Iomedae and One Night Stands

[Draco_Lord]

So... because this came up in my last session, and sparked a bit of a discussion, I am curious as to what other people think. Can a Paladin have a one night stand with someone, who is aware it is a one night stand, and not worry about moving towards a fall? Heck, are they naturally immoral? Do they even count as Chaotic, given the lack of laws about it? Or should they get a bit of a warning about it?

[LoyalPaladin]

Honestly, this is probably better left untouched by the DM and just brushed under the mat. But, if this is going to be a thing, why not leave it up to the deity? Some deities could care less, others might care a lot. Who is this paladin a champion of? If they're just a paladin of ideals, so long as it doesn't conflict with their "mission statement", I'd say it's probably not worth touching on.

[Draco_Lord]

Iomedae is the deity of the paladin. And while it is something I would normally not get into, players are... well they are players. Personally, I went with no, not going to cause an issue, because that made my life easier. It doesn't conflict with their mission, they met someone who they thought was cute, the two flirted a bit, and it was pretty clear what was happening. The guy wasn't a bad person, his actions and a quick detect evil show that. And it doesn't hurt their mission in any way.

[torrasque666]

So... because this came up in my last session, and sparked a bit of a discussion, I am curious as to what other people think. Can a Paladin have a one night stand with someone, who is aware it is a one night stand, and not worry about moving towards a fall? Heck, are they naturally immoral? Do they even count as Chaotic, given the lack of laws about it? Or should they get a bit of a warning about it?
If the paladin is upfront about it being a ONS, then no. Its not chaotic. Its not evil. Its simply a neutral act.

[Geddy2112]

Iomedae's code specifically says "I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions." and "I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomeadae's perfection."

Both of which frown highly on one night stands and other carnal expressions. I don't think it is a gross enough violation to fall or even be on the path, but Iomedae would probably not be thrilled. It would probably be one of those "You know your actions were not approved of by Iomedae, but so long as it does not become a regular thing you are forgiven."

IMO, Iomedae's code is fallbait and her fluff encourages players to be toxic stick in the mud seek and smite paladins. But also, her and her stupid code encourage DM's to punish Pallys. So I would take the Inheritor and her stuck up righteousness with a grain of salt before you go throwing the book at your paladin player. In the future, you might want to throw out Iomidae as an option, as all of the other pally supporting gods are much more reasonable and less narrow minded.

[Red Fel]

When LP talks about Paladin stuff, you should probably listen.

But yeah, I agree; this isn't the sort of thing that you want to get into. If you must, keep in mind that the Paladin represents justice, compassion, and all-around Lawful Goodness. That has absolutely nothing to do with sex or romance. Unless a Paladin's faith, oaths, or principles preclude such things, there's nothing wrong with a Paladin having a one night stand, or a drinking problem, or anger issues, so long as he continues to endeavor to be the best, noblest, most moral person he can be.

A Paladin falls for performing Evil acts. Generally speaking, a one-night stand isn't Evil, unless it's designed to be extremely cruel. You can be needlessly cruel doing a thing like that, but that's not an inherent property of the act itself.

Iomedae specifically encourages a clean appearance and an upright demeanor. Chastity, or even monogamy, aren't necessarily virtues of hers or of her followers. Provided a Paladin maintains a proper demeanor and bearing, I see no issue with him offering a night of comfort to someone.

[Sayt]

One night stands are... not really relevant to Iomedae's portfolio, so if she was going to care, it would be because of the circumstances surrounding the event.

On Golarion, in a wider, cosmological sense, sex is pretty squarely neutral. There are Demon Lords of Lust and Empyreal Lords for sex workers.

Was the Paladin open and honest about his commitment? Lying and misleading tend not to be Lawful
Was a prophylactic used? Skipping out on a kid is probably not Lawful, and if you're leaving a young mother to provide beyond their means, it's probably not Good.

Honestly, providing it was open, honest, and consensual, the only Good god on Golarion I could see grumping would be Erastil, because he's stuffy and wants people to form cohesive family units (Although he has been stated more recently to not particularly care about the composition of the family, just that it's a family), rather than traipsing up and down the country going on adventures. (Erastil would like Tolkien's Hobbits quite a lot in some ways, I think, they tend to share a staid, boring-but-good-natured conservatism.)

[Telonius]

In itself, a "One Night Stand" would probably be neither Good nor Evil. They can certainly be either, depending on the situation; but that has more to do with expectations, honesty, respect, and consent.

In terms of Law and Chaos, that's entirely culture-dependent. If it's in a culture that frowns on it, it might be Chaotic; if the culture doesn't care it's probably Neutral. If they're in a culture that expects or encourages it, it might even be Lawful. (I can imagine it being prescribed during some fertility festivals, for example).

[Psyren]

Both of which frown highly on one night stands and other carnal expressions.

Nothing in your quote supports that. It doesn't mention sex at all, sporadic or otherwise.

[LoyalPaladin]

The guy wasn't a bad person, his actions and a quick detect evil show that. And it doesn't hurt their mission in any way.
Oh, I see. I'm a Forgotten Realms guy, so I didn't pick up the deity queue.

Like I said, best not to get involved. But...


Iomedae's code specifically says "I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions." and "I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomeadae's perfection."
This makes me worry. It sounds like this a "Joan of Arc" sort of deity and his actions are probably an affront to her.


When LP talks about Paladin stuff, you should probably listen.
I'm glad my words hold some worth! This made my day, may I have the honor of adding this to my signature?


Iomedae specifically encourages a clean appearance and an upright demeanor. Chastity, or even monogamy, aren't necessarily virtues of hers or of her followers. Provided a Paladin maintains a proper demeanor and bearing, I see no issue with him offering a night of comfort to someone.
Red is far more versed in the world of pathfinder than I am, so I will differ to his judgement on a specific deity's porfolio and cares. So long as the paladin doesn't turn into a sleazy or racy individual, he should be upholding his code.

[Chronos]

Certainly not evil, might be chaotic, might be against the paladin's oaths, probably not enough to cause a fall.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that every paladin's player should discuss the precise details of that particular paladin's code with the DM before a game even starts.

[Coidzor]

Iomedae was a soldier. She knows about one last **** on the eve of battle where neither pair is interested in the other beyond a source of comfort for the here and now. She knows about briefly connecting with someone physically on one's way elsewhere.

So I don't see any problems from her so long as nothing unethical is going on in the presentation of the scenario or of the way that they treat one another.

Did the Paladin lie in order to seduce their partner? Pressure them into it? Violate their consent in any way? Do anything that was unethical, either in and of itself or in the context of doing that to get a ONS?

If not, then there's really no grounds for going looking for making the Paladin fall from the sex. Having someone try to use that sexual connection to manipulate the Paladin... That's par for the course, if you're working blue, anyway.

[LoyalPaladin]

If not, then there's really no grounds for going looking for making the Paladin fall from the sex.
I mean, if he's not up to his deity's standards... haha.

[Boogastreehouse]

*

I don't think that one-night-stands in and of themselves can be classified as immoral at all. Specific events within the situation, however, can range from minor transgressions of virtue and honor to blatantly evil acts.

If you mislead someone in a one-night-stand (misrepresenting yourself or falsely stating/implying that you will continue to be involved with the other party in the future) then that deception is not very virtuous. Likewise, if you ply the other party by manipulating his or her insecurities (through calculated flattery, belittlement etc.), or take advantage of someone's inexperience, you are clearly straying into evil territory. Not chaotic. Evil. You're betraying someone's trust and taking advantage of them in a way that may leave them forever scarred, humiliated and/or regretful, an act that would be unworthy of a paladin, or really any decent person.

This is not even mentioning the use of alcohol, drugs or magic to aid in the seduction. Saying "let's have a few drinks and fool around" offers full disclosure of intent and the other party is able to give consent while in their right state of mind; probably no harm. This is far different from getting someone drunk and then putting the moves on them. Evil.

Two (or more) consenting adults engaging in an activity that makes them happy or satisfied, and harms no one else is probably not going to be evil. Engaging in a physical act with noble intentions, such as expressing genuine affection, building inspiration, or even just as a desire to share simple pleasures can all be good and virtuous acts, if approached with the right mentality.

