Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 2143319" data-attributes="member: 2013">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.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.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...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:  <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Prostitution implies misogyny (objectification of women) and as such is a subset of misanthropy.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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).  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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).  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Killing does seem to be a relative rarity, but does also happen... </li> </ul>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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification