Baby murder-Village saving

[taltamir]

But that's exactly what they're doing. "It's the struggle that matters. [U]It's easy for a being of pure law and good to live up to these ideals, but you're a mortal. What matters is that when you blow it, you get back up on the horse and try again."

here is where you are wrong. If a fall-fall situation exist, that means there is a situation where any choice you make is EVIL.
A being of pure Good will thus be FORCED to commit an evil act...

If a fall-fall situation exist, and the paladin says "cleric, summon a being of PURE GOOD", and the cleric casts gate and summons one... and the paladin says "you solve it"... the being of pure good has now been forced to chose one of the fall-fall outcomes and has committed evil.

Unless you are arguing that fall-fall situations simply do not exist, that there is always a third way that you do not know, but a being of pure good WOULD know because you have chosen to believe that they all have omniscience which they do NOT by RAW.
Furthermore, my own argument is that fall-fall SHOULDN'T exist, but CAN exist if an incompetent or malicious DM decides to make one just to screw you. (where the morality is completely IRRELEVANT, all that matters is that the DM has decided ahead of time that the situation is only resolvable in one way... you falling)

BTW. this is not what this thread is all about, this thread is about the actual MORALITY of such a situation were it to occur.

PPS.

but you're a mortal. What matters is that when you blow it, you get back up on the horse and try again.
Like when roy DECIDED to abandon ellan, or when my paladin DECIDED (well, or rather, acted on emotion) to kill his wife and the man she was cheating with...
Those were not fall-fall situations created by a cruel DM, or an antagonism aware of the utter failure of the gods of good and the very universe.
If you were put in a fall-fall situation you didn't blow it, it was blown for you.

Imagine a level 9 spell that just said "target simply loses all class abilities, no save, no SR, no attack roll, no line of sight needed"... seems crazy, right? well, what you are proposing is worse, you are proposing is worse... its not even a spell, its just a SITUATION that does the same as that spell...

[Optimystik]

Even a situation where there is a way out can be "fall-fall" for a paladin who simply lacks the cleverness or time to find it. And yes, celestials can fall too - it's a lot harder, but can happen.

[Peregrine]

this being a game, there is a cheap item in MiC that explicitly tells paladins and clerics the third way... the function of the item is "the DM lets you know when your action would violate your code, and which action should be taken."

As has been pointed out, the phylactery of faithfulness doesn't tell you what you should do. It tells you whether you should not do something, when you take a moment to contemplate it. I would encourage use of the item, but not reliance on it. You can't stand there and play "Contemplative Twenty Questions" when Ultimate Evil is coming to possess the child.


It is a tough standard - by design. BoED is clear on this point. Gray Guard exists for those who like to fudge the rules - those who don't should be cleric/fighters.

Actually, Gray Guard is explicitly supposed to be for those who are even stronger morally than regular paladins. People who know the difference between "ignoring the rules for convenience" and "ignoring the rules out of necessity". People who can break the rules without feeling like they're above the rules. I'm iffy about the place of such people in the game world, but I'm dead set against the interpretation of Gray Guard as being for "paladins who like to fudge the rules".


Your third example assumes stupidity, but I find this harsh - it is very possible to be quite intelligent or even wise, and still make the wrong decision.

Let me clarify that I meant "acting stupid", not "being stupid". There's a big difference. Smart people act stupid all the time (just ask my wife :smallwink:).


When a crisis is imminent, the paladin cannot stop time and ruminate on all the possible ramifications of each course of action. And yes, there are even times when inaction is fall-worthy.

Absolutely agreed. I'm just saying that it shouldn't take more than a moment to reject "stab the child" and "do nothing" as acceptable courses of action. And more to the point, a paladin's faith in goodness and justice should be so strongly grounded that when faced with such a moral crisis, the paladin's automatic response is to seek the aid of their god(s). Not meaning this...


If Paladins could solve every problem themselves, or invoke their deities to do so, then Miracle would be on their spell list.

...that is, not meaning to stand back and abdicate responsibility. I mean a paladin will stick their neck on the line and take one big giant leap of faith, trusting that their god(s) will catch them. Like the "pick up the child, kneel and pray" scenario I described earlier. Is that not quick? Is that deus ex machina? Is that a bad thing in any way for a player in this situation to declare their paladin will do?


"Then why punish them?" I can already hear you ask.

Got it in one. :smalltongue:


Are they? It doesn't say anywhere that their deity is what makes them fall, only that their deity can reverse the condition. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Miko from OotS was a very special case - and Rich even pointed this out himself.

Yes, a paladin whose power comes from conviction could lose that power through self-doubt rather than as an active punishment from the gods. I did say earlier that I was working on the assumption of a paladin getting (and losing) their powers from a divine source, rather than from their own conviction. A lot of people argue the latter in these kinds of threads, but outside of them my anecdotal experience suggests that people usually assume there are gods behind the paladin's gain and loss of powers.

