PDA

View Full Version : Baby murder-Village saving



Pages : [1] 2

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 11:15 AM
This is just a small question that we've been discussing in our D&D group, concerning alignment. This is a scenario that I presented, and I'd like to know the opinions of my fellow Playgrounders in regards to the issue:

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).

In my opinion, as Evil is a metaphysical thing in D&D, and there are distinct acts of Good and Evil, if the Paladin were to kill the baby, they would Fall. Yes, the intention is good, and doing so accomplishes a Good act, but the fact remains that they've put their sword through a child.

What do you guys think? (And I apologise for the length).

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 11:17 AM
So...

PALADIN!!! YOU FALL!!! is the gist if it?

IM@work
2010-07-12, 11:18 AM
So there is no other way presented? If there was killing the baby would be evil...
If he tries and fails then kills the baby I think that it'd be okay...

Probably the best thing to do is not determine between good/evil act but have it be "neutral" and have the character decide whether what they did was evil. Maybe the DM doesn't think it was evil, but what the player decides is more important...

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-12, 11:19 AM
I think that this is the reason that the Paladin's Code is one of the single worst design decisions made by WotC in the history of ever. The situation you described is a 100% assured fall for a Paladin: you can't kill the infant, you can't let the village die, and you can't walk away from the problem. Neither can you stand by and let an ally kill the infant, nor can you encourage others to do the job for you. It's just a lose-lose situation.

If I ever DMed a game without changing the Paladin's Code (note: I haven't), this would not cause a Paladin to fall, provided they thought that the action they were undertaking was that which would be the greatest good. A well-played character would be haunted by this situation, and there's no reason to also penalize him mechanically for being placed (by the DM) in a situation where he can't do anything but fall.

PId6
2010-07-12, 11:19 AM
He would fall if he kills the baby, but he would not shift alignments nor would it be a significant fall. A simple Atonement spell should restore his paladinhood.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-12, 11:19 AM
Either you interpret the babykilling as an act of mercy(it's already wrested out of its life anyway) or as the kind of stuff that a paladin would do with tears in his eyes, fall, accept it and seek to repent.

onthetown
2010-07-12, 11:22 AM
I think a true Paladin would risk the Fall to save the village. Lawful Good characters, especially Paladins, don't tend to be selfish to the point of nonaction just so that they can keep their status. If the Paladin values the lives of the villagers, they will risk their status and even their own life to spare them.

On another note, are you trying to make their character Fall or was this something you had planned before you knew he was playing a Paladin?

RndmNumGen
2010-07-12, 11:23 AM
I don't think killing the baby would be an Evil act. Yes, killing a normal baby is evil, but you're talking about one life versus dozens(hundreds?) here. I would put the baby's death on the cultists, not on the paladin.

Maerok
2010-07-12, 11:25 AM
I think a true Paladin would risk the Fall to save the village. Lawful Good characters, especially Paladins, don't tend to be selfish to the point of nonaction just so that they can keep their status.

QFT

True Good doesn't give a damn about losing class features to some whacked out DM's 'Where-is-your-god-now?' obsession.

Evil characters would be the ones to hold on to their own power for their own sake.

Umael
2010-07-12, 11:26 AM
So...

PALADIN!!! YOU FALL!!! is the gist if it?

Sounds like it to me.

Which means the DM is being a jerk and the campaign should get heavily modified immediately and/or ended, and/or the rest of the group should quit letting the current DM be a DM and/or the rest of the group should kick the DM out.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I am beginning to believe that moral LOSE-LOSE choices have no intrinsic value and only the semblence of value otherwise.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 11:27 AM
Sounds like it to me.

Which means the DM is being a jerk and the campaign should get heavily modified immediately and/or ended, and/or the rest of the group should quit letting the current DM be a DM and/or the rest of the group should kick the DM out.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I am beginning to believe that moral LOSE-LOSE choices have no intrinsic value and only the semblence of value otherwise.

Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-12, 11:28 AM
Sounds like it to me.

Which means the DM is being a jerk and the campaign should get heavily modified immediately and/or ended, and/or the rest of the group should quit letting the current DM be a DM and/or the rest of the group should kick the DM out.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I am beginning to believe that moral LOSE-LOSE choices have no intrinsic value and only the semblence of value otherwise.

They do have their value if they don't cripple the player for too long. Some are genuinely interested in the conflicts of following a code that is almost impossible to pull off.

onthetown
2010-07-12, 11:29 AM
Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

That would have been one hell of a discussion. Either way, I stick by my previous post. A true Paladin would take the Fall to do Good.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 11:31 AM
Me, I'd take the hit, and go CE Paladin. And start murdering your plot important NPC's.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-12, 11:31 AM
Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

Here's the problem with that discussion in the world of D&D.

In D&D, there exist concepts of Good and Evil: the Socratic forms of them, if you will. There is something that is indisputedly Good, and something indisputedly Evil.

In real life, and in mortal circumstances, this isn't the case. In our culture, for example, it is evil to steal. In ancient Sparta, young children were actually given less food to get them to steal, as it taught them self-sufficiency and the ability to be canny and stealthy. The only reason they were punished if they were caught was because they weren't skilled enough to not get caught.

D&D can't function with both existing. Undead and necromancy is Evil. But what if we raise someone as a Ghoul or Ghost so they can protect their children, who would otherwise be orphans? Ghouls and Ghosts are sentient, so why would this necessarily be bad? If in our country soldiers can bequeath their bodies to the nation, to be raised in case of dire emergency, why is it evil to honor their requests with our legions of skeletal warriors?

Basically, any time you try to run an ideal form through a moral reality, something somewhere breaks. It just doesn't work.

The conclusions? Good and Evil are man-made constructs. Remove sentience from the universe and no action can be good or evil. If a single human lives in isolation, he cannot do anything good or anything evil: only what is good for himself or bad for himself, and mankind never willingly does anything it knows is the worst choice for itself. We're just not programed that way.

Good and Evil only exist when enough people unite to "judge" actions. That's really all there is to it.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 11:32 AM
That would have been one hell of a discussion. Either way, I stick by my previous post. A true Paladin would take the Fall to do Good.

When we sit down and discuss something, we get right down to the nitty-gritty :smallsmile: I remember having a 2 hour discussion, ranging across the board from Time Travel, to life on other planets, to the afterlife, to the existance of a God, etc etc.

But that's a small derailment, and I'll get back on track: I agree that a Paladin played properly would take the fall gladly, if it meant saving the lives of hundreds. AtwasAwamps' Paladin sprang to mind, as his Noble Death showed that particular character as the epitomy of a Paladin.

onthetown
2010-07-12, 11:34 AM
snip

Not to mention that alignment varies depending on society. Modern North American society tells us that killing somebody is an evil act, but there could be a society somewhere in the world where killing somebody is considered good or isn't cared about.

Caliphbubba
2010-07-12, 11:34 AM
does the baby ping on the Detect Evil meter? if so, then killing it is a good act I would think if it is causing impending doom.

I mean, who's to say the baby isn't really a shapechanged demon after all? Silly paladin doesn't know the difference. All he knows is the baby is evil, and if it doesn't die the rest of the village will. seems cut and dried to me.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-07-12, 11:34 AM
When we sit down and discuss something, we get right down to the nitty-gritty.

You wanted nitty-gritty? Look at my post just above yours. Breaking out the old philosophy major here. :smallbiggrin:

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 11:35 AM
You wanted nitty-gritty? Look at my post just above yours. Breaking out the old philosophy major here. :smallbiggrin:

I've just seen it, I love your thinking :smallbiggrin:

Maerok
2010-07-12, 11:35 AM
Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

Well is this a utilitarianist (kill the baby to save more people) or deontologist (ends don't justify means) paladin? What does their order or god expect of them? Context, context, context. When you try to introduce a situation like this in a cultural vacuum it loses a lot.

Dogmantra
2010-07-12, 11:37 AM
Clearly in this instance, the Paladin needs to set up a situation for the cultists where they'll get caught, tried and executed if they don't use the superweapon. Said superweapon can only be fuelled by the happiness of orphans who have been given a new loving home (with puppies). Either way, the cultists won't bother the village anymore because they'll be dead or good and therefore incapable of doing evil, respectively.

mucat
2010-07-12, 11:38 AM
This is a particularly heavy-handed version of what I've always called the moral Kobayashi-Maru scenario: whatever you choose, including trying to walk away from the choice, you're damned.

When these things happen in fiction, it's usually so the hero can outwit fate and find a third, non-horrendous path. When there really is no way out, then you've got a very dark story on your hand...and unless the author (or the DM, in this case) is quite skilled, often a ludicrously bad story.

In this case, the situation seems too contrived and heavy-handed to make a good story. Impel the paladin to explore his motivations and loyalties in more subtle ways first. If you are going to spring a tragic no-win situation on him, make it a climactic point in the campaign, and have the situation flow naturally from past events (and ideally, from past choices the paladin has made.)

If he paints himself gradually into a corner through the best of intentions, realizes that every path now leads to disaster, and then must risk his soul to find a solution, it's a great story. If he shows up in a town where an arbitrary no-win dilemma is already underway, it's not.

Zeta Kai
2010-07-12, 11:40 AM
I always find it interesting that people seem to have a vested interest in making the party's paladin fall, thereby crippling their character, but destroying a wizard's spellbook is considered bad form.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 11:41 AM
This is a particularly heavy-handed version of what I've always called the moral Kobayashi-Maru scenario: whatever you choose, including trying to walk away from the choice, you're damned.

When these things happen in fiction, it's usually so the hero can outwit the situation and find a third, non-horrendous path. When there really is no way out, then you've got a very dark story on your hand...and unless the author (or the DM, in this case) is quite skilled, often a ludicrously bad story.

In this case, the situation is too contrived and heavy-handed to make a good story. Impel the paladin to explore his motivations and possibly conflicting loyalties in more subtle ways first. If you are going to spring a tragic no-win situation on him, make it a climactic point in the campaign, and have the situation flow naturally from past events (and ideally, from past choices the paladin has made.)

If he paints himself gradually into a corner through the best of intentions, realizes that every path now leads to disaster, and then must risk his soul to find a solution, it's a great story. If he shows up in a town where an arbitrary no-win dilemma is already underway, it's not.

Again, I remind you that this is in no way meant to be in a campaign or anything, it's just a hypothetical scenario designed to prove a point about alignments. Granted it is a tad extreme, but.

Psyx
2010-07-12, 11:41 AM
True Good doesn't give a damn about losing class features to some whacked out DM's 'Where-is-your-god-now?' obsession.

Evil characters would be the ones to hold on to their own power for their own sake.

^
Decent people don't think 'but if I kill the baby, then I'd loose my job', and have that stay their hand. That's selfish.

Anyone forcing the Paladin to fall after giving them that kind of choice is just being a bit of a jerk, really. It's not like Paladins are brokenly good, so why do so many GMs feel the need to make Paladin's life a complete misery.

I'm guessing that all that evil in the baby would set off the evil-o-meter at the regulation 60' anyway. So the paladin stays his hand constantly in this circumstance, where the laws of the world dictate that such a creature is very probably a shapechanger anyway?

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 11:41 AM
He could always just take the baby with him, preferably to someone in his church more capable of deciding.

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 11:42 AM
The Paladin has a moral obligation to make as much an effort as is reasonable to find a way to both save the child and stop the cult. If he cannot, then he will have to take the fall. To quote Hinjo, "they wouldn't have an Atonement spell if it didn't need to be used in once awhile."

(Or he could just run his options by his Phylactery of Faithfulness :smalltongue:)

Snake-Aes
2010-07-12, 11:44 AM
I always find it interesting that people seem to have a vested interest in making the party's paladin fall, thereby crippling their character, but destroying a wizard's spellbook is considered bad form.
Context, mr Zeta, context.
The only 'destroy the spellbook!' thing we saw here lately was arbitrary and random and much likely asspulled. That is bad form.
But having the wizard actually worry about his spellbook? I don't see why. He shouldn't carry it around in the first place so if he gets his book sundered, it's his own retardation's fault.
But the paladin falling? The Code is much easier to break just by applying any smidgen of morality bigger than "durh, it pings, kill kill".
Regardless, your "people love to make the paladin fall" bit is just as applicable as "burn the wi...spellbook!". Just look at how many more people here instantly went into "dm, you're a jerk". And how many are yet to come.

mucat
2010-07-12, 11:44 AM
Again, I remind you that this is in no way meant to be in a campaign or anything, it's just a hypothetical scenario designed to prove a point about alignments. Granted it is a tad extreme, but.
Fair enough...but alignment isn't a real-world philosophical concept; it's part of a game. So alignment questions are only relevant when you think about how they would play out in an actual game.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 11:45 AM
I always find it interesting that people seem to have a vested interest in making the party's paladin fall, thereby crippling their character, but destroying a wizard's spellbook is considered bad form.

Cause Wizards have the special power to make you bias.

Meh, they're all bad form.

PId6
2010-07-12, 11:46 AM
I always find it interesting that people seem to have a vested interest in making the party's paladin fall, thereby crippling their character, but destroying a wizard's spellbook is considered bad form.
Because making a paladin fall might cause him to change his class, thus improving his character? :smalltongue:

Maerok
2010-07-12, 11:47 AM
The Paladin has a moral obligation to make as much an effort as is reasonable to find a way to both save the child and stop the cult. If he cannot, then he will have to take the fall. To quote Hinjo, "they wouldn't have an Atonement spell if it didn't need to be used in once awhile."

(Or he could just run his options by his Phylactery of Faithfulness :smalltongue:)

What can a paladin actually do aside from stabbing stuff with full BAB? They certainly don't get the sorts of spells or enough skills to seek out proper help in a reasonable fashion.

Person_Man
2010-07-12, 11:48 AM
Raise the baby as your son. When he gains the ability to take actions on his own and does something unredeemable and horribly Evil (ie, his sudden but inevitable betrayal) kill your adopted son.

Alternatively, if you happen to be a Paladin 11, raise the baby as your own son, and help him conquer the world in the name of Evil. You fall and can immediately convert into a Fallen Paladin 1/Blackguard 10, improving all of your class features.

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 11:48 AM
Fair enough...but alignment isn't a real-world philosophical concept; it's part of a game. So alignment questions are only relevant when you think about how they would play out in an actual game.

Actual game:

"Hey, should I kill the kid?" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicitems/wondrousitems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)


What can a paladin actually do aside from stabbing stuff with full BAB? They certainly don't get the sorts of spells or enough skills to seek out proper help in a reasonable fashion.

Most of them belong to churches - containing several reality-altering spellcasters, and a CEO with divine ranks who probably has strong opinions on the use of children as insurance policies (given that said CEO even has a paladin order in the first place.)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-12, 11:49 AM
Let's start with some text:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

. . .

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Ironically, under this definition and scenario, killing the baby not only won't cause the Paladin to Fall, but it's not even Evil.

Y'see, "Good" means protecting Innocent life - but not protecting all Innocent life. Here, we have a situation where killing a single individual will save dozens (perhaps hundreds) of people. Not only that, but there is no other conceivable way to stop this disaster. The Paladin has only a single course of action that will protect Innocents - so he takes it.

It's no worse than rowing a full boat of passangers away from a sinking ship, even when others remain on board. You save the ones you can, period.

So we know that killing the baby is non-Evil, but it certainly isn't Good. A faithful Paladin will likely get the approval of the Town Council before killing the baby, and likely demand a direct order to proceed before doing anything. One must show respect for Authority after all, and the Innocents in town should be allowed to weigh their own lives against the life of a child - respect for Sentience and all that.

If a DM made a Paladin Fall for that, ask why he didn't Fall when any Innocents died on his watch - he had as good a chance of protecting them as he did the baby :smalltongue:

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 11:49 AM
Raise the baby as your son. When he gains the ability to take actions on his own and does something unredeemable and horribly Evil (ie, his sudden but inevitable betrayal) kill your adopted son.

Cause raising someone just to kill them is a nice way to spend time.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-12, 11:56 AM
AtwasAwamps' Paladin sprang to mind, as his Noble Death showed that particular character as the epitomy of a Paladin.

It figures, with my love of the paladin class and fluff behind it, that I get referenced in an alignment discussion. (-_-)

This is definitely a difficult situation, but I posit the following:

While good and evil are absolute in the D&D universe, mitigating circumstances exist as a matter of practicality and compromise.

In this particular course, the greatest good would be done by the murder of the child. This is not an easy point and this is where the paladin and the player need to make their decision. This is where it comes down to roleplaying and where you simply have to set aside the mechanics and let the story roll you down its hill.

Roleplay the HELL out of this scenario. Be agonized. Be tortured. Your character SHOULD BE. This is going to HURT. Even if you don’t fall, the act of killing a child NO MATTER WHAT should be something a paladin always remembers as a moment where doing what was good and right didn’t feel like it. I long to be in one of these situations…I think the best stories and best experiences are when you take a truly heroic character and have them react realistically to scenarios in which no choice feels heroic. These are the meat and potatoes of a good hero’s experiences and I crave them in my games.

I got sidetracked. Back to the matter of mitigating circumstances. If killing the baby is the only way to save the village and thus create a situation in which the greater good triumphs, the paladin’s correct option, once ALL OTHERS have been exhausted or denied in some way, is to kill the child. That’s it. There is no other “good” choice.

That said, the reaction to such a thing happening depends ENTIRELY on what god the paladin worships. Gods in D&D exist and at their basest levels are much more like Greek and Roman gods in that they have human failings and human sympathies. It is entirely possible for a god such as Heironeous, who once lied to his Stern Alia, his own mother, to protect his brother Hextor from the ramifications of his actions, to realize that the paladin did what he had to do. Moradin, who places the protection of dwarven society as a paramount value of his church, may grant a paladin amnesty for trying to protect a village from destruction despite the cost. However, Ehlonna may see the act of killing a child for any reason as unsanctionable because of her association with birth and fertility.

The problem with stating “Paladin Falls!” is that it’s too easy and completely inaccurate to say all paladins are alike, all gods are alike, all good is alike. In this case, yes, the paladin may fall, depending on his belief structure or his god’s portfolios. But beyond anything else, the real punishment here should be the suffering that the paladin puts THEMSELVES through.

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 11:59 AM
I would argue that the paladin would fall simply because killing the child is not necessary to protect the villagers. All that is required is that the paladin removes the child from the village. Killing him is simply the easiest way to accomplish that.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 12:01 PM
I would argue that the paladin would fall simply because killing the child is not necessary to protect the villagers. All that is required is that the paladin removes the child from the village. Killing him is simply the easiest way to accomplish that.

Removing the child from the village wouldn't stop the ritual's conclusion, it isn't a bomb :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2010-07-12, 12:02 PM
I would argue that the paladin would fall simply because killing the child is not necessary to protect the villagers. All that is required is that the paladin removes the child from the village. Killing him is simply the easiest way to accomplish that.