A paladin (or anybody) who has sworn themselves to chastity is a different story. They have sacrificed their enjoyment of carnal pleasures in order to focus their attention on spiritual matters and avoid the temptations toward deception, jealousy, aggression and the breaking of vows that can come from indulging in bodily pleasures.


Edit: I like Coidzor's post; more succinct than mine. Actually this whole thread is full of good posts.

*

[Psyren]

I mean, if he's not up to his deity's standards... haha.

Her standards mention nothing about one-night stands or sex at all.

The closest we can come is that she disapproves of adultery and abuse, both of which are mutually exclusive with ONS.

[Red Fel]

I'm glad my words hold some worth! This made my day, may I have the honor of adding this to my signature?

Do it, Rockapella.


Her standards mention nothing about one-night stands or sex at all.

I don't think that's what he meant by standards.

Also, LP: Performance joke? From you? Renegade point, chief, well earned.

[illyahr]

Resident bard weighing in. As LP stated, as long as both parties were made fully aware of the implications and intentions (lawful act) and it was done with care and respect for the partner (good act) there shouldn't be a problem. This is one of the things the BoEF got right. If you want to take a look, the fluff sections are extremely well written.

[Tuvarkz]

Considering what Iomedae does to you for mocking or being disrespectful to her in WotR? I'd cast my die on her not liking it at all.
*trumpeting ensues*

[LoyalPaladin]

Do it, Rockapella.
I shall!


Her standards mention nothing about one-night stands or sex at all.
I don't think you-


I don't think that's what he meant by standards.
Re Fel get's it!


Also, LP: Performance joke? From you? Renegade point, chief, well earned.
We all have our shining moments. Not all paladins prioritize charisma like I do. ;D


Resident bard weighing in.
Welcome to the discussion Illyahr! *charismatic fist bump*

[Aleolus]

According to the Book of Erotic Fantasy, a Paladin can absolutely engage in a ONS, as long as both sides understand that is all it will be. This, by extention, means a Paladin can engage in wenching, prostitution (as long as its legal in the area), and so on. Specific gods may take exception, but as a general rule its fine

[Psyren]

I don't think that's what he meant by standards.


I don't think you-


Red Fel get's it!


Yeah, I've been having a long day because that one went right over my head :smalltongue:

No need to explain, I get it now.

[Geddy2112]

Nothing in your quote supports that. It doesn't mention sex at all, sporadic or otherwise.
And I did not say she frowned on sex, as Iomidae supports marriage and family. Her code requires "temperance in action, moderation in behavior, and not tarnishing her glory through base action"
If Iomidae considers one night stands to be a violation of any of this is debatable. However, being a fairly stickler LG deity, I don't think she encourages her followers to have casual sex. While it is probably beneath her paladins (and other followers) to do so, I doubt they would get more than a slightly disapproving look. There are plenty of things a deity won't condone but won't smite/abandon you for doing. I doubt Iomidae encourages, but it is true she might not care.


According to the Book of Erotic Fantasy, a Paladin can absolutely engage in a ONS, as long as both sides understand that is all it will be. This, by extention, means a Paladin can engage in wenching, prostitution (as long as its legal in the area), and so on. Specific gods may take exception, but as a general rule its fine
Alternatively, certain deities might support. Calistria is a pathfinder deity, and most of her followers are prostitutes. Many of her ceremonies involve sexual activity.



This makes me worry. It sounds like this a "Joan of Arc" sort of deity and his actions are probably an affront to her.
She basically is Joan of Arc. Has a book of 11 miracles she performed as a human, led crusades, constantly looks to seek and smite evil, considers anybody who does not help good to be evil....

[Cranthis]

She basically is Joan of Arc. Has a book of 11 miracles she performed as a human, led crusades, constantly looks to seek and smite evil, considers anybody who does not help good to be evil....

But don't forget her 8th act. She convinced an evil guy to throw himself upon his sword, which redeemed his soul. I used this to play a Paladin in the same party of an evil guy, and spent plenty of downtime trying to convert him to good.

[LoyalPaladin]

Yeah, I've been having a long day because that one went right over my head :smalltongue:

No need to explain, I get it now.
S'all good. We can all have a hearty chuckle together now.