Incidentally, I believe what Rich said was that the Twelve Gods don't collectively appear in the sky and very publicly zap paladins when they fall -- unless it's an extreme case like Miko. I believe the statement or implication was that it's still the Twelve Gods passing judgement, just not that they do it so spectacularly.

[taltamir]

Even a situation where there is a way out can be "fall-fall" for a paladin who simply lacks the cleverness or time to find it.
This is an entirely different situation that nobody has been discussing.
The question wasn't "was there another way out that I didn't think about"... it was "if there is not way out, period!"

but since you raised it, lets discuss it... if you have a situation, your options are "do something that causes you to fall", "do nothing, this causes you to fall", or "try your hardest, and FAIL... this causes you to fall"... the problem is with the third one... the whole "failure makes you fall" is bull.
In the example above, given the choice between killing the kid, and letting the villagers die... the "do something that causes you to fall" is kill the baby, the "do nothing, this causes you to fall" is the choice to literally just walk away from the problem... the "try your hardest to find another way and fail" is the "simply run around doing things, trying to find another way, until the timer runs out and the villagers all die"... this is because you weren't clever enough (assuming the DM is not just screwing you and another way simply does not EXIST).
If that is the case, you should NOT fall for failing. you tried, you did everything right. The bad guys won... you have not in any way violated your oaths.


And yes, celestials can fall too - it's a lot harder, but can happen.
do you mean via making a bad choice... or via being FORCED into a fall-fall situation?
Didn't you just say it was EASY for celestials to be pure good even in the face of a fall-fall? are you taking back that claim?


Yes, a paladin whose power comes from conviction could lose that power through self-doubt rather than as an active punishment from the gods. I did say earlier that I was working on the assumption of a paladin getting (and losing) their powers from a divine source, rather than from their own conviction. A lot of people argue the latter in these kinds of threads, but outside of them my anecdotal experience suggests that people usually assume there are gods behind the paladin's gain and loss of powers.

if a paladin gets his powers from his own convictions, then he can only fall if his own convictions fail him... even if he is considered the most evil of all being in the multiverse by all the gods, both good gods and evil gods... as long as his own conviction is that he is good, he does not fall...

of course, a paladin or cleric getting powers from himself is plain stupid. unless they are gods

[hamishspence]

the problem is with the third one... the whole "failure makes you fall" is bull.
In the example above, given the choice between killing the kid, and letting the villagers die... the "do something that causes you to fall" is kill the baby, the "do nothing, this causes you to fall" is the choice to literally just walk away from the problem... the "try your hardest to find another way and fail" is the "simply run around doing things, trying to find another way, until the timer runs out and the villagers all die"... this is because you weren't clever enough (assuming the DM is not just screwing you and another way simply does not EXIST).
If that is the case, you should NOT fall for failing. you tried, you did everything right. The bad guys won... you have not in any way violated your oaths.


I would tend to agree with this.

"Try to find another way and fail" is generally only considered Fall-worthy by DMs who believe that killing the baby is the right thing to do- in their view, the hero is placing their own moral standing above the lives of innocents- and this should Fall for being unacceptably selfish, and refusing to to save people when there was a chance to do so.

[taltamir]

"Try to find another way and fail" is generally only considered Fall-worthy by DMs who believe that killing the baby is the right thing to do

I should note that it is even worse than that... because in the example I and he are discussing the DM EXPLICITLY tells you that "killing the baby" and "walking away" both are fall worthy (via phylactery of faithfulness).
So, "trying and failing = fall... while killing is also fall" is the situation at hand.

that being said... in the interpretation you give, where the DM thinks that killing the baby is the RIGHT choice... if he makes you fall for TRYING to find a "third option" and failing it is still bull.

So... hypothetical situation:
You did NOT ask the phylactery (aka the DM) if you should kill the baby or let the villagers die... instead you simply assumed both are bad choices and that you must search for a third option... which you did, but you failed... the DM makes you fall...
this is total bull and is HORRIBLE DMing.

But before we even get to it, I want him to admit that if you DID ask the DM said "you will fall if you kill the baby" and "you will fall if you walk away" and then you decided to search for a third option and FAILED is even more terrible DMing...
According to my understanding of what he is saying, the ONLY way to NOT fall in such a situation is to try and find a third option and SUCCEED in finding said third option. Failing to get the third option, or choosing options 1 or 2, all get you to fall.

[hamishspence]

It's probably rare to find a DM who would pull "all three choices are evil" on the player- I figure such a DM might indeed deserve the term "unfair".

The paladin should not be penalized for not managing to save people- when they have tried their hardest to do so without resorting to evil means.

Really, any class which has a "Lose powers if they commit evil acts" tends to run into this issue- does the DM insist on fall-fall-fall scenarios, or not?

Even without classes with Fall penalties, alignment changing from enough evil acts (or serious enough evil acts) may lead to problems (like suspicious and distrustful paladins, unfriendly celestials, etc).

So- even if the players aren't playing a paladin or other Fallable character, it helps if they know how alignment will be implemented by the DM.

[Caphi]

Are we assuming the paladin is on his own and can't, like, get help? "Wizard! Cleric! Isn't there anything you can do with magic to save this kid?"

