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

[Narse]

Note the language used in describing the prostitution they're talking about, terms like "exploitative or coercive relationships", "without the power to enter freely and willingly", this is the context that describes their mention of prostitution on that list of evil sexual behaviors, it is evil IN THAT CONTEXT, for the reasons they listed, much as the book of exalted deeds explains why poison is against the paladin's code, and then explains the exceptions and offers ravages as an alternative. It's not going to go into that kind of detail on prostitution because it's the book of exalted deeds, not the book of erotic fantasy, but similarly, it can be logically inferred that if you strip away the evil context, by presenting an example of prostitution that is not exploitative or coercive, being entered into by willing participants (which you can do in a fantasy setting, and which represents the example Cedric was involved in), then the prohibition would no longer apply, elsewise why give context explaining why it's wrong, if it's wrong as an absolute irrespective of context?

It's not going into a definition under the terms of which prostitution is wrong, it's saying a good character won't have sex under the following conditions. Prostitution is listed as a definitive situation that the character won't be involved in. The sentence can be rephrased as follows:

A good character is not opposed to sex in principle, but will not condone exploitative or coercive relationships such as prostitution. A good character will not condone the use of slaves for sex. A good character will not condone sexual contact with children. A good character will not condone sexual contact with those that do not have the power to enter freely and willingly into a relationship of mutual respect.

The book says a good character won't condone exploitative or coerced relationships, and gives prostitution as an example of what an exploitative or coerced relationship is. The book defines all prostitution as an "exploitative or coercive relationship". It doesn't say 'A good character will not condone prostitution that is exploitative or coerced.'

 

[Aurondarklord]

Context context context my friend!

The book makes a generalization here, listing prostitution as a coercive and exploitative relationship, and therefore evil. it's listed as an example under a category, if it no longer fits in the category, would it still be a valid example? of course not.

Is that "rules as interpreted" instead of "rules as written" ....admittedly yes, but only to the same degree that people have previously argued that you have to interpret developer intent in situations like "evil implies hurting or killing others to avoid an obviously silly "literal genie" interpretation of the rules where a paladin will lose his powers as soon as he deals damage to any other character.

BOED defines prostitution as evil by listing it in a category, "coercive and exploitative relationships", if it no longer fits in that category, then it's obviously existing outside the reasons why the writers listed it as evil.

 

[Narse]

Context context context my friend!

The book makes a generalization here, listing prostitution as a coercive and exploitative relationship, and therefore evil. it's listed as an example under a category, if it no longer fits in the category, would it still be a valid example? of course not.

Is that "rules as interpreted" instead of "rules as written" ....admittedly yes, but only to the same degree that people have previously argued that you have to interpret developer intent in situations like "evil implies hurting or killing others to avoid an obviously silly "literal genie" interpretation of the rules where a paladin will lose his powers as soon as he deals damage to any other character.

BOED defines prostitution as evil by listing it in a category, "coercive and exploitative relationships", if it no longer fits in that category, then it's obviously existing outside the reasons why the writers listed it as evil.

Even if it's as simple as 'being coerced into having sex in exchange for money', prostitution is still a coerced act. The exchange of money is what coerces the prostitute to engage in the sexual activity. Without the money, the prostitute would not engage in the sexual relationship. Even in the example given at the start of the thread, if sexual relations are given because the prostitutes, or the madam, wants to show her gratitude, the sexual act is still coerced, because they feel indebted to the paladin for the service of protection he provided. The paladin insists that this is inappropriate for him to accept (and it is), and pays for his prostitutes. The prostitution is still coerced.

 

[Baron Opal]

For all of the people objecting to Cedric because he drinks, wenches, and speaks crudely....

Would we even be having this conversation if Shilsen had created him as a dwarf instead of a human?

Yes, of course. If only because he would be held to a higher standard.

More seriously, yes. The discussion is about a class with supposedly well defined but not really behavioral core that has significant penalties when that set of core behaviors are deviated from. How much deviation and in what manner is acceptible given the historical (gaming / mythical) parameters of the class.

 

[Aurondarklord]

Narse, by that logic (defining all prostitution as inherently coercive) you go right back into discussions that came up much earlier in the thread that essentially amount to "why is sex a moral special snowflake that functions by different rules than everything else?", because by that logic, ANY trade of money for services, or at the very least any trade of money for services not utterly essential for survival, is coercive. You think the town blacksmith wants to work his butt off all day in the forge patching up the paladin's armor? no, he does it because the paladin pays him to. Wouldn't it be so much more honorable for the paladin to just give him the money as charity? by the logic you've put forth, the paladin's relationship with the blacksmith is coercive, and therefore evil. I have never heard of a paladin losing his powers for retaining the services of a blacksmith in the capacity of his trade. Perhaps the blacksmith wishes he weren't a blacksmith, he wishes he had been born a noble in a tropical land and could lounge on the beach all day sipping the medieval equivalent of mai tais, but the mere fact that becoming a blacksmith was not his ideal vision of how his life might have gone does not make retaining his services evil. Nobody's chained him up in the forge or addicted him to drugs to compel him to fix armor all day. Of course, a lot of prostitutes ARE held prisoner and drugged into compliance, and THAT is a coercive, exploitative relationship between them and their johns, but if you characterize the act of prostitution ITSELF as coercive as an absolute, regardless of circumstances, you are essentially saying that all trade of goods for services is coercive (clearly not the case in D&D), or that sex is a special moral snowflake with inherent moral dangers not present in other aspects of life (contradictory to the BOED defining sex as a normal and healthy act), so therefore the wording of the passage on prostitution must be holding it as an example within a category, and not as an inherent absolute, and you are interpreting the RAW far too literally.