She basically is Joan of Arc. Has a book of 11 miracles she performed as a human, led crusades, constantly looks to seek and smite evil, considers anybody who does not help good to be evil....
Seems like a great deity. I'm a Tormtar, myself.

[illyahr]

Welcome to the discussion Illyahr! *charismatic fist bump*

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/degrassi/images/f/f1/Gray_and_Natsu_fist_bump.gif/revision/latest?cb=20141021214843

[Nibbens]

Yeah, I'd leave this one alone. Nothing good ever comes from discussing sexual morality in a world where there are gods and goddesses of sex.

[Psyren]

And I did not say she frowned on sex, as Iomidae supports marriage and family. Her code requires "temperance in action, moderation in behavior, and not tarnishing her glory through base action"
If Iomidae considers one night stands to be a violation of any of this is debatable. However, being a fairly stickler LG deity, I don't think she encourages her followers to have casual sex. While it is probably beneath her paladins (and other followers) to do so, I doubt they would get more than a slightly disapproving look. There are plenty of things a deity won't condone but won't smite/abandon you for doing. I doubt Iomidae encourages, but it is true she might not care.

There's a lot of daylight between "she doesn't encourage this" and "you will fall for this" though, and the latter is the topic of this thread. She doesn't encourage divorce either, yet her temples offer sanctuary to unhappy/endangered spouses until they can finalize one. It's pretty obvious you wouldn't fall for doing that either.

[Jack_Simth]

Was a prophylactic used? Skipping out on a kid is probably not Lawful, and if you're leaving a young mother to provide beyond their means, it's probably not Good.Note that in this specific case, it's noted a little on down the line:
they met someone who they thought was cute, the two flirted a bit, and it was pretty clear what was happening. The guy wasn't a bad person, his actions and a quick detect evil show that.(Emphasis added)
If the reasonable potential exists for a child from the union in question, the Paladin isn't leaving a young mother behind.

[Boci]

There's a lot of daylight between "she doesn't encourage this" and "you will fall for this" though, and the latter is the topic of this thread.

The OP actually said "and not worry about moving towards a fall?", they never mentioned actual falling. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating that, just that his Goddess may slap him on the wrist.

[Psyren]

The OP actually said "and not worry about moving towards a fall?", they never mentioned actual falling. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating that, just that his Goddess may slap him on the wrist.

Fine, but I see no evidence for that either. It would have to be something tangential to the sex itself, like lying his way into the sheets or breaking hearts repeatedly or something. Not a consensual and fully-understood tryst.

[Boci]

Fine, but I see no evidence for that either. It would have to be something tangential to the sex itself, like lying his way into the sheets or breaking hearts repeatedly or something. Not a consensual and fully-understood tryst.

I agree, although Jack_Simth does raise the possibility of a child resulting from the tryst, which does make the situation awkward if the PCs aren't going to stick around long enough to find out. Then again given the amount of wealth PCs typically had, the paladin could probably leave enough gold to see the child into adulthood in his absence.

[Psyren]

I agree, although Jack_Simth does raise the possibility of a child resulting from the tryst, which does make the situation awkward if the PCs aren't going to stick around long enough to find out. Then again given the amount of wealth PCs typically had, the paladin could probably leave enough gold to see the child into adulthood in his absence.

Even so, that too would be tangential to the act of sex - in fact, Golarion has prophylactics (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/EquipmentMiscDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Bachelor%20snuf f) and birth control (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/EquipmentMiscDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Night%20tea), which a paladin would hopefully be responsible enough to use if he doesn't plan to, let's be circumspect and say, "emit externally."

[Jack_Simth]

I agree, although Jack_Simth does raise the possibility of a child resulting from the tryst, which does make the situation awkward if the PCs aren't going to stick around long enough to find out. Then again given the amount of wealth PCs typically had, the paladin could probably leave enough gold to see the child into adulthood in his absence.Given post # 3 (from the original poster, but this information is not part of the original post), if there's a pregnancy to result, it'll be the paladin (the PC question) that's pregnant, not the NPC. The NPC was male. This does not necessarily mean that the PC is female, mind, but as males seldom get pregnant, if there is a pregnancy to result, then the NPC is not the one carrying the child unless some extraordinary circumstances show up (like, say, it turns out that they're actually seahorses or something).