Where do you get that idea? It's not mentioned in the OP, just that the baby is the receptacle for the village-killing spell. It could be a material component for all we know, and the actual spell has a 1-million mile range.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-12, 12:04 PM
Removing the child from the village wouldn't stop the ritual's conclusion, it isn't a bomb :smalltongue:

Even if that would be kind of awesome.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 12:05 PM
Even if that would be kind of awesome.

Ah yes, the evil exploding baby. A recurring theme in my group, on the subject of a superhero that throws exploding infants at his enemies.

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 12:06 PM
Alright, I didn't gather the from the OP.

If that was the case I would probably look at my DM, raise my arm up and down and go "Choo choo"

Snake-Aes
2010-07-12, 12:10 PM
Alright, I didn't gather the from the OP.

If that was the case I would probably look at my DM, raise my arm up and down and go "Choo choo"

That heavily depends on how you like to play your games.
One of the things I like the most when I play characters with tough codes(i'm looking at you, honor code disadvantages!) is to see them put into use to serve as an example and as something to contradict.

What is a story without conflict? If your paladinhood is never challenged as you play your paladin, then he could have been a fighter and suffer exactly the same development.

Ormagoden
2010-07-12, 12:10 PM
I'd kill the baby and fall.

I'd atone for my sins by retraining all my paladin levels into druid and become a hermit in the forest. (And much more useful to a party.)

Debihuman
2010-07-12, 12:14 PM
The paladin kills the baby, destroys the evil entity, makes sure the baby is resurrected (or raised), and then atones for his inability to be able to do anything more.

Debby

dps
2010-07-12, 12:19 PM
See, though, that's the problem with a scenario like this. OK, so the OP says that there is no way to stop the village from being wiped out except to kill the baby, but how does the Paladin know that? So it's not unreasonble that the Paladin would try to stop the ritual just by taking the baby far away, or by doing something else that doesn't involve killing the baby, not realizing that what they are doing isn't going to work. After all, you don't know until you try, right? So the Paladin takes the baby away, but the ritual stil kills everyone in the village, but the Paladin wouldn't fall, anymore than if an enemy was attacking the village and defeated the Paladin in combat.

Umael
2010-07-12, 12:23 PM
Flaws of the Paladin class and implications on real-world philosophy and religion not withstanding, this theoretical situation isn't cricket. It isn't playing (D&D) with the alignment system, it's playing with the D&D alignment system - which is flawed.

To begin with, pouring all their evil into the baby is a nifty fantasy idea, but I don't think Evil is something to be distilled, filtered, purified, bottled, corked, and shipped off to the Abyss with a marketing label that says "100% Baby-Fed Evil" - which is what is going on.

(Besides, what happens, the cultist pours all the Evil out of him and suddenly he feels the need to cuddle puppy dogs and plant roses, tra-la-la?)

If, IF, the cultists made the baby Evil, the baby is Evil, and as an Evil creature, it can be killed without qualm or problem. If the baby is just a vessel to hold "100% Baby-Fed Evil", then the destruction of the vessel should still destroy Evil.

If Evil is a matter of moral choice, then the baby made no moral choice and should not have all this Evil in it, hence the village is not in danger and the baby does not need to be killed.

If this is strictly a moral issue, and the baby has been made into a suicide bomber and there is no way to remove the "bomb" or at least get the baby away in time to save the village, then the moral quandry is one baby vs. a whole village, including a few more babies (most likely). The singular baby dies, a regretable necessity, many more are saved, moral quandary solved.

The whole "the baby must die and you must fall OR the baby will explode and take the village with it and you must fall" is just a jerk-move by the DM. It is a "eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too" by using a mish-mash of different moral and alignment interpretations and taking the parts that do the most to screw over the PC unfairly (unfairly, as in "I made you do something, but it is all your fault" kind of unfair).

For that matter, if the cultists can store their Evil in babies, why bother? Just capture a paladin and force the Evil into them. Viola! You're Evil now, you fall! Better yet, spike their drink with Evil and then as DM you can laugh at how stupid the players were for not using detect evil on their drinks.

Postmodernist
2010-07-12, 12:25 PM
See, though, that's the problem with a scenario like this. OK, so the OP says that there is no way to stop the village from being wiped out except to kill the baby, but how does the Paladin know that? So it's not unreasonble that the Paladin would try to stop the ritual just by taking the baby far away, or by doing something else that doesn't involve killing the baby, not realizing that what they are doing isn't going to work. After all, you don't know until you try, right? So the Paladin takes the baby away, but the ritual stil kills everyone in the village, but the Paladin wouldn't fall, anymore than if an enemy was attacking the village and defeated the Paladin in combat.

This. The situation is presented as a choice between only 2 options- kill the baby and lose, or don't and lose. Gamers are (or at least ought to be) clever and inventive folks. There are lots of other options, or at least there should be. Finding a high level priest of Goody-Goodness or a powerful sage to break the evil magic might present the characters with alternative options. The onus of responsibility in a silly alignment cage like this falls on both the players (to think of a solution) and the DM (to accommodate the players without smacking them with stupid penalties based on ill-conceived and poorly worded rules). Presenting your players with an insoluble situation will probably result in worse than a mere alignment shift- they'll probably stop playing altogether.

EDIT: Very much ninja'd. I also agree with this sentiment. Bolded emphasis mine.


The whole "the baby must die and you must fall OR the baby will explode and take the village with it and you must fall" is just a jerk-move by the DM. It is a "eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too" by using a mish-mash of different moral and alignment interpretations and taking the parts that do the most to screw over the PC unfairly (unfairly, as in "I made you do something, but it is all your fault" kind of unfair).

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 12:29 PM
I'm going to admit at this point, I was a tad obscure in the OP. When I said that they store their evil power in the baby, I didn't mean they physically stuff it full of Evil. What I meant was they were using it as the "material focus" of their dark ritual, and it was channelling the evil power. It still has its old alignment, and is still an innocent child, rather than some transformed demon etc.

Sarquion
2010-07-12, 12:32 PM
erm ... chaotic dungeoneering? if a play is put in that kind of situation just say "I'm out"

crazedloon
2010-07-12, 12:33 PM
well if I have learned anything from stargate the answer is to leave the baby in the hands of an ascended being who will teach the baby to forget all the stored evil energy and the like.....

but in all truth situations are never black and white like this, why can the baby not be saved (taken away from the evil guys) the ritual reversed (they made a spell or what have you to store it why not one to reverse it) or some other option. If the only option is kill or don't kill its rather dumb though an interesting take on the age old dilemma of 1 for a million.

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 12:34 PM
If thats the case the only reason the baby would be necessary is that the ritual is still underway, which should mean it can be interrupted before its completion. If that is the case then I'm going to take a page from XKCD and go with "stab bad guys" as the answer.

Ehra
2010-07-12, 12:37 PM
Yes, "pure 100% evil" does exist in D&D. The problem is that the exact same thing is true of good. Are you seriously suggesting that whatever cosmic entity that is in charge of "Paladin-hood" is going to look at this guy and revoke his powers no matter what he does; even though his, literally, only choices are to kill this baby or let the rest village die? Punishing the Paladin implies that whoever/whatever it is that disagrees with his actions feels that the Paladin should have done something different, so what would that be?

If those are truly the only two available options then, since we've established that true forces of good and evil do exist, there has to be an option that "Good" prefers. If there's actually some "hidden option" that you're simply not providing your players with (like maybe it's possible to find the cultists and stop the ritual) then this is nothing more than a case of poor DMing, since you're claiming there's only two options when it's not the case.

Morph Bark
2010-07-12, 12:39 PM
The Best thing to do here (the Gooder than Good I suppose) would be for the Paladin to take the baby away from the village.

Then raise him as a kick-ass knight of goodness out in the wildnerness.

Telonius
2010-07-12, 12:45 PM
Actual game:"Hey, should I kill the kid?" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicitems/wondrousitems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)


This. Honestly, it should be a Paladin class feature along with the Evil-o-meter.

If I were to DM in that situation using standard rules, I'd say that the Paladin would definitely fall if he kills the kid. He'd start skirting neutrality if he doesn't at least try to save the village.

IMO, the epitome of Paladinhood: take the child and go to the village, honestly telling them the situation. Convince them to raise the kid as their own regardless, thereby choosing true martyrdom rather than evil.

Analytica
2010-07-12, 12:48 PM
Then raise him as a kick-ass knight of goodness out in the wildnerness.

Yes. Actually, travel with the child, Lone Wolf & Cub-style. You are a paladin, if anyone can raise someone tainted by darkness to the point of being a receptacle for demonic power into a good person, despite all that, it is you. By example.

Then in the next campaign, play the now-grown child as an angsty, chaotic good Warlock with plenty of Exalted feats. :smallsmile:

EDIT: In fact... isn't that exactly what the moral dilemma SHOULD be? Killing someone is the work of seconds. Raising someone, to make sure they get the moral fibre they need to withstand their heritage, is the work of decades, and potentially much more taxing.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-12, 12:57 PM
IMO, the epitome of Paladinhood: take the child and go to the village, honestly telling them the situation. Convince them to raise the kid as their own regardless, thereby choosing true martyrdom rather than evil.

And if the villagers then decide to kill the baby, because they're weird and don't want to all die horribly for the paladin's sake, Is it his/her fault?

Yora
2010-07-12, 01:00 PM
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).

In my opinion, as Evil is a metaphysical thing in D&D, and there are distinct acts of Good and Evil, if the Paladin were to kill the baby, they would Fall. Yes, the intention is good, and doing so accomplishes a Good act, but the fact remains that they've put their sword through a child.

What do you guys think? (And I apologise for the length).

Easy: It's as if there are two buttons: "One dies" and "Many die". There's no question which one to chose.
If you go with hard alignment, the paladin falls. But he will fall anyway and if he is any good as a paladin, he will not put his spiritual well being over the need of others anyway.
And the gods will understand that his reasons were pure, so getting atonement shouldn't be that hard.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 01:05 PM
And if the villagers then decide to kill the baby, because they're weird and don't want to all die horribly for the paladin's sake, Is it his/her fault?

Ah, promoting evil through goodwill.

Shademan
2010-07-12, 01:06 PM
This is just a small question that we've been discussing in our D&D group, concerning alignment. This is a scenario that I presented, and I'd like to know the opinions of my fellow Playgrounders in regards to the issue:

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).

In my opinion, as Evil is a metaphysical thing in D&D, and there are distinct acts of Good and Evil, if the Paladin were to kill the baby, they would Fall. Yes, the intention is good, and doing so accomplishes a Good act, but the fact remains that they've put their sword through a child.

What do you guys think? (And I apologise for the length).

this is why there are so many ancient evils sealed away. paladins didnt want to kill a baby so they got their wizard friend to trap it in a orb and hid it in a dragons rectum or somesuch

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-12, 01:06 PM
This is getting a little redundant. If I interpret the OP correctly, this is a thought exercise about the results of a situation in which the initial two options were the ONLY POSSIBLE OPTIONS. Regardless of seeking outside help or looking for a third option.

This is not to be taken as an in-game scenario, but as a theoretical analysis of what sort of acts can cause a paladin to fall and what the repercussions of doing evil for the sake of good would be in a system where “good” and “evil” are technically absolute values.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 01:07 PM
this is why there are so many ancient evils sealed away. paladins didnt want to kill a baby so they got their wizard friend to trap it in a orb and hid it in a dragons rectum or somesuch

Make it someone's else problem: The Paladin way.

Grumman
2010-07-12, 01:09 PM
I think a true Paladin would risk the Fall to save the village. Lawful Good characters, especially Paladins, don't tend to be selfish to the point of nonaction just so that they can keep their status. If the Paladin values the lives of the villagers, they will risk their status and even their own life to spare them.
A true Good god would not make a Paladin fall for taking the least-bad solution that furthers the cause of Good. The Paladin is not to blame for the cultists' use of human shields, and would not be punished by a just god for not granting the cultists free reign to commit atrocities under its aegis.

Coidzor
2010-07-12, 01:11 PM
spare the infant and let the village die .

Why/how does the village die if the paladin has already killed enough members of the cult to have the baby in his possession?

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 01:12 PM
This is getting a little redundant. If I interpret the OP correctly, this is a thought exercise about the results of a situation in which the initial two options were the ONLY POSSIBLE OPTIONS. Regardless of seeking outside help or looking for a third option.

This is not to be taken as an in-game scenario, but as a theoretical analysis of what sort of acts can cause a paladin to fall and what the repercussions of doing evil for the sake of good would be in a system where “good” and “evil” are technically absolute values.

You interpret my intentions correctly, this thread is not intended as a "What should a Paladin do in this horrific circumstance?". It is merely a hypothesis I presented to discuss whether good and evil can ever be truly tanglible or if intentions and thoughts are the driving force behind them.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 01:12 PM
Why/how does the village die if the paladin has already killed enough members of the cult to have the baby in his possession?

DM fiat. Don't ask.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-12, 01:13 PM
You interpret my intentions correctly, this thread is not intended as a "What should a Paladin do in this horrific circumstance?". It is merely a hypothesis I presented to discuss whether good and evil can ever be truly tanglible or if intentions and thoughts are the driving force behind them

Answer: Yes. No. Maybe. Ow. Philosophy.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 01:13 PM
Why/how does the village die if the paladin has already killed enough members of the cult to have the baby in his possession?

It's more along the lines of a ritual that once started, won't stop unless the focus is destroyed.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 01:14 PM
You interpret my intentions correctly, this thread is not intended as a "What should a Paladin do in this horrific circumstance?". It is merely a hypothesis I presented to discuss whether good and evil can ever be truly tanglible or if intentions and thoughts are the driving force behind them

Sigh, following the idiotic D&D alignment system, good and evil is tangible. And defined differently, depending on which book you include.

Just set up your own definition, and use it after telling your players.

Malificus
2010-07-12, 01:15 PM
QFT

True Good doesn't give a damn about losing class features to some whacked out DM's 'Where-is-your-god-now?' obsession.

Evil characters would be the ones to hold on to their own power for their own sake.

I wish I had saved the quote of how paladins look forward to falling. They wait for that moment where they must put everything aside to stop evil, for when they must step outside their code, and show evil how wrathful they can be.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-12, 01:16 PM
Sigh, following the idiotic D&D alignment system, good and evil is tangible. And defined differently, depending on which book you include.


Emphasis mine. The fact that definitions differ indicate that alignment is not tangible in the way the PHB presents and that one some level, WotC was aware of this, thus unconsciously creating this horrible series of contradictions. Thus? All things are true, for a value of true.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 01:17 PM
Emphasis mine. The fact that definitions differ indicate that alignment is not tangible in the way the PHB presents and that one some level, WotC was aware of this, thus unconsciously creating this horrible series of contradictions. Thus? All things are true, for a value of true.

I present an alternative hypothesis: Nothing is true, everything is permitted...

Applied in this case, Paladin has no worries :smalltongue:

Morph Bark
2010-07-12, 01:18 PM
Yes. Actually, travel with the child, Lone Wolf & Cub-style. You are a paladin, if anyone can raise someone tainted by darkness to the point of being a receptacle for demonic power into a good person, despite all that, it is you. By example.

Then in the next campaign, play the now-grown child as an angsty, chaotic good Warlock with plenty of Exalted feats. :smallsmile:

EDIT: In fact... isn't that exactly what the moral dilemma SHOULD be? Killing someone is the work of seconds. Raising someone, to make sure they get the moral fibre they need to withstand their heritage, is the work of decades, and potentially much more taxing.

You know, it is kind of what an old paladin-like character in another campaign did. The village wanted to kill the kid, the "paladin" decided to take him along. Eventually he saved their lives and rode dragons into battle.


You interpret my intentions correctly, this thread is not intended as a "What should a Paladin do in this horrific circumstance?". It is merely a hypothesis I presented to discuss whether good and evil can ever be truly tanglible or if intentions and thoughts are the driving force behind them.

Well then, in that case... I think it rather sounds like whoever came up with this is just out to hose the Paladin, since whichever option he picks, he needs to sacrifice innocents to do it. No matter what he does, now that he is involved, he will fall! Good job!

Unless, of course, you start interpreting the Paladin code better, in a way that will actually allow Paladins to have survived for centuries rather than constantly fall over every little moral dilemma that comes their way.

Sarquion
2010-07-12, 01:22 PM
Answer: Yes. No. Maybe. Ow. Philosophy.

great response mate :smallbiggrin:

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 01:24 PM
You know, it is kind of what an old paladin-like character in another campaign did. The village wanted to kill the kid, the "paladin" decided to take him along. Eventually he saved their lives and rode dragons into battle.



Well then, in that case... I think it rather sounds like whoever came up with this is just out to hose the Paladin, since whichever option he picks, he needs to sacrifice innocents to do it. No matter what he does, now that he is involved, he will fall! Good job!

Unless, of course, you start interpreting the Paladin code better, in a way that will actually allow Paladins to have survived for centuries rather than constantly fall over every little moral dilemma that comes their way.

Maybe they just go to their temple's cleric.

"What? Another one? Fine, fine, here's the atonement. No, I don't even want to know why you fell..."

Talon Sky
2010-07-12, 01:40 PM
I simply will never understand why people run games with a God or Gods that have no mercy for their followers and Paladins. Paladins are a God's champion, the warrior the God looks upon with great love and affection for their devotion.

Any Paladin in this situation should not be punished. A true good God would not be wrathful when their servant had to choose here. A truly good God would weep for the servant, and try to comfort their torn and conflicted Paladin.

Instead of falling, the Paladin should get a personal visit from their God telling them they did all they could.


Cause raising someone just to kill them is a nice way to spend time.

Curse you, Dumbledore!

Postmodernist
2010-07-12, 01:45 PM
This is getting a little redundant. If I interpret the OP correctly, this is a thought exercise about the results of a situation in which the initial two options were the ONLY POSSIBLE OPTIONS. Regardless of seeking outside help or looking for a third option.

This is not to be taken as an in-game scenario, but as a theoretical analysis of what sort of acts can cause a paladin to fall and what the repercussions of doing evil for the sake of good would be in a system where “good” and “evil” are technically absolute values.

In this case, alignment becomes a (stupid) mechanical problem solved mechanically (in an equally stupid fashion). You did what you could in good faith, fall, and atone as per other recommendations here. If the DM gets really cheesy, go for a wish or miracle. But what you really do is find a better gaming group and play with them.

PersonMan
2010-07-12, 01:49 PM
Maybe they just go to their temple's cleric.

"What? Another one? Fine, fine, here's the atonement. No, I don't even want to know why you fell..."

