Paladin Oath of Chastity 'fluff' vs. 'code'

[Zelda Marie Lupescu]

So for reference, the Oath of Chastity says...

Oath of Chastity wrote:

A chaste paladin proves her purity by way of her action and her abstinence from romantic activities. Many believe that this oath is only about sex, but it is really an oath about the romantic notion that a single person could be more important than all the evils facing the world—it is this perceived selfishness that the bearer of the Oath of Chastity strives to reject. In doing so, she gains purifying power.

...

Code of Conduct: Never engage in a romantic relationship or a sexual act.

Now, comparing the parts I bolded, one is the description and one is the actual code you have to follow. So, what about a brother or sister? You're not in a romantic relationship with your sibling, and you're definitely not engaging in sexual acts with your sibling (we hope) so then by the CODE you are not in violation, but are you not by the fluff, if you would put your sibling above a stranger?

[mechaPoet]

I think it's just a typo and they forgot to capitalize Romantic.

Kidding. Sort of. In any case, just apply the definition of the first use of the word "romantic," here specifically called out as meaning the idealizing love of a single person, and apply that to the use of the word "romantic" in the Code of Conduct. They're not at odds, the fluff is defining what romantic means in the context of a crusader's oath.

[Zelda Marie Lupescu]

So then a paladin with an oath of chastity could still care about her brother and such and wouldn't be in violation if she saved her brother over a stranger?

Thanks, that's what I thought but I kinda wondered if it wasn't sneaking around the oath intent on a technicality.

[Weirdo]

I doubt that the intent is to forbid all strong relationships. I imagine the thought process was a little like this:

- What kinds of special Oaths should we create for paladins?
- How about chastity? That's classic.
- Yes, but we don't want to suggest that sex is immoral.
- Well, clergy don't just take vows of chastity because they think it's immoral. There's also the concern that having a duty to a spouse would interfere with their duty to their church and its people.
- Sure, that sounds less puritanical.

While you certainly could argue that loyalty to other family members or close friends has a similar effect I think that's a stricter interpretation of the vow that's intended. Certainly a paladin can't help preferring her brother to a stranger - just as long as she doesn't ignore innocents in need or perform evil acts on his behalf.

[Claxon]

You could certainly care about family and friends, although determining whether or not you would save them over someone else is probably a call based on the circumstances.

[phantom1592]

Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:

So for reference, the Oath of Chastity says...

Oath of Chastity wrote:

A chaste paladin proves her purity by way of her action and her abstinence from romantic activities. Many believe that this oath is only about sex, but it is really an oath about the romantic notion that a single person could be more important than all the evils facing the world—it is this perceived selfishness that the bearer of the Oath of Chastity strives to reject. In doing so, she gains purifying power.

...

Code of Conduct: Never engage in a romantic relationship or a sexual act.

Now, comparing the parts I bolded, one is the description and one is the actual code you have to follow. So, what about a brother or sister? You're not in a romantic relationship with your sibling, and you're definitely not engaging in sexual acts with your sibling (we hope) so then by the CODE you are not in violation, but are you not by the fluff, if you would put your sibling above a stranger?

The way I see it, the oath isn't saying anything about saving your brother over a stranger. It says no single person is more important then the evils of the world.

If you're forced to save your brother or a stranger... it's win/win. You saved an innocent person regardless of your choice. You're still promoting good and obeying a code.

The way "I" read it... is that you don't hang up your sword and retire. You don't abandon your fight against evil to help your brother farm... And really THOSE stories are REALLY rare. What you DO see is the knight choosing his woman over his quest. True Love, marriage, children.

There is always that responsibility about leaving your wife behind and the possibility of making your kids orphans... and this code just cuts that out. The quest is first above all. No single person is more important than his holy mission. If your brother or mother call for help... your certainly able to go help them. You just don't retire to take care of the farm when dad gets hurt... There's evil to smite.

Interestingly, I had Paladin who followed that code... before I ever heard of the mechanic. He was completely chaste, because he refused to leave kids behind in his wake and wouldn't surrender his higher purpose for the affections of a woman. Ironically when he became the king in kingmaker, there was a LOT of time spent in awkwardness with him needing to get married and getting some heirs...

a LOT of awkwardness.... It was something he had never planned to do.

Same with alcohol. He was not against drinking... but he refused to get drunk. He had a massive Con and fort saves... but still, Drunk leads to lowered inhibitions, lowered inhibitions leads to poor decisions, and poor decisions lead to broken codes and fallen paladins. He took that VERY seriously...