Protection from evil as a stall tactic at the very least (I think paladins actually get that) buys time to do something else, even if that something else is no more than praying for guidance, asking your deity for help (which is different from actually casting miracle, by the way), or "playing 20 Questions" with that phylactery.

[Stompy]

Are we assuming the paladin is on his own and can't, like, get help? "Wizard! Cleric! Isn't there anything you can do with magic to save this kid?"


A cult of some kind has decided to try and massacre an entire village by storing their evil power within a baby. A Paladin adventurer is placed in this situation with a heart-breaking decision: Kill the baby and save the village, or spare the infant and let the village die (In this hypothetical situation, there are no other ways to circumvent this).

Emphasis mine.

Probably unrelated: As a not-allowed way of circumventing this, I would try my hardest to use the remove disease class ability on the baby, claiming that evil is a psychological disease. :smallamused:

[taltamir]

we went off on tangents... the OPs original question was the IRL morality of the issue if there is absolutely NO third option... its either "kill baby" or "village dies"...
any attempt to somehow find a 3rd option is merely choosing village dies... and you somehow know it... this means no remove disease, no disjunction, no miracle... NOTHING will save the village save killing the baby... now lets discuss the MORALITY of each choice.

However, we have since went on a tangent to discuss the conditions of paladins and DM quality. In those discussions the original "no third choice" option has been looked at as various possibilities:
1. there is no third option
2. there is, but it is hard to find
3. there is, but its not hard to find.

As well as we are currently discussing on whether trying and FAILING to find the third option is fall worthy... as well as choosing to kill the baby where a third option exists but is beyond your means to ascertain.

[Coidzor]

Even a situation where there is a way out can be "fall-fall" for a paladin who simply lacks the cleverness or time to find it. And yes, celestials can fall too - it's a lot harder, but can happen.

Intelligence is their primary dump stat, after all.

[taltamir]

Intelligence is their primary dump stat, after all.

how intelligent do you need to be to say "i will look for a third option"... their lack of intelligence might mean that they fail to find a third option, but failing is not fall worthy. only doing evil is fall worthy.

[hamishspence]

failing is not fall worthy. only doing evil is fall worthy.

True (from my point of view) however- there are people who say:

"when it's pretty clear that there isn't time to look for a third option- looking for one anyway shows a lack of concern for all the villagers you could have saved."

I don't think this reasoning makes much sense in the context of paladins though.

[taltamir]

True (from my point of view) however- there are people who say:

"when it's pretty clear that there isn't time to look for a third option- looking for one anyway shows a lack of concern for all the villagers you could have saved."

I don't think this reasoning makes much sense in the context of paladins though.

this is a legitimate argument and a reason for killing the baby.. and it is why I would personally chose the death of the baby under some circumstances (aka, when I do not see a clear method of saving both). and I believe myself to be the most moral person on earth. (no sarcasm).

I would not create such a situation for a player. If I was given such a situation, I would not make him fall for EITHER choice.

but the context of the line you quoted was more to do with cases where you have a fall-fall, and only finding a 3rd solution and successfully implementing it staves off falling.

[Peregrine]

we went off on tangents... the OPs original question was the IRL morality of the issue if there is absolutely NO third option... its either "kill baby" or "village dies"...

I don't read the OP as asking about the real-life morality of the situation, and if it were it would be against the rules to discuss.

But it did pose the situation where there is no third option. And like the hypothetical paladin, I took the third option anyway. :smalltongue:

So let's look at the possibilities:
There is genuinely no third option. The paladin will not fall for choosing one of the two given (probably "stab the child", as it puts the many ahead of the one). Hands up who thinks that's not a dark game world?
There is genuinely no third option. The paladin will fall no matter what; agonised indecision or refusing to act is the same as choosing to damn the village and not kill the child. There are two ways this can be interpreted, depending on why the paladin fell:
The paladin draws power from a deity or deities of good and law. They are the highest ideal of what is good, and their way wasn't good enough. And they punished the paladin for it. Dark game world.
The paladin draws power from personal conviction* in the paladin's code and the strength of good and law. And the paladin falls because he or she realises that whichever option was chosen, it was not in accord with the code. This one is morally identical to an earlier possibility:
The paladin now realises that the code was flawed, takes a new code, and therefore would not fall next time if given the same circumstances and the same action. See option 1.
The paladin decides the code really was the highest ideal of good and law, and it still wasn't good enough. See option 2a.
There is a third option. (The paladin might find it, or might not find it in time and so fall. The path to atonement would be recognising what the third option was.) This is the only way this could arise when not faced with a dark game world. And I maintain that unless the players want to fall and want to roleplay one of the above possibilities, paladins have no place in a dark game.

* This isn't the same as, "As long as I'm happy with my choices, I don't fall." Because the paladin does fall in this scenario.

Can I point out on the subject of atonement that, Gray Guard notwithstanding, one way of gauging whether you've really atoned would be to say, "Would you know what to do, given the same circumstances again, in order to not fall?" That's what it means to recognise the error of your ways.