"Get AtoneAlert! Every Paladin needs one!"
"Help! I've Fallen and I can't get up!"
"Don't worry, I've alerted Pelor, there's a Cleric on his way now!"

"Pray toll-free now to learn why you need AtoneAlert!"

hamishspence
2010-07-12, 01:50 PM
I lean to the view that Falling isn't a punishment from deity- its a mechanical issue. Keeping in touch with "good energies" requires that you not do evil acts-

and when you do one, no matter how "justified" the reason- the signal cuts out- so to speak- and you need to reestablish the connection.

This is done by atonement.

The more pragmatic paladin deities- such as the LN St Cuthbert- may actually strongly approve of the paladin's actions- but they can't stop the paladin "falling" even if they approve.

FoE
2010-07-12, 01:58 PM
Question: if the ritual is completed, does the child live or die?

If the latter, then there's no question what the choice must be: kill the child. But even if it weren't, I would say killing the child is the only choice. The baby was put in that situation by the cultists, so the fault rests with them, not the paladin. The paladin must act to preserve life and the child is a regrettable casualty.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-12, 02:05 PM
I'm in the pally would not fall camp. Killing the baby isn't specifically evil, it is in this case utilitarian, which would be a neutral act. And if the act is being committed to save the village and the baby is going to die either way then the Paladin at least has the choice to give the child a gentle death.

Telonius
2010-07-12, 02:05 PM
And if the villagers then decide to kill the baby, because they're weird and don't want to all die horribly for the paladin's sake, Is it his/her fault?

Oh, then in that case take the kid away, since the town is clearly evil and deserving of its fate. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2010-07-12, 02:06 PM
Oh, then in that case take the kid away, since the town is clearly evil and deserving of its fate. :smallbiggrin:

Well, the kid is kinda dead at this point, isn't he?:smallconfused:

Mad Mask
2010-07-12, 02:11 PM
The way I'm seeing it, the paladin has only two possibilities here. If you make the paladin fall for killing the baby, you are essentially punishing him for saving countless innocents, while if he left it alive he would doom an entire village population in an act of negligence. It should also be noted that the town also contains several innocent babies (all towns do).

I would view the decision of killing the infant as a Good act, one that should not cause the paladin to fall (even an easily-reversible fall) or even feel guilt at all.

hamishspence
2010-07-12, 02:18 PM
If you make the paladin fall for killing the baby, you are essentially punishing him for saving countless innocents, while if he left it alive he would doom an entire village population in an act of negligence.

That's one way of looking at it. The punishment isn't for "saving countless innocents" - it's for murdering one baby.

If a person commits a evil act and a good act- the good act doesn't cancel out the evil one.

Mad Mask
2010-07-12, 02:33 PM
That's one way of looking at it. The punishment isn't for "saving countless innocents" - it's for murdering one baby.

If a person commits a evil act and a good act- the good act doesn't cancel out the evil one.

The thing is, these aren't two unrelated acts; they are both connected. Killing the baby is the means to achieve an end (to save hundreds if not thousands of people), and should be viewed as such, rather than an independent act. This way, the end does justify the means; the safety of the village is a lot more important than the life of a single creature (who will, in a standard D&D setting, be getting a nice afterlife afterward anyway).

Let me put this in another way: a villain has captured a baby and orders a paladin to kill every single man, woman and child in a town in exchange for the baby's life. For the sake of the argument, assume the villain holds the the infant in an impregnable fortress and that is he held up by a magical geas to keep his promise.

Would the paladin fall for ignoring the villain, and thereby causing the baby's death?

In the two situations, the outcome is the same: the baby lives and the town dies, or the babies dies and the town lives.

Another_Poet
2010-07-12, 02:41 PM
I believe the best way to handle the situation, as a GM, is not to impose any in-game divine reward or penalty either way. This is very similar to the scene in Dragon Age where a possessed boy is the root of the demon scourge afflicting a castle and town. The obvious way to stop the plague is to kill the boy. The alternate method of going into the demon world to break the possession might end up being far worse.

What I love about that game is that there is no right answer. You are not judged by the plot (neither route gives you a reward or and advantage compared to the other; neither makes your character a saint or a demon; either way is winnable but with drawbacks). Individual characters in your party maintain their individual views of your choice and they do judge you. But there is no divine approval for either choice.

In D&D the GM usually imposes his own ethical standards on such choices as the babykilling choice. Thus gods move the heavens to bestow or withhold powers and rewards with every choice a character makes. The reaction of the party members and the NPCs might be as diverse as those of the people who post in this thread, but that complexity gets overridden by the fiat of the GM God.

I believe that takes a lot away from the storyline. The story would be better if the paladin kept his powers either way, but had to deal with the critique of party members, townspeople and other knights. Receiving approval might be a challenge too (such as if the local necromancer or the party thief applaud the paladin). Wondering why he can still work miracles after he stained his hands with blood is a major RPing hook. Don't throw it away.

I think GMs should use divine retribution very conservatively. When a god invests a mortal with powers, They know that the mortal, with its puny Wisdom score and limited material-plane perspective, will sometimes falter or make bad choices. If gods couldn't accept that eventuality then no paladins would exist in the first place. The GM should not use loss of powers to micromanage RPing situation like ethical choices. Loss of powers should be reserved for curbing game-breaking thoughtless antics or repeated, consistent, dedicated acts of evil that indicate a shift in the characters' alignment.

That's my perspective.

ap

hamishspence
2010-07-12, 02:46 PM
Let me put this in another way: a villain has captured a baby and orders a paladin to kill every single man, woman and child in a town in exchange for the baby's life. For the sake of the argument, assume the villain holds the the infant in an impregnable fortress and that is he held up by a magical geas to keep his promise.

Would the paladin fall for ignoring the villain, and thereby causing the baby's death?

In the two situations, the outcome is the same: the baby lives and the town dies, or the babies dies and the town lives.

The outcome is the same- but the effect is very different. In the second case- it's not the paladin's fault- because the villain is the one choosing to murder the child- all the paladin is doing, is refuse to give in to coercion.

Similarly- the villain is trying to make the paladin commit mass murder.

Whereas, in the first case, people die not because of the paladin's actions, but because of the paladin's inaction.

The claim that "death by inaction is equal to murder by action" (or, for that matter, the claim that "if a villain murders a child because the paladin refuses to obey that villain, its morally the same as if the paladin murdered the child himself" is not necessarily valid in D&D.

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 02:50 PM
As always (or at least 99% of the time, which qualifies as "always" in D&D) I agree with hamish :smalltongue:

Kylarra
2010-07-12, 02:55 PM
The outcome is the same- but the effect is very different. In the second case- it's not the paladin's fault- because the villain is the one choosing to murder the child- all the paladin is doing, is refuse to give in to coercion.

Similarly- the villain is trying to make the paladin commit mass murder.

Whereas, in the first case, people die not because of the paladin's actions, but because of the paladin's inaction.

The claim that "death by inaction is equal to murder by action" (or, for that matter, the claim that "if a villain murders a child because the paladin refuses to obey that villain, its morally the same as if the paladin murdered the child himself" is not necessarily valid in D&D.By extension that would mean that saving the child and damning the village is not fall-worthy since the paladin's inaction is what caused their deaths? :smalltongue: I mean essentially you're just reversing the stakes here and refusing to give into the coercion, kill the child, in order to save the others, in this case the village. If you wish to propose that there's not an evil-doer specifically choosing to hold the baby as a hostage against the village's death by doom ritual, I would just point to the hypothetical DM. :smallwink:

Lothmar
2010-07-12, 02:58 PM
Personally, it's time's like this that I believe in the self sacrifice angle. 'Yes' kill the baby make it emotional, express that you're sorry and that as this is your own failure to find any other way to save this innocent that it is your duty to handle this so asto blacken your companions souls with this sin ; however in the same blow kill yourself in atonment so that you can escort the soul to it's new afterlife. If you both go to heaven, great. If you both go to purgatory or hell, you watch over and protect the child to the best of your ability.

Umael
2010-07-12, 03:09 PM
That's one way of looking at it. The punishment isn't for "saving countless innocents" - it's for murdering one baby.

If a person commits a evil act and a good act- the good act doesn't cancel out the evil one.

Hence why the alignment system is flawed.

Story time, and I might have told this one before (apologizes if I have).

A bridge engineer worked on one of those drawbridges that lifted for the boats to go under and lowered for the trains to pass over. One day, he took his son to work with him.

As the son was playing, he slipped and fell into the gears. At that moment, a train blew its whistle to signal that it was approaching.

The engineer had to make a decision - throw the lever which would cause the gears to crush his boy, but lower the drawbridge safely for the train; or pull his boy out, but cause the train to get into an accident.

He pulled the lever. Rather than cause the death of dozens or hundreds of people he didn't know, he caused the death of his own son - the morally right thing to do.

Okay, you might say, but the engineer didn't throw the switch to kill his son, he threw the switch to save the train. If he could throw the switch but not kill his son, he would have done that.

Right. And the paladin didn't kill the baby to kill the baby. He killed the baby to save the village.

The other difference is that everyone saw the engineer's actions as a tragedy born of accident, while everyone else should see the paladin's actions as a tragedy born of playing under a jerk DM.

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 03:10 PM
Personally, it's time's like this that I believe in the self sacrifice angle. 'Yes' kill the baby make it emotional, express that you're sorry and that as this is your own failure to find any other way to save this innocent that it is your duty to handle this so asto blacken your companions souls with this sin ; however in the same blow kill yourself in atonment so that you can escort the soul to it's new afterlife. If you both go to heaven, great. If you both go to purgatory or hell, you watch over and protect the child to the best of your ability.

No offense, but that last bit is just silly. What on earth good would killing himself do? There are already a host of outsiders whose job is to escort souls to their resting place - the paladin can do a lot more good by staying with the living.

Killing himself is the easy way out. Living with that guilt, fighting through it, growing stronger physically and spiritually and resolving to never let an innocent be sacrificed that way again - that's what a real paladin would do.

Tankadin
2010-07-12, 03:37 PM
I present an alternative hypothesis: Nothing is true, everything is permitted...

Except that Ivan Karamazov was wrong.

Zosima and Alyosha are right. You have to go out into the world, love and serve your neighbors, and suffer the tragedies of life with them. The Paladin mourns with the community for this terrible loss, seeks to prevent further injustice and suffering, and earnestly repents. The paladin does all of these things regardless of whether the action caused the paladin to fall or not.

This makes me think of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was an ardent pacifist who once said that a murderer has no place in the community of faith and yet participated in the plot to assassinate Hitler. Instead of arguing that his actions were justified, he wrote that all he could do was repent, ask for forgiveness, and pray. If you have a moral code of absolutes, things will break. I think the spirit of the code is not to argue about its fundamental contradictions and thus workability/justice, but rather exercise humility and ask for forgiveness.

Or, don't play a Paladin or a pacifist theologian in Nazi Germany.

Doc Roc
2010-07-12, 03:42 PM
Paladin followed the only Good course of action. Doesn't fall. Might have serious conflicts, and be placed of probation by his order, but he doesn't fall. Besides, we can just use revivify on the baby.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-12, 03:56 PM
The problem with stating “Paladin Falls!” is that it’s too easy and completely inaccurate to say all paladins are alike, all gods are alike, all good is alike. In this case, yes, the paladin may fall, depending on his belief structure or his god’s portfolios. But beyond anything else, the real punishment here should be the suffering that the paladin puts THEMSELVES through.

It seems to me that AtwasAwamps is wholly correct. The answer to this question depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the paladin's god.

The thing is, in D&D, good is still subjective, even though there are physical incarnations of good and evil. There's still a gray area, and there are points open to interpretation. There's less "wiggle room" than there is in reality, but that doesn't mean there's none at all. There's no reason a paladin has to follow a deontological system of ethics (Kant was a loony b****** anyway). Sometimes the ends really do justify the means, even in a world where there are beings of pure law and good.

A utilitarian paladin (or order of paladins, or church, or god) is completely plausible. And, of course, for a utilitarian paladin, the decision is clear: kill the baby. Sure, they won't be happy about having to do it, and will probably be inclined to do some penance for their actions out of guilt, but for them, it's not an evil act. By the tenets of Utilitarianism, killing the baby isn't an evil act. In fact, since the benefits outweigh the detriments by so much (the needs of the many, etc.) it would even be considered a good act, because that's just how the math works out.

Thus, a utilitarian paladin would be able to kill the baby and not fall. In fact, by the moral code of their church (assuming their church is also utilitarian) they might even be considered a hero. They'd just have to hope that the specifics of the story don't get around too much... or, gods forbid, lead to a title or epithet. "Good Sir Robert the Baby-Slayer" doesn't look good on a resumé, no matter the extenuating circumstances.:smalltongue:

On the other hand, if the paladin, his church, or his god follow a code of morality where the ends never justify the means, then killing the baby is an evil act, he does risk a fall, and he may even elect not to do it. After all, if he TRULY believes that the ends don't justify the means, then can he really justify killing the baby? If he does kill the baby, then, in a way, he's admitting that the moral code he and his order follow is flawed. So you could even say that a paladin who WOULD fall from killing the baby is unlikely to ACTUALLY kill the baby - not because he fears falling, but because he really believes it would be an evil act, regardless of the circumstances.

Also, yes, it would be an unfortunate situation if it actually happened in a campaign, but this is a thought experiment, not a campaign journal. Opinions on the quality (or lack thereof) of GMing that would be necessary to arrange this dilemma are really not the point.

Just my 2˘.

Doc Roc
2010-07-12, 04:35 PM
Actually, interestingly, I don't think that good is particularly subjective in D&D. Things like Heroes of Horror, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile deeds and the Fiendish Compendiums have supplied a tremendously sophisticated if somewhat banal framework for discerning objectively if an act is good or evil.

I don't like them, but they are there.

Scarey Nerd
2010-07-12, 04:36 PM
Actually, interestingly, I don't think that good is particularly subjective in D&D. Things like Heroes of Horror, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness and the Fiendish Compendiums have supplied a tremendously sophisticated if somewhat banal framework for discerning objectively if an act is good or evil.

I don't like them, but they are there.

Let us not forget that some of the afore-mentioned books contain rules that would seem to make Robin Hood CE.

Doc Roc
2010-07-12, 04:40 PM
Let us not forget that some of the afore-mentioned books contain rules that would seem to make Robin Hood CE.

.....Robin Hood IS Chaotic Evil. He murders, steals, lies, cheats, and when the law comes after him, he lures them into the woods and murders them too. Within the moral framework of the time, he's little more than a particularly romantic anti-hero.

Evil actions doesn't make you a villain. Nice doesn't mean a good person.

Iku Rex
2010-07-12, 04:50 PM
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.

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.

Giles: “If the ritual starts, then every living creature in this and every other dimension imaginable will suffer unbearable torment and death. Including Dawn.”
Buffy: “Then the last thing she’ll see is me protecting her.”
-- The Gift, BtVS season 5 finale.

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.

Not killing the baby is fine as far as the paladin status is concerned. You can't save them all.

Doc Roc
2010-07-12, 04:53 PM
No, the smart paladin murders the baby, resurrects the kid, and uses programmed amnesia to erase the trauma.

I would LOVE to play a game about the fantasy world's fast responders, operating on the bleeding edge of morality and high action. Anyone else interested? If so, I'll throw up a recruiting thread.

Felirc
2010-07-12, 04:57 PM
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. Killing the baby would really be a neutral act, just like if a wolf killed something threatening its pack, or a mother killed someone who threatened her children, it's neutral. Since death is intrinsically a part of nature, and since everyone will die (unless they happen to use one of the many tricks in D&D to avoid that =P) killing the child can't be viewed as evil, since as far as this situation is concerned, it's already dead.

This isn't a question of whether killing the child is the right thing to do, of course it is, everyone knows it. What would be more of an issue is whether the Paladin could bring himself to do it, which you couldn't really consider it evil if he couldn't.

But people have been neglecting the most important part. If the Paladin kills the child, to save hundreds of lives and his god was paying attention and was so pissed off at the Paladin choosing that decision in this un-winnable situation (and a god would know if there is anything he could have done) and this god still makes him fall... That god is a jerk and I wouldn't worship him. =P

Let's face facts, if the god is paying enough attention to know what you did was so unforgivable, the god should have stepped in and done something with their power to stop it. If the god can sit back and watch the baby die without intervening and not fall from his good alignment then the Paladin can save the village without falling too. Why aren't people holding the embodiments of good to the same standards as the flawed mortal Paladin? It's not like the god couldn't have at least said "Hey, Ted, how have you been? Good, good. Listen, I need you to do me a favor. Could you not kill that child and just let the village die? I know it doesn't sound like the right thing to do, but you're gonna have to trust me on this."

So remember Paladins, next time your god makes you fall for being in a no win situation, they are actually Evil deities, as they could have done something about it but didn't. Therefore you should become a Blackguard and dedicate your life to destroying this evil masquerading overlord. =P

-Felirc-

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-12, 05:03 PM
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.

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.

Giles: “If the ritual starts, then every living creature in this and every other dimension imaginable will suffer unbearable torment and death. Including Dawn.”
Buffy: “Then the last thing she’ll see is me protecting her.”
-- The Gift, BtVS season 5 finale.
All of this assumes something the hypothetical does not - that there is some chance, even a slim one, that you can save both the baby and the village.

Although I have not watched BtVS the quote seems to imply that the Ritual could be stopped. That is simply not the case here - it is as if the Paladin were told by the Personification of Truth: "kill this baby in the next five seconds or the village dies."

Your ironic invocation of the "can't win 'em all" Paladin juxtaposed with the "blaze of glory" quote notwithstanding, Paladins aren't big on inaction. As I posted a couple of pages ago, Good is about protecting Innocents - if he has a choice between letting Innocents die and saving some Innocents, he's going to go save some Innocents.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-12, 05:06 PM
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.

I really like this interpretation. By admitting the existence of gray areas and conceding that, in at least this one instance, the ends justify the means, the paladin falls. He can't BE the force of pure good that paladins are supposed to be if he stops believing in an objective "good".


Actually, interestingly, I don't think that good is particularly subjective in D&D. Things like Heroes of Horror, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile deeds and the Fiendish Compendiums have supplied a tremendously sophisticated if somewhat banal framework for discerning objectively if an act is good or evil.

I don't have any of those supplements, so I'll have to take your word for it.

super dark33
2010-07-12, 05:25 PM
thay can kill the cult before thay use the baby

NowhereMan583
2010-07-12, 05:42 PM
thay can kill the cult before thay use the baby

While lateral thinking and third options are often useful, I think perhaps they are not the point of this thread.

super dark33
2010-07-12, 05:45 PM
hey im just solving the problom. thay can kill the cult and save the baby.
kill or not to kill isnt the real question

Iku Rex
2010-07-12, 05:50 PM
All of this assumes something the hypothetical does not - that there is some chance, even a slim one, that you can save both the baby and the village. Not at all.