[torrasque666]

Given post # 3 (from the original poster, but this information is not part of the original post), if there's a pregnancy to result, it'll be the paladin (the PC question) that's pregnant, not the NPC. The NPC was male. This does not necessarily mean that the PC is female, mind, but as males seldom get pregnant, if there is a pregnancy to result, then the NPC is not the one carrying the child unless some extraordinary circumstances show up (like, say, it turns out that they're actually seahorses or something).
Actually, all #3 did was identify the NPC as male. Could just as easily be a Male Paladin as well. Or a Female one. We won't know unless Draco_Lord confirms it.

[Boci]

Given post # 3 (from the original poster, but this information is not part of the original post), if there's a pregnancy to result, it'll be the paladin (the PC question) that's pregnant, not the NPC. The NPC was male. This does not necessarily mean that the PC is female, mind, but as males seldom get pregnant, if there is a pregnancy to result, then the NPC is not the one carrying the child unless some extraordinary circumstances show up (like, say, it turns out that they're actually seahorses or something).

Ah I see what you meant. And that could actually be an issue (if the paladin is female), as single parents may not be something their Goddess. Accidents happen, but if birth control is available and the paladin didn't use it, their Goddess may find the behavior a little irresponsible.

[Jack_Simth]

Actually, all #3 did was identify the NPC as male. Could just as easily be a Male Paladin as well. Or a Female one. We won't know unless Draco_Lord confirms it.
You included the part where I posted "This does not necessarily mean that the PC is female, mind" when you were quoting me.

I didn't say "The paladin will be the one to get pregnant". I said "if there is a pregnancy to result, then the NPC is not the one carrying the child" (with some caveats - emphasis) added.

It may have been an MM pairing. I have not ruled that out. But the NPC was clearly male, so there's essentially no chance that the paladin is abandoning a young mother with a child whom the paladin knows nothing about, unless the DM is very carefully messing with the PC, which does not appear to be the case.

[Draco_Lord]

Since it is being asked about, the Paladin is female, and no they won't be pregnant. (That is sort of worse to deal with unless the PC themselves ask for it.)

I was really looking into learning more about Iomedae in general, as I find a healthy discussion tends to give me a wider understanding, and all the pages on her I could find are rather silent on the whole sex thing.

Personally, I was never going to make it a thing, I don't want it to be a thing, if I can help it it won't be a thing. It just doesn't help that a third of the party also wants to bang her (I hate players sometimes) But, it came up, it was talked about, and I just wanted to confirm my ruling is at least justified, and not a gross change of her character from what she is meant to be. This all has been very interesting, and awesome to read, helps me get a more concrete idea of just what I want to do with Iomedae; I am definitely not going with the hardlined so lawful good that even looking at someone evil makes them burn with rage, and a desire to just smash their heads in, more temperate and about following the code laid down, even if it isn't good for you.

[torrasque666]

You included the part where I posted "This does not necessarily mean that the PC is female, mind" when you were quoting me.

I didn't say "The paladin will be the one to get pregnant". I said "if there is a pregnancy to result, then the NPC is not the one carrying the child" (with some caveats - emphasis) added.

It may have been an MM pairing. I have not ruled that out. But the NPC was clearly male, so there's essentially no chance that the paladin is abandoning a young mother with a child whom the paladin knows nothing about, unless the DM is very carefully messing with the PC, which does not appear to be the case.
True. Note to self, read thoroughly first, quote second.

[LoyalPaladin]

Personally, I was never going to make it a thing, I don't want it to be a thing, if I can help it it won't be a thing.
Wise choice.


It just doesn't help that a third of the party also wants to bang her (I hate players sometimes)
O-Oh...
https://49.media.tumblr.com/d5e7502bdd5eca6a0f88567b182620cd/tumblr_mw3cfu96AP1svfte7o1_500.gif

[(Un)Inspired]

Did the paladin uphold her code during that act of coitus?

Bravery and charity take many forms. A paladin can be heroic even if they're off the battlefield.

[Red Fel]

Did the paladin uphold her code during that act of coitus?

Bravery and charity take many forms. A paladin can be heroic even if they're off the battlefield.

And another performance joke!

This is a great thread. Renegade points all around!