[taltamir]

I don't read the OP as asking about the real-life morality of the situation, and if it were it would be against the rules to discuss.
I thought real life RELIGION was against the rules, is it actual morality as well?

Real life was the wrong choice of words... "your personal opinion"... there we go. if it was "you" who was in DnD land in such a situation (obviously there is no magic IRL)... or rather, your character is an author insertion persona... whose opinions do not differ from your own.

PS. why is it only paladins that get the moral shaft?
1. ANY class that can cast divine spells can "fall"; clerics, druids, favored souls, rangers, etc.
2. Barbarians and monks can pseudo fall.
3. i forgot...

anyways, just go ahead and set a "fall-fall" druidic situation (would have to do with... kill the white stag, or let it destroy the forest :P)

[hamishspence]

Holy liberators (Complete Divine PRC, CG, may not commit an evil act) can Fall.

As can anyone who's taken an Exalted feat.

On the Evil side of the scales, Paladins of Slaughter and Paladins of Tyranny can "fall" and anyone who's taken a Vile feat, or an Assassin, or some other such PRC, can "pseudo-fall" by changing alignments.

As can Hexblades or Dread Necromancers (any nongood).

[Bharg]

I figured not being able to commit a good deed might be just as hard as not being able to commit an evil deed... and I don't see how such a code of conduct is supposed to make any sense at all...

[hamishspence]

If you take "any deed that's done for entirely selfish motives is a Neutral deed at best" as a general principle- a Paladin of Tyranny can help people, as long as he's only motivated by building his own power base- and building a reputation that he can use.

In some ways, "never committing a good deed" might be easier than never committing an evil deed.

[Bharg]

You would be still breaking your conduct by helping the old lady crossing the road. The end doesn't justifiy the means. I mean it doesn't work that way for the good people. Why should it be different for the evil people? :smallfrown: Not fair.

[hamishspence]

Good and Evil aren't symmetrical. Intent matters much more for Good acts than Evil ones.

A villain who wants to become a Villain With Good Publicity, and spends most of their life doing "good" acts to build the reputation, isn't any less villainous- Palpatine may be a good example.

This is one reason why BoVD's "Killing a fiend is always a good act" can be ignored- because if it was true, demons and devils would be doing good acts every day. And a devil Paladin of Tyranny would be unable to participate in the Blood War, or ever kill another devil or demon.

[Bharg]

Remind me of "Night Watch".

Then you would probably have to define what is always considered to be a good act (mercy?) and what is always considered to be an evil act (muder). I don't think intentions matter if we are dealing with a code of conduct. I think like a Paladin couldn't commit an evil act with good intentions without falling a Paladin of Tyranny couldn't commit a good act in order to further his evil cause. Otherwise his code of conduct would be completely meaningless. :smallconfused:

[hamishspence]

Fiendish Codex 2 has a list of "always evil acts" but currently there isn't a list of always good acts anywhere.

[Tyrmatt]

Sorry, I'm not combing through ten pages of thread to check if anyone has mentioned it, but this is almost pulled verbatim from Heroes of Horror.

The answer is in there.

[Bharg]

Then it's time to make a list of always good acts*!


*(at least good enough to make evil "Paladins" fall)

[Optimystik]

Fiendish Codex 2 has a list of "always evil acts" but currently there isn't a list of always good acts anywhere.

That's because Good depends more heavily on circumstance. Even self-sacrifice can be bad if you are giving your life to save a despicably evil person.

@ taltamir - I agree that the scenario in the OP is ridiculous, I wasn't talking about that though.

[taltamir]

That's because Good depends more heavily on circumstance. Even self-sacrifice can be bad if you are giving your life to save a despicably evil person.
what if you are doing it out of love and mercy?

[Optimystik]

what if you are doing it out of love and mercy?

That's where intent comes in - if your goal is to try and show the evildoer the value of goodness via your actions, or otherwise trying to convert him/show him the error of his ways, then that is Good. If you are saving his life but not really caring whether he intends to continue committing evil acts, even a sacrifice on your part is irresponsible at best.

[Coidzor]

*shrug* Evil has free reign to masquerade as good. Good can't really even poke the poodle properly.

[Optimystik]

*shrug* Evil has free reign to masquerade as good. Good can't really even poke the poodle properly.

...do I want to know what "poke the poodle" means? :smalltongue:

And yes, Good gives you less options than Evil - they call it "the straight and narrow" for a reason.

[Bharg]

That is why in the end all the restless heros have to be chaotic evil.

[Kylarra]

...do I want to know what "poke the poodle" means? :smalltongue:
My rule of thumb is if you have to ask, you don't want to know. :smalltongue:

[Bouregard]

...do I want to know what "poke the poodle" means? :smalltongue:

And yes, Good gives you less options than Evil - they call it "the straight and narrow" for a reason.

There is "kick the dog" and "poke the poodle". Someone who pokes a poodle is ineffective in trying to kick the dog.