Although I have not watched BtVS the quote seems to imply that the Ritual could be stopped. That is simply not the case here - it is as if the Paladin were told by the Personification of Truth: "kill this baby in the next five seconds or the village dies." (The scenario in the episode [as far as the characters were concerned] was that if a ritual was completed the only way to make the bad effects stop would be to kill the innocent.)



Your ironic invocation of the "can't win 'em all" Paladin juxtaposed with the "blaze of glory" quote notwithstanding, Paladins aren't big on inaction. As I posted a couple of pages ago, Good is about protecting Innocents - if he has a choice between letting Innocents die and saving some Innocents, he's going to go save some Innocents.<shrug> This sort of calculating paladin who thinks Right and Wrong is just a matter of numbers doesn't work for me.

dps
2010-07-12, 05:54 PM
You interpret my intentions correctly, this thread is not intended as a "What should a Paladin do in this horrific circumstance?". It is merely a hypothesis I presented to discuss whether good and evil can ever be truly tanglible or if intentions and thoughts are the driving force behind them.

The problem with this is that it's a flawed premise. In D&D, as 2xMachina pointed out, evil is tangible. If evil is tangible, it's not possible for the baby to be the recepticle of evil and still retain its innocent nature--it's completely corrupted. Therefore, killing it (by D&D definitions) isn't an evil act.

A true Paladin would try to find another way to save the village without killing the infant, and then try to redeem the child, but if that's not possible, he would not fall for killing it.

MachineWraith
2010-07-12, 06:20 PM
The outcome is the same- but the effect is very different. In the second case- it's not the paladin's fault- because the villain is the one choosing to murder the child- all the paladin is doing, is refuse to give in to coercion.

I don't think this is correct. In the OP's scenario, inaction, through failing to kill the baby, will allow the death of the village. Everyone has, to my knowledge, agreed that that is unacceptable. In Mad Mask's scenario, failing to kill the villagers will result in the death of the baby.

In both scenarios, it is not the paladin who is doing the killing.

Either way, through inaction, the paladin is allowing the death of innocents. The number of dead might be different, but the paladin allowing them to die is the same either way.

Stompy
2010-07-12, 06:57 PM
I detect evil the baby and the village. (...and my party members, the sky, the ground, the squirrels, etc.)

I kill any that register positive for evil (honorably, by challenging them to a duel). Such is the way of the stereotypical DnD 3.5 paladin.

More Serious Note: This situation only occurs because the RAW is taken at it's word, no exceptions. This has potentially bad consequences, like not being able to spot the sun, or Pun-Pun.

Calmar
2010-07-12, 07:12 PM
I always find it interesting that people seem to have a vested interest in making the party's paladin fall, thereby crippling their character, but destroying a wizard's spellbook is considered bad form.

It is self-evident that any being of good and justice a paladin serves waits for the first opportunity to turn away from her/his champion. That's how fair deities roll.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-12, 08:24 PM
(The scenario in the episode [as far as the characters were concerned] was that if a ritual was completed the only way to make the bad effects stop would be to kill the innocent.)
Emphasis mine. It's one thing to fight against impossible odds - it's another to be a Martyr Without a Cause (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyrWithoutACause). Heck, this situation is even worse - you're suggesting that the town martyr itself because the Paladin decided to wash his hands.


<shrug> This sort of calculating paladin who thinks Right and Wrong is just a matter of numbers doesn't work for me. I take issue with calling a "gotta do something!" Paladin "calculating" while the "eh, you can't win them all" is treated as laudable.

But I've reached my Alignment Post limit. If you're interested in this sort of dilemma, read about The Trolley Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) - it's the Platonic version of all "Paladin falls?" hypotheticals.

onthetown
2010-07-12, 08:40 PM
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.

Not killing the baby is fine as far as the paladin status is concerned. You can't save them all.

So the Paladin will let an entire village be destroyed because he's too selfish to let go of his code to save them, deciding that his job is more important than people's lives? (And the player deciding that class features are more important than doing what Paladins are meant to do: protect people. You can't save them all, that's true, but wouldn't you rather risk one life instead of many?)

Yukitsu
2010-07-12, 08:41 PM
I'm going to admit at this point, I was a tad obscure in the OP. When I said that they store their evil power in the baby, I didn't mean they physically stuff it full of Evil. What I meant was they were using it as the "material focus" of their dark ritual, and it was channelling the evil power. It still has its old alignment, and is still an innocent child, rather than some transformed demon etc.

Oh, that's easy then. Put the baby in an AMF and go bash some heads like Tyr meant for you to.

Coidzor
2010-07-12, 08:49 PM
Or, don't play a Paladin or a pacifist theologian in Nazi Germany.

Mind if I sig this?

Also, I'm sorry to say guys, but, thanks to this thread, one of my friends is including a place called "Baby Murder Village," in his next campaign now, thanks to this thread's title.

(we originally thought this was a thread asking if it was ok to save a village of baby-murderers. I was thinking it had something to do with Greek Mythology myself)


It is self-evident that any being of good and justice a paladin serves waits for the first opportunity to turn away from her/his champion. That's how fair deities roll.

They put people into cubes which are horrible enough that becoming a lemur(now, I loved zaboomafo as much as the next guy when I was a kid growing up and seeing it on the telly, but, come on) is viewed as preferable and then let demons just freely run in and take them as fuel for the abyssal taint and the rest get crammed back into the basic stuff of the multiverse. :smallyuk:

That's exactly how fair deities roll. :smallwink: In Forgotten Realms. Which is now D&D's main canon, so... yeah...

Morph Bark
2010-07-12, 08:58 PM
You know, I dunno if this has been mentioned prior but... a single, stand-alone case of evil does not make for an alignment change. If the Paladin constantly does good and then does one evil thing, that does not automatically make him LN. If the Paladin constantly upholds the law and then one day goes against it because of something he sees as injust, he doesn't suddenly turn NG.

Alignment change is gradual.

Grumman
2010-07-12, 11:53 PM
The other difference is that everyone saw the engineer's actions as a tragedy born of accident, while everyone else should see the paladin's actions as a tragedy born of playing under a jerk DM.
Or a tragedy born of his enemies using human shields. I mean, it is the sort of thing a bunch of cultists would think of in-character, as a means of protecting their scheme from interference from the squeamish.


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.
What rot. The actions of the cult demonstrate that the world is cleanly black and white, with evil that must be destroyed even if you cannot save its prisoners.

Stompy
2010-07-13, 12:17 AM
It is self-evident that any being of good and justice a paladin serves waits for the first opportunity to turn away from her/his champion. That's how fair deities roll.

Welcome to blackguard. :smallsmile:


You know, I dunno if this has been mentioned prior but... a single, stand-alone case of evil does not make for an alignment change. If the Paladin constantly does good and then does one evil thing, that does not automatically make him LN. If the Paladin constantly upholds the law and then one day goes against it because of something he sees as injust, he doesn't suddenly turn NG.

Alignment change is gradual.

True. However, one willfully commited evil act, or gross violation of the code of conduct makes the paladin fall. It is assumed that both killing and not killing the baby make him fall then.

However, this brings up an interesting idea. If the paladin's code of conduct is deeply rooted in utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), then (imo), killing the baby does NOT make him fall.

Bharg
2010-07-13, 12:31 AM
An utilitarian Paladin? This sounds a bit too simple to me...

NowhereMan583
2010-07-13, 12:36 AM
An utilitarian Paladin? This sounds a bit too simple to me...

Well, it's not like utilitarianism is any "less good" (or "less lawful", for that matter) than deontology or other system of ethics. It just happens to be based on results instead of an arbitrary set of "do"s and "don't"s. Admittedly, it may make things a bit easier than usual on the paladin, but it could also result in him doing more good, since he CAN make "good of the many" decisions.

And, as I mentioned earlier, for a utilitarian paladin, killing the baby would be an unambiguously good act, and possibly even a heroic one, depending on what exactly the consequences are.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-13, 01:02 AM
The Paladin does not fall for killing the baby but he would fall for letting the village die. It's one innocent life as opposed to many and if you're going to make a Paladin fall for killing a Baby when it's the only option you're a pretty dang big Jerk. Yes, I know the act is horrible but letting hundreds of people die instead is so much worse.

Bharg
2010-07-13, 01:06 AM
It is in fact less good and less lawful, it's chaotic neutral and potentially evil.

We all know "good of the many" decisions. (killing the sick e.g.)

The problem is using predictions of short- and longterm happiness and suffering as a mean of justification simply dumping all other rules of ethics.

The worse the act, the greater the self-sacrifice and therefore the act of heroism? I don't think it works that way.

Severus
2010-07-13, 01:12 AM
Killing the baby frees its innocent soul from the soup of evil that the evil cultists have thrust into it. If there is no other way to remove the evil, then killing the baby is doing it a FAVOR and permitting its soul to return to paradise. Even if its death saved no one, it would be the right thing to do if there was no other way to remove the evil.

If you really believe in the afterlife, then killing doesn't have the same moral connotation as it does to us in this modern world.

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 01:14 AM
You know, I dunno if this has been mentioned prior but... a single, stand-alone case of evil does not make for an alignment change. If the Paladin constantly does good and then does one evil thing, that does not automatically make him LN. If the Paladin constantly upholds the law and then one day goes against it because of something he sees as injust, he doesn't suddenly turn NG.

Alignment change is gradual.Paladin "falling" is not the same as alignment shifting.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-13, 01:14 AM
It is in fact less good and less lawful, it's chaotic neutral and potentially evil.


Tell me how it's less good to kill one to save hundreds. Including other babies.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-13, 01:24 AM
No, the smart paladin murders the baby, resurrects the kid, and uses programmed amnesia to erase the trauma.

I would LOVE to play a game about the fantasy world's fast responders, operating on the bleeding edge of morality and high action. Anyone else interested? If so, I'll throw up a recruiting thread.

yes.

YES.

VERY MUCH SO.

Jergmo
2010-07-13, 01:37 AM
Yes. Actually, travel with the child, Lone Wolf & Cub-style. You are a paladin, if anyone can raise someone tainted by darkness to the point of being a receptacle for demonic power into a good person, despite all that, it is you. By example.

Tell that to Bowen from Dragonheart. :smalltongue:

JeminiZero
2010-07-13, 01:39 AM
A cult of some kind has decided to try and massacre an entire village by storing their evil power within a baby.

The baby detects as evil. The fact is appears to be a helpless human infant must be no more than some cruel illusion created by some dark cult/fiend//diety. My Divinely Gifted Senses thankfully tell me otherwise. Smite! Smite! Smite!

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 02:20 AM
I know this is a hypothetical, but it's a real **** move on Mr. Hypothetical DM's part, not allowing or working with the paladins player to work toward a third option. But if there is absolutely no other choice?
Kill the baby in the most merciful way possible, fall, have a cleric cast raise dead.
Atone.
Atone with all your strength and might.
Sometimes, there are no good choices, only ones that do less harm.
You are a paladin. Easy is not in your job description.

Bharg
2010-07-13, 02:29 AM
Tell me how it's less good to kill one to save hundreds. Including other babies.

Less good. How euphemistic! :smallwink: I am saying that it is not good at all. I said to solve a problem using utilitarism is less good since the D&D criteria are deontological if I am not mistaken. The morality of an action depends on the action itself, regardless of the consequences.


The baby detects as evil. The fact is appears to be a helpless human infant must be no more than some cruel illusion created by some dark cult/fiend//diety. My Divinely Gifted Senses thankfully tell me otherwise. Smite! Smite! Smite!

Giving up responsibility. Fall! Fall! Fall!

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 02:40 AM
But if there is absolutely no other choice?
Kill the baby in the most merciful way possible, fall, have a cleric cast raise dead.
Atone.
Atone with all your strength and might.
Sometimes, there are no good choices, only ones that do less harm.
You are a paladin. Easy is not in your job description.

I'd say this makes more sense than "doing so would not be in any way an evil act"

Jergmo
2010-07-13, 02:43 AM
I'd say this makes more sense than "doing so would not be in any way an evil act"

I don't remember who all said it before, but I'm with the general line of thought that if your character is greatly pained by the action and that they had to do so to save the lives of others stays with them, then it wasn't evil of them to do so and they may be forgiven, for they believe they have done a great wrong and they need to seek it.

If they simply do it and feel justified because it saves more lives, then they should fall.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 02:46 AM
I'd say this makes more sense than "doing so would not be in any way an evil act"
On the plus side, it's perfect time for a well role played crisis of faith.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 02:51 AM
Yup- paladin could become "greyer" or they could strive to regain their paladinhood. In 3.5 (unlike 3.0 or 2nd ed) paladins can atone even if they committed an act of evil:

(and it doesn't require mitigating factors like "did not know the act was evil" or "was under magical control").

In that sense, "falling for evil acts" is a bit more player-friendly than it was in earlier editions.

BoED does point out that Good is forgiving- a person can atone for evil acts and be "accepted back" by the forces of good. So, the paladin being pained by their act doesn't retroactively make it not evil- but combined with a willingness to atone, does fit with a fairly short Fall-period.

"Evil act done to the few to save the many" has been mentioned before- in 2nd ed (burning a plague village to save a country) as a Fall-worthy, potentially alignment-changing act.

So it coming up in 3.5 as a source of debate is not exactly surprising.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 02:56 AM
Ooh yeah, 1st and 2nd edition AD&D paladins. if they ever willingly did an evil act, they fell. Permanently.
Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gold pieces, go directly to Fighter Town.
Forever and ever, amen.

Morph Bark
2010-07-13, 03:42 AM
Paladin "falling" is not the same as alignment shifting.

Also note that I didn't use "falling" anywhere in my post, though that is the topic and it is closely tied to the contents of my post. :smallsmile:

Iku Rex
2010-07-13, 04:41 AM
Emphasis mine. It's one thing to fight against impossible odds - it's another to be a Martyr Without a Cause (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyrWithoutACause). Heck, this situation is even worse - you're suggesting that the town martyr itself because the Paladin decided to wash his hands.I'm suggesting no such thing. Not unless it's a town of paladins.



I take issue with calling a "gotta do something!" Paladin "calculating" while the "eh, you can't win them all" is treated as laudable.I never said it was "laudable". I was explaining why the role-playing game concept of "paladin status" would not be lost just because a character didn't save everyone.

You seem to have a hard time keeping game concepts from reality.

And yes, it's "calculating". Murder, rape, torture - it's all perfectly acceptable to your paladin if the math works out. Lying is right out though. Because that was spelled out as a no-no by the game designers.

***


So the Paladin will let an entire village be destroyed because he's too selfish to let go of his code to save them, deciding that his job is more important than people's lives? (And the player deciding that class features are more important than doing what Paladins are meant to do: protect people. You can't save them all, that's true, but wouldn't you rather risk one life instead of many?)It's not about being "selfish". That's pure meta-game thinking. In-character "will I lose my kewl powerz if I do this?" is not a question paladins should be asking themselves, except perhaps as part of trying to figure out what the morally right (to the paladin) action is.

***


What rot. The actions of the cult demonstrate that the world is cleanly black and white, with evil that must be destroyed even if you cannot save its prisoners. Maybe the cult feels that killing a 100 villagers here would lead to positive effects that allow 101 people to live elsewhere? Surely you're not suggesting that mass murder of innocents is somehow "wrong"? First we have to do the math. For example, if a little murder pacifies the god of plagues, one measly village is a small price to pay for the health of thousands.

In fact, the so-called "evil cultists" could well be paladins. They've done the math, and they've decided the village has to go for the common good. Next the paladins will be raping and torturing a bunch of young orphans to avoid a drought. The rules don't say that paladins can't rape and torture, after all. As long as the math works out...

Telonius
2010-07-13, 07:58 AM
The Paladin does not fall for killing the baby but he would fall for letting the village die. It's one innocent life as opposed to many and if you're going to make a Paladin fall for killing a Baby when it's the only option you're a pretty dang big Jerk. Yes, I know the act is horrible but letting hundreds of people die instead is so much worse.

The distinction is in the two different verbs you used: "kill" and "let." The Paladin isn't the one doing the killing of the villagers, but he could be the one doing the killing of the baby. The Paladin is responsible for his own actions, not the actions of the cultists - who are presumably also free to choose whether or not to kill the villagers.

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 07:59 AM
Also note that I didn't use "falling" anywhere in my post, though that is the topic and it is closely tied to the contents of my post. :smallsmile:Then your post is completely pointless in the context of the thread as that was completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.:smallamused:

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 08:11 AM
Paladin "falling" is not the same as alignment shifting.

While one could theoretically fall without an alignment shift, an alignment shift cannot occur without falling, by RAW at least.

super dark33
2010-07-13, 08:16 AM
he should kill the baby and a cleric should cast on him atonement.
in my opinion he need it the baby alive and turn to a blackguard.
its stronger.and babies taste good(0.o)lol

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 08:17 AM
While one could theoretically fall without an alignment shift, an alignment shift cannot occur without falling, by RAW at least.True, but that's still tangentially related at best to the discussion, although had it been framed in that sense it would've at least been tangentially related as opposed to completely unrelated. :smalltongue:

Chen
2010-07-13, 08:36 AM
The Paladin does not fall for killing the baby but he would fall for letting the village die. It's one innocent life as opposed to many and if you're going to make a Paladin fall for killing a Baby when it's the only option you're a pretty dang big Jerk. Yes, I know the act is horrible but letting hundreds of people die instead is so much worse.

Isn't which is worse somewhat irrelevant? What if it was a decision between killing one baby and one hundred babies? Is killing the one baby any less evil, in and of itself?

The act is evil. The paladin should fall. Its a stupid situation if those are the only two options. Really the paladin should go and try to rescue the child. Sacrifice themselves if need be but get the child out. Otherwise accept the fall and save the village. Its the best out of the lose-lose situation, but you're still performing an evil act to end up with a good result.

Stompy
2010-07-13, 08:49 AM
.And yes, it's "calculating". Murder, rape, torture - it's all perfectly acceptable to your paladin if the math works out. Lying is right out though. Because that was spelled out as a no-no by the game designers.

Thoughout the utilitarianism themes, it should be noted that sure, it is calculating, but the paladin is a human being with compassion and conflict. Does he want to kill the baby? No. Will he feel remorse and pity after he kills it? Presumably yes. However, the calculations, as well as utilitarianism oblige him to kill the baby. Make sure that your calculations are correct, though. >.>

See also, murder, torture, and baby killing are not such when done by the good guys. Instead, they are called smiting, interrogation, and sparing the innocent (baby included).