[LoyalPaladin]

Bravery and charity take many forms. A paladin can be heroic even if they're off the battlefield.

This is a great thread. Renegade points all around!
http://media0.giphy.com/media/TORQpT78yQR5S/giphy.gif

[Acanous]

Had a Barbarian once who had a drunken tryst with the mute oracle of the group. He couldn't read, she couldn't speak. It was entirely nonverbal communication. Totally Chaotic.

Paladins, though? I guess as long as you peacebond your weapon, you can still spar in town :p

[Red Fel]

Had a Barbarian once who had a drunken tryst with the mute oracle of the group. He couldn't read, she couldn't speak. It was entirely nonverbal communication. Totally Chaotic.


Yente: Avram, I have a perfect match for your son. A wonderful girl.

Avram: Who is it?

Yente: Ruchel, the shoemaker's daughter.

Avram: Ruchel? But she can hardly see. She's almost blind.

Yente: Tell the truth, Avram, is your son so much to look at? The way she sees and the way he looks, it's a perfect match!No way I'm the only one who thought of this.
Exit, pursued by a bear.

[arclance]

This does not apply to this case but....

Remember to use protection Paladin.
You wouldn't want to catch something while smiting that Incubus tonight.

[Yahzi]

Paladins don't have sex. How do you think they got that whole reputation for "Immune to Disease?" :smalltongue:

Seriously, having carnal desires or even a healthy regard for one's own mortal flesh seems like inappropriate concerns for a paladin.

[arclance]

Seriously, having carnal desires or even a healthy regard for one's own mortal flesh seems like inappropriate concerns for a paladin.
You walked right into this one with that comment.

Cleric: He cut your **** off!!!!
Paladin: It's only a flesh wound, never used it anyway.

[upho]

Fantastic thread. Now I understand why people say (male) Pallys are stiff...

Sorry, couldn't refuse. :smallredface:

I'd say having a ONS (and consensual sex in general) with proper respect and precautions is most probably a good deed in Golarion, if anything. Even having many partners doesn't necessarily have to be chaotic or even circumspect in the eyes of Iomedae. I also think DM's and players should do their best to keep any moral values that primarily stems from RL cultures/beliefs (such as Abrahamic religions) out of the game setting unless those values actually belong there. And IIRC, there's nothing in the written material to imply sex is viewed as "unclean", chaotic or shameful, or even that casual sex involves any kind of social stigma in Golarion. "Slut-shaming" just isn't a thing...

@ OP: Give the pally two thumbs up from me, we need more pallys like her who make love, not war! :smalltongue:

[Jeff the Green]

I agree with the consensus that a ONS isn't an inherently aligned act. But I think if it's a habit and performed in a particular way that is common to one-night stands, it's entirely possible it will nudge him toward chaos.

Law and chaos aren't terribly well named; better names might be Code and Desire. That is, the Lawful character acts the way they're supposed to act, while the chaotic character acts according to what they want. This is true from Good* to Evil**. Constantly running into someone and then having sex with them that night, without a coherent philosophy behind how you treat your partners (as in The Ethical Slut) is indicative of a chaotic tendency. You can do so in an ethical way, certainly, and a Good Bard Lothario is the paragon of this—they love 'em and leave 'em, but they never hurt 'em because that's just not right (or fun). You can certainly have a paladin with a certain degree of a chaotic streak to them, as long as they make up for it in other ways. Or you can buck this trend and be a Paladin of Lasciviousness, to whom ethical sluttery is a virtue but to whom it is equally important that one has a very definite set of rules or principles circumscribing it.

*"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act." vs. "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him."

**"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts." vs. "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do."

Edit:
Huh, I was certain I was going to have a couple of "****"s edited into this post.

[LoyalPaladin]

No way I'm the only one who thought of this.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Hahahaha.


Seriously, having carnal desires or even a healthy regard for one's own mortal flesh seems like inappropriate concerns for a paladin.
Again from Forgotten Realms, but always remember that Sune has paladins.


Fantastic thread. Now I understand why people say (male) Pallys are stiff...
Fun story, as I play paladins almost exclusively. Once we were in a tavern and one of my exceptionally high charisma pallys was hit on by the lady behind the bar.