[hamishspence]

From our favority time-draining site:

One of the most common traps laid for Good characters masquerading as evil ones:

If You're So Evil, Eat This Kitten:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle6vgp6b47

Poke the Poodle is when the character tries to do bad, but what they do just isn't that bad:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PokeThePoodle

[Coidzor]

Ahh, kitten huffing...:smallbiggrin:

[zalmatra]

The weight of the deed would weigh upon the paladins soul and in his memories this is a grey area where i do not believe the gods would strip him of his power nor a reprimand but rather let the weight of the action carry upon himself.

[Iku Rex]

Can we please stop talking abou how "the gods" can strip a paladin of his powers?

"Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough." -- PHB 43.

Gods are optional.

[Theodoxus]

Mark me as another who isn't gonna troll through 10 pages. But as posed by the OP...

The baby is infused with evil - hence killing it is a good act.

Alternately, the Paladin can rez the childling afterwards. Possibly as part of an atonement.

In neither case would a Paladin, adjudicated by a fair and impartial DM, fall.

However, given the specific parameters of this case, Fair and Impartial are not words I would use to describe said GM.

Lame topic is lame. Carry on.

[hamishspence]

The baby is infused with evil - hence killing it is a good act.

It did slightly later mention that the baby's soul is unchanged, an it's alignment unchanged. It's being used to "store Evil", but being used this way doesn't make the baby evil.

That said- if a gun was sapient, and innocent, and about to fire without its own will controlling it (a bit like in that old sci-fi story where a man, unknown to himself, is actually a robot bomb)- destroying that sapient life to save others, if it was "the only way" could be seen as overriding the usual issue of harming an innocent.

[taltamir]

That's where intent comes in - if your goal is to try and show the evildoer the value of goodness via your actions, or otherwise trying to convert him/show him the error of his ways, then that is Good. If you are saving his life but not really caring whether he intends to continue committing evil acts, even a sacrifice on your part is irresponsible at best.

what if the evil baddude TM adopted you as a child out of selfish reasons, but you don't care, you love him/her nonetheless and sacrifice yourself to save their life, because they are the only parent you ever knew, and despite them treating you as a disposable minion you love them.

[Optimystik]

what if the evil baddude TM adopted you as a child out of selfish reasons, but you don't care, you love him/her nonetheless and sacrifice yourself to save their life, because they are the only parent you ever knew, and despite them treating you as a disposable minion you love them.

There are two options here. Either:

a) Blinded by your youth, love for your parent or some other reason, you remain unaware of/didn't consider the evil deeds they are doing and will continue to do. Ignorance is your excuse here, thus you are innocent.

b) You have given thought to your parent's evil ways and decided to disregard them. You know full well that your parent will continue to commit evil acts if left unchecked. This brings you back to my first scenario - either your sacrifice is an attempt to redeem them, or you simply don't care about the people they hurt.

[taltamir]

There are two options here. Either:

a) Blinded by your youth, love for your parent or some other reason, you remain unaware of/didn't consider the evil deeds they are doing and will continue to do. Ignorance is your excuse here, thus you are innocent.

b) You have given thought to your parent's evil ways and decided to disregard them. You know full well that your parent will continue to commit evil acts if left unchecked. This brings you back to my first scenario - either your sacrifice is an attempt to redeem them, or you simply don't care about the people they hurt.

that assumes an awful lot of thought going into a very emotional thing... hardly realistic behavior.
The person in question could have easily recognized the actions of their surrogate parent as evil, and even actively oppose said actions... but in the end still impulsively self sacrifice on their behalf.

[Optimystik]

that assumes an awful lot of thought going into a very emotional thing... hardly realistic behavior.
The person in question could have easily recognized the actions of their surrogate parent as evil, and even actively oppose said actions... but in the end still impulsively self sacrifice on their behalf.

Said person's alignment would then depend on whether or not they made an effort to change the parent's ways. Standing by and doing nothing while someone close to you repeatedly does evil is itself evil.

[Foeofthelance]

Ack, I remember the last time we had this argument. I think I ended up getting called a demonic communist nazi for saying the villagers combined were worth more than the paladin's soul.

Either way, my personal solution:

Kill the baby, save the village. Kill every cultist. Proceed to fall. Declare, "Screw the Gods, I know a wizard!" Open portal to Hell/the Abyss (wherever our unfriendly other planar being resides) and proceed to cut a vengeful swathe across it until the baby's soul has been personally rescued. Open portal to preferred paradise realm and personally deliver the soul. Depending on if anyone I care about dies in Hell, spit on God for making me a Fighter Without Feats for trying to save everyone.

[Optimystik]

Depending on if anyone I care about dies in Hell, spit on God for making me a Fighter Without Feats for trying to save everyone.

As metal as your plan sounds, it is not definite that gods are what cause paladins to fall - though it seems they can at least reverse the process once it occurs.

[Foeofthelance]

As metal as your plan sounds, it is not definite that gods are what cause paladins to fall - though it seems they can at least reverse the process once it occurs.