Maybe the cult feels that killing a 100 villagers here would lead to positive effects that allow 101 people to live elsewhere? Surely you're not suggesting that mass murder of innocents is somehow "wrong"? First we have to do the math. For example, if a little murder pacifies the god of plagues, one measly village is a small price to pay for the health of thousands.

Maybe. However, if it is just a false pretext to murder the village like what that usually is, then yeah, they are evil. I mean, I assumed that the cult was evil because I used the tried and true "spam detect evil" method on them. If then it were a true "greater good" case, the cult wouldn't be evil, now would they? :miko:


In fact, the so-called "evil cultists" could well be paladins. They've done the math, and they've decided the village has to go for the common good. Next the paladins will be raping and torturing a bunch of young orphans to avoid a drought. The rules don't say that paladins can't rape and torture, after all. As long as the math works out...

This is why paladins should not be doing math. :smalleek: The problem with the orphans is that there is no logical connection between this case and drought. In fact, give me a hypothetical situation that would make that case seem plausible. (If this happens, go blackguard, because your DM REALLY wants you to go blackguard at this point.)

Also, besides the math working out to not violate your code, you still have to be LG. Be careful to repent, cry, and roleplay heart-wrenching ordeals, or else my DM may switch your alignment, thus causing you to fall.

Bharg
2010-07-13, 09:10 AM
D&D morale and utilitarism simply are not compatible.
A utilitarian codex is not won't work either since it would grant a Paladin to just randomly make decisions.

Morph Bark
2010-07-13, 09:15 AM
Then your post is completely pointless in the context of the thread as that was completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.:smallamused:

Oh, but no! It contained Paladins and alignments, which clearly are involved, since the topic at hand contains gratuitous amount of Paladins, Good and Evil! :smallwink:

But yes, Optimystik worded it slightly better.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 09:23 AM
In the PHB2, one of the paladin archetypes is the Moral Philosopher- and his quote is "Outside of moral absolutes, an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number"

So, in a sense- a paladin should be thinking in utilitarian terms- but they can't use utilitarian arguments to prevent themselves from falling for committing evil acts.

They probably work better for defining the paladin's role in life- to help people as much as possible.

Morph Bark
2010-07-13, 09:29 AM
In the PHB2, one of the paladin archetypes is the Moral Philosopher- and his quote is "Outside of moral absolutes, an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number"

So, in a sense- a paladin should be thinking in utilitarian terms- but they can't use utilitarian arguments to prevent themselves from falling for committing evil acts.

They probably work better for defining the paladin's role in life- to help people as much as possible.

So essentially, a Paladin first thinks deontologically, and when faced with a situation where several choices provide similar outcomes with regards to the Paladin's morality issues, the utilitarianism kicks in. Why couldn't they use utilitarian arguments against failling though? Deontologically he had to do something evil in order to accomplish something good, while intending to do good and utilitarian-ly speaking it would also be more Good to kill the baby. The problem is probably that for a deontologist all the parts of an act must be good in order for the act to be good... the intention, the outcome and the nature of the act itself.

At least as I recall. It's been a while since I've had to study ethics.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 09:34 AM
So essentially, a Paladin first thinks deontologically, and when faced with a situation where several choices provide similar outcomes with regards to the Paladin's morality issues, the utilitarianism kicks in.

I tend to think of it as more the other way round- the paladin thinks in utilitarian terms, until an issue comes up where "the utilitarian thing to do" is overtly evil- murder, or torture.

They ask "will this help more people" when faced with choices that don't involve doing something evil- like two people come and ask for help simultaneously, the paladin is the only guy around- he can only help one at a time. So he deals with the problem that's most serious (a mix of "affects the most people" and "needs the most rapid action".)

Mr.Moron
2010-07-13, 09:35 AM
Go out fighting for the "3rd Option" even if it doesn't really exist. Short of being somehow magically glued in place with an exploding baby in the center of the village, I just wouldn't accept the circumstances. A desperate search for another way out, no matter how futile it may seem. In the end if I fail, I fail.

If I was somehow magically glued in place with nothing but an exploding baby in the middle of village, the session would probably play out something like this.

DM: You're magically super stuck with no way to move or do anything but baby stab, the only two possible actions you can take are standing still or baby-stabbing. The cult leader laughs at you.

ME: I punch the cult leader into the moon.

DM: What?

ME: Well, I moved over to him, punched him and the force of the blow knocked him up into the air, out of the atmosphere and into the moon. There's like a massive crater there now.

DM: You can't possibly do that... you're stu...

ME: The Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, and Paul Bunyan have showed up and are helping me kill the cultists. Paul Bunyan attacks and crits that cultist for (roll all my dice at once) that much. The force of the blow turns him into Carlton from Fresh Prince.

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 09:39 AM
If I was somehow magically glued in place with nothing but an exploding baby in the middle of village, the session would probably play out something like this.

DM: You're magically super stuck with no way to move or do anything but baby stab, the only two possible actions you can take are standing still or baby-stabbing. The cult leader laughs at you.

ME: I punch the cult leader into the moon.

DM: What?

ME: Well, I moved over to him, punched him and the force of the blow knocked him up into the air, out of the atmosphere and into the moon. There's like a massive crater there now.

DM: You can't possibly do that... you're stu...

ME: The Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, and Paul Bunyan have showed up and are helping me kill the cultists. Paul Bunyan attacks crits that cultist for (roll all my dice at once) that much. The force of the blow turns him into Carlton from Fresh Prince.


You have won a number of internets to be determined at a later date. (Sometime after I stop laughing.)

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 09:45 AM
I have never studied ethics and morals, but, like everyone, I have strong opinions on it.
A paladin has to think deontologically, good intention, outcome and the nature of the act, because that is the best case scenario. They should struggle for a way to fulfil all those requirements, and if one is not found, make one. But sometimes, as in these hypothetical scenario, with an obviously railroading DM, there is no option that fulfils all those requirements.
So you go for the the other option and take those consequences on your shoulders, hold them in your heart, never forgetting. And if that means you fall, then so be it. It is between you and your god or goddess now.

Tankadin
2010-07-13, 10:13 AM
Mind if I sig this?

Not at all.

I think that utilitarianism has a lot of strength as a contingency system or when a tie-breaker is needed. Its moral economy gets broken pretty quickly (and no, Pleasure Calculus is not as erotic as it sounds) and that's why you need to have Kant being a jerk with deontology. At least, I think that this is a way better solution than centuries and centuries of casuistry (which involved a bunch of Catholic ethicists dreaming up hypotheticals and trying to resolve them, perhaps not realizing that no list could possibly be exhaustive).

Bharg
2010-07-13, 10:59 AM
I have never studied ethics and morals, but, like everyone, I have strong opinions on it.
A paladin has to think deontologically, good intention, outcome and the nature of the act, because that is the best case scenario. They should struggle for a way to fulfil all those requirements, and if one is not found, make one. But sometimes, as in these hypothetical scenario, with an obviously railroading DM, there is no option that fulfils all those requirements.
So you go for the the other option and take those consequences on your shoulders, hold them in your heart, never forgetting. And if that means you fall, then so be it. It is between you and your god or goddess now.

I agree. A paladin has to think deontologically meaning the morality of his action depends on the action itself, regardless of the consequences it may have. He cannot do something evil in order to do something.
The use of utilitarism often ends in the disposal of all other morale and values and soon you have a whole room of people plotting the murder of a baby sanctifying it with numbers thinking it is not even worth second thought anymore.

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 12:09 PM
Oh, but no! It contained Paladins and alignments, which clearly are involved, since the topic at hand contains gratuitous amount of Paladins, Good and Evil! :smallwink:

But yes, Optimystik worded it slightly better.Rationale like that is why perfectly good threads degenerate into ToB/monk/whatever repeat is popular this month threads every week...:smallwink:


admittedly this thread was doomed from inception because of being a paladin falling thread, but my point stands.

super dark33
2010-07-13, 01:07 PM
he should ask one of the villagers to kill the baby

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 01:09 PM
Runs into the "if its immoral for you to do it, it's immoral for you to ask someone else to do it" problem though.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-13, 02:27 PM
Runs into the "if its immoral for you to do it, it's immoral for you to ask someone else to do it" problem though.

You could even argue that it's more evil to get someone else to do it, because then you're tainting their soul as well as your own.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 02:30 PM
That's certainly a possibility.

And it would go well with "Evil overlord villain surrounded with reluctant villain minions"- his minions are corrupted a little by following the orders- but he's corrupted a lot by giving them.

Dr Bwaa
2010-07-13, 02:48 PM
Either you interpret the babykilling as an act of mercy(it's already wrested out of its life anyway) or as the kind of stuff that a paladin would do with tears in his eyes, fall, accept it and seek to repent.

This. I never put moral conundrums into an RP-lite campaign, so that when this kind of stuff comes up, the solution is

"The paladin kills the baby. He doesn't lose the powers his God has granted him, but it's likely to take him a good deal of time to forgive himself."

Set
2010-07-13, 03:07 PM
I only play with friends, for enjoyment, so my solution would be to not introduce such scenarios in the first place.

Just because a wizard has a spellbook doesn't mean that that I, as DM, am compelled to steal it / set it on fire.

Just because a paladin has a code of conduct doesn't mean that I, as DM, am compelled to trap him in some no-win scenario that turns him into a featless fighter.

[On the other hand, a scroll of atonement is cheap, and it would entirely suit my puckish mood for a high-level paladin to have a couple of them tucked in his belt.

"Yes, now that you've surrendered and thrown down your weapon, if I kill you I will fall." <Pulls out scroll.> "You're not the first bad-guy who thought of that, you know. Like the Buddha, I am willing to accept a temporary setback on my own spiritual journey to make the world better for others. Pick up your sword and save me a scroll, or die on your knees, it matters not to me."]

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 03:10 PM
Isn't the point of the atonement spell, that you can't cast it yourself- it has to be cast on you?

I suppose, in theory, a currently ex-paladin without spellcasting could use UMD on the scroll to cast it.

Bharg
2010-07-13, 03:11 PM
I only play with friends, for enjoyment, so my solution would be to not introduce such scenarios in the first place.

Just because a wizard has a spellbook doesn't mean that that I, as DM, am compelled to steal it / set it on fire.

Just because a paladin has a code of conduct doesn't mean that I, as DM, am compelled to trap him in some no-win scenario that turns him into a featless fighter.

[On the other hand, a scroll of atonement is cheap, and it would entirely suit my puckish mood for a high-level paladin to have a couple of them tucked in his belt.

"Yes, now that you've surrendered and thrown down your weapon, if I kill you I will fall." <Pulls out scroll.> "You're not the first bad-guy who thought of that, you know. Like the Buddha, I am willing to accept a temporary setback on my own spiritual journey to make the world better for others. Pick up your sword and save me a scroll, or die on your knees, it matters not to me."]

Bang! Alignment Shift!

Serenity
2010-07-13, 03:17 PM
I think the proper answer is simply 'mu.' The question is predicated on presumptions that cannot stand. The very existence of paladins and a demonstrable cosmic Power of Good presupposes that Good is always possible. It is not possible that there is no better option than killing the child. That is the entirety of what it means to be a paladin, or indeed, for Paladins to exist. It means that evil is not necessary, however much the tyrant may delude himself. It means that there is always a Better Way.

It's like asking who would win in a fight between Jesus and Cthullu--it's a meaningless question, because the existence of one in the universe would, almost by definition, preclude the existence of the other.If the world has paladins, then there is a third option that saves the child and the village. If there is no third option, then there can be no paladins, and it is meaningless to discuss 'falls'.

Addendum: This is not meant to say that the paladin should always be able to save everyone. Sometimes, circumstances will make that impossible. But he should always try to save everybody, and he should never be required to take an evil action to advance the cause of Good. In a world where paladins are possible, 'necessary Evil' is a lie tempters tell to corrupt the righteous, and the corrupt tell themselves to hide from their own guilt.

woodenbandman
2010-07-13, 07:19 PM
Step 1: kill the baby.
Step 2: Raise the baby from the dead.

Jergmo
2010-07-13, 07:52 PM
Step 1: kill the baby.
Step 2: Raise the baby from the dead.

Well, considering Raise Dead wouldn't work (the baby only has 1 HD), we're talking 10,000 gp in diamonds. My guess is you don't have it on hand, and that the churches don't have it either for every time an innocent dies.

It's true, you can't put a price on a life. But, the way things turn out, you really can't put a huge expense on every life, either.

To go a bit further...I'd love it if one of my characters could afford to help out in such a way, but in the sheer scale of things...you just can't afford to do it. Sometimes, you must allow some people to die even though you want to save them - and if they die, they will be in the hands of far greater beings than you who will presumably know best what to do with them. Sometimes, even if you do have the resources on hand to save someone at great expense, you still have to look at the big picture.

If we spend 10,000 gp to save one baby, you can look at all that wealth and see that a life is more important than having a bigger, shinier magic item or two, but you must also consider that those shiny magic items are what's making you capable of defending these people to begin with. If you spend all your wealth on giving True Ressurection to every innocent that dies, first of all, you're only going to be able to save one or two - maybe three if you're lucky at higher levels. But you're going to be sliced up by the next monster you meet like deli meat - and then that monster is going to move on, and it's going to kill even more people. For a bit of lemon juice in those gaping wounds, it's also going to take what few magic items you do have to help it do so.

There is always an option three. Always. How about Dispel Magic/Break Enchantment?

Or evacuating the village? I seem to be the first one to suggest this.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 09:07 PM
Well, considering Raise Dead wouldn't work (the baby only has 1 HD), we're talking 10,000 gp in diamonds. My guess is you don't have it on hand, and that the churches don't have it either for every time an innocent dies.

Nope, the baby just loses 2 Con. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raisedead.htm)

If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of Constitution instead.
Now, I don't know if this exists anywhere in D&D 3.5, but in Pathfinder there is a neato spell entitled 'Breath of Life' (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/breath-of-life).
No expensive spell components, you just got to be there to do it. Unfortunately, either by mistake or intention, it doesn't have the 'if level 1, drain con' clause other life restoring spells have.

Jergmo
2010-07-13, 09:09 PM
Nope, the baby just loses 2 Con. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raisedead.htm)

Now, I don't know if this exists anywhere in D&D 3.5, but in Pathfinder there is a neato spell entitled 'Breath of Life' (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/breath-of-life).
No expensive spell components, you just got to be there to do it.

Oh... right. :smallredface: My point still stands, though!

Although, there was a spell like that. I think it's in the Spell Compendium...it's a Sorcerer only spell, surprisingly enough I do believe.

Coidzor
2010-07-13, 09:10 PM
Nope, the baby just loses 2 Con. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raisedead.htm)

Now, I don't know if this exists anywhere in D&D 3.5, but in Pathfinder there is a neato spell entitled 'Breath of Life' (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/breath-of-life).
No expensive spell components, you just got to be there to do it. Unfortunately, either by mistake or intention, it doesn't have the 'if level 1, drain con' clause other life restoring spells have.

Revivify, I believe from the Spell Compendium(I think). Has to be cast within rounds of death though. So you'll only ever find it on wands/staves (can't remember spell level)

Shatteredtower
2010-07-14, 02:20 AM
The paladin may kill the babe, but must acknowledge this was evil to atone. Failing to do so is not evil. Numbers aren't the issue. Murder is.

This isn't a choice of which way to throw a switch, as was the son in the gears example. It's a choice between fighting evil with evil or rejecting it. A good person should try to minimise or undo the effects of this ritual, even if that takes years. It could mean that you aren't available when a city is at risk of destruction or another world at risk of damnation, but that's always true. Your paladin can't be everywhere and do everything. (The village-or-baby dilemma even demonstrates that!)

That leaves doing good and not doing evil. Those should always be the goals.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-14, 02:25 AM
This isn't a choice of which way to throw a switch, as was the son in the gears example. It's a choice between fighting evil with evil or rejecting it. A good person should try to minimise or undo the effects of this ritual, even if that takes years.



(In this hypothetical situation, there are no other ways to circumvent this).

Yes, this is a situation of which way to throw the switch since there are literally no other options.

OP, you should clarify this. Is there a time limit of when the baby will kill the village? How does it work exactly?

Bodkins Odds
2010-07-14, 02:56 AM
I think the proper answer is simply 'mu.' The question is predicated on presumptions that cannot stand. The very existence of paladins and a demonstrable cosmic Power of Good presupposes that Good is always possible. It is not possible that there is no better option than killing the child. That is the entirety of what it means to be a paladin, or indeed, for Paladins to exist. It means that evil is not necessary, however much the tyrant may delude himself. It means that there is always a Better Way.

It's like asking who would win in a fight between Jesus and Cthullu--it's a meaningless question, because the existence of one in the universe would, almost by definition, preclude the existence of the other.If the world has paladins, then there is a third option that saves the child and the village. If there is no third option, then there can be no paladins, and it is meaningless to discuss 'falls'.

Addendum: This is not meant to say that the paladin should always be able to save everyone. Sometimes, circumstances will make that impossible. But he should always try to save everybody, and he should never be required to take an evil action to advance the cause of Good. In a world where paladins are possible, 'necessary Evil' is a lie tempters tell to corrupt the righteous, and the corrupt tell themselves to hide from their own guilt.

Quoted for Great Truth

Mystic Muse
2010-07-14, 02:59 AM
Quoted for Great Truth

Yeah, Serenity is right here. The two things are mutually exclusive.

Bharg
2010-07-14, 03:23 AM
Why revive the baby anyway?
You killed it. It's not like you can simply "unkill" it with a revive. It won't change anything.

Btw: Do you know how many babies you have to kill to earn 10,000 gp in the first place?

Coidzor
2010-07-14, 04:35 AM
Btw: Do you know how many babies you have to kill to earn 10,000 gp in the first place?

Depends on if you're selling the corpses for meat or spell components or not.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 04:40 AM
Why revive the baby anyway?
You killed it. It's not like you can simply "unkill" it with a revive. It won't change anything.

So you can apologize to the baby, and it's parents- and try and make it up to them for the wrong you've done them.

That said, it's true that once an act is done "undoing it" won't reverse the fact that you did commit an evil act.

Discworld parallel in Unseen Academicals: "The Patrician has ruled that if it takes an Igor to bring you back, you were dead. Briefly dead, it's true- which is why the murderer will be briefly hanged."

super dark33
2010-07-14, 04:46 AM
the paladin will kill it in the name of good, he wont become a fallen paladin becuse he killed a baby,he will even be congratulated for overcoming his fear of killing a baby to save the entire village,and the next generations of babies

so in my opinion, he should kill it

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 04:57 AM
the paladin will kill it in the name of good, he wont become a fallen paladin becuse he killed a baby,

Depends on the DM.