Baron Opal, while I was being a bit snarky before, I do seriously believe that this conversation would have a different tone if Cedric were a dwarf. Dwarves are usually LG, so it can be inferred that stereotypical dwarven behaviors and character archetypes fall within what WOTC considers LG behavior. And stereotypical dwarves, the beardy, clannish, ale-swilling, vaguely Scottish mixed with vaguely Viking warrior-miners we know so well from Lord of the Rings onward seriously like to party, especially to drink, tend to speak crudely and plainly (contrasted with the stilted, flowery speech of elves), and are often dour and grouchy around people they haven't warmed up to yet. All traits Cedric has, and people have loudly objected to as unbefitting of a paladin, or even outright contrary to a lawful alignment.

 

[pemerton]

by that logic (defining all prostitution as inherently coercive) you go right back into discussions that came up much earlier in the thread that essentially amount to "why is sex a moral special snowflake that functions by different rules than everything else?", because by that logic, ANY trade of money for services, or at the very least any trade of money for services not utterly essential for survival, is coercive.

I don't want to break the board rules, but presumably everyone reading this thread is aware that there is a vast, vast literature - with popular dimensions and academic dimensions - arguing for the distinctive character of sex and sexuality (compared, say to blacksmithing) as an element of human life, and hence the distinctive character of prositution as a commercial transaction.

Those arguments may or may not be sound, but it's not all that surprising that the Book of Exalted Deeds takes the view that they are sound. I certainly think that that is the less controversial view.

 

[Aurondarklord]

Actually, the book of exalted deeds basically says that sex is just a normal healthy activity and vows of chastity have nothing to do with it having a special moral character. most of that is towards saying that D&D does not regard sex as evil, but neither do they say anything about sex being sacred.

 

[Narse]

Narse, by that logic (defining all prostitution as inherently coercive) you go right back into discussions that came up much earlier in the thread that essentially amount to "why is sex a moral special snowflake that functions by different rules than everything else?", because by that logic, ANY trade of money for services, or at the very least any trade of money for services not utterly essential for survival, is coercive. You think the town blacksmith wants to work his butt off all day in the forge patching up the paladin's armor? no, he does it because the paladin pays him to. Wouldn't it be so much more honorable for the paladin to just give him the money as charity? by the logic you've put forth, the paladin's relationship with the blacksmith is coercive, and therefore evil. Blah blah blah...

Trade is coercive, the blacksmith wouldn't exchange his weapons and armor without money. I wouldn't go to work without getting paid. The issue of coercion however only applies to sexual acts, though. The paladin won't engage in sexual acts as a result of coercion. His other activities, such as buying services from a blacksmith, do not have this restriction attached to them, so your argument about such things is non-sequitur.

If you characterize the act of prostitution ITSELF as coercive as an absolute, regardless of circumstances, you are essentially saying that all trade of goods for services is coercive (clearly not the case in D&D)

I am not saying that, so I would be saying the following...

...or that sex is a special moral snowflake with inherent moral dangers not present in other aspects of life (contradictory to the BOED defining sex as a normal and healthy act)

I would agree that, by the book, sex -- despite being a normal and healthy act -- has a special quality to it that would prevent a good character from partaking in the commerce of it.

...so therefore the wording of the passage on prostitution must be holding it as an example within a category, and not as an inherent absolute, and you are interpreting the RAW far too literally.

..and there is the disagreement. I believe that, despite sex being a legitimate good act in and of itself, there IS a special aspect to sexual activity. Even in modern day society, this is true, and the parallels can be seen in both how commerce between an adult and a child in both worlds is perfectly fine, but sexual commerce, or even regular consensual sexual activity between an adult and a child is taboo -- there is a special quality of sex that makes it different from just a commodity, and thus why sexual commerce is forbidden to good characters.

 

[Aurondarklord]

"trade is coercive"...

so, a paladin is allowed to put a sword to someone's throat and force them to do whatever the paladin says, so long as it isn't sexual?

I recognize you're not actually TRYING to say that, but if you say that coercion is fine as long as it doesn't apply to sex, you are endorsing some pretty nasty practices, forced labor, extortion, unfair wages, sharecropping...

I personally don't see trade as inherently coercive, so I don't run into those problems in my view of things, and I don't think that the authors of D&D meant to suggest that in their game's morality, trade is inherently coercive.

And if you ignore that idea, then you're not stuck requiring sex to be a moral special snowflake for the logic to hold, if you don't interpret the rules overly literally.

 

[Narse]

"trade is coercive"...

so, a paladin is allowed to put a sword to someone's throat and force them to do whatever the paladin says, so long as it isn't sexual?

I recognize you're not actually TRYING to say that, but if you say that coercion is fine as long as it doesn't apply to sex, you are endorsing some pretty nasty practices, forced labor, extortion, unfair wages, sharecropping...

I personally don't see trade as inherently coercive, so I don't run into those problems in my view of things, and I don't think that the authors of D&D meant to suggest that in their game's morality, trade is inherently coercive.

And if you ignore that idea, then you're not stuck requiring sex to be a moral special snowflake for the logic to hold, if you don't interpret the rules overly literally.

I am not saying that coercion is allowed except when it applies to sex. There are several restrictions I'm sure. Some may or may not be specifically mentioned, however, sexual coercion is one that is, and prostitution is a method of sexual coercion that is specifically mentioned.

Commerce is definitely coercive in nature, but not all coercion is exploitative or evil. General commerce is not an evil act, but one person is coerced into relinquishing a good or service in exchange for a payment. Without this exchange, of payment, the good or service would not be relinquished, and therefore, by definition, commerce is a form of coercion.