I am not the philosopher necessary to formulate a working logic of why I feel this way, I definitely do not believe that my views on sexuality are irrational. I just can't voice the rationality. Well, except to say that to objectify women sunders gender equality.

Of course, there is an entire wing of the feminist movement dedicated to being objectified on their own terms. It's part of the sexual (not gender) equality notion. It tends to conflict with the, arguably, inherent psycho-social deviancy of our entire culture: liking sex makes you a deviant, according to our religious and cultural dogma. Of course, we're wired to REALLY like sex. Mmmmmm.... dopamine....

From my, limited, experience with this movement (sub-movement?), I think it comes from a class of woman who is fed up with the whole Madonna-Whore thing. After all, I can imagine that it must suck for women in our culture to finally let him have sex with you, and then be deflated, morally, in his eyes for doing so.

Personally, I find it much more convenient to be a guy. We're morally repellent BEFORE the sex act as well. The consistency is handy.

All that nonsense aside, my personal belief is that gender inequality and objectification of women are both symptoms, and have no causal relationship to one another. Telling you what I think the actual cause is would probably close the thread. And I would hate to be the cause of death for so long-lived a discussion. However, the point does bring me to this:

Prostitution MAY not hurt (be evil) to the 2 people involved, but it does hurt society. AND hurting society is an evil act. This is the CRUX of the victimless crime argument. IF prostitution is allowed to exist then society is hurt by it. If nothing else it encourages the objectification of women. Objectifying women is a BAD thing (even if it is the social norm it is still bad.) So prostitution encourages a bad thing. Prostitution = evil. If anyone can prove that prostitution doesn't encourage the objectification of women, or that said objectification of women is a bad thing then I have other points, but lets start with this one.

Aside from all the other things wrong with this statement... You can't prove a negative. I can prove that other things cause the objectification of women. I can prove that some men who go to prostitutes do NOT objectify women. I can even prove that an extremely small scale and temporally limited "objectification" has been known to produce a result that both I and the woman involved would consider "Good." Of course, that objectification goes both ways. Is objectification of men also a "BAD thing"? Most men don't seem to think so. Heck, I encourage women to objectify me. Does wonders for the self-esteem.

In any case, I can not prove a negative. If you cannot budge from your position without asking for the logically impossible, no further discussion is possible.

That said, I would argue that prostitution is inherently--or at least inescapably--unequal. So, if you choose to make consent and equality the only guiding lights of your moral system, it's still inconsistent to support prostitution.

Yep, the prostitute has access to something (Sex) that the buyer does not. If this is unequal by definition, then sales should be inconsistent with the notion of equality.

That flippant comment aside, a fair number of people here seem to be fully embracing the notion that the only way to be good is to speak out against evil and refuse to associate with anything evil. Unfortunately, you have gone to such an extreme with this that I have a hard time seeing how you could conceptualize a good man living in the world at all without massive angst and beating of his head against the wall. Sort of rejects the notion of "good as its own reward."

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Thought I'd get a word in before this thread closes again. For me, I really just appreciate the gritty feel of a world where the majority of noble/clerical men are mysoginists, are classists, racists, or any other 'ist' that make people deplorable in general. The idea that a LG aligned order is capable of great travesties--as per our lovely history--seems to play into a more enjoyable setting. As I said earlier, much earlier, I thought it would have been great if he had a child slave doing his bidding as well. Oh, and I believe any moral spectrum is inherently a cultural construct. Fun topic!

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'm fairly certain how well Cedric would be accepted IMC because the NPC paladin was very similar. Being an ogre magi, he wasn't physically able to be a womanizer, but he had the zeal to enjoy what life offered. The fact that he planned to challenge his culture's belief that the 'races of man' were not inept buffoons who should be treated as retarded children at best and semi-sentient animal slaves at worst meant he expected to be killed for his audacity and gave him the same quasi-cynical viewpoint as Cedric.

I'm just amused at the number of people who immediately latch onto "prostitution bad." While not a historian, prudishness is a fairly recent invention. When the whole world was farmers, every child knew the birds and the bees by the age of 8. Sex education, if it existed, was more about doing it well than doing it right.

Galahad was a rare example of purity within the Knights of the Round Table, paladins all, because he had a basically chaste lifestyle by choice. As a Knight he could get all kinds of willing nookie and he passed it up. That alone made him either a lunatic or a bastion of goodness.

In my DL game the paladins were the only ones with access to Cure Disease for centuries and they supported the prostitutes guild. Willingly? Not all. But it was the best way to minimize the spread of STDs and plagues in general.

Guildmembers carried a token, that changed regularly, to indicate they were clean. When each prostitute (be they male or female) came to the Paladin, they were not only checked for illness but the paladin ensured they were there of their own choice. They acted as confessors to the prostitues and were generally trusted due to their oath.

The fact that the KoS then had a *massive* information gathering network at the street level was not lost on most nobles.

 

[Piratecat]

Canis, I have removed the religious content from your post. Real-world religion is not permitted on EN World. Please stay far, far away from that topic in the future.

Thanks.