That said- maybe the problem should be reversed- the player has a phylactery of faithfulness, they ask it:

"Will killing the baby make me fall for an evil act?"
"Will doing nothing make me for for an evil act of ommission?"
"If I ask for help from the gods, then attempt to save both the baby and the village- will I fall for an act of evil negligence?"

That puts the onus on the DM- to decide whether there are any non-evil options at all for the paladin to do.

In theory, there might not be- with all paladins being aware that someday they will run into a no-win scenario where all options, including doing nothing, will count as evil acts. However, I'm not sure if this works with a D&D world.

Bharg
2010-07-14, 05:14 AM
Committing an evil act in the name of good sounds even worse to me...

Grumman
2010-07-14, 05:23 AM
Committing an evil act in the name of good sounds even worse to me...
You cannot commit an evil act in the name of good. At best, you are committing an evil act in the name of "good", which is to say you're screwing over one group of innocent individuals for the sake of another.

However, I still say that saving the village is not an evil act in this case. You are not just killing some random baby, you are killing a baby whose life has been subverted by the forces of evil, used as a living shield to protect their fel magic. If the cultists had created a suit of baby armor (http://www.roflposters.com/baby-armor-the-ultimate-meat-shield/852149/) to protect their leader as he performed the ritual, it would not be an evil act to stop them despite the cost.

Bharg
2010-07-14, 05:31 AM
You cannot commit an evil act in the name of good. At best, you are committing an evil act in the name of "good", which is to say you're screwing over one group of innocent individuals for the sake of another.I know and it's bad publicity for your church. Some people forget there is also usually an organization behind a paladin. You may not only fall, but also be kicked out by them. They are also most likely the ones who cast your atonement spell. Read your contracts.


However, I still say that saving the village is not an evil act in this case. You are not just killing some random baby, you are killing a baby whose life has been subverted by the forces of evil, used as a living shield to protect their fel magic. If the cultists had created a suit of baby armor (http://www.roflposters.com/baby-armor-the-ultimate-meat-shield/852149/) to protect their leader as he performed the ritual, it would not be an evil act to stop them despite the cost.
Saving the village is not, but killing the baby is. If you can kill one baby as long as it serves a purpose, why not kill all babies...

Grumman
2010-07-14, 05:47 AM
Saving the village is not, but killing the baby is. If you can kill one baby as long as it serves a purpose, why not kill all babies...
I already answered this question. I said that I consider causing the death of a human shield that has been deliberately placed in harm's way to prevent you stopping an evil act to be a distinctly different act to causing the death of someone who is only at risk through misfortune. Unless all babies are being held hostage to ensure your compliance, it's not the same thing.

Bharg
2010-07-14, 05:55 AM
I already answered this question. I said that I consider causing the death of a human shield that has been deliberately placed in harm's way to prevent you stopping an evil act to be a distinctly different act to causing the death of someone who is only at risk through misfortune. Unless all babies are being held hostage to ensure your compliance, it's not the same thing.
What's the difference?

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 06:35 AM
In this case, the baby isn't so much a "living shield" as a "living weapon"- if the ritual requires the cult leader to chant, then if you somehow killed him and every other cult member close enough to "trigger the weapon"- it won't go off.

The cult leader isn't using the baby to keep himself from being attacked- he's using the baby as the weapon with which to "shoot the village" so to speak.

Unlike in, for example, the case of somebody mind controlled to attack the innocent, the baby is not attacking people- the attack is being made by the cult leader, through the baby.

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-14, 08:03 AM
Both killing the baby and not killing the baby cause the paladin to fall.

Bharg
2010-07-14, 08:34 AM
Both killing the baby and not killing the baby cause the paladin to fall.

I am not sure if choosing against killing the baby could cause a paladin to fall. I don't think a paladin has to help and save everyone around him. In this situation he is just as powerless as everyone else around him. He can choose to sacrifice his own innocence and kill the baby and I think it would be a decision a paladin could make and fall, but does he have to?
It's different from a morally neutral action with bad consequences he would know about...
When he would enter an evil city like Luskan (I hope it's still evil in 4E, hamishspence) he couldn't possibly save everyone, but he wouldn't fall since he doesn't have to.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 08:42 AM
When he would enter an evil city like Luskan (I hope it's still evil in 4E, hamishspence) he couldn't possibly save everyone, but he wouldn't fall since he doesn't have to.

It is- Captain Deudermont tried to improve it in The Pirate King- but wasn't successful.

Obligation to save people might be more a "can you do it" issue- you know evil acts are taking place behind closed doors all over the city- but you can't stop them all- and unless they take place in front of you, you're not really obliged to try. Though you might take steps to try and reduce them- supporting local law enforcement efforts, for example, instead of rushing around searching for an evil act to stop.

If you witness them and can try and stop them though, failure to do so might risk paladin status.

A paladin witnesses a mugging in an alley. The mugger pulls a knife. The paladin is close enough to leap forward and try and stop the stabbing. The paladin shrugs and walks away.

Evil act? Or simply "act not consistant with Good alignment"- which will eventually, repeated enough times, lead to the paladin changing alignment to Neutral without ever committing an Evil act or violation of the explicitly written PHB code?

Bharg
2010-07-14, 09:07 AM
Exactly. I think it is rather not consistant with good alignment.
Nobody hit me yet in this thread.
Is it possible to compare Luskan to Baby Murder Village?

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 09:13 AM
If so, then "fail to save to village" (because it requires doing something evil) might qualify as a nonevil act in itself.

Whether it would lead to an alignment shift, or a general movement from LG to LG with LN tendencies, might depend on if the paladin has been desperately trying to save the village without murdering anyone- maybe pleading with the gods for help.

taltamir
2010-07-14, 09:15 AM
This is just a small question that we've been discussing in our D&D group, concerning alignment. This is a scenario that I presented, and I'd like to know the opinions of my fellow Playgrounders in regards to the issue:

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).

In my opinion, as Evil is a metaphysical thing in D&D, and there are distinct acts of Good and Evil, if the Paladin were to kill the baby, they would Fall. Yes, the intention is good, and doing so accomplishes a Good act, but the fact remains that they've put their sword through a child.

What do you guys think? (And I apologise for the length).

Simple solution... don't play a paladin.

If the baby has been effectively converted into a bomb, and there is no way to harmlessly diffuse it, then:
1. If the baby itself will also die with the rest of the villagers when it "goes off", then killing it is a good act, it is already dead anyways, and the fault lies with those who imbued it with the evil magic.
2. If the baby itself will be unharmed, then its not as clear cut, I would not penalize people for either choice... but personally between lots of innocents and one innocent I would choose the one innocent... note that this is only where the choice has been made inevitable, and the fault lies with the cultist... in a case where, say, a dragon demands a human sacrifice and the villagers choose one, well... they are not so innocent anymore (that being said, if you can't slay the dragon, then you have little room to condemn them, they are not really given a choice)... If a being OFFERED them rewards (say, a better harvest) for a human sacrifice, and they offer one, then they are evil to make such a sacrifice (because it is not a case of our lives or theirs, but a case of pure greed)
3. You seem to forget that resurrection is pathetically easy in DnD land. Kill the baby, then resurrect it... everyone is alive, happy, and healthy.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 09:18 AM
What if you're playing another class or PRC with a "May not commit Evil acts" restriction- like the CG Holy Liberator from Complete Divine?

"Don't play anyone who loses powers for committing evil acts?" Not very helpful if you like that particular type of character.

Bharg
2010-07-14, 09:18 AM
Otherwise if it might occur that some villagers get the idea to kill the baby themselves the paladin would be obliged to protect it. Kinda ironical.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 09:21 AM
BoED does suggest "DMs should not put parties in positions where all choices cause a Fall"- so, as written, its not a very fair situation.

If the DM does believe D&D morality can work this way- you may simply have to go along with it and choose the lesser of two evils.

That is, if "doing nothing" or "trying to save both" qualify as Evil acts for this DM.

taltamir
2010-07-14, 09:22 AM
What if you're playing another class or PRC with a "May not commit Evil acts" restriction- like the CG Holy Liberator from Complete Divine?

"Don't play anyone who loses powers for committing evil acts?" Not very helpful if you like that particular type of character.

Yes, don't play those classes either.
its a built in trap in the game...

Kinda like the 9th level spell "suicide" http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm
Or the deck of ruining games. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm

also, I edited my last post with more info, please check it out.

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 09:25 AM
3. You seem to forget that resurrection is pathetically easy in DnD land. Kill the baby, then resurrect it... everyone is alive, happy, and healthy.

Sometimes resurrection isn't that easy:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html

There are lots of situations where "it's a trap" might apply- playing a truenamer, or a monk, or a paladin-type-

"Don't do it" is a bit less helpful than "discuss it with your DM and fellow players first, to maximize fun and minimize frustration in your game"

Grumman
2010-07-14, 09:52 AM
What's the difference?
The difference is that good literally cannot function in a world where you assign blame to the Paladin instead of the cultists for their use of innocents to protect their schemes. What if a bad guy takes a hostage and tells the Paladin "do as I say or I'll kill them"? Assuming he is not ordered to commit any directly evil act, can the Paladin do anything but let himself become a slave to the forces of evil without violating his vow?

hamishspence
2010-07-14, 09:57 AM
There is an element of difference in the case of human shields- still- the heroes should generally be trying not to kill them unless it's impossible.

"human spell focuses" on the other hand- might be a shade harder- since the villain isn't using them to discourage attacks on him, but to ensure the ritual functions.

If the ritual can't work without the head cultist- shouldn't it be him and not the baby that's being targeted?

Shatteredtower
2010-07-14, 09:59 PM
Yes, this is a situation of which way to throw the switch since there are literally no other options.

If any DM told you that the only choices are between killing the baby to save the village or sparing the baby to the village's detriment, that DM is not performing the duty properly. This applies even if the DM believes there are no other options.

So if the DM doesn't make this argument, there's no reason either player or paladin be required to accept the claim as true. Once we recognize that, we see this isn't a switch dilemma, and the paladin has several alternatives to killing the baby.

Since the only one the paladin knows must end in the death of completely helpless creature is the one calling on the paladin to commit murder, that's the evil one. It would be evil whether the villains' claim was truth or fabrication.

Kill-the-baby reasoning only assures that those who'd adhere to it were easy prey for those seeking to lead them into evil or breaking sacred vows.

Coidzor
2010-07-14, 10:18 PM
In the specific case of this scenario, it was laid out more along the lines of a "GOTCHA PALADIN," which implies that no, it's not that the baby is an integral part of killing off the village, the baby is an integral part of killing off the village in a way that no one would A. think of to stop, B. be able to stomach stopping, and C. even if they did stop it by messing with the baby, the village would erupt in an angry lynch mob at them, necessitating the people trying to save the village to have to kill the people they were trying to protect.
In this case, the baby isn't so much a "living shield" as a "living weapon"- if the ritual requires the cult leader to chant, then if you somehow killed him and every other cult member close enough to "trigger the weapon"- it won't go off.

The cult leader isn't using the baby to keep himself from being attacked- he's using the baby as the weapon with which to "shoot the village" so to speak.

Unlike in, for example, the case of somebody mind controlled to attack the innocent, the baby is not attacking people- the attack is being made by the cult leader, through the baby.

Exactly, he is using the baby as a living shield for his evil ritual of doom...AND A COMPONENT OF IT TOO! You can kill the cultists, but who wants to kill the poor cuddly little baby that's soul and body have become the vessel for the blackest evils of the nine hells.

How the baby still counts as an innocent despite all this, I dunno.

But that's the thing, the baby is the keystone of the ritual BECAUSE they'll be unwilling to kill the baby to end it. And good luck making the village understand you're moving the baby away from its mother in order to save the village or anything like that. Basically you either have to let the village die or kill the baby and have to kill the village off yourself unless you've got some way of preventing them from forming an angry mob over killing one of their babbys.

Shatteredtower
2010-07-14, 10:31 PM
The baby counts as innocent by virtue of being unable to actively do evil, and therefore as evil as someone forced to commit murder by a possessing ghost, or a pit fiend paladin that's taken a sacred vow of peace.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-14, 10:56 PM
The baby counts as innocent by virtue of being unable to actively do evil, and therefore as evil as someone forced to commit murder by a possessing ghost, or a pit fiend paladin that's taken a sacred vow of peace.
Thank Gods this isn't first edition, where even unwilling evil acts were enough to get your butt kicked out of Paladinhood, though the atonement spell could help with those.

hamishspence
2010-07-15, 02:50 AM
It's possible that it still is- the way the atonement spell is worded, it can be used for "unwilling evil acts"

The way the paladin class feature is worded (identical in both 3.0 and 3.5) makes it a bit tricky. In both it says "wilful evil acts make the paladin fall"- but if you go to the 3.0 version of Atonement, it states basically that "a paladin can regain his status if the act was unwitting or under magical compulsion, but willing evil acts make paladin fall permanently"

In the 3.5 version, it simply says "atoning for willful evil acts costs the caster of atonement XP, atoning for evil acts committed unwittingly or under magical compulsion costs the caster of the spell no XP"

Peregrine
2010-07-19, 09:59 AM
Sheesh, the Paladin's Dilemma again? :smallwink:

My opinion on this remains, "it shouldn't happen". If paladins exist in your game world, there should be a way out. The only exception is if you're deliberately playing a dark game, a game where the good gods are stupid or impotent and their restrictions on paladin behaviour therefore get in the way of actually doing what's right. In such a world, paladins shouldn't exist. If they do, it should only be because the DM and the players agreed that they wanted to play a game wherein high-and-mighty noble warriors are forced to fall and become disillusioned.

Okay, that's the only "good" or "acceptable" exception. The other exception is where the DM is a jerk and wants to make things not fun for players of paladins. :smalltongue:

In every other game where paladins exist, there will always be a third option. Because the very idea of a paladin, or even of a lawful good religion, assumes that there are good powers who knew what they were doing when they forbade the use of certain methods in the pursuit of good.

As for what that third option is, well, I've posted my ideas on the subject before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2380931#post2380931). And I'll shamelessly quote myself from there: "This is a game. If you make the paladin stab the child, everybody loses."

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 10:33 AM
Agreed- though I noticed some of the people just don't get what BoED actually says. On the very first page:


This is why you have to remove absolute definitions of good and evil (at least when applied to actions- demons can be incarnations of cosmic Evil if you want), and add to the act an equal weighting of intention. From utmost good to utmost evil, your goals can vary. Combine that with the nature of the act.

Using a system like this to judge morality fixes a lot of other problems. Paladins and good characters that want to stay good can no longer invade a random goblin village, slaughtering everyone they see for treasure, which the Book of Exalted Deeds says is a good act, because goblins are evil. Instead, paladins are only attacking those that have done evil things, such as a tribe that has been robbing travelers, telling them to lay down arms first, offering quarter, and stopping the rogue from CdGing all the fallen goblins. If he ends up with gold at the end, that is a nice benefit, but he isn't going to pry out filings for it.

If one checks what BoED actually says, there is a very strong emphasis in BoED that it's not OK to invade random goblin villages and slaughter everyone you see for treasure- but instead BoED characters should act exactly as he describes in the second half- only attack those that have done evil things, offer quarter, ensure that the prisoners only get executed if they truly deserve to die and can't be reformed- normally, they should attempt to redeem them (and get them to make restitution in the process)

taltamir
2010-07-19, 10:39 AM
In the specific case of this scenario, it was laid out more along the lines of a "GOTCHA PALADIN," which implies that no, it's not that the baby is an integral part of killing off the village, the baby is an integral part of killing off the village in a way that no one would A. think of to stop, B. be able to stomach stopping, and C. even if they did stop it by messing with the baby, the village would erupt in an angry lynch mob at them, necessitating the people trying to save the village to have to kill the people they were trying to protect.

Exactly, he is using the baby as a living shield for his evil ritual of doom...AND A COMPONENT OF IT TOO! You can kill the cultists, but who wants to kill the poor cuddly little baby that's soul and body have become the vessel for the blackest evils of the nine hells.

How the baby still counts as an innocent despite all this, I dunno.

But that's the thing, the baby is the keystone of the ritual BECAUSE they'll be unwilling to kill the baby to end it. And good luck making the village understand you're moving the baby away from its mother in order to save the village or anything like that. Basically you either have to let the village die or kill the baby and have to kill the village off yourself unless you've got some way of preventing them from forming an angry mob over killing one of their babbys.

I am pretty sure that in the OPs example you had to choose between killing the baby and letting the villagers die, not "I choose the third option" of "killing the cultists so they can't finish the ritual"

what does that mean? the ritual is already finished, the baby is now a ticking time bomb that cannot be diffused in any method other then killing it. You can go ahead and kill all the cultists and evacuate the villagers, but that will not stop the death of the villagers, the only way to stop their death is to kill the baby, not killing it within X hours results in it "going off"

While this is not consistent with any DnD ability, and things like disjunction should work perfectly fine to disable the "bomb" so to speak, this is an artificial morality case, not a case to be solved with careful strategy to get a win-win.
I will refuse to play with a DM that makes such harsh and cruel railroaded lose-lose situations, especially to a paladin player... but that doesn't mean I refuse to discuss its inherent morality, and that is what the thread is about, the morality of the issue.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-19, 11:24 AM
While this is not consistent with any DnD ability, and things like disjunction should work perfectly fine to disable the "bomb" so to speak, this is an artificial morality case, not a case to be solved with careful strategy to get a win-win.
I will refuse to play with a DM that makes such harsh and cruel railroaded lose-lose situations, especially to a paladin player... but that doesn't mean I refuse to discuss its inherent morality, and that is what the thread is about, the morality of the issue.
[emphasis mine]

Thank you. I've been trying to figure out a way to explain this tactfully. You, sir, deserve praise.

Um... here, have an internet.

OzymandiasVolt
2010-07-19, 11:29 AM
I'm sorry, I can't help but think that this hypothetical is designed to screw over the paladin in question. Which isn't surprising since You're Screwed/You're Screwed paladin hypotheticals come up all the time.

Screw the Lose/Lose HaHa Paladins Suck choice. Take the third option or die trying. And maybe run the cult leader's skull clear through with your holy blade of vengeance while you're at it.

Also +1 to taltamir's post.

Grumman
2010-07-19, 12:28 PM
I'm sorry, I can't help but think that this hypothetical is designed to screw over the paladin in question.
So? You cannot dismiss the hypothetical this easily. We are, after all, talking about a villain who has a vested interest in creating such a lose-lose situation, to deter or at least delay the paladin's interference. It would be bad roleplaying for this villain to not try to set up such a situation, because this is the best way he has of achieving his goals if Plan A fails.

The challenge here is to come up with in-universe reasons why this is not a fall/fall situation for the paladin.