Wellll... You can really spit on whatever concept the DM decides is responsible, a god just happens to give you a handy personification to target.

[ryzouken]

I'd burn the village to the ground. Without a village, it cannot be ransomed against the life of an innocent, ergo, the most best choice is to remove the possibility of a choice to begin with. Of course, this is walking into a scenario already in progress.

The actual solution requires my character's involvement prior to a village vs baby scenario being generated. Given this opportunity, my character would be a kobold of sufficient magnitude to accomplish the following: develop and cast an epic spell that generates a simulacrum of every living soul on the planet while simultaneously permanently sequestering and imprisoning every living body. These simulacra would have no knowledge of the spell's existence, and in the event they are slain, would regenerate at the start of each bright, new day.

This way, the evil cult catch 22 situation is not a catch 22 situation at all. Slay the child, slay the village, slay even the cult, and on the next day's dawn all that died would be restored in perpetuity.


I've yet to see a paladin not fall. It's why I don't play paladins.

[Viskocity]

Remind me of "Night Watch".


The Russian movie? Strange, very strange...Anyway, back to the topic.


I think that the greatest problem with the D&D alignment system is that it exists in the first place. As this example shows, it is impossible to codify every single facet of the human experience as good or evil. They are, by their nature as constructs of the human mind, completely subjective. That is not to say that there are not certain widely agreed upon dos and don'ts, but a lot of what defines good and evil is context and culture.

The scope of D&D includes many acts which are of questionable morality. Even the traditional dungeon crawl involves breaking into a creature's home, slaughtering it, and stealing its possessions. Usually it is for a good cause, but then again, sometimes not. Maybe the adventurers were just in it for the XPs. Still, it is not uncommon to find 'lawful good' adventurers ransacking a gnoll lair, or skinning the still warm corpse of an intelligent being (dragon). Supposedly they support the rule of law, and want make the world better, but their actions speak otherwise.

This is why I think the entire alignment system is useless. If your character has a good reason to hunt down a gnoll warband, why not talk about it? Make it a part of the character. Moral dilemmas make for good angst roleplaying.

[Bharg]

The Russian movie? Strange, very strange...Anyway, back to the topic.


I think that the greatest problem with the D&D alignment system is that it exists in the first place. As this example shows, it is impossible to codify every single facet of the human experience as good or evil. They are, by their nature as constructs of the human mind, completely subjective. That is not to say that there are not certain widely agreed upon dos and don'ts, but a lot of what defines good and evil is context and culture.

The scope of D&D includes many acts which are of questionable morality. Even the traditional dungeon crawl involves breaking into a creature's home, slaughtering it, and stealing its possessions. Usually it is for a good cause, but then again, sometimes not. Maybe the adventurers were just in it for the XPs. Still, it is not uncommon to find 'lawful good' adventurers ransacking a gnoll lair, or skinning the still warm corpse of an intelligent being (dragon). Supposedly they support the rule of law, and want make the world better, but their actions speak otherwise.

This is why I think the entire alignment system is useless. If your character has a good reason to hunt down a gnoll warband, why not talk about it? Make it a part of the character. Moral dilemmas make for good angst roleplaying.

Nope... the novels. :smallwink:

Night Watch, the good guys, and Day Watch, the bad guys, drew their power from the emotions of normal poeple. The good guys had to use "positive emotions" like joy, happyness etc. while the bad guys used "negative emotions" like pain, grief, anger etc. Positive emotions were used up while negative emotions only grew stronger...

[taltamir]

This is why I think the entire alignment system is useless. If your character has a good reason to hunt down a gnoll warband, why not talk about it? Make it a part of the character. Moral dilemmas make for good angst roleplaying.

I agree that DnD would be better without an alignment system.


Kill the baby, save the village. Kill every cultist. Proceed to fall. Declare, "Screw the Gods, I know a wizard!" Open portal to Hell/the Abyss (wherever our unfriendly other planar being resides) and proceed to cut a vengeful swathe across it until the baby's soul has been personally rescued. Open portal to preferred paradise realm and personally deliver the soul. Depending on if anyone I care about dies in Hell, spit on God for making me a Fighter Without Feats for trying to save everyone.

I like your plan... every single step of it I would do to... and it gives a great in character growth (aka, growing away from the suck that is paladin)

[Theodoxus]

The other option being, revel in your fallen state, convert the levels of Paladin to Blackguard and join the cult - kill the leader and grow it until it subsumes every good thing in the world. Ascend to godhood, kill your former 'benevolent' god for allowing you to become perfect evil, assume his portfolio, corrupt it to evil, causing all of your new found paladin worshipers to also fall.

Bring your new found army of Blackguards and overthrow the Abyss, take (biblically) Tiamat as your Queen and Lloth as your concubine and live out the rest of your immortal life in a hedonistic threesome.

Damn that baby. It would have been better if it's mother had stumbled down some stairs... repeatedly, if need be.