Our DM started this off with this line: "I'd like to come see how well you handle that long sword later." This was fairly out of character for the DM and the whole table was practically in tears from just hearing him say it. But I kept my composure long enough to throw in: "Ma'am, this isn't a longsword. This is a great sword." The table literally erupted and it took a solid 10 minutes to get back to the game.

[Red Fel]

Fun story, as I play paladins almost exclusively.

I would never have guessed.


Once we were in a tavern and one of my exceptionally high charisma pallys was hit on by the lady behind the bar.

Our DM started this off with this line: "I'd like to come see how well you handle that long sword later." This was fairly out of character for the DM and the whole table was practically in tears from just hearing him say it. But I kept my composure long enough to throw in: "Ma'am, this isn't a longsword. This is a great sword." The table literally erupted and it took a solid 10 minutes to get back to the game.

LP, I have probably never been more proud of you.

Probably.

[LoyalPaladin]

I would never have guessed.
Shocking, I know.


LP, I have probably never been more proud of you.

Probably.
I didn't know you enjoyed this humor until this thread! (Which by the way, is a spectacular thread.)

This was the same paladin who had the large sized holy avenging great sword.

[upho]

Constantly running into someone and then having sex with them that night, without a coherent philosophy behind how you treat your partners (as in The Ethical Slut) is indicative of a chaotic tendency.If I understood you correctly, I hesitate to fully agree with this for two reasons:

1 Depending on the setting, "running into someone and then having sex with them" might very well be considered as chaotic as "running into someone in need (of healing/advice/blessings/money/protection/a hug/whatever) and then helping them", repeatedly or not. Taken out of context, neither action is inherently more chaotic than the other. It's perfectly possible to have a LG deity of consensual sex, including ONS, especially in a setting like Golarion where the typically most negative potential consequences of consensual sex, such as STDs or unwanted pregnancies, can be easily avoided (especially by an "Ethical Pally Slut").

2 Provided an action is conducted in accordance with the pally's code and the moral guidelines of her deity (the context), she has a "coherent philosophy" behind how the other party is treated. Meaning she'll act "as a good person is expected or required to act" when having a ONS, ie Lawful. And especially a pally of a deity such as Iomedae, who isn't primarily concerned with peaceful social interaction, much less with sex, doesn't have any reason to fear a fall from having too many ONS more than having too many stamps in her collection/shoes in her wardrobe/books she has read/whatever.

That said, I agree that, in probably just about any setting, a pally who's "constantly" having ONS is more chaotic than if she didn't, even if she behaves in line with her code when having these ONS. But that has nothing to do with the act itself, and everything to do with her focusing too much on something outside the areas of concern to her deity. And in the case of a pally of Iomedae, potentially also of not adhering to the I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/DeityDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Iomedae) part of the code.


Fun story, as I play paladins almost exclusively. Once we were in a tavern and one of my exceptionally high charisma pallys was hit on by the lady behind the bar.

Our DM started this off with this line: "I'd like to come see how well you handle that long sword later." This was fairly out of character for the DM and the whole table was practically in tears from just hearing him say it. But I kept my composure long enough to throw in: "Ma'am, this isn't a longsword. This is a great sword." The table literally erupted and it took a solid 10 minutes to get back to the game.He he! Lucky no barb with a huge earth breaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/earth-breaker) chimed in. Though people seem to focus too much on size, 'cause what matters is your BAB, static bonuses and the nifty maneuvers and techniques you know - ie the way you swing it... Not to mention the stamina to go all night! Or at least that's what the TWF types keep saying... :smallbiggrin:


This was the same paladin who had the large sized holy avenging great sword.He should totally start writing pick-up artist manuals! Pallys must top the "most over-the-top pun pick-up lines ever that actually worked"-list btw. Did he ever try stuff like: "You naughty girl, you need a proper heavenly smiting from my large holy avenger great sword!" Seems very much in line with the typical Pally low Int and high Cha. :smalltongue:

[Jeff the Green]

If I understood you correctly, I hesitate to fully agree with this for two reasons:

1 Depending on the setting, "running into someone and then having sex with them" might very well be considered as chaotic as "running into someone in need (of healing/advice/blessings/money/protection/a hug/whatever) and then helping them", repeatedly or not. Taken out of context, neither action is inherently more chaotic than the other. It's perfectly possible to have a LG deity of consensual sex, including ONS, especially in a setting like Golarion where the typically most negative potential consequences of consensual sex, such as STDs or unwanted pregnancies, can be easily avoided (especially by an "Ethical Pally Slut").

