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

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Hey I didn't say that I said I'd like to think that *some* of the people who agreed with me did so because of the rules, but I acknowledged that it was possible this was not the case. I know that I did not pass judgment until I cracked open the Player's Handbook and reread the Paladin's Code, and I made my judgment based solely on the rules, as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to accept the argument that I still might have been biased and I acknowledged that, so please, don't build a straw man for me where I've already qualified

Fair enough. I prefer to think of it as finding the essence of the argument, rather than straw-man building. And I use whatever materials are available. Is it my fault there's so much straw lying around on the internet?

More to the point, though, I find some of the anti-Cedric ideological arguments to be thoughtful and apt, but I have yet to see a convincing rules argument from that side. They have been more of the line: "I know I'm right, so after begging the question and assuming I'm right, I can paint in the things I want it to say between the lines because the rules are not stopping me from restricting Cedric."

I found a couple of the rules arguments reasonable, but they all require massive DM judgment calls one way or the other on what certain abstract game concepts really mean. Which makes the rules no help in any case.

 

[Filby]

I voted "no." Not because he patrons a brothel -- if his order allows it, then he's okay. I chose "no" because Cedric seems to do good deeds not because it's the right thing to do, but because he doesn't want to deal with the guilt of not doing them. He also doesn't seem to like his order very much. His motives are impure. To me he looks more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Yes, and at least three more JUST LIKE HIM!

Duh, I voted yes. And, no, I don't want three more paladins just like Cedric, but I would be totally awe-struck and grateful if four different players showed up to a new DnD campaign with characters as well developed as this one.

If the game world restricted paladins to such an extent that this character SHOULDN'T be allowed I'd bend/break/stomp on the rules to let this character in the game.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Lawful good=lawful happy

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's a fair cop. Much like a Paladin using Sneak Attack (which probably wouldn't be allowed under any kind of chivalric code of combat...it amounts to "kick them in the junk when they aren't looking"), a paladin using profanity and lacking a certain respect for underlings is just fine. Brothels aren't inherently wicked places, and neither are shady bars. He does good while he's there, and he treats creatures with honor. He's Lawful. He's Good. He doesn't have to be *nice* (as the common trope of the egotistical, domineering paladin proves)

 

[Mr. Kaze]

It's probably been said in the many pages of thread, but this example really highlights the problem with making roleplaying restrictions on an otherwise mechanical core class. The "Suicide Machine" aspect of the class drives him to behave in certain ways which strike me as no less acceptable and generally more rational than the usual Lawful Goody-Two-Shoes that are frequently at odds with the common "Kill them and take their loot" party philosopy. So he deals with sinners and tax collectors where they're at -- And? (To which, the real difficulty is that while he is not having any issues with himself, the common observer that doesn't have the paladin's abilities or self control might think "Good enough for him, good enough for me" when it really isn't -- hence the directive to eschew not only evil but also the appearance of evil and the reminder that, to the sanctified, everything is allowed but not everything is actually beneficial.)

IMG, we don't go into sexuality where it can be avoided and we don't pour a whole lot of eloquence into diplomacy checks to see if a point was made despite intentional brusqueness. That said, I'd probably be in favor of the character on account of him actually having character -- though I'd not be interested in exploring it in-game. But I'm also opposed to the "Lawful" restriction on the Paladin (compared to the "Any Evil" Blackguard) and not happy with the Paladin being a base class (compared to the PrC Blackguard or Holy Liberator).

So there you have it.
::Kaze

 

[DrNilesCrane]

From the first story post (I haven't read them all), I think the character concept is interesting and fits well enough within the mold of a paladin to work. I've run a similiar character type before and it's worked well.

 

[lgburton]

i'd allow it for a couple of reasons:

1) nothing intrinsicly wrong about sexuality. period.
1a) cedric did not "pay" for the privalege - he KNOWS that he doesn't have to, and yet goes out of his way to support the establishment he frequents. that is VERY consistant with the concept of tithe and the paladin's code. he had it, so he gave it. the financial transaction occurs seperate from the sexual encounter.

2) the three musketeers - athos is lawful good, and it's hard to debate that - but he is just as much, if not more, of a cynic than cedric here is.

it's a fun concept. it's definetly one that i wouldn't want to play outside an established, mature, and open-minded gaming group, though. so, as a dm? yep. allowed.

 

[Particle_Man]

I am not sure if this has been said before, as I am too lazy to read the whole thread. But isn't part of the Paladin deal a spiffy afterlife in some equivalent of the Seven Heavens? Would that not make the "gonna die real soon" part easier to bear? Anyhow, going against the grain, I would not allow this character in my campaign as a paladin, but would as a fighter or ranger or barbarian that happens to be devoted to the cause of good. Also, a Holy Liberator, perhaps.

 

[Baragos]

I'd probably allow it, if it fitted within the campaign.

Remember not all societies view sex as something "bad". In some cultures (Inuit for instance) you are offered to sleep with the wife of the man you are visiting, or his daughter if the wife is too old. Sex = Bad is largely a Christian concept and thus need not apply to every Paladin out there.

And on the STD: Paladins are immune to Diseases. That should also imply that they cannot carry diseases. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc there's no danger of STDs being carried over.

But I can understand if some DMs have created a world in which Paladins should not do stuff like that.