[taltamir]

The other option being, revel in your fallen state, convert the levels of Paladin to Blackguard and join the cult - kill the leader and grow it until it subsumes every good thing in the world. Ascend to godhood, kill your former 'benevolent' god for allowing you to become perfect evil, assume his portfolio, corrupt it to evil, causing all of your new found paladin worshipers to also fall.

Bring your new found army of Blackguards and overthrow the Abyss, take (biblically) Tiamat as your Queen and Lloth as your concubine and live out the rest of your immortal life in a hedonistic threesome.

Damn that baby. It would have been better if it's mother had stumbled down some stairs... repeatedly, if need be.

that was one of the most epic things I have ever read... you win an internet cookie.

[Mistalion]

I'm reminded of a pic I saw a long time ago, with a button marked 'Press this button to cause the paladin to fall through a series of increasingly contrived and heavy-handed false choices by a DM with an axe to grind against noble, selfless paragons of humanity'.

The 'fallen paladin' angle can be fun (I have worked it into a 4th edition campaign despite there not even being a need for it anymore), but like that Deva said to Roy in celestial processing:

"The important thing is: You're trying." No force of pure good and law is going to look at this and go DERP BETTER TURN ONE OF OUR BOYS INTA A FIGHTER WIV NO BONUS FEATS (the only ones that would in my opinion are some of the jerkier LN deities); they're going to say 'you did the best you could, brother; go kill some gnolls, you've had enough difficult decisions for the moment'.

[Coidzor]

The other option being, revel in your fallen state, convert the levels of Paladin to Blackguard and join the cult - kill the leader and grow it until it subsumes every good thing in the world. Ascend to godhood, kill your former 'benevolent' god for allowing you to become perfect evil, assume his portfolio, corrupt it to evil, causing all of your new found paladin worshipers to also fall.

Bring your new found army of Blackguards and overthrow the Abyss, take (biblically) Tiamat as your Queen and Lloth as your concubine and live out the rest of your immortal life in a hedonistic threesome.

Damn that baby. It would have been better if it's mother had stumbled down some stairs... repeatedly, if need be.


that was one of the most epic things I have ever read... you win an internet cookie.
+1. Would read again.

[super dark33]

he wont becaus he will be praying his god to forgive him about the terrible action, and will explain why it is neccesery

[Wardog]

Kill the baby, save the village. Kill every cultist. Proceed to fall. Declare, "Screw the Gods, I know a wizard!" Open portal to Hell/the Abyss (wherever our unfriendly other planar being resides) and proceed to cut a vengeful swathe across it until the baby's soul has been personally rescued. Open portal to preferred paradise realm and personally deliver the soul. Depending on if anyone I care about dies in Hell, spit on God for making me a Fighter Without Feats for trying to save everyone.

That. Is. Absolutely. BADASS.



Anyway:

I still haven't made up my mind over the best course of action, nor the consequences.

Regarding what the paladin should do:

I think I'd go for "kill the baby/save the village", on the grounds that you have to do something (I'm treating walking away as "doing something"), innocents will die whatever you do, so you should take the option that saves the most lives.

That said, I can understand the argument "killing the baby means YOU are doing evil; failing to save the village means you have just failed to stop the cult doing evil".

Also, utilitarian arguments make things complicated.

The most basic utilitarian argument would say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. So save the village at the expense of the child."

Now, some people are suspicious (at best) of utilitarianism (myself included) because it can potentially lead down a very dark path of "the ends justify the means" (like "lets kill a baby so we can use its organs to save two people"). But I don't think this is really comparable to that sore of scenario, on account of you being deliberately set up by the cult in a lose-lose situation.

Alternatively, an opposite utilitarian argument could be made: if paladins went around killing babies because it was "necessary" then there would be far worse consequences than merely one village being wiped out. (Paladins doing more and more extreme "necessary" evils; people losing faith in paladins - or Good in general; paladins losing faith in paladins - or Good in general; villains takign advantage of the situation to force paladins into greater acts of evil; etc). Under this argument "the greater good" requires the paladin to stick to his principles, even if it means being unable to save some people from the cult.



(As an aside, would people be agonizing over this so much if the scenario was "blow up the BBEG's base to prevent him fulfilling his Evil Plan of Ultimate Doom, even if you know you won't be able to get all his prisoners out in time"?)


Regarding what should happen to the paladin:

I think this depends on what falling means in your campaign, and why it happens.

If it is a punishment imposed on paladins who have egregiously failed in their duties and vows, then I don't think the paladin should fall. Neither option is clearly the "wrong" one (or else we wouldn't be having this debate), and I would not consider it either good or just to punish someone for "failing" at an impossible task.

Although potentially by RAW at least one of the options may still be evil, on the grounds that an Evil act is still Evil even if it is necessary, and so the paladin would have to fall by RAW. Which is not fair or just, if falling is a punishment.

On the other hand, falling might not be a punishment as such. An earlier poster suggested that because a Good in D&D isn't just a philosophical paladin concept but effectively an elemental force, then perhaps commiting an evil act is innately disruptive to a paladins connection to the source of his powers. Under such an explanation, falling isn't a punishment, but simply an inherent consequence of how the cosmos works, and atonement is the process by which the paladin retunes to the source of his powers.