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 12:37 PM
The challenge here is to come up with in-universe reasons why this is not a fall/fall situation for the paladin.

I still see no reason why "fall" is being treated as a "you lose" outcome in this scenario.

Atonement: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) it exists.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 12:44 PM
I still see no reason why "fall" is being treated as a "you lose" outcome in this scenario.

Atonement: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) it exists.

the problem is that atonement costs 500XP per level... this is a big issue because if you get such "you fall regardless of what you do" situations then you will repeatedly fall... you would quest for months to gain enough to XP to pay for atonement, get atoned, and then fall the next day when the next "screw the paladin" train chugs through town.

Dr.Epic
2010-07-19, 12:48 PM
This is just a small question that we've been discussing in our D&D group, concerning alignment. This is a scenario that I presented, and I'd like to know the opinions of my fellow Playgrounders in regards to the issue:

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).

In my opinion, as Evil is a metaphysical thing in D&D, and there are distinct acts of Good and Evil, if the Paladin were to kill the baby, they would Fall. Yes, the intention is good, and doing so accomplishes a Good act, but the fact remains that they've put their sword through a child.

What do you guys think? (And I apologise for the length).

Age shouldn't be a factor in doing good. You can make the argument they're a child, but it's only wrong to hurt children because they are supposedly "innocent." In this case, since the child has some sort of evil in them, then it would be wrong to kill them.

Kris Strife
2010-07-19, 12:48 PM
Wait for the DM to go to the bathroom or go get a snack, then convince the other players to help you give the DM a concussion, then tell him he tripped and hit his head on the gaming table. Hope he's forgotten the scenario when he returns from the hospital.

If real world violence isn't your thing, always take levels in Gray Guard ASAP.

hamishspence
2010-07-19, 12:49 PM
The person paying the XP is the caster.

So, if a paladin falls due to a willful act, and seeks out a cleric to cast atonement, the cleric will pay XP.

Champions of Valor also points out it's not actually necessary- it's a shortcut for those players not willing to roleplay out the character's atonement.

If the DM and the player agree, the player can atone via roleplay, rather than just the spell.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 12:53 PM
Age shouldn't be a factor in doing good. You can make the argument they're a child, but it's only wrong to hurt children because they are supposedly "innocent." In this case, since the child has some sort of evil in them, then it would be wrong to kill them.

a very good observation that is often missed... why is it more wrong to let the innocent child die then it is to let innocent adults die?

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 12:55 PM
the problem is that atonement costs 500XP per level... this is a big issue because if you get such "you fall regardless of what you do" situations then you will repeatedly fall... you would quest for months to gain enough to XP to pay for atonement, get atoned, and then fall the next day when the next "screw the paladin" train chugs through town.

Actually, the cleric pays the XP cost, not the paladin. If it keeps happening, just go to different clerics.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 12:59 PM
Actually, the cleric pays the XP cost, not the paladin. If it keeps happening, just go to different clerics.

heh, fair enough... still, it costs you a fair bit of time, effort, and potentially money to keep on finding clerics capable and willing to cast it on you. And if your DM is reaming you with a "fall-fall" choice then he will continue to ream you with those... so you would spend a major amount of time fallen.

BTW, there is a simple solution, an item that lets you know which is the choice your god wants you to take to not fall... this shifts the burden... Your good god, as played by the DM, tells you what to do and says you will not fall.. so you don't.

I think fall-fall situations should not exist, ever. If the DM has to be a PITA to the paladin, he should get a "let the DM dictate your actions or fall" rather then just "fall no matter what" (which is still very wrong btw).
speaking of, for ease and clarity for newbie players, the spell wish should be renamed as "suicide", and the deck of many things should be renamed as "deck of ruining games"

Bharg
2010-07-19, 12:59 PM
a very good observation that is often missed... why is it more wrong to let the innocent child die then it is to let innocent adults die?

Cause adults are no longer innocent? They led their lives, already made their decisions.
Children are not only innocent, but also defenseless and weak - a key stimulus for paladins.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 01:02 PM
Cause adults are no longer innocent? They led their lives, already made their decisions.
Children are not only innocent, but also defenseless and weak - a key stimulus for paladins.

lots of adults are defenseless and weak... and I asked "an innocent adult", not "a non innocent adult"... unless you are arguing that innocent adults cannot exist?

if anything, I would say that a "truly good" (aka, saintly) adult is more desirable to save then a child, since the vast majority of children do not grow up to be saints... you are choosing a "low chance of becoming a saint" over a proven saint.

Peregrine
2010-07-19, 08:36 PM
So? You cannot dismiss the hypothetical this easily. We are, after all, talking about a villain who has a vested interest in creating such a lose-lose situation, to deter or at least delay the paladin's interference. It would be bad roleplaying for this villain to not try to set up such a situation, because this is the best way he has of achieving his goals if Plan A fails.

The challenge here is to come up with in-universe reasons why this is not a fall/fall situation for the paladin.

Because we're assuming -- we have to assume, for reasons stated in my last post -- that the Powers That Be behind the paladin know what they're doing.

Now, if in your game, a paladin's "divine" powers are just drawn from his or her alignment, principles and code, then maybe it's reasonable for the villain to find a fall/fall situation. But I prefer, I think most people assume, and this thread seems to be dealing with, the scenario where a paladin is a servant of a lawful good deity or deities. In this case, the paladin falls when he/she does something wrong not just by the letter of the rules, but by the (very literal, holy) spirit of the rules.

If a villain sets up a fall/fall situation, it means the villain has outsmarted the god(s) of good and given them no choice but to smack down one of their followers for doing what's necessary (or else let him/her get away with something for which they really ought to smack him/her down). As I said in my last post, that should not happen unless you want a dark game, in which case, why are you playing a paladin? :smallwink:

The villain can try and set up such a situation, but the paladin ought to be able to think of a third option. I seem to be citing myself from old threads a lot lately, but maybe that's because the kind of discussions I enjoy are ones that perennially crop up. Plus I'm lazy. :smalltongue: But anyway...

So the child is the gateway through which Ultimate Evil will be unleashed upon the world, but killing him will prevent that. What does the paladin do? Stab the child with his sword? No. The paladin puts his sword down, takes the child into his arms, kneels, and prays. He prays for his god to protect the child and save him from this evil. He prays that, if the child simply must die, that his god will reach down and gently take the child's life, without pain or fear or violence (after all, all lives are in the hands of the gods, to take when their time is up).

Is this deus ex machina? Is this not a good story? Is this not good roleplaying?

And for that reason I also have to vehemently disagree with this line of reasoning:

I still see no reason why "fall" is being treated as a "you lose" outcome in this scenario.

Atonement: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) it exists.

If you fell, it's because your god(s) said you did The Wrong Thing. Not "the right but technically not very nice thing". The wrongity wrong thing. Hence, you lose. And if you go seeking "atonement" but believe you did what was necessary and therefore right, you shouldn't get it. Atonement means you're sorry and you accept that what you did was wrong. It's not a special dispensation to stab a child every so often.

(Nor an innocent adult for that matter.)

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 09:45 PM
If you fell, it's because your god(s) said you did The Wrong Thing. Not "the right but technically not very nice thing". The wrongity wrong thing. Hence, you lose.

"Wrongity wrong" or not, by RAW you can get your class features restored. You don't even need the spell, so the spell makes it doubly sure. So no, you don't "lose," at least not in the long run.

By your logic, atonement is useless. After all, any time you Fall would be "because your gods said you did The Wrong Thing," therefore they would never grant you atonement.


And if you go seeking "atonement" but believe you did what was necessary and therefore right, you shouldn't get it. Atonement means you're sorry and you accept that what you did was wrong. It's not a special dispensation to stab a child every so often.

Well of course it was wrong. There is no possible circumstance in which causing the death of a child is "right," and I can't imagine where you might have gotten that from my post.

But something being wrong and something being avoidable are two entirely different things.

Serenity
2010-07-19, 10:13 PM
Because we're assuming -- we have to assume, for reasons stated in my last post -- that the Powers That Be behind the paladin know what they're doing.

Now, if in your game, a paladin's "divine" powers are just drawn from his or her alignment, principles and code, then maybe it's reasonable for the villain to find a fall/fall situation. But I prefer, I think most people assume, and this thread seems to be dealing with, the scenario where a paladin is a servant of a lawful good deity or deities. In this case, the paladin falls when he/she does something wrong not just by the letter of the rules, but by the (very literal, holy) spirit of the rules.

If a villain sets up a fall/fall situation, it means the villain has outsmarted the god(s) of good and given them no choice but to smack down one of their followers for doing what's necessary (or else let him/her get away with something for which they really ought to smack him/her down). As I said in my last post, that should not happen unless you want a dark game, in which case, why are you playing a paladin? :smallwink:

The villain can try and set up such a situation, but the paladin ought to be able to think of a third option.

+1. There may be value in discussing the morality of killing one innocent to save many, or more generally, doing a small evil to stop a larger one. But I see no value in discussing it as it relates to paladins, because any world in which paladins exist, but Third Options do not is a cruel farce where the gods are incompetent at best, if not actually sadistic.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-19, 10:27 PM
+1. There may be value in discussing the morality of killing one innocent to save many, or more generally, doing a small evil to stop a larger one. But I see no value in discussing it as it relates to paladins, because any world in which paladins exist, but Third Options do not is a cruel farce where the gods are DM is incompetent at best, if not actually sadistic.
I have rectified the statement to more accurately reflect the nature of the situation.
In short, I have 'fixed' it for you.

Gorgondantess
2010-07-19, 10:34 PM
Shameless self insertion: This thread was the inspiration for my paladin fix. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160730) I think it should answer the question quite well... well, as far as I'm concerned.:smallbiggrin:

NowhereMan583
2010-07-19, 10:35 PM
By your logic, atonement is useless. After all, any time you Fall would be "because your gods said you did The Wrong Thing," therefore they would never grant you atonement.

I believe the point being made was that in order to be granted atonement, you had to actually, you know, ATONE. If you believe that you acted for the greater good, and you treat the atonement spell as some sort of minor bureaucratic hangup, then you're hardly atoning. If you Fall, it is because your god thinks you did something wrong. If you disagree, then they're not going to give you your powers back. In order to atone, you have to believe that you did wrong. The key sentence in Peregrine's post there is:

And if you go seeking "atonement" but believe you did what was necessary and therefore right, you shouldn't get it.
Emphasis mine.

Coidzor
2010-07-19, 11:39 PM
The key sentence in Peregrine's post there is:

Emphasis mine.

So lose-lose situations only yield blackguards in your book?:smalltongue: No point to atonement in that sort of world though. Since no one could, as anyone who would do the sort of thing that would necessitate atonement that would have it work for them and would want it can no longer get it due to the fact that it's for times when there's nothing a paladin can do but fall, which sort of by lack of options makes their fall a necessary part of the scenario.

That means that in this hypothetical situation, going by your schema, the paladin literally cannot do anything nor can he not do anything, without y'know, becoming an unrepentant ********.

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 11:45 PM
I believe the point being made was that in order to be granted atonement, you had to actually, you know, ATONE.

I see nothing in what I said that precludes being sorry. Nor do I recall ever saying that you should feel that what you did was right. In fact, I said exactly the opposite, remember?

Being sorry is an emotion for after a deed is done, not before. How can you regret something you haven't done yet? It makes no sense.

Gralamin
2010-07-19, 11:46 PM
So lose-lose situations only yield blackguards in your book?:smalltongue: No point to atonement in that sort of world though. All thats being said is you cannot atone if you do not believe you did no wrong. Which is logical

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 11:48 PM
All thats being said is you cannot atone if you do not believe you did no wrong. Which is logical

And I never disputed that, so I can't fathom why it keeps getting parroted at me.

Gralamin
2010-07-19, 11:49 PM
And I never disputed that, so I can't fathom why it keeps getting parroted at me.

I quoted someone else, if you would notice :smallannoyed:

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 11:49 PM
I quoted someone else, if you would notice :smallannoyed:

I didn't mean you (quote notwithstanding.)

Peregrine
2010-07-20, 04:08 AM
Well of course it was wrong. There is no possible circumstance in which causing the death of a child is "right," and I can't imagine where you might have gotten that from my post.

But something being wrong and something being avoidable are two entirely different things.

This is because we seem to be working on different definitions of "right".

Definition A: Nice, caring, socially acceptable. This is, I believe, what you mean when you say killing a child is never "right". Let's call this Nice.
Definition B: Appropriate, correct, the best of (possibly bad) options. This, I believe, is what you mean by not being avoidale. Let's call this Necessary.

Now, assuming I've got these definitions straight...

You're saying that a paladin will fall if they do what is not Nice, but is Necessary, and then they can atone while still believing what they did was Necessary.

I disagree. If the paladin's god(s) of good and law agreed that the paladin did what was Necessary, then they ought not to punish him by making him fall. If he does fall, then his gods disapprove of what he did, and he'd better be sorry he ever did it if he wants to atone. (Not just sorry as in, "I wish I hadn't done it, it wasn't Nice, but it was Necessary and I would do it again given the same circumstances." Sorry as in, "O Gods, what have I done? It was neither Nice nor Necessary and you rightly smacked me down for it.")

And that's because you have either:
(a) A game world where the god(s) of good and law are competent and just. They set rules that ensure that there will always be a Nice way to do what is Necessary. Or at least, never so not-Nice as to murder a child. Or...
(b) A grimdark world where paladins really have no business existing and your players should have been expecting to fall all along.


So lose-lose situations only yield blackguards in your book?:smalltongue: No point to atonement in that sort of world though. Since no one could, as anyone who would do the sort of thing that would necessitate atonement that would have it work for them and would want it can no longer get it due to the fact that it's for times when there's nothing a paladin can do but fall, which sort of by lack of options makes their fall a necessary part of the scenario.

Still assuming world (a) and the same definitions as above, no situation should arise where "there's nothing a paladin can do but fall" -- i.e. doing and failing to do what is Necessary are both not Nice. There ought to always be a Nice way to do what is Necessary.

But atonement (not limited to, but including the atonement spell) still belongs in such a world. It's for times when the paladin does something neither Nice nor Necessary; he gets mad, gets stupid, gets tempted, or gets stuck in a seeming no-win situation and fails to have enough faith in his god(s) to find the Nice way out.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 11:54 AM
This is because we seem to be working on different definitions of "right".

Definition A: Nice, caring, socially acceptable. This is, I believe, what you mean when you say killing a child is never "right". Let's call this Nice.
Definition B: Appropriate, correct, the best of (possibly bad) options. This, I believe, is what you mean by not being avoidale. Let's call this Necessary.

Yes, those definitions work fine for me.


You're saying that a paladin will fall if they do what is not Nice, but is Necessary, and then they can atone while still believing what they did was Necessary.

I disagree. If the paladin's god(s) of good and law agreed that the paladin did what was Necessary, then they ought not to punish him by making him fall. If he does fall, then his gods disapprove of what he did, and he'd better be sorry he ever did it if he wants to atone. (Not just sorry as in, "I wish I hadn't done it, it wasn't Nice, but it was Necessary and I would do it again given the same circumstances." Sorry as in, "O Gods, what have I done? It was neither Nice nor Necessary and you rightly smacked me down for it.")

Here is where you lost me. In your world then, when would atonement ever be appropriate to use? Because in your world, the only people who ever fall are those who do things which are neither Nice nor Necessary - i.e. jerks. Such people are highly unlikely to seek atonement to begin with, or even be paladins to begin with.


And that's because you have either:
(a) A game world where the god(s) of good and law are competent and just. They set rules that ensure that there will always be a Nice way to do what is Necessary. Or at least, never so not-Nice as to murder a child. Or...
(b) A grimdark world where paladins really have no business existing and your players should have been expecting to fall all along.

You forgot (c), a world where the standards of Good are very high and not easy to meet, yet Good itself is forgiving enough to allow a mortal paladin to keep striving even when he has to make tough choices.

Consider the Gray Guard. One of their class abilities removes the penalty of falling from necessary evils.



Sacrament of Trust: Upon entering this prestige class, you take a vow of allegiance to your faith beyond that of any ordinary paladin. This vow grants you a measure of freedom to act on your cause's behalf without fear of retribution should your duties require you to break your code of conduct. Dishonorable acts still cause you to lose both gray guard and paladin class features until you atone, but this infraction is considered much less severe than it would be for a paladin.

Thus, whenever you seek to atone for deeds that you willingly commit in the name of your faith but that break your code of conduct, a cleric casting an atonement spell on your behalf does not expend 500 exp as is normally required.

This implies that you can willingly commit deeds that would make you fall and still be able to atone. Gray Guards can do so more easily, but regular paladins have the option as well.

taltamir
2010-07-20, 12:12 PM
Now, if in your game, a paladin's "divine" powers are just drawn from his or her alignment, principles and code, then maybe it's reasonable for the villain to find a fall/fall situation. But I prefer, I think most people assume, and this thread seems to be dealing with, the scenario where a paladin is a servant of a lawful good deity or deities. In this case, the paladin falls when he/she does something wrong not just by the letter of the rules, but by the (very literal, holy) spirit of the rules.

If a villain sets up a fall/fall situation, it means the villain has outsmarted the god(s) of good and given them no choice but to smack down one of their followers for doing what's necessary (or else let him/her get away with something for which they really ought to smack him/her down). As I said in my last post, that should not happen unless you want a dark game, in which case, why are you playing a paladin? :smallwink:

The villain can try and set up such a situation, but the paladin ought to be able to think of a third option.

the paladin explicitly doesn't even need to think of a third option... he merely has to ask those very real gods... if they don't volunteer the information without him even asking.


By your logic, atonement is useless. After all, any time you Fall would be "because your gods said you did The Wrong Thing," therefore they would never grant you atonement.

Atonement IS useless... WOTC clearly created conflict mechanics and resolutions for paladin falling... and the spell simply has no room in there.
IF you fell (which has to be a colossal muck up on your part), then you must understand what you did was wrong, truely seek forgiveness... and then bam, your god restores you...
but what if you just cast atonement without actually atoning? well, according to various rule clarifications, it doesn't work... you actually have to atone for atonement to work... this is a totally useless spell, just like many other spells WOTC printed.

All of the above BTW goes back off on the tangent of RAW and paladins instead of the actual morality of such a situation.


+1. There may be value in discussing the morality of killing one innocent to save many, or more generally, doing a small evil to stop a larger one. But I see no value in discussing it as it relates to paladins, because any world in which paladins exist, but Third Options do not is a cruel farce where the gods are incompetent at best, if not actually sadistic.

introducing palor the burning hate. :P
also, the world of OOTS (where they are malicious)


I have rectified the statement to more accurately reflect the nature of the situation.
In short, I have 'fixed' it for you.