2 Provided an action is conducted in accordance with the pally's code and the moral guidelines of her deity (the context), she has a "coherent philosophy" behind how the other party is treated. Meaning she'll act "as a good person is expected or required to act" when having a ONS, ie Lawful. And especially a pally of a deity such as Iomedae, who isn't primarily concerned with peaceful social interaction, much less with sex, doesn't have any reason to fear a fall from having too many ONS more than having too many stamps in her collection/shoes in her wardrobe/books she has read/whatever.

That said, I agree that, in probably just about any setting, a pally who's "constantly" having ONS is more chaotic than if she didn't, even if she behaves in line with her code when having these ONS. But that has nothing to do with the act itself, and everything to do with her focusing too much on something outside the areas of concern to her deity. And in the case of a pally of Iomedae, potentially also of not adhering to the I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/DeityDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Iomedae) part of the code.

Oh, no, I think we're in accord. I think we agree that the issue is how it's performed rather than whether it's performed. Mal Reynolds is called out in Complete Scoundrel as CG as much because he does almost everything he does on a whim inspired by a good heart, while a LG character could do exactly the same things out of a proper code. I just generally think that, particularly if we're drawing from either "hookup culture" or pop culture depictions of one-night stands instead of proper polyamorism, you're more likely to have a character inspired to one-night stands from that sort of whim than ethical sluttery, even though, honestly, the latter is probably likely to have more notches on their bed post.

I actually find the idea of the "sex addict" paladin interesting. They know it's not temperate and they don't put enough thought into it to really meet their ethical standards, but they also aren't hurting anyone and quashing that vice is much further down on their list of priorities than, y'know, killing demons. I also imagine them being particularly protective of sex workers for some reason, though that might just be my bias since it pops up in my characters frequently.

I know it's 3rd party, but does anyone know what BoEF says about this? I have access but I also don't fancy contracting bad porn toxicity enough to look it up myself.

[Anlashok]

I know it's 3rd party, but does anyone know what BoEF says about this? I have access but I also don't fancy contracting bad porn toxicity enough to look it up myself.

The book has paladin spells and one of the excerpts from the book involves a paladin and a bard.

Going off memory here, but the general thrust of what I remember reading is simply the book pointing out that nothing about Lawful or Good or the paladin's code really has anything to do with sex or sexuality.

[LoyalPaladin]

He he! Lucky no barb with a huge earth breaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/earth-breaker) chimed in. Though people seem to focus too much on size, 'cause what matters is your BAB, static bonuses and the nifty maneuvers and techniques you know - ie the way you swing it... Not to mention the stamina to go all night! Or at least that's what the TWF types keep saying... :smallbiggrin:
Huge earth breaker? Please, my sword was an aspect of Torm's sword. Also, aren't barbarian's fatigued after a rage? That'd be awkward...

Another funny story, a DM of mine once thought putting a small army of crit fishing TWF's against the same paladin was a great idea. Unfortunately they were evil and I had greater fortification on my armor.


He should totally start writing pick-up artist manuals! Pallys must top the "most over-the-top pun pick-up lines ever that actually worked"-list btw. Did he ever try stuff like: "You naughty girl, you need a proper heavenly smiting from my large holy avenger great sword!" Seems very much in line with the typical Pally low Int and high Cha. :smalltongue:
"I'm detecting something... but you look too good for it to be evil." Hahaha.

For the record, my Paladin has an average 10 for intelligence.


Going off memory here, but the general thrust of what I remember reading is simply the book pointing out that nothing about Lawful or Good or the paladin's code really has anything to do with sex or sexuality.
Heh. Thrust.

Edit:
I feel like there is a sever lack of Snowbluff in this thread.

[Eldonauran]

"I'm detecting something... but you look too good for it to be evil." Hahaha.


:smallbiggrin: Its always better funnier when the Paladins say it. No one ever expects it from them.