Another possibility (again a somewhat utilitarian argument) is that the greater good requires that paladins who comit evil acts (even necessary evil acts) have to fall to maintain the integrity of paladinhood, or Good in general. 1) to stop paladins making such decisions lightly, and 2) to ensure that paladins/Good can be seen to actually be Good, rather than merely the team that wears the white hats.

Atonement would involve making sure the paladin fully understood the importance of taking the Good option rather than the easy option, making him think long and hard about what he did and why, and if there could have been an alternative (even if the conclusion is "there was no other way"), and so forth.

The atonement should be a lot easier and quicker than that for a paladin who genuinely screwed up (e.g. Miko). (And possibly result in an overall gain for the paladin, e.g. by being sent on a quest to prove his worth, that will result in a him gaining a impressive magical item).

[Da'Shain]

I think that if I, myself, were to place a Paladin in this situation, with two clearly Evil choices that will result in an immediate fall and telling him that there is literally no way to take a third option, it would be with the express purpose of nudging a "Screw you, there's ALWAYS a third option" reaction out of him. And, depending on whether the third option he came up with made sense, I would let it work.

Seriously, the whole point of the class (in my mind, at least) is trying to make reality live up to your expectations. Paladins have, as their shtick, making the world a less Evil place. Thus, a true Paladin literally would not believe in this dichotomy, even if their god told them it was the only way.

That said, of the two options, I'd be far more sympathetic to the Paladin that killed the baby and accepted their fall, and allow them to atone after a period of mourning with little to no lasting consequences. And, of course, if said Paladin killed the baby and immediately took Foeofthelance's option, I might even rule that his Paladin powers remain with him for the descent into Hell.

[Boogastreehouse]

But that's exactly what they're doing. "It's the struggle that matters. It's easy for a being of pure law and good to live up to these ideals, but you're a mortal. What matters is that when you blow it, you get back up on the horse and try again." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)


here is where you are wrong. If a fall-fall situation exist, that means there is a situation where any choice you make is EVIL.
A being of pure Good will thus be FORCED to commit an evil act...

If a fall-fall situation exist, and the paladin says "cleric, summon a being of PURE GOOD", and the cleric casts gate and summons one... and the paladin says "you solve it"... the being of pure good has now been forced to chose one of the fall-fall outcomes and has committed evil.

Huh. That actually sounds like a very good reason for the beings of pure good to have mortal representatives out there doing the dirty work. The beings of pure good don't want to risk their purity by mucking around in moral gray-areas, so they stick to safe, straightforward activities like smacking demons around, and leave the sticky moral dilemmas for the mortals to sort out.

[Coidzor]

Huh. That actually sounds like a very good reason for the beings of pure good to have mortal representatives out there doing the dirty work. The beings of pure good don't want to risk their purity by mucking around in moral gray-areas, so they stick to safe, straightforward activities like smacking demons around, and leave the sticky moral dilemmas for the mortals to sort out.

Which is great for gray guards, ish, but not really a good explanation for why pallys.

[Whyareall]

In my mind the paladin is the antithesis to the "the end justifies the means" attitude most of the posters in this thread are advocating.
...
Killing the baby is a guaranteed fall. Not as a punishment from the paladin's god (if he even has one). But because he's come to realize that the world is not as cleanly black and white as he thought, and so he's lost the fanatical conviction that defines a paladin.

You seem to be confusing 'paladin' with 'Miko'. You didn't think they were the same, did you?


A paladin will not murder an innocent child. Even if he thinks the end result would be really nifty. In fact, if nearby heroes (PCs...) or desperate villagers try to kill the baby the paladin will fight to protect it.

See SoD for paladins murdering innocent children.

[Scarey Nerd]

Whoah, this thread has grown hugely since I last looked at it!

Anyways, in regards to Gray Guards, they would be the ultimate person to place in this position. No matter what they do, they CAN'T lose (Depending on their Gray Guard level).

Most people here already know my opinions on this, but I'll reiterate them again:

1. The ends justifies the means. This does not mean that the means isn't Evil.
2. The alignment system is broken, and falling happens in moral quandaries, no matter your intentions.
3. Pelor was a demon whose followers are nothing more than an expansive cult Certain gods just don't care about their followers. How many times a day do you think Boccob thinks about all those librarians who have resigned out of boredom?

[hamishspence]

See SoD for paladins murdering innocent children.

See The Giant's post suggesting some of those paladins may have fallen, without the dramatic display that Miko got:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

[super dark33]

you all think that 'paladin falls for killing an innocent being'
i think paladin doesnt fall for saving much more baby genarations:
think about it like every person is a number:there are 10 numbers and one of them is gonna destroy the outers, you take im out, and te outer nine remain.
instead, you dont kill him, and only 1 remains, the one with the cult's power

[Kish]

think about it like every person is a number:
A paladin who does that Falls instantly. And becomes a blackguard with nothing further needed.