I totally agree actually... the gods are merely "roles" played by the DM...
and any DM which allows players to play paladins yet does not allow a third option (aka, allows fall-fall situations) is incompetent at best, or is plain malicious

Sadly, incompetent DMs are far too common.


So lose-lose situations only yield blackguards in your book?

fall-fall situations don't exist in worlds run by competent gods DMs


This is because we seem to be working on different definitions of "right".

Definition A: Nice, caring, socially acceptable. This is, I believe, what you mean when you say killing a child is never "right". Let's call this Nice.
Definition B: Appropriate, correct, the best of (possibly bad) options. This, I believe, is what you mean by not being avoidale. Let's call this Necessary.

Now, assuming I've got these definitions straight...

You're saying that a paladin will fall if they do what is not Nice, but is Necessary, and then they can atone while still believing what they did was Necessary.

I disagree. If the paladin's god(s) of good and law agreed that the paladin did what was Necessary, then they ought not to punish him by making him fall. If he does fall, then his gods disapprove of what he did, and he'd better be sorry he ever did it if he wants to atone. (Not just sorry as in, "I wish I hadn't done it, it wasn't Nice, but it was Necessary and I would do it again given the same circumstances." Sorry as in, "O Gods, what have I done? It was neither Nice nor Necessary and you rightly smacked me down for it.")

And that's because you have either:
(a) A game world where the god(s) of good and law are competent and just. They set rules that ensure that there will always be a Nice way to do what is Necessary. Or at least, never so not-Nice as to murder a child. Or...
(b) A grimdark world where paladins really have no business existing and your players should have been expecting to fall all along.



Still assuming world (a) and the same definitions as above, no situation should arise where "there's nothing a paladin can do but fall" -- i.e. doing and failing to do what is Necessary are both not Nice. There ought to always be a Nice way to do what is Necessary.

But atonement (not limited to, but including the atonement spell) still belongs in such a world. It's for times when the paladin does something neither Nice nor Necessary; he gets mad, gets stupid, gets tempted, or gets stuck in a seeming no-win situation and fails to have enough faith in his god(s) to find the Nice way out.

An epic post, every word of it absolute truth.


Here is where you lost me. In your world then, when would atonement ever be appropriate to use? Because in your world, the only people who ever fall are those who do things which are neither Nice nor Necessary - i.e. jerks. Such people are highly unlikely to seek atonement to begin with, or even be paladins to begin with.
Even if you go by WOTCs alone atonement is a useless spell that doesn't do anything. (since in their various splatbooks they explain that paladins can atone without it, and that if they don't REALLY atone then the spell doesn't work)...

His post is 100% correct, that it doesn't leave room for a worthless dungpile of a spell like "atonement" is a GOOD thing, not a problem with his explanation.


You forgot (c), a world where the standards of Good are very high and not easy to meet, yet Good itself is forgiving enough to allow a mortal paladin to keep striving even when he has to make tough choices.
I call shens. if your gods of good are so utterly incompetent and stupid that they allow such fall-fall situations to exist, then the only options are the two he presented. your so called "C type world" is not viable or internally consistent, and will have to resolve itself to either type A or type B.


Consider the Gray Guard. One of their class abilities removes the penalty of falling from necessary evils.
Then they are a retarded and unnecessary class that should have never existed... AND they contradict other writings by WOTC... go WOTC, yet another colossal failure with the gray guard.


This implies that you can willingly commit deeds that would make you fall and still be able to atone. Gray Guards can do so more easily, but regular paladins have the option as well.

this is merely a clause to allow silly things like paladins of sharess. Basically it lets your god waive the "fee" for casting atonement if you broke the paladin code in order to obey their personal divine law... however, gods that sponsor paladins (According to other sources) are all LG and match the paladin code... thus it should never be an issue where you have to choose between your god and the paladin code.

Peregrine
2010-07-20, 01:05 PM
Here is where you lost me. In your world then, when would atonement ever be appropriate to use? Because in your world, the only people who ever fall are those who do things which are neither Nice nor Necessary - i.e. jerks. Such people are highly unlikely to seek atonement to begin with, or even be paladins to begin with.

You have a very broad definition of jerkhood. By this definition, I'm a jerk, everyone I know is a jerk, and I daresay you're a jerk. :smallwink: And I would like to specifically rebut your idea that people who do these things won't want to atone by drawing on real-world examples, but to do so I'd be violating board rules by discussing real-world religion. Let's just say that multiple real-world religions exist that are pretty much built on people seeking atonement for their jerkhood, and leave it at that.

On the specific subject of paladins, though, certainly they're supposed to be less prone to jerkhood than us normal folk. But they're not perfect. To elaborate on my four suggestions for when a paladin could fall and repent: Paladin gets mad and does something in anger that he/she later regrets. Also goes for other passions, though several could probably fall under... Paladin gets tempted. Plain and simple, they got tempted like any other mortal, by power or pride or lust, and even paladins give in sometimes. Paladin gets stupid; there's a reason the phylactery of faithfulness exists. Even paladins aren't always the best judges of the right thing to do, and if they misjudge badly enough or often enough, they will fall. Paladin gets stuck in a seeming no-win situation and fails to have enough faith in his god(s) to find the Nice way out. The very topic of this thread.


You forgot (c), a world where the standards of Good are very high and not easy to meet, yet Good itself is forgiving enough to allow a mortal paladin to keep striving even when he has to make tough choices.

No, I just don't believe the kind of dilemma we're talking about here is such a situation. If a paladin falls, it's not because Good is trying to tell them nicely and gently that they went a bit off course in making that last tough decision but did okay anyway. The paladin's fall means that Good is saying, "You made the wrong decision; there was another option that would have been better and for which you would not have fallen." And when made to realise and accept this, the paladin should be in the frame of mind to genuinely atone: "sorry I done it, won't do it again", not "I hated doing that, but given a do-over I would make the same choice".


Consider the Gray Guard.

Must I? :smalltongue:


This implies that you can willingly commit deeds that would make you fall and still be able to atone. Gray Guards can do so more easily, but regular paladins have the option as well.

The Gray Guard is a... problematic case. I have argued against it before, not because I think it's a travesty against all things paladiny (unlike some), but because this whole atonement thing feels "off". Yes, it can be used to support your argument; that's my problem with it. :smallbiggrin:

I can accept the Gray Guard on the understanding that violations of the code should still be very rare, but they are more likely to happen and the GG has a certain dispensation to make such violations -- as long as they then come to a spiritual advisor for full confession and absolution. Even them I'm iffy about it.


the paladin explicitly doesn't even need to think of a third option... he merely has to ask those very real gods... if they don't volunteer the information without him even asking.

To be fair, looking at it as a game, it ought to be up to the player to think of what their paladin could do to resolve the situation. The DM certainly should not try and crack down on every possible out, and could perhaps have some away-from-table discussions about possible resolutions with the player, but I don't think the DM (acting the part of the gods of good) should tell the player, "Here's what the gods are telling your paladin is the right thing to do."

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 01:12 PM
I can accept the Gray Guard on the understanding that violations of the code should still be very rare, but they are more likely to happen and the GG has a certain dispensation to make such violations -- as long as they then come to a spiritual advisor for full confession and absolution. Even them I'm iffy about it.

Even 10th level Grey guard- who can commit Fall-worthy acts (in a just cause) and not fall, should really be watching themselves- talking things over with their superiors afterward, and so on. It does say that "If you habitually act in an immoral or corrupt manner, your superiors will cast you out of the order, and you lose all your grey guard and paladin powers"

Champions of Valor discusses the atonement spell- how it's not always necessary- but- it's a way of communicating to the public that you have repented and been "accepted back into the fold"

It helps maintain trust in the fallen and redeemed hero.

taltamir
2010-07-20, 01:12 PM
To be fair, looking at it as a game, it ought to be up to the player to think of what their paladin could do to resolve the situation. The DM certainly should not try and crack down on every possible out, and could perhaps have some away-from-table discussions about possible resolutions with the player, but I don't think the DM (acting the part of the gods of good) should tell the player, "Here's what the gods are telling your paladin is the right thing to do."

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."

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 01:14 PM
The Phylactery of faithfulness, in core (page 264 of DMG) basically tells you if "an action will adversely affect your alignment or standing with your deity"

I'm not sure what MiC item is being referred to.

taltamir
2010-07-20, 01:15 PM
The Phylactery of faithfulness, in core (page 264 of DMG) basically tells you if "an action will adversely affect your alignment or standing with your deity"

I'm not sure what MiC item is being referred to.

huh, I was sure it was in the MiC... but DMG is even better, this is THE most core source for magic items.

Example:
"oh noes, the baby has been made into a ticking magical timebomb that cannot be diffused.. I must either kill it or let it go off and kill a whole village"...

*grab phylactery of faithfulness: "dear lord, tell me which is the right path"

Option A: "kill the baby" says god, so you do.
Option B: "let the villagers die" says god, so you do.
NotAnOption: "Ha ha! sucks to be you moron! should have chosen a less crappy class... also, we the gods hate you!" says god, and so you sock your DM, and tear up the character sheet of the worthless piece of trash.

Oslecamo
2010-07-20, 01:23 PM
NotAnOption: "Ha ha! sucks to be you moron! should have chosen a less crappy class... also, we the gods hate you!" says god, and so you sock your DM, and tear up the character sheet of the worthless piece of trash.

+1. If the DM is presenting such a lose-lose scenario for the paladin, then he just wants to see you fail and you should leave the campaign.

This is, what if instead of baby/village we had the wizard have to choose between burning his spellbook or being cursed by a permanent AMF around him?

What if a druid had to choose between using metal armor or losing his powers to some exotic curse?

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 01:24 PM
It doesn't tell you the right option- but if you hold it and contemplate doing something- it will tell you if that something will make you fall or not:

Like:

"Kill the baby"- (typically "You would Fall", though a few DMs might prefer Ends Justify the Means and not say this)
"Try to save the village without killing the baby"- (depending on the DM, may be "You would Fall")
"yell a prayer to the gods to "Help me with this!"" (may depend on the DM)

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 01:25 PM
+1. If the DM is presenting such a lose-lose scenario for the paladin, then he just wants to see you fail and you should leave the campaign.

This is, what if instead of baby/village we had the wizard have to choose between burning his spellbook or being cursed by a permanent AMF around him?

I don't understand this attitude. Falling is a class feature from a role playing perspective. Conveniently ignoring it sounds...wasteful. The ideal of Good is contradictory and impossible to keep up at times. A champion of Good will face the contradictions sometimes, and sometimes he will fall. The possibilities are endless and if you are interested in the character's development, Falling must happen once or twice over the game's climaxes.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 01:28 PM
You have a very broad definition of jerkhood. By this definition, I'm a jerk, everyone I know is a jerk, and I daresay you're a jerk. :smallwink:

I have no problem with that - because neither you nor I are paladins.

Yes, I do things which are neither Nice nor Necessary on occasion - which is why I'm not cut out for paladinhood.

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.


On the specific subject of paladins, though, certainly they're supposed to be less prone to jerkhood than us normal folk. But they're not perfect. To elaborate on my four suggestions for when a paladin could fall and repent: Paladin gets mad and does something in anger that he/she later regrets. Also goes for other passions, though several could probably fall under... Paladin gets tempted. Plain and simple, they got tempted like any other mortal, by power or pride or lust, and even paladins give in sometimes. Paladin gets stupid; there's a reason the phylactery of faithfulness exists. Even paladins aren't always the best judges of the right thing to do, and if they misjudge badly enough or often enough, they will fall. Paladin gets stuck in a seeming no-win situation and fails to have enough faith in his god(s) to find the Nice way out. The very topic of this thread.

If he has his PoF handy to show him the way out, great. I am a firm advocate of the item's use.

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. 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.


No, I just don't believe the kind of dilemma we're talking about here is such a situation. If a paladin falls, it's not because Good is trying to tell them nicely and gently that they went a bit off course in making that last tough decision but did okay anyway. The paladin's fall means that Good is saying, "You made the wrong decision; there was another option that would have been better and for which you would not have fallen." And when made to realise and accept this, the paladin should be in the frame of mind to genuinely atone: "sorry I done it, won't do it again", not "I hated doing that, but given a do-over I would make the same choice".

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

D&D gods are not all-powerful. There are all kinds of rules governing what they can and cannot do, and where they can do it - jurisdictions, portfolios, even overdeities in some settings. They may have the perspective to know the correct course of action every single time (I personally doubt this, but for argument's sake I'll assume it) - but that doesn't mean they will be able to communicate this knowledge unambiguously to any/all of their paladins in a timely fashion when one comes up against a dilemma.

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


The Gray Guard is a... problematic case. I have argued against it before, not because I think it's a travesty against all things paladiny (unlike some), but because this whole atonement thing feels "off". Yes, it can be used to support your argument; that's my problem with it. :smallbiggrin:

I can accept the Gray Guard on the understanding that violations of the code should still be very rare, but they are more likely to happen and the GG has a certain dispensation to make such violations -- as long as they then come to a spiritual advisor for full confession and absolution. Even them I'm iffy about it.

I understand if you don't like Gray Guard and may even want to bar it (and what it represents) from your games. And that's okay. But we're discussing the default state of paladins in D&D, not paladins at your (or my, or taltamir's) table.

Gray Guards are indeed useful, because knowing what is different between them and paladins, helps us determine what is the same.


To be fair, looking at it as a game, it ought to be up to the player to think of what their paladin could do to resolve the situation. The DM certainly should not try and crack down on every possible out, and could perhaps have some away-from-table discussions about possible resolutions with the player, but I don't think the DM (acting the part of the gods of good) should tell the player, "Here's what the gods are telling your paladin is the right thing to do."

Again, you are assuming that the gods can always communicate clearly enough to the Paladin to tell him the right thing to do. Nor can the deity stop time and let the paladin channel his entire Int score into making a way out.

Even with magical assistance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm), getting advice from your gods is not a sure thing in D&D - and it definitely isn't quick. If they had impunity to act on the mortal realm like that, they wouldn't need clerics or paladins (or avatars, or heralds) to begin with.

taltamir
2010-07-20, 01:30 PM
It doesn't tell you the right option- but if you hold it and contemplate doing something- it will tell you if that something will make you fall or not:

Like:

"Kill the baby"- (typically "You would Fall", though a few DMs might prefer Ends Justify the Means and not say this)
"Try to save the village without killing the baby"- (depending on the DM, may be "You would Fall")
"yell a prayer to the gods to "Help me with this!"" (may depend on the DM)

same difference... I merely glossed the specifics, but here they are:
Turn 1: grab the phylactery of faithfulness "would killing the baby be the right thing to do"
You hear a voice in your head: "you will fall/not fall if you do"
Turn 2: grab the phylactery of faithfulness "would letting the villagers die be the right thing to do"
You hear a voice in your head: "you will fall/not fall if you do"
Turn 3: should I grab the phylactery of faithfulness "should I commit to searching for a third option, despite it most likely leading to the death of the villagers if I fail to find it in time"
You hear a voice in your head: "you will fall/not fall if you do"

In a legitimate world that isn't grimdark, and in a legitimate game where the DM isn't a prick, at LEAST one of those three should return "you will not fall".
If all 3 return "you will fall", or if the third option will say "you will not fall IF you succeed" (and failure to save them results in a fall), then your DM is a prick.


I don't understand this attitude. Falling is a class feature from a role playing perspective. Conveniently ignoring it sounds...wasteful.
whoa there... you are taking this WAAAAAAAAY out of context.
If the paladin murders an innocent... sure, he falls... but this fall-fall situation where NOTHING the paladin can do prevents it is simply the DM being a prick... it has nothing to do with "legitimate role playing" or "legitimate class feature". In fact, it is as illegitimate as it can be...


The ideal of Good is contradictory and impossible to keep up at times. A champion of Good will face the contradictions sometimes, and sometimes he will fall. The possibilities are endless and if you are interested in the character's development, Falling must happen once or twice over the game's climaxes.
Maybe in your mind... but if there are literal gods of good who decide those things, a fall-fall is not legitimate. Because it is the equivalent of the gods of good saying "yea... if we were unlucky enough to be placed in this situation, we will invalidate our very existence by being forced into one of the fall-fall outcomes, making us no longer gods of good... lucky thing we have suckers like you to put there instead"

Oslecamo
2010-07-20, 01:33 PM
I don't understand this attitude. Falling is a class feature from a role playing perspective. Conveniently ignoring it sounds...wasteful. The ideal of Good is contradictory and impossible to keep up at times. A champion of Good will face the contradictions sometimes, and sometimes he will fall. The possibilities are endless and if you are interested in the character's development, Falling must happen once or twice over the game's climaxes.

A wizard needing to write down his spells in a textbook is a class feature as well.

An arcane student will face challenges to keep his spellbook safe, but should the DM actively hunt it?

The possibilities are endless indeed, but I doubt any wizard player would be happy if suddenly his spellbook was desteyed, character development be damned. How can I develop my character if he's suddenly a commoner? In particular in the climax?

Similarly, how many times did you saw druids forced to wear metal armor, despite the class itself telling you lose your powers if you don it?

taltamir
2010-07-20, 01:37 PM
I have no problem with that - because neither you nor I are paladins.

I am very much not a jerk, neither are most people I know (yet by your definition we all are)...
I do not need to be a paladin to not be a jerk. (and according to you, even a paladin cannot be one, since he is forced into fall-fall)...

it seems to me that you somehow believe ALL campaign worlds MUST be grimdark...


If he has his PoF handy to show him the way out, great. I am a firm advocate of the item's use.
the paladin walks in on his wife in bed with another man... he is FURIOUS! He doesn't even realize he has drawn his sword until his phylactery of faithfulness brings it to his attention, with the notice "killing him/her/them will make you fall"... but in his rage he ignores it and slays him/her/them.
He has fallen.. one day he might yet atone for his crime.

Optimystik
2010-07-20, 01:40 PM
Maybe in your mind... but if there are literal gods of good who decide those things, a fall-fall is not legitimate. Because it is the equivalent of the gods of good saying "yea... if we were unlucky enough to be placed in this situation, we will invalidate our very existence by being forced into one of the fall-fall outcomes, making us no longer gods of good... lucky thing we have suckers like you to put there instead"

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)

hamishspence
2010-07-20, 01:42 PM
the paladin walks in on his wife in bed with another man... he is FURIOUS! He doesn't even realize he has drawn his sword until his phylactery of faithfulness brings it to his attention, with the notice "killing him/her/them will make you fall"... but in his rage he ignores it and slays him/her/them.
He has fallen.. one day he might yet atone for his crime.

Technically, you have to actively address it to get an answer- it won't just send the message without your asking it.

So a person who spends no time contemplating their action, won't get told "You'll Fall if you do this"